Gallup’s three-day tracking poll shows the situation in the US presidential race throughout September as follows:
Barack Obama held a slight lead as the month began, which seems to be the long-term status quo. Then came the Republican convention and Sarah Palin bounce, which briefly put McCain well ahead. This moderated into a slight lead when the dust settled, before being wiped out with the onset of the banking crisis. However, Obama’s six-point lead at the start of this week has narrowed, despite polls giving him a clear lead on economic issues – surely a great boon in the current environment. Much is being said of an ABC-Washington Post poll which has Obama nine points in front, but this appears to be out on a limb. In any case, Gallup’s historical analysis reminds us that a lot can happen in the next six weeks, one way or the other.
1,141 Comments
I think a lot now depends on whether the economic situation starts to bite middle America. There isn’t a lot of time for it to do so and it probably wont which could play out badly for Obama either way. If it doesn’t he could still lose. But it will take years for the effects of the credit crisis, spending in Iraq etc to flow through. If Obama wins he may get the blame for the messes that have been delivered. Voters and totally unforgiving of an incumbent when things bite and it wont matter whether the problems were based in his presidency or the current administration.
My best guess at this point is that he will win this election but become the first one term president in a long while due to being blamed about the real and significant drop in real-term income that I think is inevitable for many Americans in the coming 3-4 years.
‘Twood be a shame … but that’s politics for ya.
All of those polling trends including 3 Polls listed hav moved to Obama in last week & with Obama leading by 12 points (46/34) on who is best to improve th economy & Wall Street meltdown likely to dominate balance of campaign , Obama has a clear advantage
What was surprising was only a 35/30 lead on who is best to handle Wall Street crisis meaning there ar alot of ‘undecided’ , perhaps because they do not fully understand causes of th meltdown Should these “undecided” move correspondingly to Obama , then die may be cast and that seems both candidates immediate challenge
Gallups historical analysis back to 1936 unfortunately only shows last 3 elections of registered vs likely voters , with remaining 15 elections ‘estimated vote’ unknown as to if it was based on registered or likely voters
other intereasting part of Gallups 18 elections is 15 of 18 winners were leading at Labor Day , adding 2 weks to that for change in convention timing makes 13th September when there was a polling tie , but a very non historical event has since occured …Wall Street collapse which favors Obama
No one has mentioned this aspect during Wall Street collapse , one one of my pet policys Kyoto/CC negotiations for 2009 Coppenhagen meeting were already tainted by both McCain & Obama disgracefully NOT supporting Kyoto ratification…whoever is elected now has a stronger ‘excuse’ making a required for CC emmissions reductions target level less likely
I’d contend whatever th total cost of that ‘excuse’ , its still far less than th costs of delay
Odd that the Gallup tracker has closed right up – level-pegging at 46-46 today – whilst Rasmussen has gone the other way. Obama +3 today and +2 yesterday, after being no more than a point in it in the eight days previous.
Thus I don’t know if we can read too much into these movements. Probably more noise than signal.
GGGRRRRRRR …… but should expect no less in the way of tricks from them, hope that this gets full press in the US. I’m forwarding via email to everyone I know who is still over there ….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/during-suspension-mccain_n_129280.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-cenedella/bush-may-be-stupid-but-he_b_129228.html
McCain aide claims credit for deal, says “We’re going into a debate”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/mccain-aide-claims-credit_n_129336.html
(includes video clip)
Here is a clue about how Michigan might go, this is a cut and paste from comments section of one article.
Facts about Oakland county from Wikepedia which might help show how the vote is breaking out there according to what this lady says above – The racial makeup of the county was 82.75% White, 10.11% Black or African American, 0.27% Native American, 4.14% Asian American, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.84% from other races, and 1.86% from two or more races. 2.43% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 14.4% were of German, 9.0% Irish, 8.5% English, 8.5% Polish, 5.7% Italian and 5.5% American ancestry according to Census 2000. 87.4% spoke English, 2.0% Spanish, 1.3% Syriac and 1.0% Arabic as their first language. In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that non-Hispanic whites (including Arabs and Chaldeans) were 78.6% of the population; African Americans, 11.8%; Asian Americans, 5.3%; and Hispanic or Latino people (of any race) 2.8%.
