Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[larrymcg421]

I don't know. I'd say if the weights are all wrong, then certainly McCain's campaign would have better weights in their internals. I haven't heard any McCain staffers claim that the polls are off, and he's certainly running his campaign like he's losing.

[Daimyo]

538 has a post up now showing that the early vote results so far are hugely in Obama's favor. In 2000 and 2004 early vote was largely in Bush's favor and early voters tend to be older and male. They interpret this as evidence that the Democrats have a huge advantage in turnout and enthusiasm.

Maybe those pollsters knew what they were doing afterall with those high Dem turnout predictions...

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Obama Dominating Among Early Voters in Five Swing States

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. Did someone question whether that was a fact? Just because it's politics as usual doesn't change the discussion of those situations when they happen.

With that said, the Democrats could have helped themselves by distancing from ACORN. Many states are finding irregularities in the ACORN registrations, which is causing further investigations in key states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Missouri that likely wouldn't have occured to this degree otherwise. It's now to the point where all registrations are being checked rather than just the ACORN registrations, which likely will result in a net loss for Democrat voter numbers.

Can you tell me what percentage of ACORN registrations have been thrown out? Can you tell me how that compares to other groups or registrations in general?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know. I'd say if the weights are all wrong, then certainly McCain's campaign would have better weights in their internals. I haven't heard any McCain staffers claim that the polls are off, and he's certainly running his campaign like he's losing.

They have complained several times, but that's doesn't matter much. I prefaced my original comments by saying that I believe McCain to be behind. That had nothign to do with the point regarding polling weight. The result is immaterial.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Can you tell me what percentage of ACORN registrations have been thrown out? Can you tell me how that compares to other groups or registrations in general?

I can only provide the information I've already provided. ACORN voters lean between 2:1 and 3:1 in favor of Democrats depending on which instance you use regarding the investigation. They are by far the leading group responsible for registrations in the U.S., so they're a good example in this case.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So, let's take the Pennsylvania numbers, which have never had a Democratic turnout greater than 43% in the last 50 years. You don't find the weight of 52% Democrat in the latest poll to be borderline irresponsible. Perhaps you don't, but I thought I'd ask. IMO, a weight 9 points higher than any Democratic turnout in recent history is a majorly flawed poll.

Again, you don't address the other polls also taken in Pennsylvania that show Obama with a large lead. Surely, they are not all using a 52% weighting? Even if I agree that it is "borderline irresponsible", which I don't, then show me why ALL of the polls are wrong, not just one. Because they are all pretty similar at this point, especially in PA.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

538 has a post up now showing that the early vote results so far are hugely in Obama's favor. In 2000 and 2004 early vote was largely in Bush's favor and early voters tend to be older and male. They interpret this as evidence that the Democrats have a huge advantage in turnout and enthusiasm.

Maybe those pollsters knew what they were doing afterall with those high Dem turnout predictions...

Very doubtful. It's much more likely that this is an early partisan vote against everything Bush. If anything, that might show more excitement from the deeply partisan left, but they would have voted the same either way. In regard to the polling being discussed, these numbers have very little, if any relevance as they are not an accurate sampling of the electorate in any way.

[larrymcg421]

Once again, the only thing that's been reported against ACORN is that fraudulent registrations have been submitted. Of course they were. They're required by law to submit ALL registrations. So the question is whether or not these registrations are flagged.

Maybe they are (as ACORN claims) and maybe they aren't, but the media isn't even reporting on that distinction. All they do is talk about the OMG Mickey Mouse registered nonsense. And even the ones that aren't flagged, you've still got to prove that faulty registrations are endorsed by the ACORN leadership as opposed to the volunteers that are collecting registrations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Again, you don't address the other polls also taken in Pennsylvania that show Obama with a large lead. Surely, they are not all using a 52% weighting? Even if I agree that it is "borderline irresponsible", which I don't, then show me why ALL of the polls are wrong, not just one. Because they are all pretty similar at this point, especially in PA.

