A lot of interesting stuff on that web site.

Election result maps

I am voting for Bob Barr. If I had a knife to my throat and had to vote McCain or Obama I would vote McCain. So now let me make a point and not get attacked by the Republicans in this thread...

How can you speak about the last 8 years of Washington doing nothing when it was your party that did nothing? It makes no sense. It's not an Obama talking point, I am not really sure he is fit to lead either.

I am not discounting this poll totally, though I don't care much either way. I do find a couple things interesting about it.

1. It was from Friday morning, very early in the "getting to know Palin" curve.

2. Along with number 1 comes this line from the article... She was just announced, guys thought she was hot for a politician and liked her.

Another article detailing the campaign funds. Republicans are now saying that they should be able to match Obama's spending dollar for dollar over the rest of the campaign. Quite a turnaround from the reports a couple of months ago showing Obama with a major funds advantage.

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

The amusing (or discouraging) thing about that is there are a lot of registered voters that will vote for her ticket solely for that reason. It's certainly a dumb reason, but it will happen at some level.

I think its fair to hold Obama to a higher standard when it comes to explanation and details.

He's the "change" candidate (and yes, that's somewhat muted by McCain's tricky attempts to go there too). He's the one promising things that have never been done before. I don't believe he can actually execute his "vision". From him, I'd need to hear more plans, more specifics, more examples from his experience that show he can deliver what he promises.

With McCain, you know what you get. His "change" is different than Obama's. It's not a dramatic change, it's the Republican party pre-Bush with some adjustments. I get what a McCain presidency would be (with all its flaws). With Obama, I have no idea.

McCain has never been president, so there is no way to know what a McCain presidency is going produce. Did you expect Bush's 8 years to go this way? A McCain presidency is as big of an unknown as Obama.

That's a flawed way to make a decision.

Could you please stop presenting every instance of Obama's lack of substance.

That's bullshit. The lack of and complete fabrication of explanations and details is how our country got into the clusterfuck we're in.

It's amazing what you can do when you make a mockery of the law you wrote.

Of course you do, because you never had any intention of voting for him.

I agree. Though I hope Obama wins it would be entertaining to have the Clampetts in the White House with the McCains as the Drysdales.

Oh for Christ's sake, are they rolling averages or not and therefore shouldnt be look at or should they?

For fuck sake is it discounted when it's against your side and the high mark when when it benefits your side.

This isn't even a partisan thing, just which one is it?

As I said, if I thought he was the difference between oil dependence and not, I'd donate ever discretinary dollar I had to his campaign. On that issue alone. If I believed he could somehow deliver a health insurance system that worked, that'd be gravy.

McCain can't do any of that either, of course. On most issues, they're a wash in terms of practicality. But McCain wins some tiebreakers for me in terms of foreign policy and security, and the fact that he scares me a lot less than Obama.

Still voting 3rd party though. But I've set myself to enjoy any result. If Obama wins, it will be fun seeing the dissapointment slowly drift into our concious when nothing changes the way they expect. If McCain wins, it will be fun to see the Democratic party implode.

I will correct myself on #1...I just realized today is Friday morning. :D I was thinking last Friday with that comment, being from this morning it is much more up to date then I was thinking.

Bush never governed as a conservative. He never vetoed any spending bill from a Republican Congress. The consequence was that spending increased dramatically. The Congress wanted to do this because how else do you show you're getting stuff done in Washington? Easy, "Hey look at the new bridge I built! Look at the new gleaming roads, those were built with dollars I secured from Washington."

So you had Congress doing what was in their best interest with a President who never questioned anything spendingwise from them. The big problem here is that the Democrats were so antagonistic, the President almost had no choice. If he wanted to get anything done, he had to scratch the Republican Congress' back.

Now, McCain is running on the Republican agenda from 94-96. Reform Washington and cut spending. There is a reason why the later Clinton years were better than the first two. He had a Congress that fought him tooth and nail. They both wound up not getting entirely what they wanted, and the result was a cutting spending and the creation of a nice surplus. The end of the surplus was not from the Bush tax cut, rather it was from the profligate spending that followed.

One thing you can say about McCain is that he does have the best interest of the country at heart. Unlike Obama, who I question every appointment and association, at least McCain hit it out of the park with his VP nomination. She is an anti-establishment Republican. Her roots are closer to Regan and Newt than it is to Bush.

Obama could have been the change candidate, but the more I read about his positions and the more I hear him, the more I see he is a dyed in the wool classic leftist liberal. The only reason why Obama is so appealing is that he speaks well, and he is not a Republican right now.

I want change, but not the change Obama is promising. The government is not the answer to our problems. The answer to our problems is the people of this nation. The change I want, is to limit the power of the government, have it get out of our way and allow the people of this nation to do the great things we have done, when given the chance.

bullshit. they should both be held to the same standards of explaining what it is they want to do and how they intend to do it.

People in Worcester would disagree but they aren't a suburb of Boston metro.

how is mccain talking about limiting the size of government. didn't he say in his speech last night (i didn't watch, but i heard this) something about giving the federal government the power to hire and fire teachers at a local level??

who's going to do that?? the magical teacher-fairy who doesn't get paid?? NOPE...it's going to be an appointed position with a nice cushy salary. that's going to result in an INCREASED bureaucracy, not a decreased one!

:banghead: WAKE UP!

worcester is a cesspool :) 2nd most depressing city in the state (behind springfield)

You feel this way because you're an Obama supporter.

But it's not logical. The change candidate needs to explain more than the conservative candidate. Every time, every election, no matter the party.

