Of those, strictly FWIW & IMHO, barring any huge developments (i.e. if the campaign just played out the string from here with no major gaffes/home runs from either candidate)

I figure Obama wins Virginia & Colorado, the Georgia one sounds about right, and I think McCain may actually win both Ohio & Minnesota.

chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me).

These polls are all over the place.

Demographically, the way that these states tie into the popular vote, there is no conceivable way that McCain could win Minnesota while losing Virginia and Colorado.

Call it a fluky hunch based on a combination of the polling data I'm seeing & a (un)healthy dose of gut.

I've had a bad feeling about Virginia for quite a while now and I've actually been surprised Colorado has been red for as long as it has. Minnesota, for whatever reason, I've had a similar sort of good feeling about in spite of its blue background in recent elections.

Also, considering how split we've been as a country for quite a while, something completely off the wall like the scenario I mentioned would actually make a weird sort of sense. Assuming the two are really very close on election day, the swap of Virginia & Minnesota could happen on the basis
of nothing more than different weather patterns driving turnout up or down.

Unlike you I value even dissenting points of view. What sghould I tell me wife and in-laws to go fuck themselves?

I love seeing things like the chart above because it borders on indisputable and what you see is what you get, so the ads from either side stating stuff that contradicts the above simply become dressing in an attempt to 'spin'.

That's a great chart. Really shows who is helping the middle class, and who likes to make the rich richer.

This leads me to the problem I have with a lot of people in this country not just conservatives though they are the primary "offenders'. The fact that many american's feel we are the "big shot hot shots" of the world and can do as we please with no thought for other people. The feeling of if you are against us fuck you get out of our way. This my friends is not the American way my father fought in WW 2 in the Pacific for. We are a nation of 290 million pople on a planet of 6.721 billion! So why should evryone fall in line with basically 120 million peoples views since even half the adult population is against it? That is by the way less than 2% of the world pop. And this may all sound like I am not patriotic or proud of being American and to that I say you would be wrong. I as many others on this board chose to serve my country in my case for 8 years in the military and another 4 years in the government. During that time I was in combat in the Gulf War and spent most of 11 yeras living in foreign country's including living among the locals. This experience has given me invaluable opportunites to learn what others thought as opposed to just talking about what I thought. I guess I just think we should start listening alittle more instead of just talking.IMHO.:)

There is a third chart that is missing from that site, based on total tax burden:

Am I reading the chart correctly if I say that Obama wants to lower taxes for the bottom/middle income people?

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Connecticut, Obama 53 McCain 41. Previous Rasmussen (7/31) Obama 51 McCain 36.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

New Jersey, Obama 55 McCain 42. Previous Rasmussen (08/04) Obama 48 McCain 40.

Likely voters.

You are correct sir you do have the right to say what you like in response which is precisely one thing a lot of conservatives would like to take away from Marxist pinkos like myself that won't tow the line. But, the problem is with your response of " go fuck yourself" is that is not meant as a constructive or postive communicative response just as a combative answer.

well I guess the first question is where you draw the line to mean 'bottom/middle'?

Then you could say that that may be the plan.

Whether or not one candidate is 'trusted' to accomplish this is another story.

Sums it up pretty well IMO.


To that I can only say "Bullshit". I'd say that's a significant part of why he was sent there to fight ... along with making sure we handed out a healthy dose of payback of course. Or have you forgotten the colonial nature of quite a few of the allies?


Depends largely upon what's being said is worth hearing.
And most stuff, frankly, isn't.

He apparently wants to lower taxes for the 95% of the population that is paying 48ish% of the total taxes. More would be cut for those making less.

As opposed to the constructiveness of "There sure are a lot of stupid Americans"?

As to the "Marxist pinkos", I have no problem with them speaking their mind. As a talk show host, it typically gives me a great deal to talk about! It's not conservatives who are pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. It's not conservatives who are sending out blast e-mails demanding that supporters call radio stations and protest conservative guests speaking about politics. It's not conservatives that are setting up "free speech zones" and speech codes on college campuses. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who would love to see restrictions on speech. There are also plenty of Marxist pinkos who'd love to do the same.