I included some of that weighting in previous posts (lord knows how many pages back that is now). The general weight from a national perspective has trended around 4-5 points above previous voter turnouts to the advantage of Democrats in most national polls.

[miked]

Maybe Pennsylvania is skewed because primary turnout for the democrats was 2x higher than republicans, so they are making some sort of adjustment. Most of these polls have very intricate stats and it would probably behoove that author to do more digging than just 1 agency and blaming blue-statedness.

[larrymcg421]

The last Strategic Vision poll of Pennsylvania showed Obama with a 14 pt lead, but I think Strategic Vision is definitely biased. In fact, they even admit their bias, since they are a Republican polling firm.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I included some of that weighting in previous posts (lord knows how many pages back that is now). The general weight from a national perspective has trended around 4-5 points above previous voter turnouts to the advantage of Democrats in most national polls.

Well polls like this one are showing that there are roughly 4-5% more democrats above previous voter turnout.

Like I said, give us your prediction and we'll see who's right in a few weeks.

[SirFozzie]

I really think that MBBF is grasping at straws here to try to pretend like this is currently a closer election than it is... after all, what is he (or many others) going to do if the numbers are actually TRUE? If the numbers ARE accurate, then its pretty much game over McCain/Republicans, right? So, they only way to remain interested in this whole thing (well, besides checking the news every so often to see of Obama has been caught in the proverbial "dead girl or live boy" situation.

At least he's more honest then the people at Free Republic, who started trying to explain a week or so ago how McCain was actually leading nationally because "everyone expects" a 10-11 point Bradley Effect to happen. (the running joke was that the Free Republic folks would estimate the Bradley Effect to be what ever Obama's gain would be +3%).

Now, for the debate tonight, I fully expect it to be a yawner, as Obama doesn't have to win big to keep the momentum up, so McCain will have to push hard, and the more you push, the more desperate you seem and the more likely it is you make a gaffe.

[Flasch186]

as an aside, if Palin will use this argument:

Originally Posted by Palin

“To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

and then she doesnt say anything at rallies when people are yelling violent things about Obama, I guess she is condoning that too....which is fine in the World According to JonIMGA book I bought. At least McCain corrected his audience members when given the chance.

[albionmoonlight]

Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

Waterboard Obama.

Not said by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore or dailykos. Not said by some random protester or nutjob on the street. Put up on an official GOP website by the GOP county party chairman in Sacramento. Who then noted that some people might find it offensive and some might not.

A two party system is easy when one of the parties goes out of its way to make sure that I know never to vote for anyone who would debase himself enough to become a member.

Our system is currently very easy.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

At least McCain corrected his audience members when given the chance.

I am a huge fan of this move by McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Maybe Pennsylvania is skewed because primary turnout for the democrats was 2x higher than republicans, so they are making some sort of adjustment.

Another situation of note that relates to your point. There were a lot of Republicans that switched registration to vote for Clinton in the primaries. I'm sure that the numbers are pushed up at some level. However, if that were the case, that would seem to favor McCain, which doesn't appear to be the situation. So I doubt that is a major factor in the end, but it's another tangent to consider.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know. I'd say if the weights are all wrong, then certainly McCain's campaign would have better weights in their internals. I haven't heard any McCain staffers claim that the polls are off, and he's certainly running his campaign like he's losing.

As a jobber, McCain isn't even making the match entertaining to watch.

[larrymcg421]

I still don't see why the OMG black helicopter liberal media isn't mentioning McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy.

Liddy advised his listeners to shoot people in the head, admitted to plotting the murders of Howard Hunt, Daniel Ellsberg, and Jack Anderson. Admitted to plotting the kidnapping of protesters at the 72 convention. Said that he wanted to drown half of Vietnam and starve the other half.

And this is what McCain says about this guy:

"It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

I'd say it's hard to objectively say this guy isn't as bad as Bill Ayers. And even if some disagree, don't you think it's at least close enough that McCain should have to answer questions regarding this association just like Obama has?

