It's even more amazing when you consider that North Carolina has a Democratic governor, who (at least back in 2004) was pretty damn popular. In fact he got 56% in HIS re-election bid that year.

And thanks for the kind words, though I don't think I deserve them after my "sarcastic jackass" outburst a few minutes ago. :)

I LOL'd :D

SI

I think the next couple of news cycles will be interesting. If there's no new news (9/11's anniversary is only one day), I think "lipstick-gate" backfires on McCain.

After having 18 hours to digest it, the evil, liberal mainstream media has started working on their new topics about the politics of distraction and taking a closer look at the claims made by McCain and Palin. You cry wolf too many times and there's a backlash danger.

The previously mentioned minefield lacks infallibility if you don't play it right.

SI

Maybe this will help ... The percentage of voters in NC not registered as Democrats, i.e. GOP + unaffiliated + all 984 registered Libertarians = 54.6% of their current registered voters. Back in 2004 it was 53.22%.

Bush got 1.96 million votes in '04 and NC had 1.903 million registered Republicans, as well as 1.02 million unaffliated voters. There were 2.582 million registered Dems but Kerry managed only 1.525 million votes.

In other words, it's a combination of turnout by party plus what I imagine are a large number of unaffliated voters who trend GOP. Best I could tell from looking at their state voter registration stuff, there's no penalty to being registered unaffliated as you can still choose to vote in either party primary or a truly unaffiliated ballot which include only non-partisan races during primary season.

thank you

it seems most strategies have the capability to backfire in this run.

Some of the NC discrepancy boils down to the fact that in national elections Southerners tend to vote for more "rural" candidate. Being Southern certainly makes it easier to pull that off, (Clinton, Carter), but being able to convince people that you're "rural" works too(Bush, Reagan). This is the big advantage in the south for Palin IMO. At the state level the historical Democratic superiority can still come into play.

When I lived in Mississippi I always felt like the big issue wasn't as much North vs. South as country vs. city even when we lived in Mississippi's largest city.

A+ for use of visual aide.

Growing up in my home state of Kentucky, first time I registered, it was as a Democrat. The Republican party in Kentucky was a non-factor at the time. I've never officially changed my party affiliation though I haven't voted Democrat in a national election since 1984 (voted for Reagan twice in the presidential races). Still vote for a few Democrats locally, but then I don't think party affiliation is such a big deal at that level and most don't make a big deal about it in the campaigns.

It's amusing to see Damon referring to actuary tables for a president/candidate. The last two presidents to pass away were:

Ford - age 93
Reagan - age 93

and two of the older living presidents are:

Carter - age 84
Bush1 - age 84

I think presidents/senators do get good health care, ensuring a longer life span than normal, don't you think?

Couple that with what Wenner did to Palin and her baby on the cover of US Weekly and it's enough to make you ill.

http://www.mediacurves.com/pdf/ReportJ7002.pdf

Interesting focus group study of the McCain Lipstick ad. It somewhat increased the perception that Obama has a gender bias (23%-36%), but had very little effect on voting decisions.

Nice study and an interesting read. I don't think any one comment (esp one that's not a complete disaster) impacts votes. But, what it does is put a campaign on the defensive and create missed opportunities for them on other issues. The only way it impacts votes is if a pattern of similar comments pop up along a 2-3 weeks period.

Not that anyone wants anybody to pass on, but I think that your sample size is much too small to make any kind of conclusion. Damon's actuary tables are more relevant than your 4 off hand examples, because they are based on reasonable sample sizes.

Indeed... it's past of a larger strategy.

Not to pick on you too much, but I get a chuckle out of someone "mocking" the "Fair and Balanced" tag. I always got the feeling that Fox doesn't even pretend to be fair and balanced and they use the tag line as a sarcastic joke. Anyone that actually tries to call them on it gives a feeling of being a new guy who hasn't caught on to the joke yet. :D

Maybe it is just me.

Okay, but to employ said strategy McCain will be missing the same opportunities on the issues as Obama will. Not to mention the fact that this study was done without people hearing Obama's response. It's possible that the ad could actually be backfiring.

Lying about everything is actually working very well for McCain. Until he starts getting called on it by the media I see no reason for him to stop.

If you keep hitting at something that has a perceptible effect, even if some of the hits don't hit their mark, it most likely will stick. Especially when you keep your opponent on the defensive.