There's a difference between recognizing the unique and dramatic contributions that the mere existance of the United States has had on the world, and not giving a damn about the rest of the world.

You spent most of 11 years living in foreign countries, protecting the interests not just of the United States, but of those locals as well. I'd say that's a fairly good demonstration of the United States' concern for other countries in and of itself.

But when I say we're the greatest country on earth, I mean it. It's not through any of MY contributions, and it's more than the contributions of people like yourself, your father, or my own (who also fought in the Pacific in WWII). The fact is that before 1776, no country had ever done what our Founders did, and you could make a case that no country after has ever been as successful at it as we have. Our Commander-in-Chief stepped down after the war to gain independence, instead of becoming a military dictator. He stepped down as President after two terms, instead of serving for life. Our 2nd president stepped down after being defeated, and turned the country over to the rightful winner of the election, despite the fact that the two parties believed the other was veering dangerously close to treasonously violating the ideals of the Revolution.

The Civil War may not have started as an abolitionist movement, but that's what it became. After the war was over, we unified once again. No matter how unstable it might have been, we did not erupt once more into civil war. We live in a melting pot of cultures, with relatively little inter-cultural friction. We have had a stable government for 150 years, despite aquisition of new lands and an end to the days of geographic isolation. And all the time, we continued to grow as a world power, because we understand the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.

Has there ever been a time in history where the civilized world has NOT had a dominant power? Perhaps the Dark Ages would qualify, and we all know what a world that was. It is, IMHO, beyond silliness to think that if America suddenly ceases to be a hyperpower, that some other country won't take its place. So who should that power be? If the United States is not the greatest nation on earth, who would you propose take its place?

well that's just stupid. You should hear everything so that you can decide what to do with it.

Valid points.

But how many times do you need to hear the same crap that you've already rejected? Crap is crap, regardless of the language.

Or do you actually believe there's a significant amount of anything "new" coming from any quarter (including those I agree with) at this point, i.e. something that hasn't already been said countless times over?

Or do you just have so much spare time that you care to hear the same rejected ideas/concepts in multiple accents?

I guess im being too technical. Im saying that before someone opens their mouth you can't be certain what is going to come out so you *should* listen and then decide to ignore it/consider it/ etc.

That would be very interesting. Obama likely still wins in that scenario, since he's almost certain to win Iowa. Right now he's got Kerry's 252. Losing MN gets him down to 242. Winning IA (7), CO (9), and VA (13) would get him to 271 electoral votes.

Right now, the most fun scenario is if Obama wins the Kerry states, and adds IA, NM, and NV. That would give each candidate 269 and send the election to the House.

Nobody's e-mail is safe. Bored 4chan users got to Barack Obama's GMail account a day after they hacked into Palin's e-mail yesterday.

theonion.com link

The "Need experience? We can help..." Monster.com ad was a nice touch :D

The Big 10 battleground polls that came out today have Iowa tied which really surprised me because I don't think it's that close. The DM Register poll that came out last week had Obama up 12 and they're probably the best pollster in the state.

Maybe McCain has different internal numbers that are showing a big swing from the Palin pick. Huckabee won here in January so there is a base she can get here. McCain came to Iowa last month and reiterated his opposition to ethanol subsidies. He never does well in the Iowa caucuses and I still think it's the surest Red state pickup for Obama so I don't understand McCain's strategy either.

Good post and appreciate the thought you put into it. I agree with alot that you said here. The thing that makes me crazy is that both sides the "Red" and "Blue" forget too often we are all Americans as well as members of the world as well. That is all I am saying. I really wish we all could get back to the USA and less this us against them shit in the US today between the two sides.

But if we're talking about, let's call them philosophical issues/big picture stuff/etc. then probability, past experience with someone on other subjects, other known information, etc. provides a good bit of information that saves time otherwise wasted.

And ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with the other person specifically, what are the odds that they're actually going to say something you haven't already heard, assessed, and formed a position on already? Maybe that's one of those YMMV things but for me it's pretty low.

Interesting fight over one of Obama's ads:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama’s Limbaugh ad causes stir « - Blogs from CNN.com

I wonder how much traction this will gain since most informed people know that McCain got a LOT of flack by his party for turning his back on them during the illegal immigration debate. Trying to link him to Limbaugh may provide short term gains, but it may hurt Obama as he gets tarred with the "race-bating" brush.

