Outnumbered

[Jeemie]

Based on my own little informal, silent survey, here is how I see our Bored on election day. These are my assumptions based on the posts I have read by various Bored members in the various threads regarding the election. They are, by no means, scientific and I did not poll anyone.

McCain - 13
Obama - 40

Talk about a stacked deck!

McCain- 13
Obama- 40
Barr- 1

[TheCalvinator24]

Based on my own little informal, silent survey, here is how I see our Bored on election day. These are my assumptions based on the posts I have read by various Bored members in the various threads regarding the election. They are, by no means, scientific and I did not poll anyone.

McCain - 13
Obama - 40

Talk about a stacked deck!

McCain- 13
Obama- 40
Barr- 1

I realize that this will just make some folks here think I'm insane, but if not for Sarah Palin (or some other equally exciting Veep choice), I would probably have voted for Barr as well. The only other possibility is that I might have decided to vote for Alan Keyes instead. I just found out a few days ago that Keyes will be on the Texas ballot.

[silverscreenselect]

1 - The above conundrum. I just don't believe that mainstream America is ready to elect far left liberal president.
2 - The fact that Obama show be way ahead in the polls, but isn't. This tells me that there are still a lot of undecideds out there considering.
3 - The Bradley Effect
4 - Kerry was ahead by 10-11 points at this point in 2004 and look what happened to him.

I think that if McCain shows just an ounce of leadership in the coming weeks, he will win.

The Bradley effect has been overstated. Most of the polls in California showed a race that was tightening dramatically over the last few days prior to the election and most had it as close to a dead heat, although with Bradley slightly ahead. So his loss was not due to "racism" but the fact that polls of necessity are indicators of past trends not present inclinations. If a poll is released election Monday, it usually shows the effects of interviews conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday (or Saturday and Sunday). This still leaves a lot of time for people to change their minds, and a number of voters make up their minds in the last day or two (at least enough to make the difference in a close election).

Also, this election is different in a big way than any other one in United States history. The economic meltdown, which really started in most people's minds on September 15, is the most serious pre-election crisis in history. Before the Lehman/Merrill Lynch news, most people were unaware of how serious the crisis was. Within days, there was widespread fear of a complete economic meltdown. The US has had economic problems and been at war at election time before, but not anything that was nearly as severe and (in most people's minds) sudden as this one. The only thing comparable would have been if Pearl Harbor or 9/11 had occurred at a similar time before a Presidential election.

So analyses of just how and when various candidates got or lost leads in the past are a bit off point. In the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, McCain had his biggest lead, +3 on September 14 and it moved steadily to Obama after that, hitting a maximum of Obama +8 on October 6 and 7. It's now O +5. The other tracking polls all show the big movement to Obama beginning just about the same time.

If people do indeed begin to think that the immediate crisis (banks could be failing by the boatload and employers wouldn't be able to make payroll) is past and what lies ahead are more or less "ordinary" economic tough times, then they will be more amenable to putting the economic situation in proper perspective, an important, perhaps the most important, but not the only issue to be considered. If that is the case, voters will be amenable to listening to McCain and if he presents a credible case in this last debate, he has a chance.

That being said, I think he definitely has to win this debate in most people's minds, either by making a credible case on the economy and raising doubts about Obama's plans, or by raising doubts about Obama's unsavory connections. He can't let this debate turn into both candidates reciting their canned talking points.

Obama gave McCain some ammunition Monday with his "spread the wealth" comment in response to a voter question. That was an incredibly dumb thing to say from a political standpoint because it plays right into the Republican attempts to portray him as a wild Socialist. McCain and the Republicans should be hitting that comment every single chance they get.

The intensity of Obama's supporters' attacks in recent days and the constant recycling of the race card, most recently by John Lewis, who really disappointed me with his comments, shows that they don't think this election is in the bag. The recent results of early voting in Ohio, a target for Obama's vote early efforts, shows that his get out the vote efforts (as opposed to Acorn's "pay us for voter registration" efforts), were not as successful as many people thought they would be.

McCain is down but there is room for recovery, even more if there are some skeletons in the Obama closet they've been waiting to trot out.

[Jeemie]

Based on my own little informal, silent survey, here is how I see our Bored on election day. These are my assumptions based on the posts I have read by various Bored members in the various threads regarding the election. They are, by no means, scientific and I did not poll anyone.