Also, McCain has been behind for most of the campaign and Obama's main push was a different kind of politics. If McCain can drag Obama into the muck, that is marginalized and helps bring him down in the polls.

Ya, I saw that. I also saw the previous edition of US that featured a cover story on how much Obama loved his wife.....I mean for god's sake.

I agree on this lipstick issue. No reason for McCain to push it or he could face the same backlash that Obama got. IMO, they will drop it as of tomorrow and even the cable news will move on to something else. McCain-Palin has played the victim very well the past few weeks, they need to tread carefully when pushing things like this.

I appreciated your post. I think I posted, pre-convention, that it would be interesting to see how the polls shook out, post-conventions, but wasn't really sure what the timing of that would be. However, we're now almost a week past the RNC, and it's definitely interesting to see we're basically back where we started.

I'm going to imagine that, big scandals aside, we won't see more real movement until the debates at this point.

I see this as a huge step toward open mindedness.

On the Lipstick thing...I heard them playing the Obamma quote on NPR this morning, and said to myself "Hey is that a turn on the Palin lipstick comment?"...And then I heard the commentary on the story where McCain was outraged by the attack on Palin. I'm sorry John, I've always been a fan, but I'm losing almost as much respect for you pulling crap like this as I did for Joe Lieberman when he was carrying the water for Gore in the 2000 election aftermath.

To be fair though.

"CNN--the most trusted name in news".

Fox News has a primarily conservative pov. It's okay to admit it. I don't understand why the left is so afraid to admit the same thing.

i honestly don't see how anyone in their right mind could connect obama using a common country-esque saying talking about policies and think it had any connection to the single line that palin used in her speech (not like she's the only woman that wears lipstick either). It's even more egregious when you consider that McCain used the line MULTIPLE times to comment on Hillary's healthcare policies. And now all of a sudden it's a gender-based attack?? Yeah sure, that makes sense.

it's the fact that actual voters are swayed by this type of non-substantial bullshit that makes me think we need an IQ-test (or at least a common-sense test) for voting. Call me an intellectual-snob if you want, but when things like this actually have an impact on elections, I actually do think that.

I was talking to a buddy and he said "How do you think the left would have reacted if Palin would have said Obama was 'like the pot calling the kettle black' on an issue." That made me think that we are in a pretty politically-charged time and all four of these candidates better be pretty darn careful with their wording from here on out.

Is it how I would like the campaigns to be? No, but it's the reality. And any comment with any remote connotation to race or sex should be avoided at all cost. It sucks, but that's the climate we live in right now.

If you don't think the left will be parsing every word by Palin or McCain for a similar "gotcha" over the next two weeks, you are kidding yourself. I could see this really getting unbearable by the time we get to the debates (by this, I mean feigned outrage by both sides at somewhat innocent comments).

Arles - I honestly think if Palin had said that nobody would make a big deal out of it (neither the media nor Obama's campaign). Maybe I'm delusional though.

I do agree with the rest of your post about the current campaign - and I hope it doesn't get to that point. Obama seems to have indicated that he doesn't want that kind of campaign pretty explictly, so I don't think we'll see much if any of that coming from his campaign.

Nothing more of this trash will be said tomorrow because it's 9/11. Both candidates will appear in New York together. Obama was on Letterman tonight and he told a story about shrunken heads but didn't say much else. In other news, 538 updated and McCain now has a better chance of winning. Liberals must be sweating like pigs.

He also healed people in Texas, so that lends some credibility to the whole phenomenon:

If I could just touch, the hem of his Armanti suit
If I could touch, the hem of his clothes

A nifty analysis over at fivethirtyeight shows that "A lot of the Democrats not for Obama are also not for Kay Hagan. Elizabeth Dole has a 41-37 lead among them. But they are for Walter Dalton, Roy Cooper, Janet Cowell, Beth Wood, Elaine Marshall, and other Democrats. Just more evidence that this is the persistent problem of folks who identify as Democrats overall casting their ballot one way for who they send to Raleigh and another way for why they send to Washington."

He also mentions that only about 4% of the people who will vote for Hagan will not vote for Obama, so there is very little apparent "sexism/racism" involved.

In regards to the Biden comment concerning Hillary's VP qualifications (CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Political Ticker AM « - Blogs from CNN.com, this just continues to illustrate how careful you have to be in the current political universe. I don't think Biden meant to disqualify himself in any way, but politicians really need to have much better peripheral vision in regards to what they say and how it will be perceived. You just can't say things like that. I think McCain has done a much better job of avoiding soundbites in recent weeks that could prove helpful to the other ticket.