But I'd say there's a great deal of "us vs them" that's a reality, unfortunate or not.

There are significantly fewer widely shared values today than, say, the 1940's. Better, worse, indifferent, whatever, the reality is that "United" is well on it's well to becoming an obvious misnomer.

I love the Cheney and Carter emails :D.

LOL!! I just saw the Biden one in the trash folder!

Me too, which is why I'm less offended by an American saying "there sure are a lot of stupid Americans" than I am a foreigner saying it. :D

No matter how many differences we have, we will always have at least ONE thing in common with each other. And you're right, it's easy to forget that.

More Big 10 Battleground (RV)....

PA: tied 45-45
MI: Obama 48-44
WI: Obama 45-44
IA: tied 45-45
IN: McCain 47-43
IL: Obama 53-37

Also, Pew Research released a National poll showing a 46-46 tie.

Speaking of the Palin e-mail hack, this is from Wired:

Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy | Threat Level from Wired.com

I'd be highly suspicious of that, because usually when a name is used in a posting at 4chan, it is almost never that person doing the posting. 99% of the time, the posting is done by 'anonymous'. If it is true, then he is one of the dumbest people ever to log on to the intertubes.

:lol:

That's pretty embarrassing.

MBBF, this is the inevitable ROI I was talking about earlier. It isn't a reflection on Palin in particular because ROI and it's diminishment, occurs with almost everything:

Really? I have to admit I'd be a somewhat proud papa.

That your son has initiated his own mini-Watergate and accomplished, absolutely nothing?

now this is just ridiculous IMO. He's not going to abide by the subpoena, wow. Troopergate has been hijacked by GOP strategy and that is a shame that, IMO, IMFO, they'd be more apt to hide the truth (whatever it may be) than let it come out:

Palin's husband refuses to testify in probe - Yahoo! News

Slowly the American people are beginning to realise that Palin is something of a fraud. Most Americans, many Republicans, are far less right wing than Palin. When Palin says to trust her to attack earmarking in Washington with "I told them "Thanks, but no thanks"" she's selling you bullshit - she only turned against the bridge when Congress refused to increase the earmarking and she had to go to the Alaskan people themselves (who knew the bridge was a waste of money) for the extra funding. Even then she found a legal way of retaining the money without building the bridge.

There was no "no thanks" it was a case of "give me more". She's asking you to trust her while simultaneously lying to you.

Her religion is extreme - it's Pentecostalism which is fundamentalist Christianity at the whacky end. And the Wasilla church is at the whacky end of Pentecostalism. When Pentecostalists say they want creationism taught in science classes they're not talking of the pseudo-scientific ideas of Intelligent Design, they're talking about a literal interpretation of Genesis. How many Americans want "the world was created in 6 days" taught in science classes?

The superficial appeal - the attractive, personable, feisty hockey-mom appeal - is wearing off and reality slowly sinking in. She's hopelessly inexperienced, has views to the far right of most Americans, is disingenuous in representing her experiences and not what you want in charge at the White House (which could well happen because of McCain's age and ill health). It might even be that she can transcend these failings - but there's no way of knowing that at this point and it's a hell of a risk to assume that it's so.

The next president is facing enormous problems, in a collapsing economy, a resurgent Russia and growing China and in climate change. You cannot assume that this woman can make the enormous leap from small town Alaska to most powerful person in the world.

Mac,

You do realize she's not running for president, right? As for the whole "slowly the American people are starting to realize" nonsense, nobody expected that the post-convention bounce was going to be permanent. 2000 was extremely close, 2004 was extremely close, and 2008 looks like it's going to be extremely close.

The bridge funding went from a congressional earmark to a state transportation project before she was Governor...and retaining the federal money was the work of Sen. Stevens and former Gov Murkowski in 2005.

Her father was a high school science teacher...I assume he didn't teach 'wacky' creationism or the press would have already let us know.

Biden is a senator from small town Delaware. Not much difference, imho.

I think the point that Marc is trying to make is that if McCain is elected and dies in office at some point, you're stuck with Palin as your new president. It really should be a factor that votes are thinking about.

