Gallup has Obama up by 2 points

[red states rule]

This is not good for the left

GALLUP's 'traditional' likely voter model shows Obama with a 2 point lead McCain on Thursday, 49% to 47%

This is the traditional likely voter and has a history of voting



Gallup is presenting two likely voter estimates to see how preferences might vary under different turnout scenarios. The "expanded" model determines likely voters based only on current voting intentions. This estimate would take into account higher turnout among groups of voters traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and minorities. That model has generally produced results that closely match the registered voter figures, but with a lower undecided percentage, and show Obama up by six percentage points today, 51% to 45%.

The "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today's results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll's margin of error. -- Frank Newport


For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.

The general-election results are based on combined data from Oct. 13-15, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,786 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 2,143 "traditional" likely voters (based on the model taking into account current voting intention and past voting behavior), the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 2,312 more broadly defined likely voters (based on the model taking into account current voting intention only), the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111211/Gallup-Daily-Obama-49-McCain-43.aspx

[eighballsidepocket]

I haven't looked at the polls since the debate, but are you saying that this is a tightening of the race?

I.E. What did the previous Gallup poll say before the debate?

2 points is well within the margin of error, as I understand.

Red: How about some other polls besides Gallup, like Zogby, Rasmussen....etc... What are they saying? Do they show a tightening-up of the race after the debate?

[red states rule]

I haven't looked at the polls since the debate, but are you saying that this is a tightening of the race?

I.E. What did the previous Gallup poll say before the debate?

2 points is well within the margin of error, as I understand.

Red: How about some other polls besides Gallup, like Zogby, Rasmussen....etc... What are they saying? Do they show a tightening-up of the race after the debate?

The race is getting close

Gallup had Obama up by as much as 11 points. Now, i do not know if that was by the tradiitional method

Zogby has Obama up by 4.5 points

Obama may win, but it does not look like a blowout

Perhaps Obama's admission of socialism (spreading the wealth aorund) will come back to bite him of the ass

[Little-Acorn]

No polls have been published yet, with data taken after the debate. This one is a three-day average for Oct. 13, 14, and 15.

[red states rule]

No polls have been published yet, with data taken after the debate. This one is a three-day average for Oct. 13, 14, and 15.

I do want to see how many people want their wealth spread around.

[eighballsidepocket]

No polls have been published yet, with data taken after the debate. This one is a three-day average for Oct. 13, 14, and 15.

If that's the case, then things could be tighter than a 2 point spread, as I think Sen. McCain handled this last debate better than the previous one.

Still, he's too much of a gentleman with Sen. Obama. He has enough ammunition on B.O. to put him off balance in a big way, but he starts to plunge the spear and then backs off.

Most commentators last night, even on Fox, said that McCain opens up a nasty can of worms for Obama to deal with in the debate, but doesn't carry it out to completion.

How do you deal with someone who's getting the charisma vote? You've got to work on the vunerable spots.......Like associations of Obama, do cast a light on his ability to discern what is wise and not. He has too many friendships with too many people of questionable character, yet the majority of the media wears blinders to those important topics; nothing like obvious bias.

[red states rule]

If that's the case, then things could be tighter than a 2 point spread, as I think Sen. McCain handles this last debate better than the previous one.

Still, he's too much of a gentleman with Sen. Obama. He has enough ammunition on B.O. to put him off balance in a big way, but he starts to plunge the spear and then backs off.

Most commentators last night, even on Fox, said that McCain opens up a nasty can of worms for Obama to deal with in the debate, but doesn't carry it out to completion.

How do you deal with someone who's getting the charisma vote? You've got to work on the vunerable spots.......Like associations of Obama do cast a light on his ability to discern what is wise and not.

McCain has not run a good campaign. He is trying to run a PC campaign against Chicgao street thug

Obama has pitched many slow hanging curve balls to McCain and he has not taken a swing at them

Given the current circumstances, Obama should be up by 15 to 20 points - yet it is close. Obama can't close the sale and people have doubts about this raciist socialist

[OCA]

More disinformation from the biggest partisan hack on the board......RSR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Game over

[red states rule]

More disinformation from the biggest partisan hack on the board......RSR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Game over

I listed the link from Gallup. Learn to read before you rant

[OCA]

I listed the link from Gallup. Learn to read before you rant

Why don't you list their expanded poll also Mr. Disinformation?