A take on the vote in Florida
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article818181.ece
New Rasmussen NORTH CAROLINA Poll
OBAMA 49
McCAIN 47
Juliem 6
I agree; I don’t dislike Bush because he seems stupid – its because he is a lying sociopath. Anyone who deals with him is a fool.
Nevertheless it looks like the whimpocrats are going to doa deal with him:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
When all the financial facts finally come out in the future, this will hurt the democrats terribly. Obama should steer clear of this whole dodgy, non-transparent $800B deal.
The Dems road to 270 seems to mean Kerry states + IA (now a lock) + NM (almost a lock) + CO (same as NM).
However, Obama needs to hold onto NH (only a 1 point lead there), PA (2 point lead), and MI (variable, but looks increasingly safe).
In the other direction, he’s been doing increasingly well in OH (1 point deficit), NC (2 point lead) and VA (prob a little better than NC). And, of course, there’s Florida, where he’s about 2 points behind…
Socrates,
I have almost given up hope that the USA will ever straighten themselves out. Probably one of a myriad of reasons why I left in 2004. I’ve no plans to go back either. All of that having been said, Obama or any Democrat is the last best hope to straighten out the messes over there. Don’t know in the long term if they can do it but we can live and hope.
Partisan politics, porkbarreling (believe that they call it now earmarking but not sure if that is the same thing or not, that term is new to me since the 08 campaign here); it has always been the case. The first election I can really remember clearly was 1972 [I was 11 at the time]. I can’t remember a single election/administration where things were really any different with the probable exception of Clinton 1992, to a lesser extent 1996. What that says to me is that Republicans simply can’t turn things around. Democrats can if you give them half a chance. Problem Clinton had (if memory serves) was a hostile Congress so he had challenges getting his legislation passed. [Not too dissimilar to problems Rudd is facing in the Senate at the moment, but with the executive branch being separate in the USA, it is possible for both houses of Congress to be hostile].
What we need is for Obama to come in and take the nation in a whole new direction via leadership and example a la Roosevelt (who fundamentally changed the economics of the US coming out of the Great Depression) or Johnson (who fundamentally changed the course of civil rights in the mid 1960’s [although while you can legislate those changes, they are a lot harder to get in practice than the economic/monetary changes in the 1930's as you are dealing with people's learned behaviour, they have to unlearn it]). If Obama can carry that off, we will have a h*** of a wonderful president and the alignment of the electorate, as well as the racial opinions of a vast majority of Americans, will be fundamentally altered forever.
I am hanging out for that Wednesday and the election news, God, I hope beyond hope that it comes to pass. The mood of the electorate in the US right now is comparable to what it might be here IF we had been up against 20+ years of Howards rule a la Menzies (in time in office) before the Kevin07 election. As I was only born in 1961 and have only lived resident in Oz since December 2004, can someone who lived through Menzies time in power AND is a Labor voter comment on whether or not they think that the comparison I am making about the “despair” of left side of the electorate in the US is an apt one?
Thanks much
We were right, they are trying to help McCain and it isn’t going to fly folks
……
“White House Meeting Fails to Yield Bailout Deal
Republicans Resist Agreement Met By House, Senate Negotiators”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092500268.html?hpid=topnews
The Dems can easily turn this on McCain. They just need to say that they had a deal all sorted in Congress and then McCain stuck his nose in and ruined the whole thing.
Come on Dems, come on Obama. I’d like to see the Repugs thrashed in November.
So what’s the latest? Is McCain going to turn up to the debate? Or is he still too scared of Obama?