Not really. The President of the United States receives the best health care in the world and the odds that one will die from health reasons seems about the same as me hitting a hole in one on a par 4. I'd say there are greater odds that a U.S. President dies from a bullet than from failing health...at least that's what history tells us anyway. With that the case, we should be equally concerned about the possibility of Joe Biden as President. That's just as worrisome as a Palin presidency, so it's basically a wash in my mind.

I believe you have the timing wrong but it's irrelevant.

Palin is trying to tell you she'd be a crusader against earmarking and tells you that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the money earmarked for Alaska to convince you of her sincerety. You are clearly intended to believe that she turned down the money.

SHE KEPT IT!!!!

Any reasonable interpretation of "No thanks" is that she refused the money. SHE TOOK IT!!! She deliberately misleads Americans even as she asks for their trust!


1) would he be allowed to?
2) did he?
3) was he also a pentecostalist?

Your assumptions are all part of a denial process. We know nothing of what her father did or did not do and such "assumptions" (I would suggest "rationalisations") are meaningless.


With enormous amounts of experience beyond small town admin. Masses of difference - no one could suggest Biden has less relevant experience than Palin (Obama, maybe.)

I don't say Biden is the right man for the job but his experience would push the balance of probabilities very much in his direction.

You can twist and turn as much as you like - Palin's experience does not qualify her for the VP position! She may be capable of rising above it, we can't know. But that's a different matter - her inexperience is a problem and Americans, having now gone beyond the initial appeal, are beginning to realise that.

Cam, do you really want to extend this logic? Are you actually arguing that factual criticism is invalid if you don't like the source? The next-time some conservative talking head comes on and starts talking about the decline of the African-American family due to single-parenthood, I take it you support the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton approach of dismissing criticism because it comes from an "outsider"?

Look, I understand the defense mechanism aspect of a reflex reaction, but criticism should be judged on its value, not that of the critic.

Yeah really. You know McCain has already been diagnosed 3 or 4 times with skin cancer right?

The issue at hand during the gubernatorial election was whether the candidates were in favor of continuing the project with state funding. While the initial earmark was already off the table at that point, the state transportation budget had still allocated over $100 mil for the project in 2005. That's what she said she was in support of continuing. Fast forward two years when the projected cost of the bridges had doubled and tripled...that's when she pulled the plug on the project.

Again...the money was accepted by Alaska in 2005...when the Governor was Frank Murkowski. You can deny it all you want, but it's actually a matter of looking it up in the public record.

No, it's just common sense. I can assume that her father taught science the proper way because if he didn't, the press would have already dug it up and reported on it. That's not an unreasonable assumption. Meanwhile, you have assumed that she's in favor of teaching "wacky" creationism despite the fact that she has explicitly said the opposite. That's not using common sense.

I don't quite understand why you seem to imply that she has jumped from being a mayor of an Alaskan small town to Vice Presidential candidate...or are you implying that being the governor of Alaska is an easy job that has no relevance?

...and you know that Obama smoked for over 25 years, right?

Big whoop. The odds that either of them die in office from health reasons are too small to make a difference for anything.

Palin
Governor of Alaska - 2 years
Mayor of Wasilla - 6 years
City Council Member - 4 years


Biden
United States Senator - 36 years
County Council Member - 2 years

Are you seriously arguing that Palin has more relevant experience than Biden? Two years at governor isn't long. If she had four years experience at that level it would be one thing, but two?

Then why did she say she refused the money?

You're missing the point completely. The complaint is not that she accepted the money but that she told you she'd refused it.

"Thanks, but no thanks!" She clearly intends you to believe she refused the money. SHE TOOK IT!

There is the hypocrisy! "Trust me! I've refused earmarking before."

Oh, but wait .......



You make far too many assumptions. I'm well aware she's governor of Alaska. But 18 months as governor of Alaska does not equip her to be VP and certainly not President. There are many demands that are not remotely required of the governor of such a small state. Not least foreign affairs.

She simply doesn't have the experience and it is ludicrous to suggest she does.

Not at all. I'm arguing that regardless of experience, the prospect of Joe Biden as President is just as unappealing as the prospect of Sarah Palin as President. After his showing in the primary race, I would suspect that most people agree with me.