Your desperation is shameful lol.

[red states rule]

Why don't you list their expanded poll also Mr. Disinformation?

Your desperation is shameful lol.

I did

Maybe you are to lazy or stupid to read the entire link

Here are the first 2 paragraphs I posted

Gallup is presenting two likely voter estimates to see how preferences might vary under different turnout scenarios. The "expanded" model determines likely voters based only on current voting intentions. This estimate would take into account higher turnout among groups of voters traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and minorities. That model has generally produced results that closely match the registered voter figures, but with a lower undecided percentage, and show Obama up by six percentage points today, 51% to 45%.

The "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today's results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll's margin of error. -- Frank Newport

[OCA]

I did

Maybe you are to lazy or stupid to read the entire link

Here are the first 2 paragraphs I posted

Gallup is presenting two likely voter estimates to see how preferences might vary under different turnout scenarios. The "expanded" model determines likely voters based only on current voting intentions. This estimate would take into account higher turnout among groups of voters traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and minorities. That model has generally produced results that closely match the registered voter figures, but with a lower undecided percentage, and show Obama up by six percentage points today, 51% to 45%.

The "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today's results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll's margin of error. -- Frank Newport

So in the past, when you were on your personal rants against Congress, real clear's averages were just fine but now they aren't.................maybe because the averages show J.Lib and Mrs. Wasilla getting trounced and that Obama already has enough electoral votes solidly in his favor to be elected......IOW J.Lib is mathematically eliminated. Only wish there were more debates so more Repubs would swing to Obama like they did last night.

You are grasping at straws because Americans have figured out that they would continue to get hosed by Republicans and would make out quite well under an Obama admin.................thats a fact verified by independent tax watchdog groups.

[red states rule]

So in the past, when you were on your personal rants against Congress, real clear's averages were just fine but now they aren't.................maybe because the averages show J.Lib and Mrs. Wasilla getting trounced and that Obama already has enough electoral votes solidly in his favor to be elected......IOW J.Lib is mathematically eliminated. Only wish there were more debates so more Repubs would swing to Obama like they did last night.

You are grasping at straws because Americans have figured out that they would continue to get hosed by Republicans and would make out quite well under an Obama admin.................thats a fact verified by independent tax watchdog groups.

So you are not man enough to admit you screwed up - so be it

I am pointing out the polls have closed, and you are out to flame and deraile the thread. Go ahead and take your best shot

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

I listed the link from Gallup. Learn to read before you rantOCA is nothing more then a Liberal Tool just like womenfrommaine :dance:

[OCA]

So you are not man enough to admit you screwed up - so be it

I am pointing out the polls have closed, and you are out to flame and deraile the thread. Go ahead and take your best shot

Flame? Is that the best you can do when proven wrong? Your title of this thread says that Gallup has Obama up by 2, doesn't matter what the body says, just the title..............if you were honest you would take the average of the two Gallup polls and call it 4 points but you've never been accused of being honest, have you?

Why don't you address Obama's death grip on the electoral college and his inroads into states that haven't voted Demo since Kennedy? Or is that just too much to bear?

[OCA]

OCA is nothing more then a Liberal Tool just like womenfrommaine :dance:


Quality political commentary from another partisan hack.

[red states rule]

Flame? Is that the best you can do when proven wrong? Your title of this thread says that Gallup has Obama up by 2, doesn't matter what the body says, just the title..............if you were honest you would take the average of the two Gallup polls and call it 4 points but you've never been accused of being honest, have you?

Why don't you address Obama's death grip on the electoral college and his inroads into states that haven't voted Demo since Kennedy? Or is that just too much to bear?

