Diablos said:Why is everyone freaking out about the Gallups?
It should be no surprise that the race will tighten as the election draws closer. Pay attention to state-by-state polling.
The senate seat is his. Rasmussen ran a poll early in the year and Matthews was only 3% behind and that is before the public there would even know of any announcement and the state has grown more and more democratic. Chris Matthews will be Senator Chris Matthews in 2 years, I am sure of it.Tamanon said:
GhaleonEB said:Kos does a spot-on call out of the media for fudging their electoral maps. Washington post:
- Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
- Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
- Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
- Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
- Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
- Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
- Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
- McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
- Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
- Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
- McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
- Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
- Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
- Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
- McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)
If Chuck Todd doesn't update his map to have Obama over 270 tomorrow, then I'll be pretty diappointed in him; it will be for the sole reason that he doesn't want Obama over 270 rather than the numbers.
GhaleonEB said:If Chuck Todd doesn't update his map to have Obama over 270 tomorrow, then I'll be pretty diappointed in him; it will be for the sole reason that he doesn't want Obama over 270 rather than the numbers.
GhaleonEB said:Kos does a spot-on call out of the media for fudging their electoral maps. Washington post:
- Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
- Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
- Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
- Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
- Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
- Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
- Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
- McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
- Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
- Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
- McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
- Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
- Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
- Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
- McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)
If Chuck Todd doesn't update his map to have Obama over 270 tomorrow, then I'll be pretty diappointed in him; it will be for the sole reason that he doesn't want Obama over 270 rather than the numbers.
Damn that liberal media trying to keep the race close, just so Obama supporters are energised and voter turnout is higher than expected. It's a consipracy!GhaleonEB said:Kos does a spot-on call out of the media for fudging their electoral maps. Washington post:
- Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
- Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
- Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
- Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
- Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
- Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
- Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
- McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
- Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
- Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
- McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
- Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
- Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
- Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
- McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)
If Chuck Todd doesn't update his map to have Obama over 270 tomorrow, then I'll be pretty diappointed in him; it will be for the sole reason that he doesn't want Obama over 270 rather than the numbers.
Cool.GhaleonEB said:Kos does a spot-on call out of the media for fudging their electoral maps. Washington post:
- Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
- Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
- Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
- Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
- Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
- Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
- Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
- Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
- McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
- Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
- Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
- McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
- Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
- Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
- Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
- McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)
If Chuck Todd doesn't update his map to have Obama over 270 tomorrow, then I'll be pretty diappointed in him; it will be for the sole reason that he doesn't want Obama over 270 rather than the numbers.
"We could lose, I suppose, if they cheat us out of it" and Other Tales of Republican Delusion
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/12/83238/044/321/628179
Every four years the republican party attacks the democratic nominee as "out of touch" with "mainstream America." This strategy has been pretty effective (outside of Clinton) and now is being used more than it ever has. I don't have cable but I've been watching some Fox News online, and listening to some right wing radio. It's pretty clear that the GOP is readying itself for a blowout loss and plans on accusing the democrats of fraud. Afterall as the article says, if the country is truly pre-dominantly conservative, the victory of the "most liberal senator in the country" would seem like an outlier occurrence.
It's a shame the Obama campaign hasn't taken an aggressive, factual stance against the anti-Acorn hysteria being propagated by Fox and the McCain campaign. As Ben Smith points out
The key distinction here is between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, one of which is truly dangerous, the other a petty crime.
The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.
The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there's virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don't even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
I can register to vote 100 times but my vote will only be counted once. I can register Micky Mouse to vote, but since he doesn't exist he cannot physically vote. Such a simple exercise of critical thinking right?
When I was homeschooled my history book described Bill Clinton's presidency as a moral/social dark spot in American history, but this was prefaced by arguments that Clinton squeaked into office thanks to third party votes; after all, as the author argued, Clinton failed to receive 50% of the vote, therefore he really wasn't the dominant choice of most Americans. Interestingly this was an older history book, and didn't cover the 2000 elections; I wonder what it would have to say about Gore's popular vote victory. Clinton won the popular vote by a good margin, but it was a pretty convincing blowout in terms of what matters: the electoral vote.
If Obama pulls off a 330-360 EC thubbin' I wonder what the spin will be
1. John McCain ran a horrible campaign and wasn't a true conservative. If he told the American people about Wright he would have won
2. Obama benefited from voter fraud in every battleground state
3. Christian Conservatives stayed home like in 2000. If they came out in full force like in 2004, McCain would have won
Hm, I'm going to pull a Palin and choose all of the above
Nabs said:haha... anyone see Barack going door to door in Ohio today? i need an extended video
I said wow...thekad said:Palin :lol
She promised to balance the budget in the first term.
thekad said:Palin :lol
She promised to balance the budget in the first term.
reilo said:Got an idea for a parody attack ad against McCain. It's a little out there and probably something we shouldn't make fun of, but hey, what the hell:
Associate him with conspiring with the VietCong. He was a guest in their home for 5 1/2 years, was given food and shelter by them, and so forth. "Prisoner of War" or "Volunteer Prisoner?" You decide.
It would basically point out the idiocy in these RNC attack ads.
Frank the Great said:Anybody need a hit of hopium after today's Gallup?
Here, we, goo!
Today:
Same day in 2004:
Frank the Great said:Anybody need a hit of hopium after today's Gallup?
Here, we, goo!
Today:
http://i35.tinypic.com/vgnaxu.jpg
Same day in 2004:
[IMG]http://i36.tinypic.com/jtufx3.jpg
[IMG]http://www.identa.biz/images/injection2.jpg[/QUOTE]
If you inject yourself with enough Hopium, you will be able to fly!!!!
