Front Office Football Central
Page 80 of 111 « First < 3070717273747576777879 80 81828384858687888990 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 1864388)
This came up a couple of times in this thread, but I don't think there'd be any kind of unrest if Obama wins the popular but McCain clearly wins the electorate.

However, if there's a deciding state decided by >1000 or so votes, there will be talk of things not being on the level, and that's where I think we'd see some issues in some parts of the country.

:+1:

If the stuff already reported in West Virginia (the machines "switching" the votes) is more widespread on election day, there could be problems. Of course, whatever the result I'm sure there will be some hooligans somewhere who decide to trash some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1864905)
There are nutjobs on both sides... in fact, isn't that part of the problem these days? Too many nutjobs in general? :)

I blame talk radio. :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1865139)
If the Tribune hadn't, they may have been faced with even more declining subscriptions and revenues.

I think you greatly misunderstand the readership of the Chicago Tribune (and especially its editorial page).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1865556)
The Tribune endorsement is simply about economics. About 80% of their readers are for Obama (greater Chicago area) and there would be a pretty big outcry if they endorsed McCain.

You too.


The Powell endorsement is far more important. As others have noted, when there was talk about Powell as a candidate, he was mostly being touted as a "Centrist" Republican, with socially liberal, fiscally conservative and strong defense views. Which group is McCain reaching out to right now? Yeah, the "disenfranchised GOP", those who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Powell's just told these people, in eloquent terms, not only why it's safe to vote for Obama, but why they shouldn't vote for McCain.

If people don't think that's worth a lot especially at this point in the campaign (with early voting underway in many states and starting, for instance, today in Florida), then I don't know what to say....

Big Fo 10-20-2008 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865616)
Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

That's impressive man, you spin even better than Rush Limbaugh. That's the first thing I've seen anywhere on the Internet suggesting that the Powell endorsement could hurt Obama.

And don't cling onto your Zogby poll too hard, Obama's now up 5.4%, rising from yesterday's 2.7%.

Quote:
Obama now leads McCain 49.8% to 44.4%. McCain trailed Obama by 2.7 points in polling released yesterday.

...

Obama’s gain to nearly 50% support is the highest level of support he has received since the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking began two weeks ago.

This three-day rolling average of telephone polling now includes a sample taken entirely after the final presidential debate last Wednesday.

Zogby International

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1865650)
:...... then I don't know what to say....

I think I speak for the masses when I say I've never seen you at a loss for words, and I don't expect it now either. :)

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 09:38 AM
It was a figure of speech, bucko. :p

Fidatelo 10-20-2008 09:43 AM
Neon_Chaos got me thinking: if we were to do an FOFC poll where only non-US citizens could vote, and that poll asked "who would you vote for US President if you were allowed to vote", what would the percentage of votes for each candidate be?

And assuming the rest of the world is as pro-Obama as my gut tells me it would be, what does that mean? Does it mean we foreigners feel the world would be better off with Obama, or that America would be better off with Obama? Are those two ideas really very different? If so, is a vote for McCain a vote for US self-interest? Or does it mean the rest of the world is simply more liberal minded than the US? And if that's true, what does that mean?

I think I could go on with questions for awhile, but the thing that fascinates me is my impression (assuming Obama would be the heavy favorite that I suspect) that everyone from the 'outside' seems to view the choice as somewhat obvious, while internally in the US it is a pretty tight race, and what the implications of that difference in opinion are.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1865654)
That's impressive man, you spin even better than Rush Limbaugh. That's the first thing I've seen anywhere on the Internet suggesting that the Powell endorsement could hurt Obama.

And don't cling onto your Zogby poll too hard, Obama's now up 5.4%, rising from yesterday's 2.7%.

Certainly, some silly partisan statements here. First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement. I'm a fan of Powell as I tend to be in the middle politically, but I don't think there's any question that race is a motivating factor in his decision. I think generally that the younger the voter is, the more likely that they dismiss race as being a factor. I sincerely hope that's an indicator that future generations will be come less preoccupied with race as we move forward.

Second, I'm certainly not 'clinging' onto Zogby. My only point was that the final results will likely show which polling method was more accurate. If we see a result where Zogby ends up most accurate (as it was in 2004), I think we can start dismissing the Democratic claims of 'record turnout' in future elections as nothing more than a PR attempt to drive up the vote. If we see a higher turnout, it will become much more common to base these polls on party claims of increased/decreased voter turnout rather than historic precedent.

Young Drachma 10-20-2008 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865616)
Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

I love how the only time anyone brings this stuff up is when so-called ethnic folks choose "one of their own kind." No one suggests that Lieberman picked McCain because he wanted a white guy in the White House.

It's so frustrating that people still think so monochromatically, ESPECIALLY when you consider how much of a nuanced argument that Powell made for why he decided to go in this direction.

RINO or not, the guy went to the GOP convention in 2000 and made an emphatic case for the Bush/Cheney ticket and so, if nothing else, he was a member of the team in some form or fashion.

That said, he speaks for a lot of disaffected former moderate members of the party who won't take the extreme step of voting Democrat (it just doesn't make any sense to me), but who are choosing to sit this one out. Maybe the wingnuts who run the party and who consider it their birthright to run the party with their intolerance and lack of nuance on issues are banking on that, but I'm convinced that we're not the voters you want to suppress. Because there are far many others who feel the need to vote the other way to make a statement about their unhappiness about the current state of the GOP and feel this is just the sort of medicine folks need to get the party back to being an open tent again. (as if it ever was...)

Quote:
There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S.

Translated: Upsetting the natural order of things.

Neon_Chaos 10-20-2008 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1865640)
As to the last part about the world being a better place with the Dems in power. Well, that's going to illicit all sorts of responses ;)

SI

:)

To put it simply, to most of my generation of foreigners, the Republican Party IS George W Bush.

I don't know, but the world just can't have eight more years of that... :)

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidatelo (Post 1865665)
Neon_Chaos got me thinking: if we were to do an FOFC poll where only non-US citizens could vote, and that poll asked "who would you vote for US President if you were allowed to vote", what would the percentage of votes for each candidate be?

And assuming the rest of the world is as pro-Obama as my gut tells me it would be, what does that mean? Does it mean we foreigners feel the world would be better off with Obama, or that America would be better off with Obama? Are those two ideas really very different? If so, is a vote for McCain a vote for US self-interest? Or does it mean the rest of the world is simply more liberal minded than the US? And if that's true, what does that mean?