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I find this a shame because I think that conservatisim has a lot to add to the current conversation when it comes to health care and national defense and abortion (just to name a few). And it will be hard to get me to listen. At this point, I am about 75/25 emotion over reason. And I think that I am a pretty reasonable guy. If they managed to get me to tune out, then we are all worse off for it.

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

Waterboard Obama.

Not said by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore or dailykos. Not said by some random protester or nutjob on the street. Put up on an official GOP website by the GOP county party chairman in Sacramento. Who then noted that some people might find it offensive and some might not.

A two party system is easy when one of the parties goes out of its way to make sure that I know never to vote for anyone who would debase himself enough to become a member.

Our system is currently very easy.

Nice comment by the guy:

But he defended his Web site. "I'm aware of the content," he said. "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."

So it's not his fault if people interpret it wrong? How else are you supposed to interpret it?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But I did not say that there was bias in the weighting, so you're incorrect that I even made a mistake. My only statement was that the weighting of the polls is very likely to be way off from what will happen on election day. DJ Drummond was the one that brought up bias. I agree with your point, especially regarding voting info. Many of these polling groups base a lot of their weights on groups like ACORN in regards to possible increases in voting numbers on either side. Those groups have said that registration favors the Democrats on a 3:1 ratio. However, as we know from reports regarding state registrations, a large number of these registrations are being rejected while it's becoming more apparant that many of the newly registered voters will not show up for Election Day. So you're definitely correct that it isn't necessarily based in bias, but that doesn't change the fact that this election is likely much closer than what these polls are currently showing.

So why did you post the argument that the polling issues are due to bias? You seem to think that you can post whatever you want and then take no responsibility for posting it. The act of copying/pasting and saying "this has merit" makes you somewhat responsible for the argument being made.

What you're trying is a variant of the, "Some people say..." defense.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

Nice comment by the guy:



So it's not his fault if people interpret it wrong? How else are you supposed to interpret it?

He's a postmodern performance artist. He probably got an NEA grant for this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So why did you post the argument that the polling issues are due to bias? You seem to think that you can post whatever you want and then take no responsibility for posting it. The act of copying/pasting and saying "this has merit" makes you somewhat responsible for the argument being made.

What you're trying is a variant of the, "Some people say..." defense.

It's the Palin camp of condonement

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Very doubtful. It's much more likely that this is an early partisan vote against everything Bush. If anything, that might show more excitement from the deeply partisan left, but they would have voted the same either way. In regard to the polling being discussed, these numbers have very little, if any relevance as they are not an accurate sampling of the electorate in any way.

Pollsters predict general electoral will skew toward having more democratic support this year than 2004.
Early voting shows early voters skew toward having more democratic support this year than 2004.

If anything, that might show more excitement from the deeply partisan left

There are significantly more registered democrats in this country than there are republicans. Its not about the "deeply partisan left"... its about democrats in general. They are more excited this year, pollsters are predicting they are more likely to vote this year than in past years, and early voting is indicating this is true as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So why did you post the argument that the polling issues are due to bias? You seem to think that you can post whatever you want and then take no responsibility for posting it. The act of copying/pasting and saying "this has merit" makes you somewhat responsible for the argument being made.

What you're trying is a variant of the, "Some people say..." defense.

Feel free to spin it how you like. The fact is that the polling leaves a lot to be desired to the point of irresponsible suspension of the truth. The bias was in the article, not in my argument. I didn't insinuate any bias, only reasons for why the incorrect weights may have occurred.

If you're going to use this argument, I assume that you find the assertions that somehow Democrats will magically appear in record percentages without any proof of why to be equally appalling, right?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Feel free to spin it how you like. The fact is that the polling leaves a lot to be desired to the point of irresponsible suspension of the truth. The bias was in the article, not in my argument. I didn't insinuate any bias, only reasons for why the incorrect weights may have occurred.

