Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.

It is how McCain is saying it as well:

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early | ajc.com

Biden: Obama, if elected, will be tested early

Associated Press
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
PHILADELPHIA — John McCain’s criticism that Barack Obama isn’t experienced enough to be president got a boost when the Democrat’s own running mate, Joe Biden, told donors that he expected his boss to be tested, if elected, by a “generated crisis” shortly after taking office.
“We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain, a 72-year-old Vietnam War veteran, told a crowd Monday in Belton, Mo.
“What is more troubling is that Sen. Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them, because it wouldn’t be apparent Sen. Obama would have the right response,” added the Republican nominee, who was spending Tuesday in Pennsylvania, another battleground. “Forget apparent. Sen. Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign.”
At weekend fundraisers, Biden said of Obama, “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
McCain went on the criticize Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as well as his rival’s more restrained response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia this summer.
Obama gained a rebuttal to those concerns over the weekend, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed Obama and attested to his readiness to be president.
Powell also criticized McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, saying she failed to meet the primary qualification for a vice president: the ability to assume the presidency at any time.
The attacks on Obama are one element in a sharpened stump speech in which McCain also accused his rival of having socialistic tax policies.
It was unclear whether McCain might step back from his attacks after Obama’s campaign announced that he will suspend campaigning for two days later this week to visit his gravely ill, 85-year-old grandmother in Hawaii.
McCain aides scheduled a daylong tour across Pennsylvania on Tuesday with rallies in Bensalem, near Philadelphia; Harrisburg; and Moon Township, outside Pittsburgh.

[cartman]

Triple T weighs in with his election message:

[Big Fo]

Pretty good, but the one where he tackles Palin is better.

[SirFozzie]

Which one? He seems to not like Mrs Palin.

[SirFozzie]

Hell, I would've loved to have one of Terry Tate at the Presidential Debate. Take down both Obama and McCain.

"If in your answer you equivocate,. riding the pain train's your fate" Whooooooooo!

[Flasch186]

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

One of the divisions in my current contracting company does the testing of the touch screen voting for 80% of all the states. They're stressing out right about now. There's bound to be something that goes wrong somewhere and our execs will likely be on numerous news shows in the days following the election. I'm glad I'm not in that group.

[NoMyths]

McCain: Western Pennsylvania "the most patriotic part of America". Before that, though, comes a large misstatement.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

HBO had the documentary 4 years ago on this. I find it amazing that with their reputation built on ATMs, that they haven't done all they could to make these things as bulletproof as possible.

[Flasch186]

in the video above, Im sure in McCain's head he was like, "Shit, that isnt the way that was supposed to come out." And Cindy was like, "What the fuck."

[Fidatelo]

I think I would always feel more comfortable having paper ballots where you mark an 'X', regardless of the potential for saving time and money with electronic voting.

[JPhillips]

Optical Scan FTW

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Well of course. It's likely the people who became President would be completely different without term limits. Eisenhower was still popular at the end of his second term (he was the first to be forced out) and probably would have won a 3rd term if he ran. If that happened, who knows what would have happened and who would have become President after that.

If we play that game, Ike may have went for another term, resulting in JFK/Nixon facing off in '64. We wouldn't have been in the early stages on 'Nam yet. If elected, JFK may have stayed in office 20 years before Bobby was elected in '84...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

Yeah, but the ones who already were/are going to rig the election already knew this. I mean, really, if CNN can get the info, it's readily available. There needs to be more attention brought to how awful this system really is, not less.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Charlie Cook more-or-less calls it for Obama:

The metrics of this election argue strongly that this campaign is over, it's only the memory of many an election that seemed over but wasn't that is keeping us from closing the book mentally on this one. First, no candidate behind this far in the national polls, this late in the campaign has come back to win. Sure, we have seen come-from-behind victories, but they didn't come back this far this late.

Second, early voting has made comebacks harder and would tend to diminish the impact of the kind of late-breaking development that might save McCain's candidacy. With as many as one-third of voters likely to cast their ballot before Election Day, every day more are cast and the campaign is effectively over for them. The longer Obama has this kind of lead and the more votes are cast early, the more voters are out of the pool for McCain.