Now you are just being a moron. The first paragraph of my opening post clearly covered the expanded poll - the secons paragraph covers the traditional poll

You said I did not include the expanded poll

As usual you ignore facts when they are placed under your nose

Obama may win, but I do not think it will be the blowout you and your fellow libs are saying. Obama's gaffe about "spreading the wealth around" may come back to bite him

[eighballsidepocket]

More disinformation from the biggest partisan hack on the board......RSR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Game over

Ok.......Say your right.............We live with four years of it, and just like an old biblical term, you get beat down enough, the scales fall of you eyes, and you see the light.

I think the Charisma will wear off real fast with President Obama. All these glazed-eyed folks who walked in lock step to his every word, can't maintain that level of hypnotic focus forever. When they realize that his economic plan gets them laid-off, cause their employer decided to cut back or to protect his tax status from getting thoroughly "raped", then they will start to think on the objective side of their brains.

As for McCain: I don't dig the mortgage re-negotiation plan. People got into housing with 10% or less down on a very hot, inflated housing market. Even though certain politicians of a certain party forced or coerced Fanny and Freddie to lower their qualifying terms for home buyers, doesn't excuse the fact that buying homes with little or no down is plain old "playing craps" and nothing else.

I got burned in the High Tech implosion back at the end of Clinton's presidency. I lost 80% of my investments as I bought at the peak of the high tech explosion. I have no one to blame, but myself. I took a chance and I got burned.

Many of my sons Gen-x friends that range in age from late 20's into mid 30's now, are the ones that got sucked into the housing market a few years back with low a and no downs. Also their debt to asset ratios were much different in qualifying than in previous years. Most of these young people were living in houses, devoid of furniture, just so they could afford their mortgage and three square meals.

When their equities went negative, a panic happened, and then add on a sluggish, but not quite recessive economy, and some were losing jobs, and then we had ensuing bankruptsys, and foreclosures.

Is it our responsiblity as tax payers to pay the equity loss difference so that folks who bought with little or no down and may have negative equities well over $100k, can have that negative equity erased, and have a cheaper home loan.

I realize that Sen McCain is an empathetic guy, but stuff happens. One of my sons lost his home but was able to rent it back currently. He and his wife had to go the bankruptsy root. They have learned a heard lesson in living beyond their means.

Just because a lender or broker says, "You qualified" doesn't mean it's affordable with the debt/asset ratios being so terrible favoring higher debt in the ratio.
*******
I've taken advantage of the housing buble myself, but have owned much longer and still have a decent equity even with some refinancing. Never the less, this situation has taught me to tighten-up.
******

[red states rule]

OCA is nothing more then a Liberal Tool just like womenfrommaine :dance:

He is a sore loser who is pissed off he has had to eat so many of his words recently. He is like a small child having a very long temper tantrum

[OCA]

Now you are just being a moron. The first paragraph of my opening post clearly covered the expanded poll - the secons paragraph covers the traditional poll

You said I did not include the expanded poll

As usual you ignore facts when they are placed under your nose

Obama may win, but I do not think it will be the blowout you and your fellow libs are saying. Obama's gaffe about "spreading the wealth around" may come back to bite him

Nope.......Americans have clearly voiced their preference that the middle class, the middle class that McCain disdains, get their taxes cut and that incomes over 250,000 get their taxes raised.................Obama has hit a huge grand slam with that and J.Lib knows it thats why he stays on the personal attack only that isn't working either because the more he stays on the personal shit the lower his numbers go.

Your title was deliberately meant to mislead......................we all know it.............we await your admission.

[OCA]

He is a sore loser who is pissed off he has had to eat so many of his words recently. He is like a small child having a very long temper tantrum

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unable to debate the issues so he pulls a McCain and goes personal. Like McCain his numbers are falling like a rock also.

[red states rule]

Nope.......Americans have clearly voiced their preference that the middle class, the middle class that McCain disdains, get their taxes cut and that incomes over 250,000 get their taxes raised.................Obama has hit a huge grand slam with that and J.Lib knows it thats why he stays on the personal attack only that isn't working either because the more he stays on the personal shit the lower his numbers go.

Your title was deliberately meant to mislead......................we all know it.............we await your admission.

