White House race is a close call

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I'm a white southerner and I'd have no problem voting for a black man (or woman), but I just cannot vote for Obama. He's far, far too fiscally liberal for me, too inexperienced, and I just disagree with too much of what he has to say.

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative in office one day. Maybe 2012...

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Looking at the electoral map, how is this a close call?

For some reason Obamabots think they have some southeast states turned.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Haha, Dave is so stupid

Maybe, but usually right.

So does this now mean you're predicting an Obama victory? Or is McCain going to erase a 30 point deficit in Hawaii for a come from behind victory?

No, McCain still has Electoral lead.

Youth vote will only add to the Popular vote count that Obama wins but Obama still loses the important count, the Electoral.

How does he have the electoral lead without Hawaii?

EDIT: Oh, I see you just arbitrarily changed another state that you originally had for Obama into a McCain state. At least we can all see that at this point you're just making shit up.

It doesn't matter. Obama is not going to win the southeast.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It doesn't matter. Obama is not going to win the southeast.

So? Maybe he picks off a state or two, maybe he forces McCain to expend resources defending areas he would normally take for granted.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Your article contradicts your argument, and your electoral map is being revised to take states away from Obama (that he is winning in the polls) to support your conclusion. In other words you're gaming the evidence to support the conclusion instead of the other way around. And that... is why your map is shit. (as I told you before)

 

[Young Grasshopper]

I dont get the whole 'inexperianced' argument. GWB came into office with a decent amount of experiance(more than Obama) and managed to fuck the country up something good. Just because someone has more experiance that means they will make a great president? I'd rather have the unknown then another 4 years of Bush.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JEDI
-snip-
Unfortunately, the article doesnt explain what they mean by "not ready to back Obama."

You'd have to look at the details of the polls, but I'll bet it has something to do with independants.

Last time I saw some real numbers, they weren't yet committing.

It's normal too. There's a pretty good chunk of people who don't make up their mind until the last minute.

BTW: IMO, to phrase the question "not ready to back Obama" is disingenuous. Why not "not ready to back McCain"? Should have said not ready to back anybody, or not ready to decide.

People have short memories, polls for Presidential contests are frequently wrong. Pollsters are constantly adjusting their assumptions and statistics, and they are having a problem with cellphone users whom they can't contact. So they really don't know what to do, they are guessing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this election is especially difficult for the pollsters.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other remarks above had validity too. Obama (and McCain) has changed his position on a few important issues (the importance or not is up to each individual) so far, wouldn't surprise me if those who usually wait until late are even more encouraged to do so just so they can finally see where each candidate ends up.

Fern

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Craig234
and the spending your guys do cut is the wrong spending to cut, harming the nation's actual interests as the interests of the most wealthy are dominant.

Don't assume that I am a Republican just because I don't like Obama. What spending will "my guys" cut, and what makes it the wrong spending to cut?

solid, good social spending under a democrat

Well, that's my whole point. I disagree with his spending.

From Barack's Website (Link)

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Provide Additional Tax Rebates to American Workers: The economy has continued to weaken significantly, despite congressional action to provide immediate tax rebates to American consumers. $20 billion

So more cuts will help? I'd rather my taxes just be cut to begin with, so that I can invest it up front instead of recieving checks at random intervals.

Establish a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund: Given the downturn in the economy, Obama is calling for immediate creation of his Foreclosure Prevention Fund that will dramatically increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling, and will help families facing foreclosure to responsibly refinance their mortgages or sell their homes. Obama?s plan will not help speculators, people buying vacation homes or people that falsely represented their incomes. It is meant to help responsible homeowners through this difficult period. Stimulus: $10 billion

While I'm sure there are some people who really did get screwed here, I have zero sympathy for people who signed mortgages that they could not afford. Interest only payments with 1% down? Yeah, you screwed yourself here buddy. I have a responsbile mortgage. Why should I pay for those who don't?

Provide $10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis to Prevent Cuts in Vital Services: Because of the housing crisis and the weakening economy, many state and local governments are facing significant revenue shortfalls. Barack Obama believes that in the areas hardest-hit by the housing crisis we should provide immediate, temporary funding to state and local governments so that the decline in property values does not cause them to slash critical public services and cut vital infrastructure spending. Stimulus: $10 billion

I don't like it, but this seems acceptable.

Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance: Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment. Expanding UI is one of the most effective ways to combat economic turmoil; every dollar invested in UI benefits results in $1.73 in economic output. Obama is calling for a temporary expansion of the UI program for those who have exhausted their current eligibility. Stimulus: $10 billion.

I'd need to see a source on the 1.73:1 claim.

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Who would get this. Will other people have to pay more taxes? I need numbers.

Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs

This could be the worst one. Let's say he makes minimum wage $10/hr and you make $9/hr currently. You'd make $10. You sure wouldn't get a raise to $13.74, which is the same percentage above the current minimum wage. That means that your quality of life has gone down, because the economy will adjust so that $10 is about the same as $6.55 used to be. Minimum wage jobs are that way for a reason. You aren't supposed to support even yourself on them. They're for suplemental income.

This should be enough to see where I stand.

Originally posted by: Craig234
You guys seem to have a political approach of a pipe dream of what you want, and the party who will say anything like that, however much you know they're lying, you'll pick.

You keep throwing the word "you" around as if you have any idea of what I want or how I feel. Just because I don't like Obama, I'm instantly some kind of sheep who will blindly follow the Republican Party. I am not.

That's not even getting into the issues of whether the policies you want will do what you want or be disasters if enacted

That can be said of any policy.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: RY62
It couldn't be because he's a corrupt, lying, inexperienced, flip flopping, Chicago politician who tried to pull the wool over our eyes and make us think he was an agent of change sent from God above to bring us hope and a new kind of politics.

It couldn't be that Americans have begun to see through the smoke and mirrors facade to find that there's no more substance than following what the poll of the day says we want to hear.

QFT.

 

[piasabird]

Obama is using race bating politics. This implies no one can be against Obama unless they are a racist. Kind of like being against hitler. I would never vote for a man if he is a race bater. It is like voting for a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Both are evil and practice the politics of deception. Both are the sons of liars.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I'm a white southerner and I'd have no problem voting for a black man (or woman), but I just cannot vote for Obama. He's far, far too fiscally liberal for me, too inexperienced, and I just disagree with too much of what he has to say.

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative in office one day. Maybe 2012...

so you're hoping for a major 3rd party in 2012, since i dont see the Repubs changing from the new direction Bush has set them on. (borrow and spend)

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: JEDI
so you're hoping for a major 3rd party in 2012, since i dont see the Repubs changing from the new direction Bush has set them on. (borrow and spend)

It doesn't matter who it is, so long as they have the least objectionable policies and have a shot at winning. It would be nice if the primaries were all on the same day so that the people could pick who they really want instead of who they were given.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: JEDI
so you're hoping for a major 3rd party in 2012, since i dont see the Repubs changing from the new direction Bush has set them on. (borrow and spend)

It doesn't matter who it is, so long as they have the least objectionable policies and have a shot at winning. It would be nice if the primaries were all on the same day so that the people could pick who they really want instead of who they were given.

There's nothing stopping anyone from starting their own party and running for President.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Dari
There's nothing stopping anyone from starting their own party and running for President.

Except for them splitting their old party. Elections seem to have come down to voting for whoever isn't the guy that you don't want.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you honestly believe what you wrote, do us all a favor and educate yourself on the candidates. In particular, look up the definition of 'socialism'. If you believe Obama is a socialist, then you either know nothing about him or don't understand the meaning of the word.

I think you left out option 3: I know exactly what the word means, and I know plenty about him to think him a socialist. Just because viewed through your prism he isn't a socialist doesn't make it so. To me, he is.

Lets be honest though, considering how completely you've swallowed the Republican narrative for Obama, there's a very strong likelihood that you were never going to vote for him anyway. You were just looking for convenient excuses to justify a decision you had already made.

You're making assumptions again. I don't like McCain, and was curious to see who the other option would turn out to be. Initially I had a fairly positive view of Obama, and would have actually considered voting for him.... but the more I see the more I realize he's not "different", he's just like every other politician, his far too liberal, and he considers a racist loony his "mentor" and "moral compass". No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dari
There's nothing stopping anyone from starting their own party and running for President.

Except for them splitting their old party. Elections seem to have come down to voting for whoever isn't the guy that you don't want.

