Obama Clearly Taking the Lead

[Kathianne]

Not much time left to turn this around...

http://volokh.com/posts/1222621865.shtml


Obama Leading Solidly in Polls.

Obama has a 5-point lead in the Gallup Tracking Poll [in Saturday's release and an 8-point lead in Sunday afternoon's release] and a 6-point lead in the Rasmussen Tracking Poll [in Sunday's release]:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday — including the first day of post-debate polling — is unchanged. Barack Obama once again attracts 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running. Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters, McCain by 55%.

As the economic crunch continues, just 11% of Americans now say the nation is heading in the right direction. That’s down dramatically from 24% two weeks ago when the failure of Lehman Brothers first brought the Wall Street debacle to the world’s attention. Since then, consumer and investor confidence have plummeted and nearly 80% of the nation’s adults now believe the economy is getting worse. Adding to the frustration is growing opposition to the proposed rescue plan and doubts about the motives of those promoting it.

UPDATE: Gallup's move from 5% to 8% in Sunday's release indicates that Saturday's polling was 8-10% stronger for Obama than Wednesday's.

[Yurt]

great, last time kerry had a similar lead.....

[Kathianne]

great, last time kerry had a similar lead.....

True, we can hope. My guess is with the race factor, Obama will win. Now, all bets are off if Palin slams on Thursday, but do any of us expect that? Mind you, I've not lost faith in Biden's ability to lose it.

[Yurt]

True, we can hope. My guess is with the race factor, Obama will win. Now, all bets are off if Palin slams on Thursday, but do any of us expect that? Mind you, I've not lost faith in Biden's ability to lose it.

possibly, but palin looks bad in all the interviews i have seen. i can't imagine her in a debate.

the 'news' says that the race will be a negative factor. me: race is only what racist like mfm say it is....

he and his ilk hang out in their whitey tighty circles and think that is life. i don't. and neither does my half east indain wife. maybe mfm swoons over her scotch side (wink on the scotch but not the scott), i don't know, nor do i care where his hate or perverted sense takes him.

[theHawk]

Not much time left to turn this around...

http://volokh.com/posts/1222621865.shtml

Well what can you say, the Dems put all their bets on an Iraq failure, when they didn't get that, they bet on the economy failing. Their policies have effectively ruined our economy and they get to blame it on the Republican in office. :clap:

[Kathianne]

Well what can you say, the Dems put all their bets on an Iraq failure, when they didn't get that, they bet on the economy failing. Their policies have effectively ruined our economy and they get to blame it on the Republican in office. :clap:

My guess if Obama does win, they'll rue what they wished for.

[retiredman]

and you all are absolutely blind to the fact that it just might be that America is tired of repubilcan ineptitude and believe that Obama can and will cause real change both here and abroad?

isn't it time for you all to break out the stringed instruments and play your little stringed quartet while the Titanic sinks beneath the waves?

If you don't have a musical ear, I am certain that there are some deck chairs that need to be rearranged!

[Kathianne]

and you all are absolutely blind to the fact that it just might be that America is tired of repubilcan ineptitude and believe that Obama can and will cause real change both here and abroad?

isn't it time for you all to break out the stringed instruments and play your little stringed quartet while the Titanic sinks beneath the waves?

If you don't have a musical ear, I am certain that there are some deck chairs that need to be rearranged!

Well mine is speculation, yours will come true if he's elected, as likely. Have you ever heard of graciousness? Considering there is likely to be real fallout with his plans, would serve one well,

[retiredman]

Well mine is speculation, yours will come true if he's elected, as likely. Have you ever heard of graciousness? Considering there is likely to be real fallout with his plans, would serve one well,

He won't get 60 D's in the senate so you all will be able to - and undoubtedly WILL - stop most all of his initiatives from becoming law.

Graciousness in defeat would also be something to see from your side now, wouldn't it?

[Psychoblues]

It's amazing how the "obstructionists" change parties depending on prevalent political situation, mfm!!!!!!!!!!



He won't get 60 D's in the senate so you all will be able to - and undoubtedly WILL - stop most all of his initiatives from becoming law.

Graciousness in defeat would also be something to see from your side now, wouldn't it?

2006 hasn't taught these jerks anything about graciousness and I doubt if that will change no matter who wins in November!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Sitarro]

Well what can you say, the Dems put all their bets on an Iraq failure, when they didn't get that, they bet on the economy failing. Their policies have effectively ruined our economy and they get to blame it on the Republican in office. :clap:

Very true Hawk,
The mainstream media loves the idea of a screw up like Obamasama in as President. To them, bad news is good news and because they are failing in ratings, they really need a dipshit party like the Demwitocrats in power to be sure that the news remains bad. Obammy would be 20 points down without the media and Hollywood.

[Psychoblues]

You're full of shit, zero. I love good news and I'm a Democrat. But, what's trash to one man may be treasure to anothers. Us Democrats have certainly been picking up the trash from the Republicans for some time. It is high time the tables were turned on that issue!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

and you all are absolutely blind to the fact that it just might be that America is tired of repubilcan ineptitude and believe that Obama can and will cause real change both here and abroad?


not blind to it, just puzzled why the majority don't realize that the change Obama represents is a change for the worse.....