I think I could go on with questions for awhile, but the thing that fascinates me is my impression (assuming Obama would be the heavy favorite that I suspect) that everyone from the 'outside' seems to view the choice as somewhat obvious, while internally in the US it is a pretty tight race, and what the implications of that difference in opinion are.

It would definitely be a pro-Obama vote from the rest of the world. With that said, the U.S. trust has been burned previously by other countries during much of the 1900s. U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country. I don't think the French or British would like the direction that the U.S. would like their government to go either.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865668)
Certainly, some silly partisan statements here. First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement. I'm a fan of Powell as I tend to be in the middle politically, but I don't think there's any question that race is a motivating factor in his decision. I think generally that the younger the voter is, the more likely that they dismiss race as being a factor. I sincerely hope that's an indicator that future generations will be come less preoccupied with race as we move forward.

Second, I'm certainly not 'clinging' onto Zogby. My only point was that the final results will likely show which polling method was more accurate. If we see a result where Zogby ends up most accurate (as it was in 2004), I think we can start dismissing the Democratic claims of 'record turnout' in future elections as nothing more than a PR attempt to drive up the vote. If we see a higher turnout, it will become much more common to base these polls on party claims of increased/decreased voter turnout rather than historic precedent.

then wouldnt you put a lot of creedance in the polls from the past that were most accurate or does the credibilty gain only start in this election?

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 09:56 AM
Prediction: Powell's endorsement will be electorally significant, perhaps the most electorally significant endorsement of this campaign.

Reminder: Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Powell, as do 81% of unaffiliated voters and 77% of Democrats. Eighty-two percent (82%) of white voters and 72% of African-Americans share that view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865668)
First, I think it's naive at best to assume that there aren't a substantial number of deeply ignorant people who are just looking for a reason to find that racial motivation isn't involved in Powell's endorsement.

I'm sure race is a factor in Powell's endorsement. I'm also sure it's a very, very small factor. Powell gave his reasons for endorsing Obama, and he barely talks about race there. So you either take him at his word or you don't.

Quote:
I know both of these individuals very well. I’ve known John for 25 years, as your set-up said, and I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past 2 years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president.

I have said to Mr. McCain that I admore all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years it has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.

And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, you have to pass a test of ‘do you have enough experience?’ And do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.

And I’ve watched them over the past two years frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with them.

I have especially watched over the last 6 or 7 weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we’re in and coming out of the conventions.

And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both, and in the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having. And almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.

And that concerned me, sensing that he did not have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired, but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President.

And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this 7-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be president on day one, and also in, not just jumping in and changing every day, but show intellectual vigor. I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

I also believe that on the Republican side, over the last 7 weeks the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama at the same time has given us some more broader inclusive reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines-- ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I’ve also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign, but Mr. McCain says he’s a washed out terrorist—well, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship, that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, now Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that’s inappropriate.

Now I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another. And that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrower. It’s not what the American people are looking for.

And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me.

And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we would be looking at in a McCain administration.

I’m also troubled by…what members of the party say, and is permitted to be said, such things as, ‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, 'He is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian, he’s always been a Christian.'

But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?'

The answer’s 'No, that’s not America.'



Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture, at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave, and as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, purple heart, bronze star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old, and then at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Ushad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life.

Now we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know, but I’m troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So when I look at all of this and I think back to my army career, we’ve got two individuals. Either on of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I’ve come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, as well as his substance, he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president being an exceptional president, I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation, coming onto the world stage, the American stage,

And for that reason, I will be voting for Barack Obama.

Fidatelo 10-20-2008 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865678)
It would definitely be a pro-Obama vote from the rest of the world. With that said, the U.S. trust has been burned previously by other countries during much of the 1900s. U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country. I don't think the French or British would like the direction that the U.S. would like their government to go either.

So does this boil down to citizens of the rest of the world generally would always want the 'weaker' candidate of pretty much any other country to win, because that would serve our own self interest more?

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Cloud (Post 1865676)
I love how the only time anyone brings this stuff up is when so-called ethnic folks choose "one of their own kind." No one suggests that Lieberman picked McCain because he wanted a white guy in the White House.

Translated: Upsetting the natural order of things.

You're definitely incorrect in regards to your first statement. I don't think there's any question that one of the main reasons that Lieberman endorsed McCain was because he knew McCain would support Israel's aggressive stance towards its neighbors. They may be both white, but there's still a bias involved.

Your translation is spot-on. I noted that they were 'deeply ignorant' with good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that their vote counts the same as anyone else. Assuming that this is a political discussion rather than a 'how I feel' discussion, the mention of that group of voters and their effect on the election is very relevant.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 09:57 AM
Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration - Yahoo! News

Quote:
Obama: Powell will have a role in adminstration


By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said.

Being a top presidential adviser, especially on foreign policy, would be familiar ground to Powell on a subject that's relatively new to the freshman Illinois senator. Obama has struggled to establish his foreign policy credentials against GOP candidate John McCain, a decorated military veteran, former prisoner of war and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In the NBC interview, Obama said Powell did not give him a heads-up before he crossed party lines and endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate on the network's "Meet the Press" a day earlier.

In that interview, Powell called Obama a "transformational figure" in the nation's history and expressed disappointment in some of McCain's campaign tactics. But, Powell said, he didn't plan to hit the campaign trail with Obama before the Nov. 4 election.

"I won't lie to you, I would love to have him at any stop," Obama said with a grin Monday. "Obviously, if he wants to show up he's got an open invitation."

Powell's endorsement came just hours after Obama's campaign disclosed that it raised $150 million in September — obliterating the old record of $66 million it had set only one month earlier.

He expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and their decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers, saying "it goes too far."

McCain, meanwhile, seemed dismissive of Powell's endorsement, saying it wasn't a surprise, that the two share mutual respect and are longtime friends.

The Republican from Arizona pointed out on Sunday that he had support from four other former secretaries of state, all veterans of Republican administrations: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.

At a boisterous rally Sunday, Obama said McCain was "out of ideas and almost out of time."

He and his aides appear so confident of his prospects that apart from a brief stop in Madison, Wis., next Thursday, Obama currently has no plans during the next 10 days to return to Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire or any other state that voted for John Kerry in 2004.