McCain - 13
Obama - 40

Talk about a stacked deck!

McCain- 13
Obama- 40
Barr- 1

I realize that this will just make some folks here think I'm insane, but if not for Sarah Palin (or some other equally exciting Veep choice), I would probably have voted for Barr as well. The only other possibility is that I might have decided to vote for Alan Keyes instead. I just found out a few days ago that Keyes will be on the Texas ballot.

I don't think you're insane.

I just fail to understand why a choice of running mate could sway you so easily...especially since Palin would have very little influence in a McCain Administration, IMHO.

Palin did absolutely ZIP for me regarding wanting to vote for McCain. I don't vote for Socialists/pseudo-Socialists...whether they run under the GOP banner or not.

[nitrah55]

1 - The above conundrum. I just don't believe that mainstream America is ready to elect far left liberal president.
2 - The fact that Obama show be way ahead in the polls, but isn't. This tells me that there are still a lot of undecideds out there considering.
3 - The Bradley Effect
4 - Kerry was ahead by 10-11 points at this point in 2004 and look what happened to him.

I think that if McCain shows just an ounce of leadership in the coming weeks, he will win.

The Bradley effect has been overstated. Most of the polls in California showed a race that was tightening dramatically over the last few days prior to the election and most had it as close to a dead heat, although with Bradley slightly ahead. So his loss was not due to "racism" but the fact that polls of necessity are indicators of past trends not present inclinations. If a poll is released election Monday, it usually shows the effects of interviews conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday (or Saturday and Sunday). This still leaves a lot of time for people to change their minds, and a number of voters make up their minds in the last day or two (at least enough to make the difference in a close election).

I have read two very reasonable sounding articles in the last two weeks, one saying the Bradley effect not only won't effect the election, but that it never existed in the first place. The other said the Bradley effect will be alive and kicking come November 4.

Wait and see, I guess.

[NellyLunatic1980]

I just fail to understand why a choice of running mate could sway you so easily...especially since Palin would have very little influence in a McCain Administration, IMHO.

Didn't people say the same thing about Cheney 8 years ago?

[danielh41]

McCain- 13
Obama- 40
Barr- 1

I realize that this will just make some folks here think I'm insane, but if not for Sarah Palin (or some other equally exciting Veep choice), I would probably have voted for Barr as well. The only other possibility is that I might have decided to vote for Alan Keyes instead. I just found out a few days ago that Keyes will be on the Texas ballot.

I don't think you're insane.

I just fail to understand why a choice of running mate could sway you so easily...especially since Palin would have very little influence in a McCain Administration, IMHO.

Palin did absolutely ZIP for me regarding wanting to vote for McCain. I don't vote for Socialists/pseudo-Socialists...whether they run under the GOP banner or not.

I wasn't crazy about McCain being the Republican nominee either. I didn't really get involved one way or another until Palin was selected as his running mate. She does have a conservative record, and I do like her. But she tends to say the same things over and over, which makes me think she is just reciting talking points given to her by campaign staffers rather than speaking from her heart. And I have been extremely disappointed in McCain's support of this bailout package, and I cringed when he proposed his mortgage buy-out plan during the last debate.

Most of my political posts here are critical of Obama. If I promote McCain, it is merely to demonstrate one of the multitude of weaknesses that Obama has both as a human being and a candidate. If I do wind up voting for McCain, it would be only as a vote against Obama. But I'm becoming convinced that I should vote for something I believe in rather than merely against something detestable, and I do very strongly believe that the best candidate for President by far out of the many who are running is Alan Keyes. Early voting starts Monday here in Texas, so I will probably be casting my vote for Dr. Keyes then. I will then spend the next four years doing volunteer work to promote the new politcal party that has started up and that is based on the principles espoused by Dr. Keyes. Ronald Reagan once said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party; it left him. Well, I didn't leave the Republican Party; it left me.

[minimetoo26]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

[Jeemie]

I just fail to understand why a choice of running mate could sway you so easily...especially since Palin would have very little influence in a McCain Administration, IMHO.

Didn't people say the same thing about Cheney 8 years ago?

Um...no...actually, they didn't.

Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

[danielh41]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

I've had quite a few comments on my "Pro-Life. Voter. Nobama," t-shirt. But other than mine, I haven't seen any political t-shirts around here.

[NellyLunatic1980]

1 - The above conundrum. I just don't believe that mainstream America is ready to elect far left liberal president.
2 - The fact that Obama show be way ahead in the polls, but isn't. This tells me that there are still a lot of undecideds out there considering.
3 - The Bradley Effect
4 - Kerry was ahead by 10-11 points at this point in 2004 and look what happened to him.

I think that if McCain shows just an ounce of leadership in the coming weeks, he will win.

The Bradley effect has been overstated. Most of the polls in California showed a race that was tightening dramatically over the last few days prior to the election and most had it as close to a dead heat, although with Bradley slightly ahead. So his loss was not due to "racism" but the fact that polls of necessity are indicators of past trends not present inclinations. If a poll is released election Monday, it usually shows the effects of interviews conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday (or Saturday and Sunday). This still leaves a lot of time for people to change their minds, and a number of voters make up their minds in the last day or two (at least enough to make the difference in a close election).

I have read two very reasonable sounding articles in the last two weeks, one saying the Bradley effect not only won't effect the election, but that it never existed in the first place. The other said the Bradley effect will be alive and kicking come November 4.

Wait and see, I guess.

I haven't heard anyone talking about a possible "reverse Bradley effect", which could lessen, negate, or supersede the "Bradley effect".

There are a lot of closet Obama supporters out there (especially in the Deep South) who are telling pollsters and other people in public that they're gonna vote for McCain. This happened during the primaries. Obama won every state in the Deep South (except for Arkansas and Tennessee) by much larger margins than the polls stated. I'm not saying that Obama will definitely win the entire South in November, but I'm saying that he could make it interesting in Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Especially North Carolina, which many polls and pundits are now indicating could actually go blue this year.

With only 20 days left until November 4, I just know that I get excited every time I see a new survey showing Obama's favorability numbers go up in the wake of Republicans trying to push Ayers and ACORN.

[silverscreenselect]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

I've gone to Georgia Tech footballs games the last month (and there's two more home games before election day) and I have seen dozens of people wearing "Jackets for McCain" stickers (people tend to wear school shirts rather than political shirts at football games) but not one single Obama sticker, tee shirt, or hat, except for one guy who had two tables set up outside the stadium, one selling McCain gear and one selling Obama gear (neither appeared to be selling very well).

I had my biggest moment of conscience before one of the games when I declined to wear a Jackets for McCain sticker. I may support the guy against Obama but I'm none too happy about it.

[silverscreenselect]

But I'm becoming convinced that I should vote for something I believe in rather than merely against something detestable, and I do very strongly believe that the best candidate for President by far out of the many who are running is Alan Keyes. Early voting starts Monday here in Texas, so I will probably be casting my vote for Dr. Keyes then. Well, I didn't leave the Republican Party; it left me.

I suspect your decision, as well as a number of others by people who don't really like either candidate, would be different if you felt Obama had a realistic chance of winning your state. My sense is that third party votes will be much higher in states that are perceived as being "safely" red or blue. I have never seen an election in which so many voters from both parties do not care much for either candidate and are voting out of a sense of which would be worse rather than which would be better.

[Jeemie]

But I'm becoming convinced that I should vote for something I believe in rather than merely against something detestable, and I do very strongly believe that the best candidate for President by far out of the many who are running is Alan Keyes. Early voting starts Monday here in Texas, so I will probably be casting my vote for Dr. Keyes then. Well, I didn't leave the Republican Party; it left me.

I suspect your decision, as well as a number of others by people who don't really like either candidate, would be different if you felt Obama had a realistic chance of winning your state. My sense is that third party votes will be much higher in states that are perceived as being "safely" red or blue. I have never seen an election in which so many voters from both parties do not care much for either candidate and are voting out of a sense of which would be worse rather than which would be better.

Not me, personally.

Pennsylvania appears to now be a safe blue state, but I was set to vote for Barr even back when it was apparently in play.

I'm tired of using such rationale- it will keep us foreveer mired in two-party politics (there's already enough roadblocks to a third party in place- we can at least TRY and start removing the "wasting your vote" mindset as one of the roadblocks).

