Originally Posted By Dabob2 Since McCain didn't really suspend his campaign the first time, I suppose there's no harm in doing it again. Except the harm of looking like a fool. Seriously, could the guy have flailed around more than he has the past couple of weeks? What's weird is that you check his statements on Tuesday, say, and they're very forceful and definite. Then you check them on Thursday, and they're very forceful and definite - but 180 degrees away from what he said Tuesday. Yet he say them just as definitively. As I said on another thread, videotape is not John McCain's friend. It's just to easy to point out his wild swings back and forth. It really makes him look like he doesn't know what he's doing. Meanwhile, Obama has looked cool, calm, and collected, even as everyone else (including other Democrats) was panicking.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Thats what I LOVE about Obama! The dude has not seem to have panicked the ENTIRE time, THATS the leader I want!! I mean, he's certainly had his problems in the campaign, been down in the polls, that drag out fight with Clinton (historical lol) about getting elected and the guy just comes out looking unfazed everytime. What I love about Obama is that his message has not changed at all since he started. Has McCain's changed, hell yeah!! The guy went from the one of experience to once of 'change' and reformer just under a month ago. Its sooo transparent its not even funny. When Palin came on board and it was now doom and gloom for Obama and now all the 'calls' for Biden to step aside for Clinton (oh brother), the man didnt flinch. Now, one month later and its McCain on the bottom end, people are writing his obiturary, calls coming from left and right for Palin to resign and his numbers are sinking everyday because the man just seem so eradict now. I mean, suspending his campaign, lying to a talk show host why he couldnt come on and then he just showed up at an interview with Palin less than a day ago trying to do control damage with her right there like hes her daddy. It just looks desperate. He'll probably win though lol, but his campaign looks to be a mess at the moment. Meanwhile not one peep out of the Obama campaign. The last 'scandal' I can recall was the lipstick on a pig thing which as we ALL know now was another desperate attempt by McCain side to throw up beef even though the guy used it himself before. Seriously unreal! So yeah, I just love Obama's style, its not for everyone, too 'smooth' I guess, but he's the type that can rally the troops at the last minute and make everyone knows he's ahead of the curve. McCain, at this moment in time....not so much lol. And Palin, well, we wont attempt to go there. I really hope Obama wins, it will be a proud moment.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>As I said on another thread, videotape is not John McCain's friend. It's just to easy to point out his wild swings back and forth. It really makes him look like he doesn't know what he's doing.<< Seriously, how is this election even remotely close? We should be seeing numbers like those in countries with dictators where only one guy is on the ballot and everyone is forced to vote, but they still tweak the numbers just enough to not look *too* absurd. "And with 98.4% of the vote, is Had'ran Uqbar!"
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I have a feeling they'll open up even further. It could quite possibly be a lopsided race come November barring. There aren't many days left to change the momentum.<< I would give anything, up to and including my virginity, for you to be right. Wait...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ecdc, get out of my brain!<< No way. Disney movies play 24/7 and there's beer *everywhere*.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Seriously, how is this election even remotely close?>> Well, I believe its two reasons. One IS the experience issue that people have a hard time accepting of Obama and that IS valid and two, and I know I will get groans, I do believe its still because of his race. I know since I'm Black, I still percieve this very differently than a lot of you, but lets be honest, there are STILL many people hesitant to vote for Obama because he doesnt fit the mold of all the Presidents before him. And I been on boards where people have said they know people who wont vote for him based on race alone. I dont understand it, really. Besides the fact he's half white (which is NEVER taken into any consieration), he's been as inclusive as any other candidate in the past. *Some* Black leaders think he's not Black enough in terms of his policies, and one I disagree with. But yeah, I dont get it either, what ELSE could it be besides those two issues at this point? I have a feeling though if that was a candidate who resembled John Edwards up there with the exact same platform as Obama, he would be up 10 points by now. Obama has made FEW big mistakes and none lately that I could even think of and he's an opposing candidate when the outgoing President and his party are at an all time low approval wise and the economy in shatters. Historically, he should be winning by much more IMO.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***two, and I know I will get groans, I do believe its still because of his race*** That argument won't fly anymore now that the right wingers are sporting a chick on the ticket.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^LOL, well not voting for Palin because she is a woman is the LEAST of her problems .
Originally Posted By mawnck >>two, and I know I will get groans, I do believe its still because of his race<< I keep telling these guys this. Nobody believes me. Most racists will happily vote for a woman, as long as she's a conservative honky.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I keep telling these guys this. Nobody believes me.> Oh, I believe you. There is DEFINITELY a certain percentage of voters who simply will never, ever vote for a black guy. They even TOLD exit pollers as much during the Democratic primaries in states like KY and WV. Flat out. I'm related to some of them. Happily they tend to be some of the jerks who married my blood relatives rather than my blood relatives themselves, but my blood relatives are not THAT far removed (some of them) from similar attitudes themselves. I heard the "n-word" plenty back in the 60's when we visited. It definitely exists, and the so-called "Bradley effect" (a certain percentage of people tell pollsters they'll vote for the black guy, but when the time comes they don't, thus throwing off the polls) may be important in some states. Me, I'm hoping the Bradley Effect is countered by what I think may be the polls' under-weighting Obama's two strongest groups, Blacks and the young. They historically have not voted in as great a percentage as whites and older voters, and most polls weight their responses accordingly (also, many young people today have only cell phones, which are not polled). So I'm hoping the polls are underestimating Obama's numbers due to that, and that will wash out any overestimating due to the Bradley Effect. Let's hope so.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>also, many young people today have only cell phones, which are not polled<< Just ain't true. >>Riverdale Park, Md.: Which pollsters are being the most creative at tackling the problem of the under-35s being "cell-phone only," and thus hard to reach? Charles Franklin: A number of pollsters have been including cell only folks for most of the year. Gallup, Pew, CBS/NYT, NBC/WSJ and I think Time. Field in California does as well. It is going to be increasingly common. << <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/29/DI2008092902152.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...152.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck Further down, same page: >>St. Louis: There's been a lot of recent talk relating to the cell phone problem in polling, but I wonder if things have changed all that much since 2004. Why do analysts believe that cell-phone polling would more dramatically affect the numbers in this race when polling from 2004 did not show a Republican bias? Charles Franklin: I think the problem is significantly exaggerated. there has been a lot of research on this and the bias of leaving out cells has been small. After all, they may be mostly young, but not many people buy a cell only phone plan based on the vote choice-- hence not much political bias. And the young are weighted up in the end anyway. But a new Pew research report says that bias may be a bit more now than last year so expect much more cell inclusion coming up. <<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Others disagree. <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/cellphones" target="_blank">http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...llphones</a>