Third, considering that 89 percent of all voters who identified themselves as Democrats voted for John Kerry four years ago and 93 percent of Republicans cast their ballots for George W. Bush, the switch from parity between the parties to a 10-point Democratic advantage would seem to almost seal this outcome irrespective of the candidates fielded on each side. The unprecedented surges seen in Democratic party registrations in those states that require party affiliations confirm that.

Fourth, just look at the money and spending. With Obama now outspending McCain routinely by margins of 3- and 4-to-1 in advertising in so many states, it's hard to see how the Arizonan's campaign can drive a message. For a time, Obama was matching McCain one for one in negative advertising, then spending double or triple on top of that in positive advertising. Now Obama seems primarily doing positive ads, probably the right move given his lead going into this final stretch. Organizationally, it's hard to find any state where McCain is organized as well as President Bush was four years ago or Obama is today, a product of both money and enthusiasm.

Fifth, while many are talking about the so-called "Bradley effect," voters telling pollsters that they will vote for an African-American candidate when they won't, putting aside the question of whether it ever existed, it hasn't been seen in at least 15 years and the likely surge in turnout among African-American and young people seems sufficient to offset it anyway.

Finally there are the states. Obama is now leading in every state that Al Gore and John Kerry both won, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and he is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico, the three states that went once but not twice for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He is also ahead in Florida, Colorado and Virginia. If that weren't enough (and it is), he's running basically even in Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio, and even threatening in Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

That's great, but why do I still feel nervous?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

in an interview on CNN Palin just lied flat out: quoting Biden as saying 'if Obama is elected he'll be challenged by an [economic], uh, uh, International Crisis if you elect obama.

that is NOt what biden said. He did not say electing Obama would bring on a crisis as a causal effect. He said [whomever] is the next President they'll likely be tested [very early] by an international crisis.

You're a liar. This is the quote:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

He's clearly talking about Obama, not "whomever" is president (unless Biden is mistaken and thinks McCain is a 47-year old senator - but being mistaken would still fall under this thread's definition of "lie").

[M GO BLUE!!!]

We are likely to have an international crisis whether Obama, McCain or Gumby takes office in January. That's just the way it is... too bad things can't stay nice and peaceful, with no threat of anything at all happening, like it is today.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

You're a liar. This is the quote:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

He's clearly talking about Obama, not "whomever" is president (unless Biden is mistaken and thinks McCain is a 47-year old senator - but being mistaken would still fall under this thread's definition of "lie").

BS, and What Palin said was that "IF we elect Obama he'll face an economic, er, er, International Crisis." Biden did not say Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge. Palin and you are wrong in attempting to say that Biden said "IF" he is it will happen because what Biden meant, clearly in his quote is that no matter who is the next President, and he believes it will be the 47 year old you mention, he will be challenged in their first 6 months and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement and sentiment and Palin's addition of the word "If" changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

He did say that Obama will be elected the next President and he will be challenged. He did not say that if we elect Obama that will invite an international crisis. Like others have said, no matter who is elected next, they will be challenged.

Harkens back to the last election where the GOP stated that a vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

BS, and What Palin said was that "IF we elect Obama he'll face an economic, er, er, International Crisis." Biden did not say Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge. Palin and you are wrong in attempting to say that Biden said "IF" he is it will happen because what Biden meant, clearly in his quote is that no matter who is the next President they will be challenged in their first 6 months and I agree wholeheartedly with his statement and sentiment and Palin's addition of the word "If" changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

The only difference is that Biden said "we're about to elect" and Palin said "if we elect". It would be kind of silly if Palin said the former.

You have to be kidding (or just unable to admit that you're wrong) if you think that quote "clearly" refers to "whomever" is president - he specifically compares Obama to Kennedy, cites his youth, and says that the world will want to test the mettle of "this guy".