If you're going to use this argument, I assume that you find the assertions that somehow Democrats will magically appear in record percentages without any proof of why to be equally appalling, right?

Do you think the Strategic Vision poll that shows Obama with a +14 lead in PA is wrong?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you're going to use this argument, I assume that you find the assertions that somehow Democrats will magically appear in record percentages without any proof of why to be equally appalling, right?

So you don't think there are more Democrats relative to Republicans than there were in 2004?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Pollsters predict general electoral will skew toward having more democratic support this year than 2004.
Early voting shows early voters skew toward having more democratic support this year than 2004.


There are significantly more registered democrats in this country than there are republicans. Its not about the "deeply partisan left"... its about democrats in general. They are more excited this year, pollsters are predicting they are more likely to vote this year than in past years, and early voting is indicating this is true as well.

Yes, well early voting aside, we heard this in 2004 as well. There would be massive numbers turning out for the Democrats. As the election day came closer, those predictions disappeared, much like Kerry's support.

I will grant you that the trends for voting this election will likely differ from past elections simply due to the fact that a minority is running for president. An early turnout for him isn't necessarily indicative of an overall flood of Democrats on election day. As I stated before, it could just as easily be the core voters couldn't wait to express their support for him any longer. They knew who they were voting for. Only time will tell as the writer mentioned on 538.com, but I think this is a blip more than a trend.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

So you don't think there are more Democrats relative to Republicans than there were in 2004?

Absolutely not. The only indications we have that there is a major registration influx on the Democratic side is from ACORN and the registration offices. I can tell you with great certainty that a large majority of those registrations have not been reviewed yet in most states. In the end, it's more of a PR move than any great influx of Democrat voters. They want to portray the nation as moving left. Anyone who holds out hope for that influx will be greatly disappointed.

[SirFozzie]

Ok... I had been assuming good faith with Mizzou B-Ball Fan up to this point at least politics wise, but apparently he's added the Republican Party to his already existing Sony astroturf (you know, fake grassroots?) duties.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I assume that you find the assertions that somehow Democrats will magically appear in record percentages

My guess is that the basis for the weights are not only democratic voters appearing, but republican voters disappearing.

I have not seen the demographic weights being used. But, one would presume that the pollsters are probably also factoring the lukewarm support McCain has among the Republican base. So, it seems that the weights are a combination of the expectation that democrats will turn out in support of Obama at higher than historical turnout levels, coupled with an expectation that base republican turnout will be somewhat depressed due to the theory that core voters are less than enamored with McCain as the republican party nominee.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

My guess is that the basis for the weights are not only democratic voters appearing, but republican voters disappearing.

I have not seen the demographic weights being used. But, one would presume that the pollsters are probably also factoring the lukewarm support McCain has among the Republican base. So, it seems that the weights are a combination of the expectation that democrats will turn out in support of Obama at higher than historical turnout levels, coupled with an expectation that base republican turnout will be somewhat depressed due to the theory that core voters are less than enamored with McCain as the republican party nominee.

Now that's a much better assertion of why that could occur. I could buy into that big of a swing if Republicans stay away in big numbers in combination with better Dem turnout. Finally a point with some solid basis rather than pie-in-the-sky expectations. I'm still not totally sold that the Republican base will stay away due to a lack of enthusiasm for McCain as Conservatives tend to vote from a fear of what could happen if the other guy wins. Sad, but true.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you think the Strategic Vision poll that shows Obama with a +14 lead in PA is wrong?

They are not a trustworthy poll. They offer no internal figures as to what the breakdown was on their polling figures. You're no better than DJ Drummond if you pigeonhole a poll due to perceived bias. The only way to understand the polling figures is to dig into the internal data. Since Strategic Vision does not offer that data, it's impossible to understand why they are/are not correct in their polling.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Feel free to spin it how you like. The fact is that the polling leaves a lot to be desired to the point of irresponsible suspension of the truth. The bias was in the article, not in my argument. I didn't insinuate any bias, only reasons for why the incorrect weights may have occurred.