I also think that there's something to be said for knowing the strengths of your personality. Obama's strength is speaking somewhat as a motivator. He can paint a view of how the country should be under his administration. He can turn heads of voter by creating an idealistic vision that people can believe in. That's where he got his quick rise in the polls. But in recent weeks, he's moved to a much different tone in his appearances. He's speaking in much more negative tones about just how out of touch McCain/Republicans are. He's also tried to copy the witty attacks similar to the Palin convention speech, but he's done so with much less success. Her comments were rehearsed and written by a speech writer, which allow for a much better delivery. Obama's trying to do the same thing in public appearances, but the timing is terribly off and just doesn't flow nearly as well.

Obama has been dragged into trench war by the Republican ticket because they know that he doesn't do as well in that arena. The problem is that negative attacks work and as long as the Republicans stay on the offensive in that regard, Obama is going to have a tough time moving back into the positive rhetoric where he feels more comfortable and can really shine.

Obama is currently the nice guy in a reality show. While people root for him and his good intentions, the rest of the players in the game are scheming and stabbing him in the back. We know who usually end up on top in this scenario.

but on the other hand people are arguing that if the Dems dont get 'equally' nasty they'll lose that trench war which means they could lose the full war.

I hate it on both sides and most of the news shows that show an opinion are making fun of both sides in their frivolous debate about the 'lipstick' etc. while the economy continues to spiral downward and other things seem to be quite taut (USSR).

The Republicans have played their cards right and the minefield seems to have been laid with deliberation while the Dems have been reeling, at least in the media which creates a view for the 15 second Americans.

I find it interesting that since Palin has garnered so much time on Tv (rightfully so since it gets ratings) I havnt heard much of the same whining from those that used to about lack of coverage. How easily the memory fades.

Saw Obama on Letterman and while he seemed to be the same Obama that you'd expect to see they didnt touch on anything really controversial and it almost seemed like a day off for Barack. He took one sideways swipe at the GOP ticket in that he commented that he didnt really have much to say about Palin since they havnt spoken much but when she begins to do some interviews they'll be able to learn more about where she stands on things.

Kind of funny. Though I think if there's one thing we know about Palin, it's where she stands on things.

Meanwhile, the meltdown continues:

SC Dem Party Chairwoman says Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."

Now when a Democrat says stuff like this, do they think they're tempting even one person to vote for Obama? What's the motivation? I think a lot of times they're just venting to each other, but they do it publicly for some reason. Elections are won and lost on likeability. The Dems are so good at being unlikeable. They're dangerously close to a jump the shark moment. Maybe, "A vote for McCain is a vote for racism", or something like that.

Awwwww, cute picture.

The Democratic Party | PartyBuilder | Elizabeth Berry's Blog: McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig

I disagree with that. I think the Democratic core is pressuring their ticket to go negative out of concern for the slide in polling numbers. I think it's the wrong move, but it appears to be their panic button reaction move. I'm also floored that McCain continues to get a free pass from the Democrats, thanks to Palin.

Like it or not, the Democrats are still trying to figure out if they made the right decision. Should Hillary have received the nod over Obama? Should she have received the nod over Biden? Every bit of negative news that creeps in appears to deflate the Democrats even more, knowing that they would have won without question had they played their cards right, both from a strategic and selection standpoint.

The articles are now starting to leak out regarding Democrat concerns about the race. You know things are going the wrong direction when you here these words out of a key Democrat fundraiser......


Politico Article

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

I think the Republicans are coming dangerously close to becoming the whining victims that they so often seemed to accuse the Clinton campaign of being. Every perceived slight now is quickly turned around as an outrage.

Enough with the cries of sexism and ageism and all of the politically correct horseshit that the GOP seems to revile.

Issues, people!

The funny thing is her quote is correct. (in the view of the christian right)

SNL did a pretty funny skit, either around '00 and '04, highlighting why "the issues" are so overrated in an presidential election.

There was an undecided voter who couldn't figure out who to vote for, so he stated what was important to him, which was basically the democratic party platform. He said he had no clue who to vote for. It was a town hall debate skit, Gore (I think) said, "well, it sounds like you agree with me", and Bush concurred that the questioner should vote for Gore.

Don't we know the issues at this point? The country is so divided upon party lines.