I think what Biden meant was that Obama is well aware that he'll be challenged by others because of his inexperience and perceived relative passiveness in foreign affairs, and that he's up to the challenge.

It's just a quote, it's happens to be one of the fears I have about Obama (I mentioned early how I believed Putin, for example, was rooting for an Obama win). I'm sure Biden would take it back if he could - but my only real argument here was your use of the word "liar".

[Flasch186]

I was just about to say the same thing to you:

you honestly agree with Palin that she and Biden meant that "IF" you elect Obama [it will bring about] an International challenge, to test him?

If you do than we might as well stop debating the statement because we'll never get our interpretations to mesh or change eachother's mind (or the other's who agree with either me or you on this particular topic).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I was just about to say the same thing to you:

you honestly agree with Palin that she and Biden meant that "IF" you elect Obama [it will bring about] an International challenge, to test him?

If you do than we might as well stop debating the statement because we'll never get our interpretations to mesh or change eachother's mind (or the other's who agree with either me or you on this particular topic).

I edited my post a few seconds after you posted this, but ya, I think Biden's saying, "we know what we're up against, we know we'll be challenged because of Obama's inexperience (citing his age and comparing him to Kennedy - who stood up to international challenges), and that we're ready for that challenge".

There's nothing remotely about McCain in what Biden said, at all. Calling Palin a liar was off-base (as is 95% of the time that word is thrown around here).

I don't have a problem with what Biden said. It was good to hear somebody from the (or any) ticket admit one particular challenge they might face. I think he was actually trying to soothe fears.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This kind of stuff drives me nuts. We don't need more loopholes and credits in the tax code. Just raise the rate or lower the rate and get on with it.

Political Radar: Obama Tweaks Tax Plan to Rebut McCain

The first presidential candidate who offers to simplify the tax code will have my vote until I can't vote for that person anymore.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fucking idiotic CNN this mornnig basically did a class on how to rig the DIEBOLD(SP?) machines, with pictures, descriptions, directions, etc.

Fucking retards.

I would argue that exposure like this is what spurs innovation and improvement. Sweeping issues under the rug never ends well.

[Flasch186]

id like to see it 2 weeks after the election and not two weeks before hand when there is literally nothing that can be done to 'fix' anything before Nov. 4

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Joe Biden

The whole world is waiting, folks. The whole world is waiting. I know almost every one of those major leaders by their first name, not because I'm important, because they were young parliamentarians when I was coming up and we've been hanging around a long time. I'll tell you what, mark my words, within the next, first six months of this administration if we win, you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him, and they are going to find out this guy has got steel in his spine.

This really does sound like he is predicting the test of Obama specifically. "Within six months of this administration" could be taken to mean the next administration - whoever it is. "...because they are going to want to test him just like they did young John Kennedy" seems pretty specific to Obama. I would agree that any new president will face tests (as the spin goes now), but Biden seems to be making the point that Obama specifically will be tested due to his age.

I also like the Dan Rather quote saying that this story would be above the fold of most newspapers if Palin had said it.

[Flasch186]

1. I can see how those that want to interpret it as Molson did would think that they are right.

2. I also do not see Biden stating that Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge and do not think Im wrong.

Therefore perhaps this is one of those things that can be interpreted both ways. I do however think it was wrong to add an 'if' to the quote when Palin cited it.

3. I agree with you and Rather that if Palin had said it she wouldve been scrutinized more harshly but only because she is the competition and not because she's Palin.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1. I can see how those that want to interpret it as Molson did would think that they are right.

2. I also do not see Biden stating that Obama would be the causal effect of such challenge and do not think Im wrong.

"...you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him..." I'll let it go after this, but the causal effect seems pretty clear. I won't disagree that McCain would also be challenged, but that wasn't stated explicitly.

3. I agree with you and Rather that if Palin had said it she wouldve been scrutinized more harshly but only because she is the competition and not because she's Palin.

Because she is the competition to whom? The newspapers? I would hope that the newspapers themselves don't have a position where either candidate would be viewed as competition.