Instead, he intends to spend two days this week in Florida, where early voting begins on Monday, and travel to Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and possibly Nevada and Indiana. Those states hold 97 electoral votes combined, and Bush won all in 2004.

Obama also may stop in West Virginia, where his campaign recently bought statewide television advertising in a late attempt to put the state's five electoral votes into serious contention.

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 10:00 AM
Apparently the details of Obama's $150 million fundraising month in September include roughly 600,000 new donors.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidatelo (Post 1865692)
So does this boil down to citizens of the rest of the world generally would always want the 'weaker' candidate of pretty much any other country to win, because that would serve our own self interest more?

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1865695)

I'm sure that everyone in the thread is floored by that revelation, much like the Lieberman in a McCain administration situation.

Fidatelo 10-20-2008 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865704)
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

I think we are saying the same thing then, because your description basically sums up what I would consider the 'weaker' candidate. Basically, the guy that poses less of a threat, or that could be pushed around.

This brings up another interesting thought: if we did that world-wide poll I suggested above, but at the same time did a poll of the same people in regards to who they voted for in their home country's most recent election, and then cross-referenced the ideologies of their home candidate versus the US candidate they support, would those ideologies mostly match up? Or would we see a lot of people who vote for their own country's version of McCain yet want the US's leader to be someone like Obama?

ISiddiqui 10-20-2008 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1865690)
Prediction: Powell's endorsement will be electorally significant, perhaps the most electorally significant endorsement of this campaign.

Nate Silver of 538 seems to think it'll be minor at best:

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: General Powell Endorses Obama

Quote:
In a race like Obama-McCain, on the other hand, you already have all the information you could ever want, and probably have established a fairly strong preference for yourself.

Quote:
Powell's endorsement might play especially well among the defense and military communities in Northern Virginia, which just so happens to be perhaps the most important swing region in the election.

Quote:
Between this and Obama's $150 million fundraising haul, however, the sense of inevitability may creep in again. Contrary to some observers, I think that there is far more downside to the Republicans in resignation, fatalism and low morale than there is to the Democrats in complacency.

Basically he thinks the greatest effect it may have is to make Republican voters believe it is all over and depress their turnout (I'd have to say most Republicans already thought it was all over before the Powell endorsement).

Neon_Chaos 10-20-2008 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865704)
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests. I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's definitely a difference in attitude in regards to foreign relations.

Actually, I think we would like the candidate who doesn't love to go to war a lot.

But that's just me.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1865689)
then wouldnt you put a lot of creedance in the polls from the past that were most accurate or does the credibilty gain only start in this election?

Yes, I believe that is my point. I believe the Zogby method of polling weight to be the better method as it has been spot-on in the past. We'll see whether that trend holds in this election.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos (Post 1865715)
Actually, I think we would like the candidate who doesn't love to go to war a lot.

But that's just me.

I think you're being a bit general in that comment. War is part of being who we are. If your statement read that you would like the candidate that didn't go to war when it was not fully justified, then I agree. Stating that we shouldn't got to war a lot just for the sake of not going to war a lot isn't a valid choice. Afghanistan was perfectly justifiable. Iraq was more iffy.

Big Fo 10-20-2008 10:21 AM
My impression has always been that the USA is very conservative compared to most of the other wealthy western democracies. The Democrats, although center-right compared to the parties in those countries, are at least in the same ballpark with their political beliefs while the Republicans are way out in crazy land.

Plus as Neon Choas says, some are scared by the thought of angry, old man McCain and his hawkish buddies in charge of foreign policy.

Kodos 10-20-2008 10:28 AM
Iraq was not iffy. It was a definite "no". Bush's administration just mislead us to make it look like it was necessary.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 1865747)
Iraq was not iffy. It was a definite "no". Bush's administration just mislead us to make it look like it was necessary.

In hindsight, it was a no. I agree with that.

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865704)
I don't think they want the 'weaker' candidate as much as they want the candidate that will further their self-interests.

Having lived overseas for a number of years, I'd say that most citizens of the world understand the power the U.S. has to involve itself in world affairs and prefers a U.S. President who's less likely to be disruptive and unilateral on the world stage.

Quote:
I think they likely see Obama as the candidate that they can manipulate if they need to increase their influence on global policy. McCain is definitely more like Dubya in regards to foreign policy, as he'll be much more selfish to look out for the U.S. before considering other avenues overseas.

Arguably, Bush has been highly manipulated on the global stage, having been goaded into the Iraq misadventure and employing ham-handed diplomatic efforts elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1865714)
Nate Silver of 538 seems to think it'll be minor at best:

Basically he thinks the greatest effect it may have is to make Republican voters believe it is all over and depress their turnout (I'd have to say most Republicans already thought it was all over before the Powell endorsement).

Well, minor can be important in a close election. If the bulk of undecideds are moderate "fomer-GOPers" who hold Powell and high regard, and a couple of percentage points of them come over to Obama as a result, that's going to be pretty significant for Obama.

So, I'm not saying this is going to net Obama 10 percentage points or anything like that. However, this endorsement could have the result (combined with the timing) of "drying-up" the undecideds in the middle. If that happens, and Obama picks up a point or two, then we're basically looking at stasis for the next 2.5 weeks, with an Obama lead. Thus, afterward one would say that the Powell endorsement was basically the final nail in the coffin that ended McCain's chance at the Presidency.

Powell's endorsement, then, obviously isn't anywhere near as important, electorally, as the financial meltdown has shown to be, but out of all the endorsements we've seen, it's probably going to be the most significant. That's all I'm saying.

sterlingice 10-20-2008 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865678)
U.S. residents are smart enough to know that there's a reason we're the sole superpower and it's not because we spent a lot of time listening to what other countries thought was best for our country.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ok, I got that out of my system. America is strong because the electorate is smart. That's a good one. Granted, we're a bit more self selective since we have low turnout compared to a lot of other countries. But, c'mon, we're all laughing at the undecided mouthbreathers which ultimately decide who is our leader.

I'm pretty sure we're strong because we were the only first world country that wasn't completely devistated by a World War which set every other "civilized country" back 30-40 years in terms of economy. And why is that? Because we were lucky enough to be on the other side of the world from the fighting.

SI

ISiddiqui 10-20-2008 10:49 AM
Quote:
Well, minor can be important in a close election.

Highlighted by me.

So, what effect does it have on this one?

JPhillips 10-20-2008 10:51 AM
What's up with the FL GOP? I haven't been following, but this decision to save 2 mil seems like a big negative for McCain.