I haven't voted FOR someone in ages. It's always against some candidate.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be? I think it's fair to ask you what sets Mr. McCain apart from Mr. Obama.....

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

- hmmm.... why is it when Republicans stand to lose control that they then cry out for balance.....

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

You must like where this direction is heading under Bush because McCain has promised you more of the same.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

You must like where this direction is heading under Bush because McCain has promised you more of the same.

this^

DT - nice duck around my "what makes Mr. Cain so 'seasoned'" question...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you honestly believe what you wrote, do us all a favor and educate yourself on the candidates. In particular, look up the definition of 'socialism'. If you believe Obama is a socialist, then you either know nothing about him or don't understand the meaning of the word.

I think you left out option 3: I know exactly what the word means, and I know plenty about him to think him a socialist. Just because viewed through your prism he isn't a socialist doesn't make it so. To me, he is.

Lets be honest though, considering how completely you've swallowed the Republican narrative for Obama, there's a very strong likelihood that you were never going to vote for him anyway. You were just looking for convenient excuses to justify a decision you had already made.

You're making assumptions again. I don't like McCain, and was curious to see who the other option would turn out to be. Initially I had a fairly positive view of Obama, and would have actually considered voting for him.... but the more I see the more I realize he's not "different", he's just like every other politician, his far too liberal, and he considers a racist loony his "mentor" and "moral compass". No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

That's all well and good, but in reality words have concrete meanings that don't depend on people's prisms. Socialism means government control of the means of production. Obama has never advocated this or anything approaching it, and therefore is not a socialist.

So again, you either don't know what the word means or you know nothing about him.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

- hmmm.... why is it when Republicans stand to lose control that they then cry out for balance.....

Hellllooooo.... 1) I'm not a republican. 2) I also thought it was a bad idea in 2000 to have an all republican house/senate/white house. I don't wish to see that same mistake happen again, on the democrat side of the fence.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Dari
You must like where this direction is heading under Bush because McCain has promised you more of the same.

Blah blah blah McSame blah blah blah. Yes, I prefer checks and balances over an all-one-party situation, regardless of party.

Also, I'm not at all convinced that McCain has the same hubris and will surround himself with the same cabal as Bush has. Perhaps that's naive, but hey, I call'em as I sees'em.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
No thanks, I'll go with the old guy, at least he has some seasoning.

What "seasoning" would that be?

A little pepper, oregano and some marinade

Seasoning, as in "a seasoned veteran". Like him or not (I don't like him much), I feel more comfortable with his experience, he's been around the geopolitics block a few times.

Actually, probably the main reason I definitely hope McCain wins -- like him or not -- is that if Obama wins, the dems will have overwhelming control of the house, senate and the white house. It stands to reason that there will be no checks on stupid democratic ideas then, just like there were no checks on stupid republican ideas for 6 years. I don't like the idea of either party controlling everything without checks and balances.

- hmmm.... why is it when Republicans stand to lose control that they then cry out for balance.....

Hellllooooo.... 1) I'm not a republican. 2) I also thought it was a bad idea in 2000 to have an all republican house/senate/white house. I don't wish to see that same mistake happen again, on the democrat side of the fence.

Fair enough... but what could the democrats do in four years that would be worse than the eight+plus years of republican control?

 

[SparkyJJO]

He completely brushes off the military and shows little regard for them. Guess he considers himself "above" them :disgust:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That's all well and good, but in reality words have concrete meanings that don't depend on people's prisms. Socialism means government control of the means of production. Obama has never advocated this or anything approaching it, and therefore is not a socialist.

So again, you either don't know what the word means or you know nothing about him.

BS. I know exactly what the word means, and I believe he is one. There are wide variations of socialist ideas and implementations, it's not as simple as your definition would imply. If you want to live in your narrow definition, be my guest, I live in the real world where there are shades of gray to everything.

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
DT - nice duck around my "what makes Mr. Cain so 'seasoned'" question...

I haven't ducked anything. Just for the dense, the definition of "seasoned":

To render competent through trial and experience: a lawyer who had been seasoned by years in the trial courts.

If you don't see how by that definition McCain is more "seasoned" than a guy with one term in the senate under his belt, you're smoking crack. You might not think he's a better presidential candidate, but there's no rational argument for not considering him more "seasoned" .