If there's a debate between staying in the same house and moving, the person who wants to move needs to make their case about why it's better, and how they can afford the new house, and whether it will be worth it in the long run. The person staying really doesn't need to explain much (except maybe why it's a bad idea to move, that it will be expensive and not really improve their standard of living)

Hi, I live in the nothingness that is known as Wilderness Massachusetts! (I also am 3 minutes from the third largest city in New England) :)

But yeah, I wouldn't call this a suburb of Boston.

This one did.

I don't think Barr is even on the ballot in New York, or else he would get my vote.

And you wanted me to invite you over for a Grill out??? :) If you want to see depressing, drive up 128 every day! That is depressing :)

wrong. they both need to explain how they intend to pay for what they want to do, and what they want to do. it's part of making an informed decision as a voter. because the circumstances are never the same as when the "status quo" candidate or his party's predecessor took office. there's new wrinkles. for instance - in this case - "the war on terror."

We deserve to hear how John McCain would handle the war on terror, just as we deserve to hear how Obama would.

Same thing with the economy - because the economic situation is different (indeed it's different than 1 year ago), we need to know how the candidate will deal with the problems of today, not the challenges that were faced yesterday.

I would laugh if a candidate came out and said to elect him and he will do everything he can to continue the Bush legacy. They probably wouldn't be very successful, but the humor in it would be great.

lol yes it is.

haha -- you're not in springfield though right? I don't think i know what town it is exactly that you live in.

I had a friend go to college in Worcester, and one go out by Springfield, so I'm not hating on western-mass, just saying -- it's economically very hurting.

Same here.

I used to have an hour and half commute every day. Route 2 west for 30 miles, then Route 95 South to Needham.

Idaho is beautiful.

I thought it was pretty funny that last night McCain is telling the crowd that
the special inetrests groups and lobbyists better be ready to get thrown out of washington. It was ironic of course since probably a lot of the crowd there were lobbyists.:crazy:

I'd agree if that was McCain's message. If he was saying four more years of what we've been doing, fine. However, he's also positioning himself as the change candidate. By your own logic he has to present how he's going to change things.

And nearly two hundred lobbyists and former lobbyists work on the McCain campaign.

Needham? I can spit into Needham from my house. Where'd you work?

Fixed that for you.:cool:

Nah, I live in the metro-Worcester area (never heard of a metro-Worcester area, so just made it up maybe?) :) Was just saying that Worcester is the third largest city in New England, and pretty much the same practical population as the second largest one (Providence). So was just having fun with the comment someone said that there was nothing west of Marlborough. I mean it is no Wasilla, Alaska but it is not exactly wilderness. :)

But yeah it is ugly, but I find most of the northern Industrial cities ugly. Never really liked Pitssburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Gary, etc either for the same reason. (Of course last time I mentioned that the entire FOFC Indy gang yelled at me about how the city has improved in the last 10 years). :)

Do you honestly think Palin wants to go on Oprah? If I was a Republican strategist, I wouldn't let her go anywhere near that show. I guarantee you, "Pro-life in the case of rape" will be the most talked about issue.

Also, I can't believe we're giving any validity to the Drudge Report. Hold on while I go get a story from Randi Rhodes and we can discuss it.

I work from home every day. But I couldn't move to Idaho.. I need to have a movie theatre and a billiard hall and sports teams and such within 15 minutes of my house or I'd go crazy.

George Bush talked about those same things in 2000 and look what happened. It's not going to be easy for John McCain to get people to believe that all of a sudden he's the good change candidate and that we should re-elect a Republican because the Republicans screwed up. I voted for Bush in 2000 but I'm not falling for that again. We'll see how the country reacts to it in the polls over the next week.

It's tricky for McCain, no doubt.

He's trying to portray himself as a "change" from Bush. And he's always been a "reform" candidate (whatever that means), even back to 2000. But his party is still "conservative" (or at least it used to be).

I don't see him as a real change candidate. But sure, if you're saying that if he's going to portray himself like that, he has to be held to a higher standard in terms of details and practicality and explanations, and experience, that's fair.

Yup it sure is.

I am shocked and appalled that FOFC's Republican cheerleaders haven't ripped on the lack of substance in McCain's speech last night.

That video makes a great case for Obama being a Supreme Court Justice, it does nothing about making me think he is qualified to be President.

Lawyers are great for understanding what can and what cannot be done. It is my experience, that they are not the best candidates to lead. It also explains why he is such a great speaker. He has had plenty of experience doing that. However, speaking and debating is a different skill from getting the job done. Speaking and debating is a great skill to have in Congress. It would help in the White House, but I want someone who has experience in getting stuff done. He doesn't have it. The closest experience he has to that is his community organizer work, which sounds a lot like a social worker to me (the way he explained it).

To try and look at it from an objective viewpoint, McCain riding on the issue of change is a mistake because it frames the debate in terms that are favorable to Obama.

This was much like 2004 when Kerry decided to run heavily on his Vietnam service, which frames the debate on national security, which was very favorable to Bush.

There's some beautiful rural towns out by Worcester though (Grafton, Southborough, Westborough, etc). I actually enjoy it. Just the city itself is very...bleak.

Boise would be the second biggest city in New England. (though you're absolutely right about the rest of Idaho - its a different world).

But we still won't know anything that truly matters or counts until the curtain closes & the votes are cast.

My point being that, even for a guy who likes numbers like I do, there's only one poll that really matters in the end. Unless you're directly involved in the campaign strategy & are in a position to make adjustments based on the information, it's all just something to talk about to pass the time between now & November.

hahah - small world: i won't post particulars more than this, but molson just told me he used to work for a company that i (unsuccessfully) interviewed with back in like 2004. company in the same building where my dad has worked for the past few years.

smalllllllllll world

Yes, I lived in Grafton for three years and grew up in Shrewsbury before heading out after college on my globetrotting with military/governmnet. Grfaton is a decent town as are some others like Sturbridge, Westborough, Hopkinton, Upton etc.