Quote:
In Florida, the differences between Gov. Charlie Crist's state party and the McCain campaign have for weeks been an open secret among the political class.

Now comes word, via the St. Pete Times' Adam Smith, that the Florida GOP is holding back some of its money for the next cycle.

"State party officials announced to their state executive committee Saturday that they expect to carry over at least $2 million into 2009, rather than spend all their money on this election."

The news came on the same day that Crist was explaining why he hadn't appeared in any ads for McCain in the state.

''I haven't been asked,'' Crist explained to the Miami Herald's Mary Ellen Klas.

albionmoonlight 10-20-2008 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1865775)
What's up with the FL GOP? I haven't been following, but this decision to save 2 mil seems like a big negative for McCain.

McCain's interests and the Florida GOP's interests are not the same. They both want McCain to win, but this (and re-election if he wins) is McCain's last competitive election. He has every incentive to spend every cent and every waking hour on trying to win.

The Florida GOP wants him to win. But, whether he wins or loses, they have elections coming up in two years. And they are looking beyond the next two weeks.

Not good news for McCain. But not the end of the world either. I can't imagine that $2,000,000 will really make or break his chances in Florida. Apparently, he still has $47,000,000 left to spend in two weeks.

Passacaglia 10-20-2008 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865616)
Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed

Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S. There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

Just an FYI -- Sneed is a gossip columnist.

Klinglerware 10-20-2008 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1865763)
Having lived overseas for a number of years, I'd say that most citizens of the world understand the power the U.S. has to involve itself in world affairs and prefers a U.S. President who's less likely to be disruptive and unilateral on the world stage.



Arguably, Bush has been highly manipulated on the global stage, having been goaded into the Iraq misadventure and employing ham-handed diplomatic efforts elsewhere.




Yeah, if you are talking about regular people's opinions, I don't really buy the whole "weaker candidate/self interest" argument. If anything, one can argue that the unilateralism of recent American foreign policy has actually been a net positive for rival powers: the economic burdens associated with American unilateral use of military power plus the disuse of diplomatic linkages (either through inability or lack of will) has given budding rivals the opportunity to build their relative capabilities relative to the US.

But in terms of regular people, to echo flere's point--they probably want a US administration that isn't too disruptive in their everyday lives...

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1865772)
Highlighted by me.

So, what effect does it have on this one?

Good point. I still think it's close. Obama's aggregate lead is still only somewhere between 5 and 7 points, and given the MoE, it could be closer than that, and we still have 3 weeks to go.

ISiddiqui 10-20-2008 12:01 PM
Personally, I think this election is done and has been done ever since the bottom fell out of the market.

Kodos 10-20-2008 12:05 PM
Count me among those who don't think this election is in the bag yet for Obama. I certainly **hope** it is, but until he is declared the winner on election day, I am not counting my chickens.

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865616)
Just as an aside to my rants on polling weights, I noticed that Zogby polling uses voter weighting in their polls that mirrors party turnout from the previous elections. As of the latest polls, Zogby shows roughly a 3 point Obama lead while the rest of the polls show a 6-8 point lead. Zogby should show a pretty good indicator of whether Democratic turnout increases in this election and what the results will be if they don't turn out in record numbers as Democratic pundits will have you believe.

But Zogby's poll released earlier this morning shows a 6 point spread.

Quote:
I do think there are a couple of developments over the weekend that could have some effect on the election from a race standpoint. First, there's a column out of Illinois reporting that Obama is demanding that an African-American be his replacement if he wins.

Who would replace Obama's Senate seat? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Michael Sneed

"Sneed hears" is not very convincing to me.

Quote:
Second, Obama was endorsed by Powell. On its face, it's certainly not a surprise as he's always been considered to be similary to Liberman, except in reverse. With that said, some of his comments and his endorsement could lead to a backlash against Obama. There could be a perceived notion that African-Americans are trying to pull the political rug out from under the established powers in the U.S.

I'm doubting people that could think this are on the fence right now.

Quote:
There are still a lot of people that will vote out of ignorance on both sides of the issue. Obama needs to tread as lightly as he can to avoid a race backlash. The move to make sure an African-American takes his seat would not be a good first step.

First of all, we still don't know he has done this, or will do it. And even if an African-American was appointed, then we don't know why that was why it was done.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 12:17 PM
Any thoughts on Biden's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Biden is the one saying this as commonly held thought is that Obama is the choice of foreign nations.......

Political Radar: Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

Quote:
Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

October 20, 2008 7:35 AM

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.

"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.

"All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place," he then said of the Bush regime, promptly wrapping up his remarks. "We have the ability to straighten it out. It's gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us."

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1865917)
But Zogby's poll released earlier this morning shows a 6 point spread.

LOL.....once again you miss the point in the interest of trying to further a partisan viewpoint. The spread from day to day is irrelevant. The point is not what happens from day to day. The point is which polling method best mirrors what happens on the election day.

albionmoonlight 10-20-2008 12:27 PM
No matter your politics:

Government providing money and/or services to people who aren't you = pork and/or socalism and/or welfare.

Government providing money and/or services to you = good government.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1865925)
Any thoughts on Palin's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Palin is saying that Obama's tax plan is socialist while the bailout is not.......

Obama fends off Palin charge of 'socialist' tax plan - CNN.com

Most people would disagree with that. Both the bailout and Obama's tax plan are socialist in nature.

Young Drachma 10-20-2008 12:35 PM
I'm not a liberal (Scripting News)

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865920)
LOL.....once again you miss the point in the interest of trying to further a partisan viewpoint.

Um, you've glommed on to every pro-McCain poll that's been out there, even one that turned out to be a telephone poll that was almost a week old.

Quote:
The spread from day to day is irrelevant. The point is not what happens from day to day. The point is which polling method best mirrors what happens on the election day.

The point is that despite Zogby's partisan weighting, they actually have the largest spread of the major polls that have been released today.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1865918)
Any thoughts on Biden's latest comments today? I'm somewhat confused that Biden is the one saying this as commonly held thought is that Obama is the choice of foreign nations.......

Political Radar: Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

thoughts? yes, thank god when it occurs we could have a president with a temprement to be thoughtful and predictive of the possibilities and ramifications of our actions. thank god we will have a president that is surrounded by experts in their field and be able to advise the next president on what is hopefully the best course of action.

cartman 10-20-2008 12:46 PM
MBBF,

Let me break down this election cycle in terms that maybe you can understand. Based on your comments, many points seem to be going over your head.