Now a 46-all dead heat from Gallup: McCain up two, Obama down one.
Anne Davies, the American correspondent for the Melbourne Age writes today:
“This crisis and Iraq will define George Bush’s stewardship as one of the most disastrous in America’s history”.
I have always found Davies to be even handed in her writings so that is a big call and probably represents the general mood that is sweeping the US at the moment. It is surely not going to help McCain very much.
Juliem (14) I think there’s little doubt that the Whitehouse is trying to turn this into a rescue McCain mission and make it sound like he has played a big role in saving the US and the world..
Do you think the American people would be collectively stupid enough to fall for that?
If he hadn’t have ’suspended’ his campaign they might have, but it pretty much telegraphed that he was just playing politics, and the Dems in Congress can so easily turn this on him
Sill question I know but is the syntax for using quotes and italics the same here as the old Pollbludger site. ?
McCain blamed as rescue deal staggers:
“TOP Democrats angrily accused Republican White House contender John McCain of sabotaging an astronomically expensive deal to bail out Wall Street and shore up the US economy.
The $US700 billion ($840 billion) package stalled at talks convened by President George W Bush with top lawmakers and both the men vying to succeed him — Senator McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a new round of late-night discussions in a bid to get the deal back on track, set to be joined by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke.
“John McCain did nothing to help, he only hurt the process,” the senior Democrat said at a joint news conference with Senate banking committee chairman Christopher Dodd. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24405395-12377,00.html
So this rescue package my not play out the way McCain wants.
Why did McCain even think he could be of any use? He admitted during the primaries that economics wasn’t his strong suit.
Not sure about italics, but to quote something just put square brackets around it
Thanks Dario.
I guess you just have to be American to get it because I can’t see what they see.
Observing McCain and his campaign so far and from this distance he looks to me incoherent, uncertain and somewhat eratic and looks like he could or will have health issues. And it seems having adopted lying a an accepted part of his campaign strategy (and his team as much as admitted that) he seems empty of any moral or ethical grounds. To me you would have to feel very nervous having this man as President – not to mention his VP candidate who obviously is incapable of even campaigning properly, being protected from those nasty reporters who migh ask relevant questions of a potential VP. And the contrast is a calm stable man who addresses the issues, is obviously intelligent, thougtful and articulate and all that stuff.
Yet McCain is still fairly close in the polls. Seems Americans are Republican at heart and are loath to change even when whipped and abused by them over a period of time and presented with pretty much a dudd candidate team. You can just see President McCain saluting as the USS America slips beneath the waves, the captain going down with his ship.
This is not about Obama I don’t think, it is amount American psyche – the reality couldn’t be more clearly spelled out to them and yet it seems a great many refuse to see. Maybe it goes back to their proclivity to religious faith where one has to suspend reality to believe and remain faithful. They adopt the same approach to politics – and have faith in the Republicans which overcomes much of the obvious wrongs.
But in Australia we did the same I guess – hung on to a racist bigotted government that fed the wealthy at our expense and etc etc…but many kept on voting for them. Seems like people are happier to be fed b/s than face reality.
Hate to sound like a broken record TP (27) but I believe a lot of it can be explained by skin colour. McCain is white, as is his lovely wife. Obama and his wife are black. Sadly, for a lot of people that’s all they need to know. The best we can hope for is that this financial crisis will help Obama sneak over the line by a small margin – and at the moment there is a very good chance of that happening..
I don’t know the American people – but yes I think the polls did say that was going to be a significant issue.
Darn and Thomas Paine, it’s more that Obama is seen as a Northern Liberal elitist than his race. In 1964, Johnson crushed Golwater 61-39; since then, the only Dem to get over 50% was Carter in 76, and only barely (50.1%). Bill Clinton’s two victories were both won with less than 50% of the vote, due to Ross Perot’s influence. Al Gore and John Kerry were white, but were both beaten narrowly by Bush. Repugs have won 7 of the 10 Pres elections since 64, and the 3 Dem triumphs have all been by southern governors.