[PostmodernProphet]

He won't get 60 D's in the senate so you all will be able to - and undoubtedly WILL - stop most all of his initiatives from becoming law.


so in other words, you are promising that there will be no change.....

[red states rule]

He won't get 60 D's in the senate so you all will be able to - and undoubtedly WILL - stop most all of his initiatives from becoming law.

Graciousness in defeat would also be something to see from your side now, wouldn't it?

Graciousness in defeat?

You mean like screaming FL was stolen? Diabold machines were rigged? Black voters were "disenfranchised"?

[mundame]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
Originally Posted by manfrommaine http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=302008#post302008)
and you all are absolutely blind to the fact that it just might be that America is tired of repubilcan ineptitude and believe that Obama can and will cause real change both here and abroad?


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


not blind to it, just puzzled why the majority don't realize that the change Obama represents is a change for the worse.....

Can it get worse?

(I take that back ------ never ask that!)

We seem to be in a historic financial crash.

The economy is going down fast.

We're bogged down in forever wars we can't win, and there is current danger of the war widening in various directions.

Nuclear non-proliferation has been lost and now Venezuela is the latest to ask Russia for help nuking up.

All of which leads me to wonder --- and I bet I won't be the only one ---


DID bin Laden actually win? Strategically? I know he didn't win tactically because he's hiding in a cave somewhere, but he said his goal was to pull down the US of A and.......................................

......We're no longer unified, we're at each others' throats; the capitalist system and economies are tanking; we are bogged down in loser wars we are getting nothing good out of; and the rest of the world now opposes us and dislikes and distrusts us.

I think a lot of REALLY bad decisions by this administration let bin Laden pull us down, or helped him.

I'm not sure it matters who does the change; the main thing is to change out from the Bush administration, which does seem to have destroyed our country.

Bush was the worst; surely it can only get better after this, whoever wins.

I hope.

[stephanie]

Well, it's a well known fact..

whenever it's a Democrat President, we have no terrorist attacks, our financial system is running like a well oiled machine, and we alls live HAPPILY EVER AFTER... :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

Well, it's a well known fact..

whenever it's a Democrat President, we have no terrorist attacks, our financial system is running like a well oiled machine, and we alls live HAPPILY EVER AFTER... :rolleyes:

and the sea levels will stop rising, the crippled will walk, and the blind will see

The only thing libs claim will not happen is the dead will rise again (but they will vote on election day however)

[actsnoblemartin]

aww you found obama's first 100 days agenda

:lol:


and the sea levels will stop rising, the crippled will walk, and the blind will see

The only thing libs claim will not happen is the dead will rise again (but they will vote on election day however)

[Immanuel]

So, Obama is up in the polls? Where does he sit in the Electoral College? Has that figure changed since last week? Isn't it a fact, that under our election laws it is the Electoral College that counts? Unless things have changed there, I would not be so concerned.


He won't get 60 D's in the senate so you all will be able to - and undoubtedly WILL - stop most all of his initiatives from becoming law.

Graciousness in defeat would also be something to see from your side now, wouldn't it?

Was the Democratic Party gracious in either defeat handed them by George W Bush? Was the Republican Party gracious when Clinton won? I don't see it happening when McCain wins in 2008 either. :D

Immie

[PostmodernProphet]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Can it get worse?

(I take that back ------ never ask that!)

We seem to be in a historic financial crash.

The economy is going down fast.

We're bogged down in forever wars we can't win, and there is current danger of the war widening in various directions.

Nuclear non-proliferation has been lost and now Venezuela is the latest to ask Russia for help nuking up.

All of which leads me to wonder --- and I bet I won't be the only one ---


DID bin Laden actually win? Strategically? I know he didn't win tactically because he's hiding in a cave somewhere, but he said his goal was to pull down the US of A and.......................................

......We're no longer unified, we're at each others' throats; the capitalist system and economies are tanking; we are bogged down in loser wars we are getting nothing good out of; and the rest of the world now opposes us and dislikes and distrusts us.

I think a lot of REALLY bad decisions by this administration let bin Laden pull us down, or helped him.

I'm not sure it matters who does the change; the main thing is to change out from the Bush administration, which does seem to have destroyed our country.

Bush was the worst; surely it can only get better after this, whoever wins.

I hope.

can it get worse?....well, let's see....we are in an economic crises brought about primarily because the Democratic Party refused any attempt to reign in FM/FM.....and some folks think the people we should put in charge of the fix are the people who were in charge of the error.....that could be worse....

[retiredman]

can it get worse?....well, let's see....we are in an economic crises brought about primarily because the Democratic Party refused any attempt to reign in FM/FM.....and some folks think the people we should put in charge of the fix are the people who were in charge of the error.....that could be worse....


other, less partisan opinions put the onus on a lack of regulation. That was the hallmark of Gramm and McCain, as you may recall.