[Flasch186]

Ive been swayed, Ronnie Dobbs said it succinctly. I agree with Molson that he was talking about Obama specifically. I also think that Palin added an 'if' there that changes the meaning in my view of the quote to have a causal relationship. Im fine with that and admit Im wrong.

Brian I dont think he means, test Obama because of his age i think he means the 'him' to be President but I also get it that we're never going to know specifically because it isnt specific enough.


The competition to Obama therefore the statement would clearly indicate the causal relationship to the quote that I do not believe existed in Biden's original quote, and still dont, but would make for better ratings fodder: "GOP says 'if' you vote for Obama he'll be challenged by an International Crisis!" <----better ratings than what I think Biden said sans the 'if'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Are we seriously having this prolonged discussion merely because Flasch feels the need to spin today. We're all perfectly aware that he was referring solely to Obama. There's honestly nothing to debate. It should come as a shock to no one that Obama will be tested by world leaders early on if he's elected.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Are we seriously having this prolonged discussion merely because Flasch feels the need to spin today. We're all perfectly aware that he was referring solely to Obama. There's honestly nothing to debate. It should come as a shock to no one that Obama will be tested by world leaders early on if he's elected.

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

Do you believe Biden meant a vote for Obama would have a causal effect?

If not, do you believe that Palin added the 'if' to insinuate such a causal effect?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

'International crisis'? No

Will Obama be tested by world leaders much more than McCain? Absolutely.

I'm not even saying it's good or bad. He may handle it well or he may fall flat on his face. It's certainly fair to say that most people have no idea how he'll do.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Brian I dont think he means, test Obama because of his age i think he means the 'him' to be President but I also get it that we're never going to know specifically because it isnt specific enough.

OK, so I lied about leaving it alone. I think context here fills in the gaps you seem to be seeing. The same speech talks about a "brilliant 47-year old senator" and "test him like they did young John Kennedy" I'm trying to see the other side of this, but I keep seeing "they will test Obama because of his age".

The competition to Obama therefore the statement would clearly indicate the causal relationship to the quote that I do not believe existed in Biden's original quote, and still dont, but would make for better ratings fodder: "GOP says 'if' you vote for Obama he'll be challenged by an International Crisis!" <----better ratings than what I think Biden said.

I think this is another place where we are reading the same thing and coming to different conclusions. Rather was asked if Palin had made comments about McCain being challenged because of his age would the story be above the fold? This isn't a case of Palin accusing Obama of being too young being more newsworthy, it was a question of Palin saying about McCain what Biden said about Obama being more newsworthy. Same situation, other side of the aisle.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and McCain wont? That's my point! Ill ask you ----- DO YOU believe that by electing Obama it will have a causal effect in inviting an international crisis that wouldnt exist if McCain we're elected?

I wouldn't make this claim.

Do you believe Biden meant a vote for Obama would have a causal effect?

I do. He said the crisis would happen "because they want to test him". Feel free to argue my grasp of the English language, but I believe "because" implies causality.

Edit: I'll even change this to help you out. I don't know if Biden MEANT that a vote for Obama would have a causal effect, but I think he did say that it would.

If not, do you believe that Palin added the 'if' to insinuate such a causal effect?

This doesn't really apply because of my previous answer. I think her saying 'if' highlights what Biden said, but I don't think it changes the meaning.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

'International crisis'? No

Will Obama be tested by world leaders much more than McCain? Absolutely.

I'm not even saying it's good or bad. He may handle it well or he may fall flat on his face. It's certainly fair to say that most people have no idea how he'll do.

And I think a "crisis" isn't necessarily a bad thing - if Obama faces challenges early, and handles any crisis competently and decisively, great for Obama and great for the US.

If you think he's up to it, then this dynamic isn't necessarily a negative, if you have concerns about it, it's absolutely a fair point to make by the more experienced side (though here it's a little less convincing because it's Palin, but that's another story).