Execution of issues might be another story - discussion about how the candidates will bring about their visions, and how successful they might be at doing so. That's the only "issue" left - how well will these guys actually do at the job?

Obama still gets shit about people "not knowing where he stands", but I don't think that's really true. We all know where he stands. We don't know if he can what he promies. It's like there's no way to really know. So people will vote for the person who doesn't piss them off.

FYI, None of the other Republican VP candidates have had abortions either.....

I think the 'moment' seems to be falling down partisan lines, Molson thinks the Dems are close to the 'moment', while the Dems see the McCain camp as close to the 'moment'. Therefore we're probably all wrong/right at some point.

I havnt a clue but I think if the media had a liberal bias the 'whining' would be painted as 'whining' when it's not being painted that way by the mainstream media. **Because it's getting ratings...racism, sexism...its the goose that keeps on giving.**

Anyways, we shall see but that might be a decent strategic play by the Dems if they can paint the GOP as whiny in the same vein that Kerry was painted, or Hillary when she whined about Obama's coverage.

Who knows, somebody's gonna be right as the sun shines on somebody's ass sometime during the day.

In all seriousness, is there really some issue that you don't know relatively where the two stand?

And I say relatively because the odds of either getting spot on with what any of us wants on say 10 key issues seem pretty remote. That leaves us to look for the best choice relative to our own positions and which one comes closer to that benchmark. And I'm genuinely perplexed that anyone paying attention doesn't know which candidate that is at this point.

That would be a much better strategy than the current reactionary strategy that the Dems are using. They should go on the offensive with the point that the Republicans are going to whine about everything to earn votes, so they'll just say 'the hell with it' and say what they want to say.

The constant tactic of saying something stupid from a political standpoint and then retract it that we've seen in recent days by Democrats show weakness more than anything else. They need to stop apologizing. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't say it.

Domestically, I don't think McCain and Obama will be that different other than Obama will be quicker on the trigger to raise taxes and increase entitlements. Whoever gets in will make noise about fixing social security, but nothing will get done. No one will touch those sacred cows until they are totally broke and then everything will go into crisis mode.

I give McCain major advantage in foreign policy. I think Obama will be very Jimmy Carter-esque in that regard...and even then...Carter could claim military service that Obama can't. Even if elected I don't think Obama immediately pulls us out of Iraq like all his 'bots seem to think he will. I think we're there in force for at least another 2-3 years.

Plus I *heart* Sarah, so I'd vote for McCain just for amazing me with his selection of her as his veep.

On this we agree. Don't ever apologize, don't ever admit you're wrong. I'd like to see Obama and Biden start calling McCain a liar and using very specific language, "When he says I'll raise taxes on the middle class, he's lying..." Just keep pounding that theme specifically using the words lying and liar. Force the media to debate whether or not McCain is a liar. It's classic Rove, attack your opponent's strength, it just happens to also be true.

That's an absolutely valid point. I just think the Republicans are better off staying on message and leaving the victimization card to the Democrats.

Funny how the major criticism of Obama just a couple of weeks ago was that he didn't tell us about policy.

Celebrity was bad, but now is good

Policy was good, but now is bad

If you make a politically incorrect statement and then stand behind it, at worst you're only going to get accused of one screw up and your voting base likely won't even think you even made a mistake. If anything, it may even embolden your base that you stand up to the opposition.

When you make a 'lipstick-esque' comment and then apologize for it or say it was taken out of context, it's almost like a double negative. You made the initial screw up and then either try to spin it away or just outright apologize. It shows tremendous weakness. People don't want a president or Congress who feels the need to apologize for their actions. It's better to make a bold stand and be wrong than to never make a stand at all.

Big reach even for you.

Celebrity is still a detriment for him. What's changed there?

Nobody's going to criticize him for being clear about his policy. It would just be more helpful from him to focus on the "how" instead of the "what". (and even being more likeable) But even the "what" isn't bad for him, nobody's saying it's bad.

Catchy saying though.

It's an interesting point. This may be the first election I've seen where a losing side took the talking points of the winning side, molded them into their own image, and then implemented that strategy better than the original campaign did. It's the last thing anyone expected, which is perhaps why it worked so well.

FWIW.....I know you intended to portray it as a negative, but I find it to be an amazing chess-like move.

:)

McCain now leads at 538.com. Some of that is convention bounce, but, as I said before, a lot of it is support that was always going to come to him and just waited until Palin to do so.