[red states rule]

other, less partisan opinions put the onus on a lack of regulation. That was the hallmark of Gramm and McCain, as you may recall.

Then explain why Barney Frank, and others Dems blocked all reform efforts

snip

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.

http://www.zimbio.com/Freddie+Mac/articles/423/Barney+Frank+Chuck+Schumer+Role+Fannie+Mae

[theHawk]

other, less partisan opinions put the onus on a lack of regulation. That was the hallmark of Gramm and McCain, as you may recall.

It was not a result of "lack of regulation". It was a result of idiotic PC lending policies dictated to them by none other than Democrats. They wanted minorites in houses, so to do that, they forced these lenders to give "high risk" loans. When government interferes with the free market, very bad things happen.

[red states rule]

It was not a result of "lack of regulation". It was a result of idiotic PC lending policies dictated to them by none other than Democrats. They wanted minorites in houses, so to do that, they forced these lenders to give "high risk" loans. When government interferes with the free market, very bad things happen.


So now Dems want the US government to get into the buying and selling of homes now. Dems screw up the housing market, and now they want more power so they can "fix" it

and people are buying into this logic

and the plot thickens as far as Barney Frank's role in all this

[retiredman]

It was not a result of "lack of regulation". It was a result of idiotic PC lending policies dictated to them by none other than Democrats. They wanted minorites in houses, so to do that, they forced these lenders to give "high risk" loans. When government interferes with the free market, very bad things happen.

ho hum. yet another partisan opinion masquerading as fact.:lol:

[red states rule]

ho hum. yet another http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=18160.:lol:

So Barney Frank was correct when he said for years there was no problem and was opposed to all the attempts to reform Fanny and Freddie?

Why not grow a pair and answer the question - or is that asking to much of you?

[mundame]

It was not a result of "lack of regulation". It was a result of idiotic PC lending policies dictated to them by none other than Democrats. They wanted minorites in houses, so to do that, they forced these lenders to give "high risk" loans. When government interferes with the free market, very bad things happen.

I agree with this. They wanted poor blacks in houses, whether or not they would pay the mortgages, and it has brought down our system -------

WITH the help of deregulation. The deregulation has been a big, fat problem.

BOTH the push for bad loans and the deregulation are to blame for the banking crisis, and I think that's the conventional wisdom this Monday.

[red states rule]

I agree with this. They wanted poor blacks in houses, whether or not they would pay the mortgages, and it has brought down our system -------

WITH the help of deregulation. The deregulation has been a big, fat problem.

BOTH the push for bad loans and the deregulation are to blame for the banking crisis, and I think that's the conventional wisdom this Monday.

and illegals as well

Derigulation had nothing to do with this problem. It was Dems who still believe owning a home is a right and not something you have to work for

[mundame]

and illegals as well

Derigulation had nothing to do with this problem. It was Dems who still believe owning a home is a right and not something you have to work for


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, deregulation was huge. Short sellers ran the system into the ground after being deregged; the SEC didn't bother to go after abuses in variety (McCain was right about Cox); etc. I need a list, and I'm sure the next issue of The Economist will have one.

The market was allowed to go free and create hedge funds trading abusively by the dozens and dozens, and now we are crashing, because no one had any concept of risk during the excited greed period, they just went along going higher and higher on margins up to 40 to 1 and rates of capitalization and reserves that .........inadequate doesn't describe them.

"Not there at all" describes them better.

The last Economist has an ANONYMOUS article by a risk manager for a prominent investment firm (and legitimate magazines do NOT normally publish anonymous pieces) --------- he says the risk managers were regularly stomped, ignored, slandered --- party poopers, trying to interfere with profits, trying to cut into the huge money-making.

Well, until it all crashed, anyway.

This is lack of regulation, and that was Republican. The mortgage crisis was Democrat.

[red states rule]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, deregulation was huge. Short sellers ran the system into the ground after being deregged; the SEC didn't bother to go after abuses in variety (McCain was right about Cox); etc. I need a list, and I'm sure the next issue of The Economist will have one.

The market was allowed to go free and create hedge funds trading abusively by the dozens and dozens, and now we are crashing, because no one had any concept of risk during the excited greed period, they just went along going higher and higher on margins up to 40 to 1 and rates of capitalization and reserves that .........inadequate doesn't describe them.

"Not there at all" describes them better.

The last Economist has an ANONYMOUS article by a risk manager for a prominent investment firm (and legitimate magazines do NOT normally publish anonymous pieces) --------- he says the risk managers were regularly stomped, ignored, slandered --- party poopers, trying to interfere with profits, trying to cut into the huge money-making.

Well, until it all crashed, anyway.

This is lack of regulation, and that was Republican. The mortgage crisis was Democrat.

So now this gives libs an excuse to control the market even more. I am happy this was voted down - let the market clean itself. It always has and always will

This problem started in the Carter years, and Bill Clinton expanded it. Everytime Republcians tried to point out the problem, Dems shut them down