The $250,000 number is a lie and you are smart enough to know it

His increase of the dividend tax will hit retired couple living off investments

His taking the cap off SS will hit anyone making more then $103,000

His increase of the capital gains tax will hit anyone with a 401K

His increase of the corporate tax will be passed on to us the customers

The top 5% pay currently about 65% of the federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay less then 3%. Any tax cut for the middle class will so small it will fo little for the economy

Besdies, I think Obama will pull a Bill Clinton and raise taxes across the board

[red states rule]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unable to debate the issues so he pulls a McCain and goes personal. Like McCain his numbers are falling like a rock also.

What is personal? Ever since Hillary lost you have become a liberal Obamabot out of spite

Or have you turned into a liberal moonbat?

[OCA]

Ok.......Say your right.............We live with four years of it, and just like an old biblical term, you get beat down enough, the scales fall of you eyes, and you see the light.

I think the Charisma will wear off real fast with President Obama. All these glazed-eyed folks who walked in lock step to his every word, can't maintain that level of hypnotic focus forever. When they realize that his economic plan gets them laid-off, cause their employer decided to cut back or to protect his tax status from getting thoroughly "raped", then they will start to think on the objective side of their brains.

As for McCain: I don't dig the mortgage re-negotiation plan. People got into housing with 10% or less down on a very hot, inflated housing market. Even though certain politicians of a certain party forced or coerced Fanny and Freddie to lower their qualifying terms for home buyers, doesn't excuse the fact that buying homes with little or no down is plain old "playing craps" and nothing else.

I got burned in the High Tech implosion back at the end of Clinton's presidency. I lost 80% of my investments as I bought at the peak of the high tech explosion. I have no one to blame, but myself. I took a chance and I got burned.

Many of my sons Gen-x friends that range in age from late 20's into mid 30's now, are the ones that got sucked into the housing market a few years back with low a and no downs. Also their debt to asset ratios were much different in qualifying than in previous years. Most of these young people were living in houses, devoid of furniture, just so they could afford their mortgage and three square meals.

When their equities went negative, a panic happened, and then add on a sluggish, but not quite recessive economy, and some were losing jobs, and then we had ensuing bankruptsys, and foreclosures.

Is it our responsiblity as tax payers to pay the equity loss difference so that folks who bought with little or no down and may have negative equities well over $100k, can have that negative equity erased, and have a cheaper home loan.

I realize that Sen McCain is an empathetic guy, but stuff happens. One of my sons lost his home but was able to rent it back currently. He and his wife had to go the bankruptsy root. They have learned a heard lesson in living beyond their means.

Just because a lender or broker says, "You qualified" doesn't mean it's affordable with the debt/asset ratios being so terrible favoring higher debt in the ratio.
*******
I've taken advantage of the housing buble myself, but have owned much longer and still have a decent equity even with some refinancing. Never the less, this situation has taught me to tighten-up.
******

Oh they'd get laid off alright..................under a McCain admin. after their health care benefits were taxed through the roof and the employer was forced to layoff employess in order to keep healthcare for a few.

Also no middle class tax cut under J.Lib.

[OCA]

What is personal? Ever since Hillary lost you have become a liberal Obamabot out of spite

Or have you turned into a liberal moonbat?

When will you admit that Obama's initiatives are simply better thought out than McCain's?

Or are the overwhelming number of Americans who think that just a bunch of Obamabot dumbasses and you are the only smart one..................or so Rush tells you lol.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

When will you admit that Obama's initiatives are simply better thought out than McCain's?

Or are the overwhelming number of Americans who think that just a bunch of Obamabot dumbasses and you are the only smart one..................or so Rush tells you lol.:laugh2:

I covered his lie about only 5% of the people will se a tax increase in post # 22

What other questions do you have?

[OCA]

I covered his lie about only 5% of the people will se a tax increase in post # 22

What other questions do you have?




Candidate Watch
McCain vs Obama on taxes

Washington D.C., June 10, 2008.


"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise--seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market."
--John McCain, National Small Business Summit, Washington D.C. June 10, 2008.