I personally feel events are moving in this country that are going to screw us up for years to come...and neither Obama nor McCain will be fundamentally different in their danger to screwing up the country more.

So I'd rather have my conscience clear in that I will not have voted for whatever crap either of them will propose.

[danielh41]

I'm tired of using such rationale- it will keep us foreveer mired in two-party politics (there's already enough roadblocks to a third party in place- we can at least TRY and start removing the "wasting your vote" mindset as one of the roadblocks).

I personally feel events are moving in this country that are going to screw us up for years to come...and neither Obama nor McCain will be fundamentally different in their danger to screwing up the country more.

So I'd rather have my conscience clear in that I will not have voted for whatever crap either of them will propose.

I agree with Jeemie here about the hold that the two major parties have on our political system. The whole "waste your vote" mentality is a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I think Obama is a much bigger danger to the country than McCain. I honestly don't know how I would vote if Texas was in play or if I still lived in Colorado since the idea of an Obama presidency is so distasteful to me.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm tired of using such rationale- it will keep us foreveer mired in two-party politics (there's already enough roadblocks to a third party in place- we can at least TRY and start removing the "wasting your vote" mindset as one of the roadblocks).

I personally feel events are moving in this country that are going to screw us up for years to come...and neither Obama nor McCain will be fundamentally different in their danger to screwing up the country more.

What bothers me about the third parties is that they seem forever focused on the one elective office that is the furthest away from them... the Presidency. So a Bob Barr or a Cynthia McKinney or a Ralph Nader gets to stoke their ego and make a couple of national TV appearances and in the end they've accomplished nothing other than sending a "message" that doesn't seem to register with anyone, and four years later we repeat the cycle.

I'll give the Libertarians some credit here in Georgia: they usually run candidates for Senate or Governor who manage to get 2-3% of the vote which occasionally makes a difference in a tight race. But they currently do not have one single elected representative in any state legislature. The Constitution Party has one seat in Montana. The Green party has none. These parties have a handful of city, township and county offices and a couple of mayor's offices but no way they can effectively influence state or federal politics.

The way you build a third party is from the bottom up and it's not glamorous. You don't run a former Congressman or political commentator for President and go home with your .5% of the vote and feel good about "making a difference." You make a difference by finding districts that are amenable to your candidate at the state level, running good candidates, getting them out to meet the voters at churches, schools, fairs, and shopping centers.

The last Republican I voted for was the State Representative in my House District in Georgia. He came by the Tech campus and personally handed out flyers and answered questions and seemed like a reasonable guy with the generic "I'll be for you" positions, but I like the fact he sought my vote. He won the election, one of not many for Republicans in Georgia those days. Third parties could do this, and it only takes a few seats in a state legislature to begin to gain a power base.

The third parties don't even need to field candidates in every local district. Pick the five best Senate and ten best House districts. Get all your volunteers and GOTV and canvassing efforts concentrated there. Maybe you win one or two of those elections. Then the next time you have a toehold and you can expand your efforts. Third parties are able to do this all over Europe and other parts of the world; here, all they do is sell out any real future they have for the fifteen minutes of having a second-rate "name" as a Presidential candidate.

As long as third parties continue to concentrate on the Presidency, we will see the same things happening every year as this year.

[earendel]

As long as third parties continue to concentrate on the Presidency, we will see the same things happening every year as this year.

It would also help if we didn't have a bunch of splinter parties each trying to run a candidate - the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, etc. As hard as it is for a non-mainstream candidate to get heard, it's even harder when there are 5 or 6 people clamoring for that .3-.5% of the vote.

[silverscreenselect]

As long as third parties continue to concentrate on the Presidency, we will see the same things happening every year as this year.

It would also help if we didn't have a bunch of splinter parties each trying to run a candidate - the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, etc. As hard as it is for a non-mainstream candidate to get heard, it's even harder when there are 5 or 6 people clamoring for that .3-.5% of the vote.

It's safe to say that a legislative district that looks promising for the Greens probably wouldnt appeal to the Constitution Party. But since there's only one Presidency, everyone goes after it.

[Flybrick]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

I wouldn't let my wife (that's right, wouldn't let) put a McCain sticker on her car or put a McCain poster in our yard.