The 538 guy also pointed out that the map is starting to become pretty boring. After all of the shouting, it will come down, again, to two or three states. At least Virginia, Colorado, and Michigan are new this year.

curious why you give McCain/Palin a major advantage in foreign policy over Obama/Biden??

Are you planning on signing up and going to fight in one of the myriad of conflicts that McCain's hair-trigger temper will likely get us into?

When it comes to foreign policy the key ingredient you want is someone who isn't quick to anger and take offense, someone who doesn't jump into the pool without testing the water (so to speak). And I don't see in any way how you can possibly give McCain the advantage there.

And spare me the "he's a vet/he was a POW" argument. The homeless guy on the street corner is a vet, does that automatically make him more qualified in the field of foreign policy than Barak Obama, or even me? Bullshit. McCain wasn't even a high-ranking vet. He was what...4th from the bottom of his class at the academy, and we can all be sure that daddy's name+rank helped grease the wheels for him.

Heh! Risky proposal, and it didn't work so well for Bob Dole against Bill Clinton, even though Dole probably could make a stronger case.

Really? We do? No, we don't. She hasn't said a darn thing.

Then again, she's the VP so it's not as if she would do much but sit in a big office going "say, has the old man kicked off yet?"

SI

I can't disagree with that comparison. It's one of the main reasons I'd still support Dubya if he was up for re-election this year. Dubya had some screw-ups without question. But one thing I never questioned was exactly where he stood on the various issues, especially foreign policy. I feel the same way about McCain. I know exactly what he would do for the most part, mainly because he's a military man and his record is pretty clear. I don't agree with all of his policies, but at least I know what I'm getting into if he's elected.

There's nothing that concerns me more than a president who makes me wonder how he would react in regards to foreign policy. I felt that way about Gore, Kerry and now Obama. This after voting for Clinton in '92 and '96. Perhaps Obama would do just fine, but I'd personally rather deal with a known commodity.

Listen to and read what conservatives are saying about Palin. Every day there's talk about the size of the crowd, the wait time to see her, how amazing it is just to hear and see her. It's almost exactly the same things that the same people were criticizing Obama for just two weeks ago.

At that same time the message from McCain was that Obama was just an empty suit that wouldn't or couldn't tell America what he was going to do as President. Now McCain's campaign advisor says the election isn't about issues. It's remarkably cynical.

In the end this cynicism is what bother's me most about the Republican campaign. There are a lot of legitimate issues to discuss, and a lot of passionate disagreements that could arise. However, the majority of what McCain and some of his supporters have decided to be passionate about, they don't even believe. It's just a way to win the news cycle. It's effective as politics, but it's certainly not the campaign of an honorable man.

I liked the 2000 McCain and given the chance I might have voted for him, but the 2008 McCain is so different that I barely recognize him.

Hard to say after Cheney. The precedent has certainly been set for an activist VP.

It's only risky if it's too general, "McCain is lying when he says I won't defend America."

If Obama sticks to specifics, the tax issue, the Bridge to Nowhere, etc. there's zero risk. At worst that will make McCain have to get nuanced to defend his positions and that's a defensive posture.

This is another case of fear-mongering, much like the birth control and book burning argument made earlier in the thread. There's no doubt that McCain is more of a hawk than most politicians, but he still has to get past the Dem-lead Congress and the public to do that, especially after the flimsy reasoning behind the Iraq war has been discussed thoroughly over the past few years.

Quebec doesn't have to be concerned that McCain will pull a Putin and attempt to annex them anytime soon.

I don't know who Damon is, but a lot of that depends on what table is used. Daily Kos gives McCain a 68% probability of living through two terms in this article Daily Kos: State of the Nation which uses this table Actuarial Life Table -- so the most likely scenario does have him living through both terms.

I don't think he has to "get past" the Congress in order to get us in trouble. Be that due to "non-declared" wars, or just interpersonal issues (I can see him losing his cool with a foreign leader much more easily than Obama).

And I take offense at the charge it's fear-mongering. If anything it's concern for my cousin who's in the Army, and all the men+women wearing the uniform who could potentially give their lives because somebody didn't explore all the options before deciding to commit troops.

Agreed 100% on that. Heck, looking at my post history, I've already said it twice (once in April and here about a month ago). But people like to pretend they are undecided for whatever reason- the illusion of neutrality, the celebrity of being catered to, not paying attention at all to anything.