Be patriotic! Pay more taxes!

No...the initial complaint that I was arguing against was that you claimed "she found a legal way of retaining the money without building the bridge." When I informed you that all of that took place prior to her run as Governor, you ignored the facts I put forth and changed your argument to another aspect of the issue.

I really couldn't care less about when she meant by "thanks or no thanks"...I ignore the rhetoric for the most part and instead went about about reading (non-partisan) articles from 2005-07 on the whole bridge deal. When I found out is what I posted. If you choose to ignore what I wrote, that's fine with me.

Considering I never suggested she did, I agree. All I said was that Joe Biden's appeal as President wasn't much different. I guess it wasn't a matter of you ignoring what I wrote...you just didn't bother to read any of it.

You do understand that the person at the top of the Democratic ticket has the thinnest political resume of any major party nominee in 68 years, right?

"I think [Barack Obama] can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." - Joe Biden, August 2007

There's your Democrat Vice Presidential candidate.

It's bullshit, it's lies, it's hypocrisy and it takes place at exactly the moment when she asks you to trust that she is the one to reform the system. That you should write this off as meaningless "rhetoric" merely illustrates denial - that you will continue to see "no evil" whatever comes to light. It's not unknown!

When she asks for my trust with a lie I ask myself "Is she utterly lacking in self-awareness? Does she think I'm an idiot? Couldn't she come up with some justification that is at least half true? Does she expect to win or retain my support with a lie?"

The event itself is unimportant. But what it reveals about the mental attitude that Palin has towards those she seeks to deceive is crucial.

Of course. I have no problem recognising what is patently obvious.

Ah, but does one need to flip a coin 1000 times before one can conclude that only heads or tails will come up?

I am very curious about your source on this statement. Everything I have read implies that Palin and the state of Alaska was seeking money for the Gravina Island Bridge until September 21st, 2007. According to the Governor of Alaska website, Alaska kept $36 million in federal funds upon the decision to cancel the project on the above date.



My Source:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

What I understand, fantom1979, - though the detail keeps shifting - is that the money was granted to Stevens in Nov 2005 before Palin was governor. However the bridge by that time was coming under severe criticism which caused Congress to grant it under this state transport project. The reports conflict a little here, one saying that this meant Alaska could spend the money as they wished providing it was on a transport project.

But Palin took up the bridge (two bridges in fact) project as part of her election campaign for governor in 2006 criticising those who criticised the bridge for insulting the people who lived "nowhere" (ie where the bridge led). Building the bridge became part of her appeal as governor. This is confirmed by two of her campaign managers who have criticised her since deciding against the bridge.

From the figures I've seen the original cost of the Gavina bridge was around $300 million. As you see from Palin's press release (the one you report) the cost has risen to $398 million and Palin was told by Congress they would not provide any further funds. It was then that Palin decided to cancel the bridge because it had become too expensive and would have involved extra Alaskan funds to complete it.

A second source has said that Palin built the road mentioned above in order to retain the funding. I think it's more complex than that because two thirds of the grant was for the second bridge which may still be built. So exactly what the position was with the grant as a whole is open to debate.

I think that McCain never imagine that Palin was going to be a permenant boost in the polls. It really isnt even why she was picked. She was picked to shore up the RR base of the GOP, who are very luke-warm at best on McCain. They were never going to vote for Obama, but there was a real danger of a low turn-out among that sector as they mustly dislike/distrust McCain. With Palin on the ticket, they now have a reason to go because they get to vote one of them. She was definitely not a pick to pull from the middle, but any choice he could have made to try that would have turned off that base even more.

+1

I think humans are more complicated than a coin.

+2

Picking Palin is the only reason McCain has a fighting chance. Picking Liebermann or Pawlenty would have sunk him as the RR wouldn't have come out in the numbers they have for Bush. The RR are the on-the-ground forces and the counter for Obama's highly regarded ground game.

I don't really disagree, but I think Palin was also aimed at independent women. From the initial announcement the McCain camp played up the vagina vote angle.

I agree that Palin was a RR pick.

Why do you think that he picked her and not Huckabee? I always figured he was the go-to guy if the campaign decided to go RR/base excitement.