Obama=Colt McCoy
McCain=Chase Daniels

or how about this more in depth:

Obama=Wii (big numbers, sets sales/donations records)
Biden=Xbox 360 (does crazy stuff (RROD/Puts foot in mouth) but most people look past that)
McCain=PS3 (low numbers, but eventually hopes to catch the Wii/360. If he were the PS2 of 8 years ago, would be in the lead)
Palin=Sega Genesis (first console with games accessible to women. Lots of excitement generated, but fizzled out soon after release)

Flasch186 10-20-2008 12:53 PM
although I couldnt see myself doing my sega genesis :)

sterlingice 10-20-2008 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1865954)
MBBF,

Let me break down this election cycle in terms that maybe you can understand. Based on your comments, many points seem to be going over your head.

Obama=Colt McCoy
McCain=Chase Daniels

or how about this more in depth:

Obama=Wii (big numbers, sets sales/donations records)
Biden=Xbox 360 (does crazy stuff (RROD/Puts foot in mouth) but most people look past that)
McCain=PS3 (low numbers, but eventually hopes to catch the Wii/360. If he were the PS2 of 8 years ago, would be in the lead)
Palin=Sega Genesis (first console with games accessible to women. Lots of excitement generated, but fizzled out soon after release)

I admit, I LOL'd :D

SI

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 01:05 PM
Good news for McCain from Rasmmussen and Suffolk:

Rasmussen has narrowed to a 4 pt national lead for Obama.
Suffolk puts him up by 1 pt in Missouri.


Incredibly fucking bad news for McCain from Rasmussen and Suffolk:

Suffolk has him down 9 pts. in Ohio.
Rasmussen has him down 10 pts. in Virginia.

SirFozzie 10-20-2008 01:11 PM
Ohio has to be an outlier. The last poll I saw had McCain +1

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 1865997)
Ohio has to be an outlier. The last poll I saw had McCain +1

Probably. I was just showing that the same polling outfits giving him good news today is giving him really bad news at the same time.

The Gallup trackers moved towards Obama today: Version 1 has him +5 and Version 2 has him +9.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 01:21 PM
gotta take the rolling averages of a polling group that will be accurate come election day this year.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1865987)
Good news for McCain from Rasmmussen and Suffolk:

Rasmussen has narrowed to a 4 pt national lead for Obama.
Suffolk puts him up by 1 pt in Missouri.


Incredibly fucking bad news for McCain from Rasmussen and Suffolk:

Suffolk has him down 9 pts. in Ohio.
Rasmussen has him down 10 pts. in Virginia.

Once again, the weights of the current polling methods are producing some wild numbers. We can be sure that Obama is ahead by a few points at this juncture. Outside of that, it's a dart toss at best.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 02:39 PM
except zoxby's? Im confused if you feel this way about "polls" how do you use 'some' but not others. I mean what meets the MBBF threshold for having enough credibility for you to hang your credibility in these issues on?

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1866112)
except zoxby's? Im confused if you feel this way about "polls" how do you use 'some' but not others. I mean what meets the MBBF threshold for having enough credibility for you to hang your credibility in these issues on?

I've always stated that I believe that the new weights in the polls should be based on previous turnout rather than what they think the turnout will be. Zogby is the only poll that currently uses that weight. I also have not stated that the Zogby poll is necessarily the correct poll, but I do think this election turnout will give us a clear measure of whether these predicted weights used by other polls are very accurate at all. They certainly left a lot to be desired 4 years ago. I'm interested to see if that holds true in this election.

JPhillips 10-20-2008 03:09 PM
But the voting demo does shift from election to election and leaving it the same just skips the hardest part of polling. I don't know how accurate the various turnout projections will be, but I'm sure turnout will be a few points different than in 2004. Zogby doesn't even try to claim that the 2004 turnout is predictive of 2008, he just uses it for convenience.

It doesn't invalidate a poll to be several points off. That's what MOE is all about.

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 03:12 PM
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html

Quote:
Russia's permanent mission to the UN has received a letter from U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain asking for financial support of his election campaign, the mission said in a statement on Monday.

"We have received a letter from Senator John McCain with a request for a financial donation to his presidential election campaign. In this respect we have to reiterate that neither Russia's permanent mission to the UN nor the Russian government or its officials finance political activities in foreign countries," the statement said.

According to Ruslan Bakhtin, press secretary of the Russian mission, the letter dated September 29 and signed by McCain, was addressed to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's envoy to the UN, and arrived on October 16.

The ambassador's title was not included in the letter, and was not clear why the letter had taken over two weeks to arrive.

Enclosed was a request for a donation of up to $5,000 to McCain's election campaign to be returned with a check or permission to withdraw the money from the donor's credit card until October 24.

Individual donations to candidates' election campaigns are capped by law at $2,300, and it is illegal to accept donations from foreign nationals.

McCain accepted the $84 million in public financing available to his election campaign, and consequently cannot accept private donations. However, the Republican National Committee is collecting donations that can be used to support his candidacy in limited ways.

Legal barriers aside, the request and the official response from the Russian mission appear even more confusing in the light of McCain's overall negative attitude toward Russia.

Last year he said the G8 should exclude Russia, citing "diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, [and] efforts to bully democratic neighbors."

On August 12, during the brief conflict between Russia and Georgia in its breakaway region of South Ossetia, McCain said he had told Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili: " I know I speak for every American when I say to him, 'Today, we are all Georgians.'''

1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

GrantDawg 10-20-2008 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1865650)
I blame talk radio. :p


You nearly owed me a monitor. I just about spewed coffee all over mine. :D

GrantDawg 10-20-2008 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1866153)
RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian UN mission gets letter from McCain seeking election cash



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

That just smells fishy. I doubt it was really sent by McCain or his people.

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1866153)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

I've seen that, but didn't want to post yet, because I have some suspicions about that story. McCain's actions don't make sense. The $5,000 he would get wouldn't be worth the political fallout. I'm thinking the letter is probably a fake, but we'll see what happens.

Mizzou B-ball fan 10-20-2008 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1866153)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html

1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

Has it been verified that the document actually came from McCain's campaign? I didn't see any actual picture of the document. As you say, it seems odd to the point where it's not believable without evidence.