This is all due at least partly to the Johnson Civil Rights Act, which alienated the poor white southerners from the Democrats; previously, these people had voted Democrat, and were represented by nasty Democrats, commonly called Dixiecrats. The polling trends show Obama doing well among the educated and young, while McCain’s base is the ill-educated. The demographic shifts are that more people are becoming better educated, so eventually this will work in the Dems’ favour, and a northern liberal will be able to win. Due to the economic meltdown and the Palin pick, there’s a very good chance it’ll happen this year.
The Dems nominate a totally unknown and unqualified candidate, a Harvard educated liberal lawyer, who has never worn a uniform, never run a business, never governed a state, never done anything except teach law and make pretty speeches, and they are *surprised* that he doesn’t romp away with the election? They never learn, it seems. And neither to people here. McCain may be all Thomas says he is, but after the success of Reagan, Thomas should know that US voters don’t think the same way about these things as we elitist liberals do. They look at McCain and they see a war hero, a patriot, a man of experience and character. Given what is happening, the fact that McCain is even remotely competitive this year is a terrible indictment on Obama, and on the people who nominated him. After the Wall St debacle I now think Obama will probably win, but it’s far from a done deal. He couldn’t close the deal on Clinton until the last days, and he can’t close the deal on McCain either, and for the same reason. And if he does win, it will only be because Bush so badly damaged the Republican brand that any Democrat could have won.
Well I gather to win Obama has to have a good a margin as possible in polls come election day if there is such a thing as the Bradley effect or if it is large enough to give McCain the victory.
I agree. If there is only a couple of points in it on 3 November, McCain will win. Racial prejudice will be *part* of this effect, but only part of it. The same thing happened to both Carter and Clinton. Carter was miles ahead in September and only just scraped in. Obama needs to be at least 5 points up to be regarded as the favourite. And he ain’t there yet.
That all depends. The big unknown is whether pollsters have made allowances for a large likely increase in black voter turnout. If they haven’t then all the numbers are vastly undersampling them based on past elections.
Adam i thought Obama closed the deal mathematically
on Clinton months before the convention. Clinton just could not face it.
Darn @ 20,
As noted by some others, there will be a racial component to the vote. Fortunately, in that regard, USA does not have compulsory voting and unlike Adam, I feel that the numbers who will vote with race as their top priority won’t make enough of a difference. That’s because they will come in parts of the voting bloc as a whole where they won’t do fatal damage. Outside of that, no I don’t think that Americans are dumb enough to fall for McCain’s antics. There will always be a component of voters who will always vote Republican no matter what. There will be Democrats too who will vote Republican (they will couch their choices with “not enough experience” or similar to mask to the surveyor that they are racist). In the bottom line, now that the economy has tanked, I can’t see McCain getting up by election day. Bush has so tainted the Republican brand that it isn’t going to happen. Prior to the economy going, I was worried. Now, while not overly confident, I am quietly confident that Obama will hold out even though it might be close ….
Julie, since you are by your own admission so liberal that you have actually emigrated to escape the reign of Bush, I think your judgement must be regarded as ever so slightly suspect. Americans were dumb enough to fall for Reagan (twice), Bush Sr (once) and Bush Jr (twice), so there’s no reason why they won’t fall for McCain, who is a good deal smarter and more presentable than any of them. I do think the Bradley effect will harm Obama somewhat in places like MI, OH and PA, which Obama needs to win. But most white racists are already Republicans. The real weakness Obama has with white working-class Democrat voters is that he’s a Hardvard elitist who has never worn a uniform, not that he’s black. If Colin Powell had run, that demographic would have fallen over themselves to vote for him.
Well I guess all the psephs are going to have a ball analysing the data from this election.