I've said it at least once more- if you can't figure out who you are lining up with right now, then you don't deserve to be able to vote because you haven't been paying enough attention. And, again, this isn't to say you can't change your mind- maybe someone unveils a new issue that tips the scales, maybe someone does something you really like, maybe someone gets caught in a closet with a 12 year old- I'm not talking about that. But you should easily be able to answer the question "If the election were held today, who would I vote for".

SI

+2

+3

SI

That would require a near-puppet or asleep-at-the-wheel President and ultra strong VP (I mean, really, this is the guy who was tasked with finding a VP during the 2000 Bush campaign and his answer was "me") and I don't think they have that relationship.

SI

McCain and Palin both have children currently serving in the military. So while you're concerned about your cousin, they're concerned about their own kids.

Additionally, while you may view military service as no big deal (hey, even the homeless have done it!), it seems pretty obvious to me that a guy who spent years as a POW would have a pretty good idea of the horrors of war. It doesn't mean, however, that the same guy will believe war is never necessary.

If you think that McCain will start a war based on 'interpersonal issues', we have little to discuss. In the wake of the Iraq war, there's no way in hell that he could get away with that. It would be political suicide for not just McCain, but the entire party.

You can take offense all you want. I have multiple members of my family overseas. Most all of us know someone involved in the multiple war fronts we're currently engaged in. Concern for loved ones doesn't chance what the U.S. has to deal with regarding foreign policy.

We're getting out of Iraq soon. We'll likely intensify our Afghanistan campaign to expidite its finish. We're entering another Cold War with Russia. Iran is intent on pissing everyone off. The threat of war always exists, but the cost of war is fresh in everyone's minds. We won't be starting any new battles anytime soon unless there's a damn good reason.

I think there is some amount of the population that declares themselves undecided because the don't like who they are going to vote for. Based on the issues and what we've seen so far...if I have to vote today I'm voting for McCain. I don't feel particularly good about that vote though.

I don't consider myself undecided, but I can see people keeping themselves on the fence holding out against hope that a better option will present itself.

Like their kids are ever going to come near a combat zone! Come on.

Just like McCain, right?

Minimizing the service of McCain's, Biden's, or Palin's sons in that manner is a lousy form of reasoning. They all deserve respect for defending your right to post stupid comments like that.

There's really no value in a debate on whether or not McCain is a war-monger, IMO. I don't think it's at all fair to portray him as indifferent to the dangers of war.

Through his statements and actions, he does, though, see the military as an effective means to achieve our interests. At various times he's advocated or threatened military options for Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He called for ground troops in Serbia and called for invading Iraq just a few weeks after 9/11.

There's a pretty good article in The Atlantic that tries to get to the bottom of McCain's foreign policy thoughts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/mccain

Well if McCain or Palin has any respect for the horrors of war, there's no way they'd allow their kids anywhere near it. If they would, then they don't. It's really not complicated.

Also, respect is earned, not deserved.

I'd like to hear more. You just gave me at least a half hour's worth of show material!

They haven't earned your respect for putting their life on the line in the service of their country? If we use your line of reasoning, what was your aunt and uncle thinking by letting your cousin enlist in the military knowing that war was a possibility? I personally think it's a ludicrous argument, but it appears that you find it to be valid reasoning.

Perhaps you can ask the country of Georgia how democracy works when little or no military force is available to defend that freedom against a military power.

Obama has already said he's going to raise taxes on the rich -- which is standard Democrat rhetoric, although lately he's been saying he might wait until we're out of the bad economic cycle. McCain could probably put that one out of the park by saying something like, "It's going to take American businesses to pull us out of the economic downturn we're in, and Mr. Obama plans on rewarding them by raising their taxes."

Kind of risky if you ask me. Talking taxes is usually a no win scenario.

Qunnipac-

FL- McCain 50 Obama 43
OH- Obama 49 McCain 44
PA- Obama 48 McCain 45

PPP-

CO- Obama 47 McCain 46

You do realize that a lot of people have had to endure the horrors of war in the past so that you can enjoy your current lifestyle, correct?

i didn't say "start a war based on interpersonal issues." but he could certainly make things more difficult when dealing with say Russia, or Iran, due to interpersonal issues (armed conflict aside).

The PNAC-idiots who got us deeply embroiled in this current mess would have more influence in a Republican-administration (being Republicans themselves) and they do far more harm than good.