Not because I don't support him over Obama, I do very much, but because the 'oh so nice' Obama fanatics key such marked cars and I've seen the damage done to landscaping and house exteriors of those in my neighborhood who have done so.

Civil discourse indeed.

[NellyLunatic1980]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

I wouldn't let my wife (that's right, wouldn't let) put a McCain sticker on her car or put a McCain poster in our yard.

Not because I don't support him over Obama, I do very much, but because the 'oh so nice' Obama fanatics key such marked cars and I've seen the damage done to landscaping and house exteriors of those in my neighborhood who have done so.

Civil discourse indeed.

At least the Obama fanatics aren't going around suggesting that McCain be bombed or killed.

[Flybrick]

At least the Obama fanatics aren't going around suggesting that McCain be bombed or killed.

Wow.

While I don't in any way, shape, or form think it's appropriate (further, has any McCain supporter actually called for violence? And that's different than any of the leftie loons calling for Palin to be 'aborted,' 'hunted,' or the like?) to say such things, words are an entirely different thing than actual violence or destruction.

Guess that's the difference between me and you. I wouldn't defend anyone who did either, you think it's just the lesser of two evils.

[TheCalvinator24]

In my very unscientific polling, I count bumper stickers and t-shirts. Like on the way back from Wintergreen Territory, I counted 7 Obama stickers, one McCain, and someone still had a W04 on his car.

I've seen precisely one McCain t-shirt, and that was at WDW. This is surprising, since Doug McCain lives here. I lost count of the Obama shirts.

I've never seen an Obama yard sign, but there are a bunch of McCain ones around here. Mostly the Veterans For McCain (this is a highly military area.)

I wouldn't let my wife (that's right, wouldn't let) put a McCain sticker on her car or put a McCain poster in our yard.

Not because I don't support him over Obama, I do very much, but because the 'oh so nice' Obama fanatics key such marked cars and I've seen the damage done to landscaping and house exteriors of those in my neighborhood who have done so.

Civil discourse indeed.

At least the Obama fanatics aren't going around suggesting that McCain be bombed or killed.

Yes, because empty rhetoric is so much worse than actual criminal conduct causing damage to the property of another.

[NellyLunatic1980]

I wouldn't let my wife (that's right, wouldn't let) put a McCain sticker on her car or put a McCain poster in our yard.

Not because I don't support him over Obama, I do very much, but because the 'oh so nice' Obama fanatics key such marked cars and I've seen the damage done to landscaping and house exteriors of those in my neighborhood who have done so.

Civil discourse indeed.

At least the Obama fanatics aren't going around suggesting that McCain be bombed or killed.

Yes, because empty rhetoric is so much worse than actual criminal conduct causing damage to the property of another.

I'm really tempted to make a smartass retort like "

Spoiler

(insert brutal dictator here)

used empty rhetoric, too"... but I don't think we want to beat that decomposed horse.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what Flybrick said 4 years ago when Bush fanatics did the same thing to cars that had Kerry bumper stickers.

[Flybrick]

nelly:

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what Flybrick said 4 years ago when Bush fanatics did the same thing to cars that had Kerry bumper stickers.

Pay attention:

Flybrick

I wouldn't defend anyone who did either,

But I notice you haven't changed your post or, I assume, your position that words are worse than violence/destruction?

[silverscreenselect]

At least the Obama fanatics aren't going around suggesting that McCain be bombed or killed.

Wow.

While I don't in any way, shape, or form think it's appropriate (further, has any McCain supporter actually called for violence? And that's different than any of the leftie loons calling for Palin to be 'aborted,' 'hunted,' or the like?) to say such things, words are an entirely different thing than actual violence or destruction.

Guess that's the difference between me and you. I wouldn't defend anyone who did either, you think it's just the lesser of two evils.

That's one reason that this election season makes me so sad. As Democrats, we once felt that we were better than thug tactics, vandalism, thievery, site hacking and sabotage, crude sexist comments, and the like. Now it's okay because either the Republicans have done it before or are doing something that is arguably worse.

People who got bent out of shape by pictures of Obama in native garb are now proudly wearing "Sarah Palin is a C***" tee shirts.

John McCain protests about John Lewis' ridiculous attempt to bring up the race card yet again, and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal essentially says, "tough luck John, you guys have done it before so you can't complain now."

It's not okay because the other guy has done it too.