Why ? Why after Bush one of worst POTUS in US history AND a Wall Sreet collapse is not Obama leading by a massive landslide ? Reagan like 489 E/V to 49 or better)
Reason is he’s black Hell NO , Obama won th Democat primarys 51%/49% Obama supporters said this proved his magnetic great appeal transcended colour Fact is there is statiscally a Bradley and reverse Bradley factor , Obama’s colour helps him in key States with lesser reverse effect elsewhere where they vote Republican anyway , so th ‘he’s black excuse cuts no mustard
Reason is uneducated don’t support Obama so its there fault Hell No , over 80% of US citizens ar high school graduates so being so educated they ar CHOOSING with there educated intelect NOT to support Obama , so that excuse won’t wash
Reason is th fault of traditional working familys who polls say do not support Obama That’s true simply demonstrating Obama is not a Labor left type policys candidate
Obama would not get elected to a senior electoral position in Labor Party in ‘oz’ because of his non ‘left’ views on Kyoto , universal healthcare , economic models etc and so similarly would not appeal to vast majority of ‘oz’ working familys either
Compounding Obama’s “left” policy weakness’s , and apart from asociations , is he is an “elitist” who like all “elitist” hav detestable cultural attitudes on other citizens “Elitists” snobs ar regarded with contempt by probably 90% of egalitarian ‘oz’ …”elitists” th wannabe elite rarely attaining elite , th elite if humble being those who ar admired , Obama being an “elitist liberal” simply compounds electoral demagraphic problems and 6 key statistical factors of which were evident in th Pimarys
Obama likely will win election because of Wall Street but that’s not much of a “postive” recommendation but not by 1980 Reagan levels , But win in spite of Obama but not because of Obama…win because of Bush and Wall Street , not because landslide wise US voters want Obama Most voters in there hearts just reely don’t want another ‘Republican’ (possibly meaning polls may be understating ‘likely voters’ & turnout)
This is why rusted on Obama supporters do not “get it’ , and why they still do not understand that “an Al Gore” Democrat (th antithisus of Obama culturally & key ‘left’ policy wise) would be leading by a landslide right now Rusted on bought th cupboard but did not look in th drawers & ar intellectually locked in , probably saved by th Wall Street timing fluke being th likely decider , but then this site is not a demographic of th average intelligent person facing life’s normative hurdles
Adam @ 37,
Colin Powell will be in Obama’s cabinet. You heard it here first
…….
Adam @ 37,
For the record to set it straight, I married an Aussie in the mid 90’s and we were always coming home as he wanted to live back where he grew up and we agreed to that up front in our relationship. The fact the the timing of the move back to Oz (in 2004) conincided with getting away from Bush’s mess was only a timely coincidence. Cheers
Hope you’ve enjoyed the move julie!
As what? He’s already been Sec of State. I suppose the Pentagon might interest him.
Julie @ 40. Understood. An excellent decison if I may say so.
Fast forward to Sept 2010, 2 months before the November election.
Australian Govt has to bail out Comm Bank, Macq Bank and AMP and Rudd said”if we dont take the money out of the Future, Education and Infra-structure funds, this Sucker Could Go Down”
How do you think the News and Nielson poll would read?
Newspoll – Rudd Vs Turnbull – Tie
Nielson Poll – Turnbull +3.
No way, there will be no contest.
Because this is how it reads at the moment for Obama and McCain:
Gallup Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 46 46 Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 49 46 Obama +3
I ask you, what is wrong with effing Obama?
Adam and Finnegans: I’m a Hillary fan too, but she didn’t win the nomination!
I’m supporting Obama, I’d back whoever was the Democrat candidate, simple as that!
There’s an element here of a few desperately hoping McCain wins, so you can glorify in “I told you sos”.
There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with him, but there are and probably always will be racial divides in the US
Did everyone see how pissed off Letterman was with McCain? LMAO
And rightfully so. McCain is nothing but a liar.
How ironic that it’s the Republicans in Congress holding up a deal on the bailout, not those horrible Democrats – so much for McCain’s intervention!
