Election 2008, United States

Who would you vote for if the presidential race is held now?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 415 72.4%

  • John McCain

    Votes: 130 22.7%

  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 28 4.9%
  • Total voters
    573
I'm not very informed on the entire election this year (I'm not old enough to vote by a year, but that's still no excuse), but it appeared to me that Palin seems almost in a state of shock still about the fact that she was picked as vp candidate and was actually in a debate.

There were a couple of key points where Biden completely owned Palin; I can't remember them exactly, but he basically shoved her words back in her face. It wasn't as "dirty" of a debate as my comp teacher stated it would be, though =\. I have to write an essay contrasting Biden and Palin for that class, so any other tips would be useful ;).
 
It is rather sad that Palin's not collapsing into an incoherent heap of fumbling verbiage is being hailed as a grandiose achievement by commentators and pundits. Watching the debate, one had the sense that she was simply parroting trained talking points with absolutely no regard for either the questions asked or her opponent's responses (even going so far as to tell the moderator at one point that she would not answer some questions). Biden -- although I highly disagree with his foreign policy, among other things -- was the clear winner, and the polls seem to agree. He came across as an actual leader, whereas Palin was "folksy", pulling the "Joe six-pack and hockey mom" line to connect with the working and middle classes, despite her six figure income. I feel Rachel Maddow's assessment of Palin as "cartoonish" is particularly apt; she lacked the gravitas one expects from a candidate in a serious political setting. (Who the hell gives a shout-out while debating for the second highest office in the world's most powerful nation?) My only regret is that Biden felt compelled not to attack Governor Palin directly, perhaps for fear of being labeled "patronizing", like Bush One in the famous soundbite from his 1984 VP debate.
 
palin%20debate.jpg
 
"PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce. That's a positive. That's encouragement. And that's what John McCain meant."

Gotta be kidding, right?
The McCain campaign aren't going to 'fess up that he made a mistake in saying that the American economy is fundamentally strong.
Kinda reminds me of what Dubya would say.
 
From here:

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., noted that the bill also supports homeowners at risk of foreclosure by giving the government more say in how loans for troubled borrowers are modified so people can stay in their homes.

"When we buy up this toxic paper, we're in charge. We can do the kind of loan modifications we've been urging [the industry coalition] Hope Now to get done. ... We'll be able to set some standards," Waters said during the floor debate. "For anybody who says there's nothing in this bill for homeowners, they're incorrect."
Click to expand...

Does that scare the living shit out of anyone else?
 
Blargh. I'd have strongly preferred it if they just bought stakes in the troubled companies the old-fashioned way. Socialize the risk and the reward.

On second thought, that might be a bad slippery slope.
 
Luduan said:
House passed the bailout, 263 to 171.

Other news:
The latest Rasmussen polls have Obama jumping ahead 49% to 44% in New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen is actually lowballing his chances in new mexico compared to other pollsters in the state. the only poll that had obama under 5 points in nm was from new mexico almost a month ago (it was mccain +2). SurveyUSA, PPP and ARG have had him above 50% for a few weeks now.
 
Obama is up 4 in Nevada and up 10 in Washington, according to Rasmussen. Nevada may be a bellwether for this race, so this is good news for Obama, IMO.
 
McCain has pulled out of Michigan, which is nearly functionally identical to quitting the race. There is almost no chance that McCain can win without Michigan, especially considering Obama has basically locked down Iowa and New Mexico, is surging in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, and is defending New Hampshire and Pennsylvania well.
 
The only way McCain wins now, I suspect, is with the Bush 2000 coalition, +/- New Hampshire. That means holding Colorado and Virginia, which is looking more and more difficult every day.
 
Rehashing that McCain is slipping.

electoral-vote.com has McCain down 338 to 185 with NC (15 EV).

185 - he has, thats with Mo and In leaning blue
15 - NC
13 - Va
20 - Oh
27 - Fl
------
260

He still needs 10 votes - it'll take 9 to tie (where he gets killed in the house), or 10 for an outright win.

He needs either Co (9) + NV/NH/ME (5, 4, and 4) to get to the 270, or one of the following, ranked on chance of getting it if he tried:


Minnesotta - I can't spell, get over it. More the point - its a state with an average PVI of +2, so its relatively republican. The RNC was held there. He has a real chance if he funnels money into there.

Wisconsin - he has a good chance their. Up until the election, Bush had a real chance of taking the state in 2004, and its a possibility right now. A longer shot than Mn, but hey - its still plausible.

Michigan - he just pulled out, which means that he has strong indications that he won't win there. But, if he decides to put the commercials and ads back in, he might have a chance.

Colorado + 1 from New Hampshire - New Hampshire splits its delegates, remember that. All he needs is 1 of those, and he wins. He's better of with 2, in case one of Nebraska's votes goes to Obama (the one that encompasses Lincoln and Omaha is very blue).

ME/NH/NV - this is a longer shot, but if he pours money equally into the three states, he could win. 5+4 = 9, but all he needs is 1 or 2 from NH (they split their delegates).
 
New Hampshire doesn't split its delegates. Maine and Nebraska do.

MN and WI seem like traps for McCain. WI especially will be hard to get, because it neighbors Illinois. I don't think Minnesota will fall unless McCain is +4 or better, and even then I'm not sure - MN was D+6 relative to Bush's national +3 win in 2004.

Judging by that one tracking poll, PA is a big trap as well. McCain's internals may be better; but I don't think they're THAT much better. RCP has PA moving into "solid Obama" territory.
 
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127

I found this article rather amusing

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”
Click to expand...
 
I saw an interesting article in rolling stone about how george bush committed widespread election fraud in order to win the 2004 election..

Genuinely interesting..

Have a nice day.
 
Are you referring to the Diebolt voting machines? The pregnant/hanging chads? Voter suppression?
 
Rasmussen polled a series of swing states. Obama is back to a healthy 6% lead over McCain in Colorado and has gained a 3% upper hand in Missouri, and trails by just 1% in Ohio, which is incongruous with most other recent findings. McCain seems to have collapsed in Florida and trails by 7, which is very, very dangerous for him; there is absolutely no way McCain wins without Florida, barring some kind of really ridiculous situation. Lastly, Obama is ahead by 2% in Virginia. These polls show a small amount of undecided voters, no more than 5% for any one poll, which tends to help the leader, who needs to swing fewer voters.

SurveyUSA, which is considered to be one of the most accurate pollsters available, differs with Rasmussen on Virginia, showing Obama with an incredible 10% lead there, and Suffolk helps confirm that, showing a 12% lead. Lastly, Obama leads by a stunning 13% in New Hampshire in another SurveyUSA poll.
 
SurveyUSA seems to have a rather large number of Democrats. Virginia was never a big "dixiecrat" state, so I'd be surprised if Dems had a 9% partisan advantage.
 
I think it's an interesting -- though unsurprising strategy that McCain has decided to take, which he first demonstrated after the vice-presidential debate. Because the general consensus among a majority of voters is that Obama is more knowledgeable about the economy than McCain is (And hence the source of his drop in the polls), he must "turn the page" from the economy and shift the election into a more negative direction. Basically, he is trying to make Obama's character the center of attention and is attempting to tie him with controversial figures such as William Ayers and Tony Rezko, akin to the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry in 2004.

Of course, the flaw in this strategy is that it isn't 2004, when national security was the number one issue. Voters that find the economy the most important issue have already sided with Obama, and the ones that actually care or fear Obama's ties to Rezko or Ayers were already going to vote for McCain anyway.

Interesting point by 538's Nate Silver: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/why-it-probably-wont-work.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top