Cheebs said:PD asked me to post this for him:
Why was PD banned?Cheebs said:PD asked me to post this for him:
... Damn. We'll miss you PD.Vennt said:He participated in the fatal derailing of a thread on the gaming side, he won't be back for the election, and next person(s) to post "for him" will join him.
Amir0x said:The difference is shocking between 2004 and 2008.
You can almost taste the victory
For the record, if the MSM wants to continue to call all these heavily leaning Obama states as "Battlegrounds", they can go right the fuck ahead. I don't want anyone lulled into a false sense of security anyhow, I want to tsunami this motherfucking election.
Frank the Great said:Anybody need a hit of hopium after today's Gallup?
Here, we, goo!
Today:
Same day in 2004:
McCain aided developer's bargain-price purchase of Fort Ord land
Developer/friend bought SunBay site for mere $250,000
By JULIA REYNOLDS
Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 10/12/2008 01:34:41 AM PDT
An Arizona businessman with help from Sen. John McCain's office paid the federal government a mere fraction of the market value when he bought a Fort Ord land parcel in 1999, an Army appraisal obtained by The Herald shows.
Donald R. Diamond, an 80-year-old real estate developer, lobbyist and top fundraiser for McCain's presidential campaign, bought the land for $250,000, though it was valued at $7.2 million, according to Pentagon appraisals made three years before the sale.
He held on to the parcel for a little more than two years before selling it and the buildings on it for an estimated profit of more than $18 million.
When negotiating with the Army over the no-bid sale, Diamond had more than one advantage on other potential buyers. He held a lease on the land that would have made it difficult for the Army to find another buyer. When Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, later criticized the Army for "giving away" Fort Ord land during the 1990s, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Paul "PJ" Johnson said, "That was a very complicated realignment and closure at Fort Ord."
But it was McCain's office, as reported earlier this year by The New York Times and The Herald, that Diamond credited with helping smooth out problems he encountered. At the time, McCain served on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The appraisal documents were obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request. Diamond and McCain's Senate office declined to comment for this story.
Regulus Tera said:Foreigner with a question: why is the Midwest prevalently red?
I guess I could find it on Wikipedia but I are teh lazies.
thekad said:Palin :lol
She promised to balance the budget in the first term.
XxenobladerxX said:No way in hell WV is turning blue this year. But it really funny to see it competitive.
I'm pretty sure Falin is or was going to hold an event there. :lol
Amir0x said:The difference is shocking between 2004 and 2008.
You can almost taste the victory
For the record, if the MSM wants to continue to call all these heavily leaning Obama states as "Battlegrounds", they can go right the fuck ahead. I don't want anyone lulled into a false sense of security anyhow, I want to tsunami this motherfucking election.
Well, it will be easy . . . she'll just reduce that oil dividend check that we all get. :lolthekad said:Palin :lol
She promised to balance the budget in the first term.
West Virginia? Are you shitting me?Frank the Great said:Anybody need a hit of hopium after today's Gallup?
Here, we, goo!
Today:
Nabs said:C-Span is going to reair the Biden / Clinton rally now. I wish I could fast foward... might just wait for the online stream.
They just had one of the higher ups from ACORN explaining their part, saying that most of the fake registrations were flagged by their own staff (est. 90%)
Slurpy said:The goal is not simply winning anymore- it should be the get the largest margin possible, and therefore the biggest mandate possible. We know what the GOP narratives will be after the Obama win, they will try to discredit it at all costs. Thats why it needs to be as large a landslide as possible, to expose all their bullshit arguments are the transparent trash that they are. The larger the mandate is, the more effective Obama's presidency can potentially be.
speculawyer said:West Virginia? Are you shitting me?
Yeah, WV isn't going Dem.speculawyer said:West Virginia? Are you shitting me?
And the midwest has smaller cities and cities with bigger suburban areas than urban cores. The plains states have been republican even through the Great depression. There is a strong religious tie as well as many single issue voters. The 'cities' have a lot of educated, wealthy, white people with the traditional family structure and a white picket fence house - they have traditionally voted republican. It is becoming a lot more moderate in recent years though.Frank the Great said:Basically, no one lives there. Even in solidly blue states, the rural areas are usually Republican. In the midwest, there are only rural areas.
I never get why Ohio gets the blame. Why wouldn't it be Virginia's fault? Or Colorado's fault? Or any other state that would need to go red for Obama to lose? A lot more has to go wrong than just Ohio for Obama to lose the election.worldrunover said:If Obama loses, it's going to be this state's fault: Ohio. Somehow I just don't trust the Buckeye state...
Slurpy said:
worldrunover said:Red state no one is talking about that would be shocking to go blue but just might: Montana. I feel like he has a big following there and a dem governor and dem senator helps things.
Because we expect more out of you, Ohio. You are the land The Pretenders, Devo, and (I think) The Ohio Players. You are a rust-belt state, not a southern state. Be more like PA and Illinois. I know you can do it. Even Drew Carey abandoned the GOP.Trurl said:I never get why Ohio gets the blame. Why wouldn't it be Virginia's fault? Or Colorado's fault? Or any other state that would need to go red for Obama to lose? A lot more has to go wrong than just Ohio for Obama to lose the election.
Because Ohio is one of those prototypical "vote with their gut, not with their brain" states. They've been ass-fucked economically for years, and yet still vote republican.Trurl said:I never get why Ohio gets the blame. Why wouldn't it be Virginia's fault? Or Colorado's fault? Or any other state that would need to go red for Obama to lose? A lot more has to go wrong than just Ohio for Obama to lose the election.