So let me get this straight. McCain deliberately scuttled the $700bn bail out that was close to being negotiated because? Some Republicans wanted to use the opprotunity to make the market even more unregulated.
These guys are hard core viscious and greedy.
That proposal reportedly includes even more deregulation and further tax breaks to the financial sector, plus a prayer that Wall Street can rescue itself if the restraints are removed.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/26/republicans-scuttle-gop-bailout-plan/
Why should McCain appear on a comedy show? He’s trying to signal “no business as usual” and that was a good way of doing so. Letterman is a Democrat who has ridiculed McCain as senile all year, and McCain owes him no favours.
Honey is viscous, Republicans are vicious. Which did you mean, TP?
But McCain and his wife recently appeared on “The View”, and that’s hardly a high brow political show!
TP, yes, McCain and his colleagues in the Congress scuttled it. McCain is pretending he is “above” it all but that is bs. He is buried in it up to his eyeballs. Obama will take him to the cleaners in the debate tomorrow. 11am to 1pm on ABC1
But Julie, will McCoward turn up to the debate? If not, I suggest Obama debates Sarah Palin instead!
Has McCain decided to do the debate now?
I think the problem was that McCain canceled the Letterman because he was going to be out of town – however what happened was he was doing an interview with Curic a few blocks away – which Letterman was able to bring up on screen – exactly at the same time he was supposed to be on his show.
Got to count your fingers when you do negotiations with Mc Cain
He was booked to appear
McCain has said he will only do the debate if there has been a deal on Wall St. As of now there is no deal, and the chances one by Friday evening US time seem not very good.
Well he unbooked himself. Lettermann will survive – he can fill the space up with a special edition of “Will It Float?”
He won’t be able to back out of it and save face as I see it …… Obama will be there no matter what
Both bits from the Washington Post, articles from today US time so 24 hour prior to debate time. The last bit seems to imply if you read between the lines that they will be there. I’m guessing that the whole thing of what McCain has been doing over the last 48 hours has been just a stunt.
When McCain does anything unusual it is always a stunt, but when Obama does anything unusual it is always a bold new departure. I doubt the liberal media even know they are doing it, it is just hard-wired behaviour.
If he doesn’t show up he will get hammered in the press, and the polls, regardless of what he pretends he is doing instead
Well Obama ought to do the debate, you can’t be manipulated by your oponent like that. People will tune for at least the first part of it and it will certainly make all the news for the very fact McCain stayed away, with no doubt sound bites form Obama saying a President should be able to do with two or more issues at a time.
The thing with McCain and Letterman is dishonesty. McCain booked to be on the show – McCain canceled because he was going to be out of town – it was a lie. It seems that McCain is even more at home with dishonesty than GWB which is a bit of a worry.
He’ll get hammered in the liberal press, and praised in the conservative press. So what else is new?
Political candidates have (or should have) better things to do to pander to the self-importance of jumped up comedians who think they rule the world.
Bye for now.
In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”
Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
The question is how this will all play out in the public’s eye. Will they see it as Republican’s or McCain playing games.?
Re 68,
Seems like Paulson ought to have been talking to the Republican leader in the House, not the Speaker. She can’t order the Republicans to get in line ……. Speakership doesn’t work like that in the HOR ….
TP (68)
Or perhaps they’ll see it as the Democrats being obstructive. Isn’t that the big danger?
Does anyone know how many people in the US usually watch these debates?
What’s new is that the polls on the subject have shown very few support postponing the debates. Regardless of the press, simply skipping the debate will hurt him with voters.
Not when polls of voters have shown that most are for strict conditions being placed on the bailout, which is what the Democrats are trying to impose
About the way the university in Missouri is getting ready for the debate tomorrow night US time
…..
“Ready, set, play presidential debate bingo!”
McCains a joke already. At least with Bush we had to wait for a few week after his election.