[Daimyo]

I'm an Obama supporter and I think its pretty clear Biden was referring specifically to an Obama presidency and not the next president in general. Seems a stupid thing to say, but I can kind of see the strategy. Public opinion has swayed such that now a small majority see Obama as being better able to handle crisis than McCain and this is trying to play to the erratic image McCain projected in the wake of the economic crisis. If that was the case though he should have spoke more generically "whoever we elect as president will be challenged by an international crisis..." Maybe that's what he meant to say and this is just another example of Biden misspeaking before a crowd?

Either way though I think its a stupid play and completely unnecessary.

[digamma]

According to Zogby, polling shows that NASCAR fans are split evenly between the candidates. That's a wow in my book and means the checkered flag we're seeing doesn't just symbolize we're less than 2 weeks from the end of the race.

[molson]

So why did McCain pick Palin again? This discussion reminds me of McCain's biggest advantage, experience, and how it feels like there's an asterisk attached to that advantage every time it comes up.

[lungs]

John McCain gains an endorsement that could be the beginning of an even bigger endoresement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...upporters.html

[Flasch186]

I'm fine with all of the above and can see how different conclusions were reached. I can also see that if you reach a different conclusion to Biden's original quote that Palin's follow up would be a reconfirmation of the same thing.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by lungs

John McCain gains an endorsement that could be the beginning of an even bigger endoresement:

John McCain 'endorsed by al-Qaeda supporters' - Telegraph

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's great, but why do I still feel nervous?

Probably picking up what this poll picked up

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day. ... The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.

Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Obama up by 9 percentage points, while a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama leading by 14. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, among the broader category of people registered to vote, found Obama ahead by 10 points.

Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

And I think a "crisis" isn't necessarily a bad thing - if Obama faces challenges early, and handles any crisis competently and decisively, great for Obama and great for the US.

If you think he's up to it, then this dynamic isn't necessarily a negative, if you have concerns about it, it's absolutely a fair point to make by the more experienced side (though here it's a little less convincing because it's Palin, but that's another story).

I'm not even sure why the defensiveness other than being partisan to the point of absurdity.

[Flasch186]

Im not defensive about it other than the cause effect claim.

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

Regardless I DO think Biden is right in that a test will come of our next President.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im not defensive about it other than the cause effect claim.

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

Regardless I DO think Biden is right in that a test will come of our next President.

Does this post come with an air sickness bag?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

So why did McCain pick Palin again?

Pandering, pure and simple. Part of the reason so many independents are disillusioned with McCain and his campaign. It solidified his base, but alienated the voters he needs the most.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Actually i think no matter who wins, they'll be tested and I also hope that whomever it is succeeds mightily in passing said test as it would be good for you and I. I just think saying it's a causal effect of voting one way or the other is wrong and IMO not what Biden said (meant if you want). It is what Palin said IMO.

I was thinking more about this on my drive to lunch, and I think the bold part is where some of the struggle is coming from. Saying an international crisis will come up "because they want to test [Obama]" is functionally equivalent to saying "if you elect Obama, then we will see an international crisis". It is not functionally equivalent to saying "if and only if". I think you are equating Palin saying "if" to her saying "if and only if".

It is probably equally safe to say that if we elect McCain, a different international crisis will come up which will test him. Since Biden failed to even hint along those lines in his speech, Republicans can quote him without any fear of people saying that they are quoting out of context.

[Flasch186]

BrianD, you are right and im all ears if you can explain to me how Im not correct in my interpretation as I want to know if Im off base. I believe she was saying 'if [and only if]'. Is that not accurate or a misinterpretation or some sort of bad assumption?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Does this post come with an air sickness bag?

unfortunately the bags are caught between rolling averages.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

unfortunately the bags are caught between rolling averages.

I bet. It's a ridiculously tangled web you're weaving today.

[dolfin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Of course, a national poll means zilch without breaking it down by state.

These "national" polls mean zilch to me anyway you look at it. Most of these are polling less than 1,500 likely voters, except for PEW which hits on a whopping 2,300 telephone interviews.

It would be funny to see them broken down by state, though. "6 out of 9 likely voters in Delaware to vote Dem."