The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."



The Facts
There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans.

McCain's speech to the Small Business Summit yesterday leaves the impression that Obama favors raising taxes on all Americans, across the board. But his words have been carefully parsed. A more literal reading suggests that he could also be talking about some Americans from "every background," not "all Americans." The key issue is how many low and middle-income Americans would be affected by the Obama tax increases.

In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.

Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America foundation, says that the McCain camp is trying to create an exaggerated impression of the number of people from low and middle-income groups who will be adversely affected by the Obama tax proposals. "It is legitimate to say that they can find a cleaning person or a waitress somewhere who will be affected, but the numbers should not be overwhelming," she said.

The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that "most economists" prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth largest increase since 1943.

According to Brookings economist Douglas Elmendorf, the Obama plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. "It's very clear that taxes for lower income Americans will decline under Obama," he said.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html


I think i'll take the word of experts and not someone who spends 12-14 hrs a day on a message board. You are simply wrong.

[jimnyc]

More disinformation from the biggest partisan hack on the board......RSR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Game over

My favorite quote of all time - directly from OCA:


"Polls mean exactly this...........jackshit."

[red states rule]

Candidate Watch
McCain vs Obama on taxes

Washington D.C., June 10, 2008.


"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise--seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market."
--John McCain, National Small Business Summit, Washington D.C. June 10, 2008.

The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."



The Facts
There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans.

McCain's speech to the Small Business Summit yesterday leaves the impression that Obama favors raising taxes on all Americans, across the board. But his words have been carefully parsed. A more literal reading suggests that he could also be talking about some Americans from "every background," not "all Americans." The key issue is how many low and middle-income Americans would be affected by the Obama tax increases.

In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.

Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America foundation, says that the McCain camp is trying to create an exaggerated impression of the number of people from low and middle-income groups who will be adversely affected by the Obama tax proposals. "It is legitimate to say that they can find a cleaning person or a waitress somewhere who will be affected, but the numbers should not be overwhelming," she said.

The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that "most economists" prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth largest increase since 1943.

According to Brookings economist Douglas Elmendorf, the Obama plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. "It's very clear that taxes for lower income Americans will decline under Obama," he said.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html


I think i'll take the word of experts and not someone who spends 12-14 hrs a day on a message board. You are simply wrong.

His tax increases clearly will hit many people who make less then $250,000/yr

You, like when presented proof on the Dems hand in the fall of Fannie and Freddie, you dismiss it out of hand

Obama has already promised about $1.3 trillion in new spending - how will he pay for it? Not with just a tax increase on 5% of the people

His 5% promise can't be kept. 40% of workers do not pay any income taxes, and the top 5% pay about 60% of the federal income taxes

[red states rule]

My favorite quote of all time - directly from OCA:

and he attacks me for cutting and pasting, and how does he reply to my post on Obama's tax increases?

[Kathianne]

So in the past, when you were on your personal rants against Congress, real clear's averages were just fine but now they aren't.................maybe because the averages show J.Lib and Mrs. Wasilla getting trounced and that Obama already has enough electoral votes solidly in his favor to be elected......IOW J.Lib is mathematically eliminated. Only wish there were more debates so more Repubs would swing to Obama like they did last night.

You are grasping at straws because Americans have figured out that they would continue to get hosed by Republicans and would make out quite well under an Obama admin.................thats a fact verified by independent tax watchdog groups.
Past is past. There are no facts, just your opinion. The opinion of a partisan.

[LiberalNation]

All opinions are partisan but Obama being ahead right now is a fact.

[red states rule]

All opinions are partisan but Obama being ahead right now is a fact.

Yes, he is ahead, but not by the margin the liberal media and Obama supporters are saying

We have 20 days to go, and Obama and Biden still have time to show more of their socialist side

[jimnyc]

All opinions are partisan but Obama being ahead right now is a fact.

So long as you like your facts coming from polls that speak to .00001% of the nation.

[LiberalNation]

Do you know a better method. We'll see if these polls hold water come election.