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1866161)
That just smells fishy. I doubt it was really sent by McCain or his people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1866162)
I've seen that, but didn't want to post yet, because I have some suspicions about that story. McCain's actions don't make sense. The $5,000 he would get wouldn't be worth the political fallout. I'm thinking the letter is probably a fake, but we'll see what happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1866163)
Has it been verified that the document actually came from McCain's campaign? I didn't see any actual picture of the document. As you say, it seems odd to the point where it's not believable without evidence.

Oh, agreed 100%, and maybe I should have worded my post differently. I'd imagine that somehow the wrong name/address got into one of their mailing databases and sent out as part of a more general appeal.

Still funny, though, and a fair amount of egg on the face of the guy who wrote the book on how and why not to do this.

SirFozzie 10-20-2008 03:28 PM
They make it seem like it WAS from the campaign (the guy from the campaign saying he didn't know how he got the wires crossed).. but I think we can file this under "simple mistake" and no harm, no foul.

Flasch186 10-20-2008 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1866153)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html



1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

Flere:

I dont believe the article one iota. unless as stated prior that some mail purge just printed an address that shouldve been excluded.

Klinglerware 10-20-2008 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1866150)
But the voting demo does shift from election to election and leaving it the same just skips the hardest part of polling. I don't know how accurate the various turnout projections will be, but I'm sure turnout will be a few points different than in 2004. Zogby doesn't even try to claim that the 2004 turnout is predictive of 2008, he just uses it for convenience.

It doesn't invalidate a poll to be several points off. That's what MOE is all about.

As has been mentioned before, predicting turnout is one of the more difficult aspects of predictive polling.

Year State VAP Turnout Rate
2006 United States 37.0%
2004 United States 55.3%
2002 United States 36.3%
2000 United States 50.0%
1998 United States 35.3%
1996 United States 48.1%
1994 United States 38.5%
1992 United States 54.7%
1990 United States 36.5%
1988 United States 50.3%
1986 United States 36.5%
1984 United States 53.3%
1980 United States 52.6%

Here is a table of turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population. Obviously, you can't base presidential turnout on non-presidential years. It is more reasonable to look at presidential years only. But even then, turnout has ranged from 48% to 55% of VAP. That represents a swing of 16 million voters.

Unfortunately, in only 2 out of 6 cases did the difference in turnout differ by 2% or less. Sometimes turnout went up. sometimes it went down. Obviously, these differences can be explained (popular incumbency, open race, etc.)--but these differences are there, nonetheless.

As stated before, the election-to-election differences can also be driven by shifts in demographic/affiliation makeup of the people casting the actual ballots. We don't know what the differences will be, but predictive pollsters have to make assumptions--it is standard practice to base weighting on the demographics of an "ideal representative" previous race, but it is reasonable to expect weights to be tweaked if the case can be made that the upcoming election is different from the last one.

JPhillips 10-20-2008 04:01 PM
I'm sure the email to the Russian embassy was a mistake, but it just symbolizes McCain's campaign that on the day they decide to make a big deal about Obama's fundraising they have this come out.

GrantDawg 10-20-2008 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1866211)
I'm sure the email to the Russian embassy was a mistake, but it just symbolizes McCain's campaign that on the day they decide to make a big deal about Obama's fundraising they have this come out.


It's the liberal media's fault.

SirFozzie 10-20-2008 04:45 PM
Have you seen the latest shenanigans from the far-right Republican Blogosphere? They're trying to manufacture their own October Surprise, by bringing up Obama's "supplemental security provider", a long time family friend, and trying to codeword their way into insinuating that Obama is having a homosexual affair.

albionmoonlight 10-20-2008 04:50 PM
I really get the feeling that some of the Republicans in this thread could be running a better campaign than McCain is right now:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politica...f-message.html

I imagine that, whether he wins or loses, the behind the scenes books and articles about McCain's campaign will be interesting. Sort of like the Atlantic article discussing how Clinton's campaign was much more disorganized behind the scenes than anyone suspected during the primaries.

Which isn't, of course, to say that he will lose. Just that a thread on a football message board seems to have more message discipline than his campaign right now.

JonInMiddleGA 10-20-2008 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 1866250)
I really get the feeling that some of the Republicans in this thread could be running a better campaign than McCain is right now

Some? More like damned near any.

Quote:
I imagine that, whether he wins or loses, the behind the scenes books and articles about McCain's campaign will be interesting. Sort of like the Atlantic article discussing how Clinton's campaign was much more disorganized behind the scenes than anyone suspected during the primaries.

Sort of like the various texts on the demise of Titanic.

Big Fo 10-20-2008 05:02 PM
Big controversy with Obama out on the stump these last two weeks, is he rooting for the Rays or the Phillies in the World Series?

Quote:
Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

...

On Oct. 11, Obama told a crowd in the City of Brotherly Love — the biggest city on the key swing state of Pennsylvania: “My White Sox are gone, so I’ll go ahead and root for the Phillies now.”

Yet in Tampa on Monday afternoon, where he was introduced by Rays players Fernando Perez and David Price, Obama also seemed to express support for the Rays, telling the crowd that he had just met with several members of the team backstage.

"I have said from the beginning that I'm a unity candidate, bringing people together. So when you see a White Sox fan showing some love for the Rays and the Rays showing some love back, you know we're onto something here,” Obama said.

He added that he considered cutting his hair in a Mohawk to show solidarity with the team’s players, but “My political advisers said they weren't sure how that would play with swing voters.”

...

Obama spokesman Bill Burton stressed that his boss did not say he was rooting for the Rays.

“He said nice things about the members of the team who came to support him today, but that doesn’t change his feelings about the fact that they bounced his White Sox out of the playoffs,” Burton said, adding that Obama would root for the Phillies. “He’s a unity candidate and it is going to be a great series.”

politico.com

I don't give a damn about William Ayers but things like this make me wary. I'm glad they could get one of his spokesmen to clear things up.

Cringer 10-20-2008 05:06 PM
Seems like normal campaigning BS to me.

ISiddiqui 10-20-2008 05:24 PM
FLIP FLOPPER!!!

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat (Post 1864701)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
There was also a section of religious questions that included asking the religion of Obama that included Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.
They will never get accurate answers if three of the options mean the same thing.

Oh yes?