Is it just the vagina thing?

This is funny. Vermont has one Representative in the House, and he is Democrat Peter Welch. This year, the Republicans didn't even bother to run anyone for their party's nomination. However, a bunch of people did vote on the Republican side of the ballot, and wrote Welch in, apparently enough so that he's not only won the Democratic nomination for his seat, but also the Republican nomination as well.

It's like Chicago, but without the corruption. :D

fivethirtyeight.com had had McCain as the favorite for at least a week, with a low to mid 50s percent chance of winning. Now they've got him with a 38.8% chance of winning. Crazy.

I don't understand this argument. What is the office of the Vice President if not the "just-in-case" President? I think Americans do recognize this. Has everyone forgotten 1988 - 1992, when we all prayed that George H.W. Bush wouldn't die in office?

Palin is to Quayle as Biden is to L.B.J. There's a reason people are more worried about Palin's credentials than Biden's.

The other thing I think people are forgetting is the time it takes for voters to get exposed to a candidate. Obama's been in the national public eye for four years now, which is about as long as Reagan had been, and longer than Clinton or JFK had been. Voters have had time to look at him and his record and decide whether or not they're comfortable having him as President.

Obviously for Biden & McCain, they've been in the public eye for so long, this is not an issue.

So then what we're seeing here is Palin, who's been in the national public eye for two weeks, not having a comfort level with a large number of voters. Unless you agree intrinsically with her policy positions (i.e. you're a member of the GOP social conservative base) you're probably thinking that Palin is, right now, how she's been packaged by the McCain campaign. You don't really know her, and that makes you uncomfortable thinking that she's one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Simply put, the American electorate still does not have enough experience with Palin to decide if she's a reasonable person who is being maligned by the campaigning process or if she's a wingnut who just happened to get elected governor of Alaska.

I think there was a few reasons they went with Palin over say Huckabee.

1) The Vagina. She was never going to pull any die hard Clinton supporters. I think possibily the early polls showed some shift from that corner but they quickly moved back once they learned who she was. But there is always a segment of voters (not picking on women, but of any group) that vote less on issues and more on "like me" or other superficial reasons. She being a she will help on that front.

2) The unknown factor. Though there has been a lot of baggage that has been played out, she doesn't have the long-term baggage other well known candidates might bring. She hasn't been on the stage long enough for people to truly hate her yet.

3) The control ability factor. I think they believe they can hold her in check much better than they could say a Huckabee. She's new to the national stage, and much more willing to be steered because of the shock of what it is like to deal with it.

4) Charisma. McCain has none. Again, of the segment of votes that votes based on fluff, Obama had the edge by far. She hedges some of that off.

Really, when it is down to brass tacks, she was a very good pick. She gives McCain a much better chance to win than he had, and there are very few other choices he had to go with that would have helped him as much.

I think that's correct, too. It was clearly meant to confirm the right wing vote that he couldn't bring in himself. I think there might have been a hope that she would pick up some of the Clinton women voters but I don't think there would be many of those - Clinton and Palin or polar opposites but there may be a few who would simply vote for a woman.

So I think McCain has probably been happy with the effect she's had but I think the gloss is wearing off now as voters are taking a more sober view of her and realise that there are problems there when you get beyond the electoral appeal and think of her in the White House.

Where have all the McCainiacs gone? It's gotten awfully quiet in this thread.

Aroo? There are plenty on this page itself.

Maybe he has them all on ignore.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem the same as it was, say, even less than a week ago.

Nah, why would I ignore anybody?

Ignore lists are stupid.

It was just a joke. If you really had them on ignore, it seems odd that you would then ask where all the people you ignored were.

Your humor went above my head. I've only got my grade 10.

Here's a question for everyone. What happens to each of the candidates if they lose?

The first two are easy.

Biden: He'll have one or two more terms in the Senate
McCain: Finish this term, maybe run for reelection. He'll be a pain in the ass for an Obama administration.

Obama: I think he'd get tired of being in the Senate. He might serve a second term, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him leave the Senate for a foundation and the speaker's circuit.