If you're going to use this argument, I assume that you find the assertions that somehow Democrats will magically appear in record percentages without any proof of why to be equally appalling, right?

It is amazing how you can read something and completely not get what the person was saying. And when I say that, I assume you actually completely get what they're saying. This reads like the debates -- you just go off on a tangent that you discussed earlier but is in no way relevant to the post you are replying to.

The second piece hits a little closer, but then throws in a diversionary tactic of trying to assign an opinion to someone that they have not stated nor linked to. You quoted an entire article that mentioned the weighting of political parties. You did not pull a short quote from a longer article, you posted the entire thing which is equally about a "blue state" bias as it is about the weights. You are accountable for that opinion because you felt the need to make it part of your post.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Absolutely not. The only indications we have that there is a major registration influx on the Democratic side is from ACORN and the registration offices. I can tell you with great certainty that a large majority of those registrations have not been reviewed yet in most states. In the end, it's more of a PR move than any great influx of Democrat voters. They want to portray the nation as moving left. Anyone who holds out hope for that influx will be greatly disappointed.

Again with the ACORN crap. You are taking small numbers and facts and attempting to turn them into something larger. You state:

1. ACORN submits a large number of registrations
2. A Large Majority of those registrations have not been reviewed

You then imply the fact that:

1. A number of ACORN registrations are invalid (which, in reality, is a very small percentage of the submitted registrations)
2. The majority of those rejected are Democrat registrations

What you are then hoping we will draw from this is that ACORN is corrupt and that there are still a large number of "rejected" registrations to follow. The reality is that something in the range of 1% of ACORN registrations are found to be invalid. I think we can all agree that is an insignificant number when we are talking about tens of thousands of registrations. Of those registrations, a majority of them are Democrat, both those that are accepted and those that are rejected.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They are not a trustworthy poll. They offer no internal figures as to what the breakdown was on their polling figures. You're no better than DJ Drummond if you pigeonhole a poll due to perceived bias. The only way to understand the polling figures is to dig into the internal data. Since Strategic Vision does not offer that data, it's impossible to understand why they are/are not correct in their polling.

The difference is that DJ Drummond is accusing non-partisan polls of partisan bias. Strategic Vision is a partisan poll. The GOP is their client. I'm just saying, if these weights are so irresponsible, then I don't know why Strategic Vision would be going along with it as well. Maybe the GOP should ask for their money back.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again with the ACORN crap. You are taking small numbers and facts and attempting to turn them into something larger. You state:

1. ACORN submits a large number of registrations
2. A Large Majority of those registrations have not been reviewed

You then imply the fact that:

1. A number of ACORN registrations are invalid (which, in reality, is a very small percentage of the submitted registrations)
2. The majority of those rejected are Democrat registrations

What you are then hoping we will draw from this is that ACORN is corrupt and that there are still a large number of "rejected" registrations to follow. The reality is that something in the range of 1% of ACORN registrations are found to be invalid. I think we can all agree that is an insignificant number when we are talking about tens of thousands of registrations. Of those registrations, a majority of them are Democrat, both those that are accepted and those that are rejected.

I have first hand experience with two heads of local counties that are currently dealing with the ACORN fraud investigation due to personal relationships. In Jackson County, MO (which includes KC), they tossed out roughly 10,000 ACORN applications. That's not anywhere close to 1% of the total number submitted.

In Clay County, MO (northern subarbs of KC), they threw out 50 ACORN applications this morning alone. All 50 were convicted felons who had been submitted. I submit that is not even close to 1% of the registrations reviewed.