Tigercat 10-20-2008 05:34 PM
Heh, delayed reaction sarcasm fail? :p Just reacting to a society where that question is necessary at this point in a presidential campaign.

flere-imsaho 10-20-2008 05:38 PM
I'm sleep-deprived, give me a break. :p

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 06:37 PM
The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

This is a CNN report that McCain is giving up on Colorado. Ummmm, are they fucking insane? They have to win a Kerry state if they do that.

SirFozzie 10-20-2008 06:38 PM
The word from the Republicans is that Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico are now off the list of takeable states for McCain, and they're throwing all their hopes and dreams at Pennsylvania.

(that's not including their must wins in NC/VA/OH/FL)

edit corrected one state after watching the bit a 2nd time

Got beat to the link by 1 minute :)

larrymcg421 10-20-2008 07:22 PM
So it's basically a one state election for McCain. People said he needed to shrink the map, and he sure did.

M GO BLUE!!! 10-20-2008 08:50 PM
I'm laughing my head off at this...

PalinAsPresident.com

SirFozzie 10-20-2008 09:15 PM
Poll: Obama Gained During Debates, CBS News/N.Y. Times Follow-Up Survey Of Likely Voters Suggests Democrat's Advantage Grew - CBS News

In a poll taken just before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket held a five point edge, with 48 percent of likely voters backing the Democratic ticket and 43 percent supporting the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Those 476 likely voters were re-interviewed for the new poll, and their responses suggest that the Democratic ticket has made gains since the initial survey: The Obama-Biden ticket now holds a 13-point edge, 54 percent to 41 percent, among the group.

This doesn't mean much, it's the same voters, but it may be a sign of how much the third debate hurt McCain.

Maple Leafs 10-20-2008 09:22 PM
Nice to see...

Arles 10-20-2008 09:48 PM
Man, can the NY Times be anymore in the tank for Obama? This is terrible 15 days prior to the election:

Quote:
Mrs. McCain, 54, describes herself as her husband’s best friend, though for the last two decades they have mostly lived apart, she in Arizona, he in Washington. She initially seemed like an ideal political partner, giving Mr. McCain a home state, money and contacts that jump-started his career. But as the years passed, she also became a liability at times. She played a role in the Keating Five savings-and-loan scandal, and just as her husband was rehabilitating his reputation, she was caught stealing drugs from her nonprofit organization to feed her addiction to painkillers. She has a fortune that sets the McCains apart from most other Americans, a problem in a presidential race that hinges on economic anxieties. She can be imprecise: she has repeatedly called herself an only child, for instance, even though she has two half-siblings, and has provided varying details about a 1994 mercy mission to Rwanda.

But this was the best:

Quote:
When The New York Times reported last winter that Mr. McCain’s staffers had urged him to stay away from a female lobbyist during his first presidential run, Mrs. McCain stood by her husband at a news conference and defended his honor
This report was completely debunked and even the NY Times called it later an "utter fabrication". This is like saying "Cindy wasn't clear on when McCain stopped beating her". None of it is true, but it makes McCain look bad.


The Long Run - Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In - Series - NYTimes.com

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

IMO, the whole thing is terrible and the NY Times is losing what little shred of credibility it had left.

Maple Leafs 10-20-2008 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866470)
So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election?
Political leanings aside... this is the sort of "media criticism" that has me shaking my head. It's not the media's job to be "similarly critical" -- it's their job to present the facts. If Michelle Obama has been involved in a major political scandal, been addicted to drugs and lied about her family, then the media can be "similarly critical".

Flasch186 10-20-2008 10:00 PM
Im with Arles though in that rehashing a overly old story 15 days before an election could make a 'mainstream' rag become a partisan talking point sheet.

Tigercat 10-20-2008 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866470)
So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

If they found drug use by Michelle well into her adult life, especially if it involved other illegal activities, I am sure it will find its way in reports. This shouldn't be an issue in a presidential campaign, but as long as either side plays personal attack politics, the media will not shy away from negative stories that are out there about the candidates and their spouses.

Tigercat 10-20-2008 10:03 PM
Dola, and Obama's drug use is out in the open, you can read about it in his autobiography. It has already been referenced in plenty of stories about him.

Arles 10-20-2008 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple Leafs (Post 1866472)
Political leanings aside... this is the sort of "media criticism" that has me shaking my head. It's not the media's job to be "similarly critical" -- it's their job to present the facts. If Michelle Obama has been involved in a major political scandal, been addicted to drugs and lied about her family, then the media can be "similarly critical".
IMO, this stuff is a little off limits at this point. It's just a pure smear. But, if you would like to know possible stories about Michelle Obama, how about:

1.University of Chicago Medical Center (where Michelle is currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a VP) "steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities."

U. of C. shunning poor patients? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

2. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president."

3. Michelle Obama was on the corporate board (payed 50K + stock options) of TreeHouse Foods Inc. earlier this year. TreeHouse’s largest customer is retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and the company paid $26.2 million in total compensation in 2005 to then-CEO Sam K. Reed. This happened while Barrack Obama was criticizing Wal-Mart and corporate pay practices like above.

And that's not even getting personal. The point is you could write a "hit piece" on Barrack, Michelle, John or Cindy at this point if you look hard enough (and not have to go back 20+ years to get information). But, the question is why do that when the "hit piece" (esp in this case) has nothing to do with the election?

Arles 10-20-2008 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat (Post 1866490)
Dola, and Obama's drug use is out in the open, you can read about it in his autobiography. It has already been referenced in plenty of stories about him.
And no one has ever referenced Cindy McCain's drug use or "lie" about her family (which was a joke when it was reported in Arizona decades ago) back in 2000 and before? All this stuff is just as much rehashed as the Obama claim would be. Yet, for some reason, the NY Times decided to re-report all this information 2 weeks prior to the election.

In fact, there would be no difference in referencing Obama's drug use or his wife's questionable board roles. Both have been reported numerous times, but so was the Cindy McCain stuff.

Swaggs 10-20-2008 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866470)
Man, can the NY Times be anymore in the tank for Obama? This is terrible 15 days prior to the election:



But this was the best:


This report was completely debunked and even the NY Times called it later an "utter fabrication". This is like saying "Cindy wasn't clear on when McCain stopped beating her". None of it is true, but it makes McCain look bad.


The Long Run - Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In - Series - NYTimes.com

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

IMO, the whole thing is terrible and the NY Times is losing what little shred of credibility it had left.

Looks like a biographical piece on the potential first lady from a liberal leaning newspaper. No offense, but this barely registers on the list of outrageous articles that have been written during this election season.