[jimnyc]

Do you know a better method. We'll see if these polls hold water come election.

The only better method is election day. I do believe Obama will win though, so don't think I'm stating just because I think most polls are biased and too small of samples = a McCain victory.

[Kathianne]

Do you know a better method. We'll see if these polls hold water come election.

As has been said a gazillion times, the only 'poll' that counts is 11/4. In this case, like 2000, if it's close, look for fireworks. Not of the good kind, but that would be ACORN and Obama's fault.

[LiberalNation]

Oh I predict repubs ranting about a stolen election for four years just like some dems did in 2000 and 2004. Always some sore losers.

[Kathianne]

Oh I predict repubs ranting about a stolen election for four years just like some dems did in 2000 and 2004. Always some sore losers.

Some democrats? LOL!

[red states rule]

Oh I predict repubs ranting about a stolen election for four years just like some dems did in 2000 and 2004. Always some sore losers.

The differecne is LN, there is ample proof of Dem election fraud. ACORN has been busted in about 14 states so far

The Sec of State of OH (a Dem) has admitted she was hiding 200,000 ACRON apps from election officals. Why did she do that if there is nothing wrong?

[Kathianne]

Oh I predict repubs ranting about a stolen election for four years just like some dems did in 2000 and 2004. Always some sore losers.

there may be some, but I won't. I think in either case it's wrong. Bottom line, I think both sides should really create acceptable elections. Then they should accept the results. In any case, if Obama is elected, which is likely:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/13/if-elected-obama-will-be-our-president/


10/13/2008
IF ELECTED, OBAMA WILL BE MY PRESIDENT
CATEGORY: Decision '08, Financial Crisis, History, Politics

Pardon the slow loading site. My little hosting company is trying to deal with the Instalanche and Hot Air explosion as well as links from the rest of you.

Glenn Reynolds received an email yesterday that he termed “depressing.” Upon reading it, I agree with him.

The correspondent starts by identifying himself as a libertarian who supported George Bush until “Bush fatigue” set in recently. But what depressed Reynolds (and what should concern all of us) is how this gentleman would react to an Obama presidency:


This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I’ll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a “Not My President” t-shirt. I’m sure that the mainstream bookstores won’t carry them, but I’ll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama’s watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.

Obama’s thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle – squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be “racist” (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN - suggests that I won’t have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign’s “get out the vote fraud” activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of “plausible deniability” as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.

I’ve seen a President that I am generally-inclined to like get crapped on for eight years, and I’ve seen McCain and Palin (honorable people both, despite policy differences I may have with them) get crapped on through this election season. If the Democrats think that a President Obama is going to get some sort of honeymoon from the folks who didn’t vote for him, as a wise man once said: heh.


Civics 101 people; the guy who gets the most votes, wins.....

But there was also a recognition that the will of the majority was, in the end, respected and granted legitimacy. This included recognizing that there was only one president and that even if we disagreed with him, that didn’t mean he was an impostor. The fact that the 2000 election was so close (and the results confirmed by a consortium of independent media who took the time to recount the Florida votes several different ways proving that Bush did indeed win the state) no doubt was frustrating for the losers. But the idea that after 8 years the left could never get over the results and indeed, showed a derangement toward the president even after a still close but decisive win in 2004 proves that it is up to us on the right to bring our politics back to a rough equilibrium so that we can work together in these perilous times.

I plan on doing just that – while still skewering my political opponents with as much zest and glee as I can muster.
By: Rick Moran at 10:23 am

[retiredman]

there may be some, but I won't. I think in either case it's wrong. Bottom line, I think both sides should really create acceptable elections. Then they should accept the results. In any case, if Obama is elected, which is likely:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/13/if-elected-obama-will-be-our-president/


go for it. It will prove that, all along, your righteous indignation at the terrible disrespect for Bush was nothing more than partisan whining, and that you would have done the same exact thing if Gore had squeaked into office

[red states rule]

go for it. It will prove that, all along, your righteous indignation at the terrible disrespect for Bush was nothing more than partisan whining, and that you would have done the same exact thing if Gore had squeaked into office

Republicans seldom whicne over an election loss. Dems on the other hand, have a temper tantrum when they lose. Liberal arrogance prevent them from admitting the voters reject their liberalsim and invent endless excuses for their loss

[theHawk]

If Hussien wins I'm just going to buy my guns before he gets into office and starts shredding Constitutional rights. Other than that, he's not going to change a damned thing about the way I think and act.