And McCain has a demonstrated history of losing his temper (hell, he even admits it). Not really a man I want in command of the armed forces and the missiles with the ability to extinguish life on this planet.

Do I think that would happen, no. Do I think he'd get us into a war because somebody cracked a joke on him, no. But do I think he'd likely continue the foreign policies of the Bush administration which have seen us alienate traditional allies and essentially isolate ourselves with fewer friends in an era of increasing globalization, hell yes. Perhaps not INTENTIONALLY, but as a result of his personality and the Bush-appointees who would continue to wield power under his administration, yes.

Once again, a vast overgeneralization of the situation overseas that has little basis in fact. We had some allies who raised a pretty big fuss over the Iraq situation, and rightfully so, especially in hindsight. With that said, all of those allies are still allied with us and would be the first ones to jump to our aid if a true problem, here or overseas, were to occur. Don't confuse disagreement with allegiance. We still have a wide base of support and we still return that favor in kind. The U.S. and all our traditional allies in Europe along with some of the newer nations are still on the same page when it comes to defense of any of those countries.

eh. didn't say that they weren't our allies anymore. Or maybe it came off that way, but I didn't intend for it too.

Was just saying that instead of acting aloof and apart from the international community and expecting them to follow our lead and kowtow to us because we are the United States, we should be acting in concert WITH the international community, as a member of the community of nations, rather than as the leader and freelancing it.

Notable instances where we haven't: the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice (to name two).

But I'm sure that type of thinking won't be popular here on this board - but that's my opinion.

And it's also my opinion (and judgement) that we have a better chance of at least paying lip-service to that idea and possibly achieving some measure of it under a President Obama then we do under a President McCain.

PPP is a (D) polling firm, so that should be taken with a grain of salt, although it does fall in line with recent polls in CO.

The Ohio number is very good for Obama. Florida is not so good and PA is too close for comfort.

Just saw this link in one of the comments on fivethirtyeight:

Michigan Messenger » Lose your house, lose your vote

There's no military conflict we're currently engaged in that's in defense of our country. It's all offense.

If it were my kid, I'd be strongly opposed to their joining up RIGHT NOW. I'd also recognize they're adults and can make their own decisions.

I'm also not a politician and have no influence as to where my kid would go, unlike McCain and Palin. I have all the respect in the world for the people who are actually working. The one giving the orders and/or taking cushy jobs, not so much.

That OH result is interesting. Most of the OH polls over the past few days have shown a dead heat or a point or two for McCain. I'd be interested to see the party weight in that poll.

LOL, that could be a disaster. Why can't people just respect people's right to vote; it's fairly doubtful that people who are being foreclosed on will be hopping from county to county to vote multiple times. I wonder if there are systematic approaches that democrats try to keep people from voting...maybe all-day wine and cheese parties at local art galleries?

McCain, Biden, and Palin have absolutely no control over where their kids go. The military may decide that their kids could be strategic targets and move them to a different group to avoid increased danger for their fellow soldiers (see Prince Harry), but you can be sure that they don't have any control over where they are deployed.

As far as cushy jobs or the one giving orders, I wouldn't wish the job of president on my worst enemy. The weight of the world is on your shoulders and all you have to do is look at pictures of presidents entering office and the pictures of them leaving when their term is complete to see what it does to you from a mental and physical standpoint. It's a heavy burden to bear for one individual.

Lovely.

I'm sure 2000 McCain is going to denounce the hell out of this. It's too bad nobody knows where he went.

fuckin dirtbags:rant:

stop tryin to disenfranchise people (and yes i am equal-opportunity hater on that - if the Dems do it too, I blast the hell out of them).

You know my retort too - the simple solution would be: "one person, one vote." None of this electoral college BS that has outlived its usefulness.

Because it's the Republican party.

Bullshit. How naive are you?

One of McCain's sons has already served in Iraq. Palin's oldest kid is being deployed to Iraq. I suppose if they're not killed or injured, you'll just claim that it's proof they weren't put in harm's way.

What was it Lincoln said? Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt, I think it was.

Why would I do that?

Wait, so since McCain's father was a very high up Admiral, he wasn't put in harm's way during Vietnam?

Didn't McCain get shot down going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be?

If McCain's dad wasn't OK with him being there he wouldn't have been. That goes for anyone with money and/or influence. How is this hard to understand?

Came across this in my internet travels:

McCain Released as POW
Damn look at that limp. Tough dude. Not automatically ready to lead because of it, but I respect him.