I'll agree with you that all places may not be like this. The urban areas of battleground states may see a much larger frequency than other places. But the numbers in KC and STL aren't close to 1%.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The difference is that DJ Drummond is accusing non-partisan polls of partisan bias. Strategic Vision is a partisan poll. The GOP is their client. I'm just saying, if these weights are so irresponsible, then I don't know why Strategic Vision would be going along with it as well. Maybe the GOP should ask for their money back.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The difference is that DJ Drummond is accusing non-partisan polls of partisan bias. Strategic Vision is a partisan poll. The GOP is their client. I'm just saying, if these weights are so irresponsible, then I don't know why Strategic Vision would be going along with it as well. Maybe the GOP should ask for their money back.

And I agree. Once again, as I stated in the post, I don't agree with the partisan comments. I only pointed to the numbers as having relevance to my point. But I had to post the entire thing or I KNOW I would have been accused of not presenting the whole picture or ignoring the inherent bias.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have first hand experience with two heads of local counties that are currently dealing with the ACORN fraud investigation due to personal relationships. In Jackson County, MO (which includes KC), they tossed out roughly 10,000 ACORN applications. That's not anywhere close to 1% of the total number submitted.

In Clay County, MO (northern subarbs of KC), they threw out 50 ACORN applications this morning alone. All 50 were convicted felons who had been submitted. I submit that is not even close to 1% of the registrations reviewed.

I'll agree with you that all places may not be like this. The urban areas of battleground states may see a much larger frequency than other places. But the numbers in KC and STL aren't close to 1%.

that's a massively small sample size to be drawing such national conclusions from (as you seem to admit yourself in the last paragraph).

[SirFozzie]

You know, I was reading the last line from MBBF and I first read it as a "point with some bias.... and I was thinking at least he's being more honest (at least to himself by trying to swing it as "The only reason why we didn't win is because Republicans stayed away!".

MBBF: How do you explain the vast gulf in fundraising between the two parties.. there was a recent report that the Republican National Committee was looking to take out a loan of $5 million just to fund some of their battleground senate campaigns, because they had used all the money they had raised (a record amount, too, $66 million in September), to try to keep the presidential race in sight because of the gulf between McCain and Obama? Lets not forget that McCain has the leash of accepting public funding (something that Obama does not have), and thus, Obama has a MASSIVE financial advantage. He raised about $70 million in August (a record), and strategists from BOTH campaigns are talking that his September Fundraising could be $100 million! That's more in one month than McCain got for the whole campaign ($84 million in public funds)

This has allowed him a MUCH better ground game and blanket any close race with ads and GOTV efforts.

For example, Virginia, which is one of the states that Obama looks llike he could take that Bush had won in 00/04.. Obama has 51 Field Offices. McCain has 19. Obama has booked over $4 million in ads in virgina. McCain? Less then $490,000.

I'm sure this will lead to charges that the Democratic Party is "buying" the 2008 election. Joe Scarborough apparently made that charge today on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. I disagree. Again, it somewhat comes back to your thoughts, but I think its bigger then that. The Democrats are energized by their candidate. The Republicans were still "fat, dumb and happy" over being in power for 28 of the last 40 years (remember the Rovian talk of the "Permanent Majority" that permeated the last few years?) They thought all they had to do was "show up" and things would automatically fall their way

They pissed off the base with a moderate to start. They then pissed off the moderates by playing to the base with their VP selection (complete with a hard-right turn by their candidate.

The campaign of Obama has out-hustled, out-thought, out-spent, outwitted the McCain campaign at nearly every turn.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Anyone else get the impression that Daddy Torgo is the official laugh track/Ed McMahon of this thread? Every response consists of 'YEAH!' or 'Right on!' or 'LOL!'. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ed McMahon made a fine living for himself, until that whole foreclosure thing.

[SirFozzie]

No, MBBF.. he's articulating a large percentage of the posters on this thread.. We're laughing AT you, not with you.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anyone else get the impression that Daddy Torgo is the official laugh track/Ed McMahon of this thread? Every response consists of 'YEAH!' or 'Right on!' or 'LOL!'. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ed McMahon made a fine living for himself, until that whole foreclosure thing.

eh, i think you're selling me short. i have commentary that consists of more than that at times - typically those times are not when i'm at work though.

most of my brief commentary tends to be because someone else has already said what i would have said by the time i get around to thinking about saying it, or having the time to say it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

You know, I was reading the last line from MBBF and I first read it as a "point with some bias.... and I was thinking at least he's being more honest (at elast to himself by trying to swing it as "The only reason why we didn't win is because Republicans stayed away!".