[MtnBiker]

If Hussien wins I'm just going to buy my guns before he gets into office and starts shredding Constitutional rights. Other than that, he's not going to change a damned thing about the way I think and act.

Don't forget to stock up on ammunition as well.

[red states rule]

Don't forget to stock up on ammunition as well.

Before or after Obama/Reid/ and Pelsoi repeals the Second Amendment (or at least tries to)

[eighballsidepocket]

Just yesterday, I purchased a beautiful stainless steel Ruger KGP-141 357 magnum revolver. Got a 10 day wait period, and will pick it up on Oct. 27th.

Whoopee!:salute:

[red states rule]

Just yesterday, I purchased a beautiful stainless steel Ruger KGP-141 357 magnum revolver. Got a 10 day wait period, and will pick it up on Oct. 27th.

Whoopee!:salute:

Remember to follow the rules when owning a gun. You must make the anti gun nuts happy

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaogun600.jpg

[OCA]

Yes, he is ahead, but not by the margin the liberal media and Obama supporters are saying

We have 20 days to go, and Obama and Biden still have time to show more of their socialist side


Another lie. Currently the Republicans are instituting socialism or do you not consider nationalization of banks a socialist move?

[OCA]

Republicans seldom whicne over an election loss. Dems on the other hand, have a temper tantrum when they lose. Liberal arrogance prevent them from admitting the voters reject their liberalsim and invent endless excuses for their loss


Republicans are currently creating the atmosphere for excuses and whining on Nov.4. Thats what all the voter fraud shit is about, its a way of saying "it wasn't our fault" when in reality Repub policies are being rejected.

[jimnyc]

Seems my post got lost in the fighting! LOL

OCA's post:


More disinformation from the biggest partisan hack on the board......RSR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Game over

My reply:


My favorite quote of all time - directly from OCA:

"Polls mean exactly this...........jackshit."

:coffee: :dance:

[Gaffer]

Seems my post got lost in the fighting! LOL

OCA's post:



My reply:



:coffee: :dance:

I get the impression he's ignoring you.

[jimnyc]

I get the impression he's ignoring you.

That greek fucker better not ignore me. I'll put a hex on his beloved 49'ers and then they'll suck. Whoops, they already do! LOL

[Yurt]

Another lie. Currently the Republicans are instituting socialism or do you not consider nationalization of banks a socialist move?

is the government buying into the banks to control them or secure the assets therein? i have been wondering about this and it smacks of socialism big time, especially when paulson called the bank execs to washington for a "meeting" to make sure everyone was on "board"...on board for what?

[manu1959]

is the government buying into the banks to control them or secure the assets therein? i have been wondering about this and it smacks of socialism big time, especially when paulson called the bank execs to washington for a "meeting" to make sure everyone was on "board"...on board for what?

the govt bought stock........

we already have socialized mail, healthcare, ailines, auto industry, rail, ports....why not banks...

[Yurt]

the govt bought stock........

we already have socialized mail, healthcare, ailines, auto industry, rail, ports....why not banks...

great question...not sure i can answer it, but will try

mail, essential to the nation and when it was formed, no such company existed and i might be wrong, but, aren't stamps like sales tax, in that, only what you mail is what is "taxed?" and btw, private mail carriers are more expensive than the USPS when it comes to simply mailing your letters. i am amazed how much, UPS, not saying names, UPS mail boxes, charges per letter 45 cents on top of the postage.

so, with mail, they are subsidizing the postal workers salary so that when i go to the USPS i only pay the stamp price for mail?

health care? does our government control the means of health care?

airlines? does our government control the means of airlines?

and so forth....

what exactly does it mean to socialize an industry? and, what exactly is a free market?