Arles 10-20-2008 10:15 PM
Just for those who don't believe me on the McCain issue:

Feb 14, 2000: NY Times:
Quote:
McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet His Wife Got No Penalty
by Stanton Peele

Much has been made of allegations of possible youthful use of illegal drugs by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. Meanwhile, his chief GOP opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has admitted that his wife not only illegally used drugs but walked away from criminal charges. The McCains have worked to make Cindy McCain's addiction into a political asset--despite the fact that she stole the drugs from a charity she directed and used them while mothering four young children.
McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet His Wife Got No Penalty

This was also mentioned in the 2007 Bazaar magazine, 2007 NY Daily News, Arizona Republic, Washington Post and numerous other wire stories going back to the early 90s.

Maple Leafs 10-20-2008 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866496)
IMO, this stuff is a little off limits at this point. It's just a pure smear.
You know, having gone and read the actual article now (as opposed to just your post, which was what I was originally responding to), I'm inclined to agree. That's just a really strange article.

Tigercat 10-20-2008 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866500)
And no one has ever referenced Cindy McCain's drug use or "lie" about her family (which was a joke when it was reported in Arizona decades ago) back in 2000 and before? All this stuff is just as much rehashed as the Obama claim would be. Yet, for some reason, the NY Times decided to re-report all this information 2 weeks prior to the election.

In fact, there would be no difference in referencing Obama's drug use or his wife's questionable board roles. Both have been reported numerous times, but so was the Cindy McCain stuff.

Really I think you are taking the piece a little too personally. Maybe the story shouldn't be published today, and maybe it could have including different pieces of information, but I hardly think it was written for the purpose of just being a "hit" on Cindy McCain.

After reading the article it seems to be a response to the reality that Michelle Obama has been more visable in this election thus far. So part of the article is an answer to "why?" Part of the answer is: Cindy McCain's past and present image brings as many negatives to a presidential campaign as positives. It may not be fair that those past issues are seen as negatives towards her ability to represent America as first lady; but thats modern politics, where some will see her as a man stealing drug popper, and the Obamas as un-American.

If/when someone does an article about Michelle Obama in the next couple of weeks, you can be sure that someone from the left will be able to interpret the listed negatives her image brings to the campaign as part of a hit on her.

Arles 10-20-2008 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1866507)
Looks like a biographical piece on the potential first lady from a liberal leaning newspaper. No offense, but this barely registers on the list of outrageous articles that have been written during this election season.
So as long as it's not the worst article, it's OK?

For balance, here's the piece they ran on Michelle Obama on August 26:

Quote:
A relative newcomer to campaigning and the first black woman with a serious shot at first ladyhood, Mrs. Obama is a softer, smoother presence on the trail than she was at the start of the race.

Her basic message — the stirring life story, the full-throated advocacy for her husband, the maternal warmth — has remained constant. But instead of laying down challenges to her audiences, she solicits their concerns and showers them with empathy. She used to appear on news programs; now she gives interviews to “The View” and Ladies’ Home Journal. On Monday night she wore a designer dress, but lately she has more often sported a cheap-chic approach to fashion that might be called the economic crisis look: fewer designer pieces, more $79 Gap sundresses.
Michelle Obama, Reluctant No More - NYTimes.com

No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above. No mention of her being on a board for a company supporting WalMart while her husband was criticizing those exact actions? No mention of her controversial comments earlier.

Obviously, there's one standard for what's "appropriate" for Obama and one for McCain at the Times. I don't see how anyone can argue that at this point.

Arles 10-20-2008 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat (Post 1866526)
If/when someone does an article about Michelle Obama in the next couple of weeks, you can be sure that someone from the left will be able to interpret the listed negatives her image brings to the campaign as part of a hit on her.
The NY Times did one on Michelle in late August. You read how "hard-hitting" it was in the post above.

Tigercat 10-20-2008 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866528)
No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above. No mention of her being on a board for a company supporting WalMart while her husband was criticizing those exact actions? No mention of her controversial comments earlier.

Really, are any of those situations that controversial or interesting to any large groups of people? These are issues that hardly got the attention of the blogging community, and they get excited over the stupidest issues known to man.

Tigercat 10-20-2008 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866534)
The NY Times did one on Michelle in late August. You read how "hard-hitting" it was in the post above.

Dola, I dunno, again I just don't think your list of crappy character issues against Michelle Obama are even good crap character issues. The whole Un-American line is more successful crap than all of that.

lungs 10-20-2008 10:33 PM
Why do conservatives get their panties in a row every time the New York Times smears a Republican?

Swaggs 10-20-2008 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866528)
So as long as it's not the worst article, it's OK?

I don't really think of it as okay or not okay. To me, I take all news mediums with a grain of salt and try to piece together enough information to make my own opinions. I don't really think this article is particularly eye-opening or shocking and I certainly don't think it stands out compared to the types of things that are written during an election season.

If you are reading the New York Times and not expecting a liberal lean, I don't know what to tell you. You are acting as if you are shocked that a very liberal newspaper wrote a critical and unfavorable article about Cindy McCain. To me, that is just feeding red meat to the base.

Arles 10-20-2008 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1866573)
If you are reading the New York Times and not expecting a liberal lean, I don't know what to tell you. You are acting as if you are shocked that a very liberal newspaper wrote a critical and unfavorable article about Cindy McCain. To me, that is just feeding red meat to the base.
I agree to the most part here. It's just a shame that what used to be such a major national publication has gone such in the tank for one political candidate. At this point in time, the NY Times to the democratic party is no different than Pravda to mother Russia. It's a shame, but as you say, you have to expect it now.

Buccaneer 10-20-2008 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 1866561)
Why do liberals get their panties in a row every time the Limbaugh smears a Democrat?

Wouldn't that be the same thing?

To me, it's all a stupid game - the end justifies the means. No one is still reporting much on the inevitable expansion of federal government powers, expenditures and deficits.

Buccaneer 10-20-2008 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1866589)
I agree to the most part here. It's just a shame that what used to be such a major national publication has gone such in the tank for one political candidate. At this point in time, the NY Times to the democratic party is no different than Pravda to mother Russia. It's a shame, but as you say, you have to expect it now.

You wouldn't have liked living in the 19th century. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 AM.
Page 80 of 111 « First < 3070717273747576777879 80 81828384858687888990 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.