Palin: This is the most difficult. If McCain wins she'll almost certainly be a Presidential candidate in four or eight years. However, if McCain loses I don't think she'll have a good shot at winning a Presidential election. She could be a Senator for life if she wanted, but that doesn't seem to fit her well. I see her finishing her term as Governor and relocating to be closer to Washington. She'll get writing and speaking jobs and run for the Presidency in 2012, but by then the newness will be gone and she won't win the primary. After that she stays moderately visible as a sometimes writer/talking head with forays into lower cabinet level positions.

Obama will probably run for Governor of Illinois if he loses the Presidential race.

Palin will get tired of the lifestyle. No way she moves to Washington. She might run for the Senate for a while to keep her name in the news, but really, if she's the lightweight people seem to fashion her, she'll fade into bolivian.

Biden and McCain will stay in the Senate for a few terms. Yes, McCain will be a pain for Obama's administration and will likely be the top Republican, even though he won't have a leadership role (like Ted Kennedy for the Dems these past 8 years).

Obama, I will think will serve at least 2 more terms. He may decide to be a Kennedy like Senator (ie, serve for life and be the liberal voice), or he may end up being a Secretary of State or something for the next Democratic President and then go into foundational stuff.

Palin, I think will run for Senate and will run for President in 2012. I think she may have a decent shot at winning, actually, but will fall short.

The typo gave me a chuckle :)

JPhillips - you think Palin (win or lose) will be a Presidential hopeful? I guess I just really don't see that *cringes at the thought*.

I think if McCain wins she'll definitely run in four or eight years. If McCain loses it's less likely she'll win, but she's ambitious and has a powerful part of the party behind her, so I'd expect her to give national office at least more more shot.

aaaah the wingnut part of the party

Finally, the Associated Press is getting serious about the issues now.


Way to go, AP and Yahoo for sticking to the issues. Of course, with the 3 point margin of error, this may not even be true seeing how Obama only won this poll 50-47, but what's accuracy in reporting these days? We've got an election to win.



BARACK OBAMA FOR PREZ
Because he can hold a football better than John Kerry.
ROCK THE VOTE!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefNYyt...all_SJaffe.jpg

If Obama Wins:

I think, had Palin not been tapped, she would be more likely to be a serious contender in the future. She would have had the next 4-8 years to start doing the kinds of national and presidental things that governors do when they plan to run for president.

Depending on how this campaign goes, she might end up making it less likely that she gets a chance to run for predisent in 4 or 8 years. She could commit the kind of gaffe or get hit with the kind of slander that makes a recovery impossible.

That said, McCain was smart to pick her, and she was smart to accept. She makes it more likely that he will win. And, from her perspective, a ~50% chance of being VP (and the clear front runner for the next presidental nomination) is way better than whatever chance she would have had had she stayed in Alaska and kept her nose to the grindstone.

It was intentional. Mike Tyson will never make saying it any other way the same again.

Well, if that was the standard, then my grandma would be president :)

Bobby Jindal has a much brighter future in '12 than Sarah Palin does. She's having problems in the media in her first month, no way she can last four years after being on the ticket AND beat the Brown Reagan at her own game four years from now.

She'll resurface, but no way in a national office.

Jindal has his own stuff (the exorcism story), but it hasn't really come out because he's still Gov of Louisiana.

How fitting that the lefty is a lefty.

So didn't Abe Lincoln among others.

So every story has to be hard news? They can't do both?

By all means, we should be paying more attention to her efforts to thwart the investigation in Troopergate.

dont get me started.

Obama has to be somewhat concerned that, even with one of his largest national leads right now, Ohio is pretty much a toss-up. I can't see November being better for him than right now. And any movement toward McCain probably paints Ohio red.

I'm not sure he can win Ohio. I said a while back that the more likely path to the White House is through Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

National polls...

Gallup (RV) - Obama 49-44
Hotline/FD (RV) - Obama 45-44
Rasmussen (LV) - Tied 48-48
Battleground (LV) - Tied 47-47

State polls

Marist (LV)

MI: Obama 52-43
OH: Obama 47-45
PA: Obama 49-44

Rasmussen (LV)

IN: McCain 49-47

The Palins are swingers? I hadn't read that.

What does GOP actually stand for?

Grand Old Party
or
Government of the People?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

Grand Old Party