MBBF: How do you explain the vast gulf in fundraising between the two parties.. there was a recent report that the Republican National Committee was looking to take out a loan of $5 million just to fund some of their battleground senate campaigns, because they had used all the money they had raised (a record amount, too, $66 million in September), to try to keep the presidential race in sight because of the gulf between McCain and Obama?

The campaign of Obama has out-hustled, out-thought, out-spent, outwitted the McCain campaign at nearly every turn.

I don't agree that Obama has done all of that. What I will say is that McCain has missed a ton of opportunities. As a candidate, he has not reacted nearly as well in the debates to the ebb and flow of the points. He's been very mechanical.

Obama has been mostly defensive in his attacks, and it's worked because McCain hasn't done a good job of following up on the attacks. It's not good enough to create attack ads. It takes a savvy politician to make those attacks stick and I'm not sure that McCain is the guy to do that well. He's quickly becoming Bob Dole. Nice guy, but a lousy campaigner who doesn't adjust well on the fly.

Edit: As far as financial, the Dems have done a good job. Many on both sides will likely reassess their approach to fundraising after this election.

[albionmoonlight]

Isn't throwing out bad applications how the system is supposed to work? People collect applications. They submit all of them to the relevant officials. The relevant officials verify the applications and throw out the bad ones.

That's like saying that a company is doing something wrong because people are applying to work there who are not qualified. As long as they have procedures in place to weed out the people who don't belong, you can't blame them for what comes in the door.

[larrymcg421]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Palin unaware of Russian energy meeting in Alaska « - Blogs from CNN.com

The campaign of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the Alaska governor was unaware of a visit by Russian energy officials to Anchorage on Monday.

Eight high-level officials from Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, traveled to Anchorage earlier this week to meet with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the chief executive of ConocoPhillips to discuss energy projects and the possibility of expanding into new markets.

The meeting on Alaskan soil comes at a time of chilly relations between Russia and the United States following Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August. Both Palin and John McCain have been critical of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the campaign trail, and Palin raised eyebrows last month in an interview by saying that Putin “rears his head” by dispatching Russian jets into Alaska’s airspace.

Palin has argued that her state’s proximity to Russia, as well as trade missions between Alaska and Russia, have helped give her the foreign policy experience necessary to be Vice President. But the campaign said the governor did not know that the Gazprom delegation was meeting with the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, who is a Palin appointee.

Asked if Palin supports Gazprom doing business in Alaska, an aide to the governor said that “Alaska state officials routinely meet with government representatives from energy companies around the world.”

“Alaska has been, and will remain, very selective about companies with whom they do business,” said Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt.
[/quote]

[SirFozzie]

Again, MBBF, it's intellectually dishonest to look at this and say that the only reason why the other side is winning is because your side screwed up constantly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

No, MBBF.. he's articulating a large percentage of the posters on this thread.. We're laughing AT you, not with you.

Any conservative who posts in this thread not knowing they're highly outnumbered is a fool. I'm OK with that. Laughing is good for your health. Just remember me when you live to a ripe, old age.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Isn't throwing out bad applications how the system is supposed to work? People collect applications. They submit all of them to the relevant officials. The relevant officials verify the applications and throw out the bad ones.

That's like saying that a company is doing something wrong because people are applying to work there who are not qualified. As long as they have procedures in place to weed out the people who don't belong, you can't blame them for what comes in the door.

Yeah, MBBF seems to be conveniently forgetting that by LAW, that ACORN is REQUIRED to submit all voter registration forms. All they legally CAN do is flag possible fraudulent registrations for quick review