Frank: Republicans “winced” when McCain was mentioned in meeting
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that “nobody mentioned McCain” during the several-hour-long meeting on the $700 billion market rescue plan, other than Frank and that his Republican colleagues “winced” when he did.
“He’s been irrelevant to the process. He remains to be,” said Frank. “I was afraid that his dropping in here, like Andy Kaufman’s Mighty Mouse—’here I am to save the day’—I thought that would slow things down. I didn’t see any sign of our Republican colleagues paying any attention to him whatsoever.”
Franks went on. “Nobody mentioned him. The man’s irrelevant to the whole process. No Republican mentioned his name. I’m the only one who raised his name. They winced when I did,” he said.
“I don’t think anyone takes that seriously,” said Frank of McCain’s suggestion that Friday’s debate be delayed. “Sen. McCain trying to use the necessity for his presence to reach a deal that we’ve already reached as a reason to duck the debate is unworthy of him. There is absolutely no reason not to go to the debate.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Frank_Republicans_winced_when_McCain_was_mentioned_in_meeting.html?showall
Oh yes and this funny little bit:
Adam @ 57,
Obama will have a televised event tomorrow no matter what McCain does. Obama and McCain are playing a huge game of chicken and when it came time for Obama to make his move, he didn’t blink
….. [ Barack Obama is committed to hosting a public, televised event Friday night in Mississippi even if John McCain does not show up, an official close to the Obama campaign tells the Huffington Post. In McCain's absence, the Senator is willing to make the scheduled debate a townhall meeting, a one-on-one interview with NewsHour's Jim Lehrer, or the combination of the two, the official said. Such a course of action could make life incredibly difficult for McCain, who has called for the suspension of the debate in light of the current economic crisis. Should he stay in Washington D.C. -- if a bailout is not completed by then -- and let Obama alone reach tens of millions of television viewers? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/obama-will-make-debate-a_n_129250.html ]
FINNS
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
“Gallup Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 46 46 Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 49 46 Obama +3
I ask you, what is wrong with effing Obama?”
As you see Amigo , you got NO answer !
Just silence , and thus has it been from day one , an incapacity of Obama supporters to undrstand psephology , but then of those those who believe in elitist intellegentsia don’t find reality comforting anyway
Re #78 [ for those who don't care to link through and read the whole article],
McCain has no bloody idea what he is going on about.
I already responded to his question Ron. Way to ignore as you usually do. How are the sour grapes?
I wonder if McCain will try and ban short selling on his campaign
Ron (79)
I think most people would have interpreted it as a rhetorical question
I don’t think anyone knows what the political effects of any of this stuff will be just now. We are in totally uncharted waters at the moment. The electorate is very angry, but they haven’t decided yet at whom to direct their anger. That’s why the Congressional Repubs are running away from the Bush-Paulsen plan. They don’t want to be associated with it if the voters decide it’s all a giant swindle. The Dems are the majority in Congress so they will have to take responsibility, either for passing the plan, or for not passing it. They don’t know which alternative is worse. I don’t think McCain knows what he is doing, but at least he’s giving an impression of action, whereas Obama isn’t doing anything as far as I can see. Over the next week or two we will find out who has positioned themselves better.
One thing I have found about searching through a number of papers around the country and networks in the USA is the wide diversity of opinion.
You get strong Republican and Democrat papers and in betweens – thus if you support one side or the other fairly strongly there is a paper for you but, if your a swinging voter you get to see a variety of views. Unfortunately you dont get that in Australia.
That is the wonder of diversity in the media. And I get the feeling that the quality of political analysis is much higher than we often get in Australia.
Adam @ 85, I read one article this evening which says point blank that Pelosi has said the Democrats will NOT sign onto ANY deal period UNLESS both McCain and a majority of Republicans also support it. Dems are playing hardball on this and that way they can not be wedged.
The Wall St Journal is being quite scathing about McCain. They are backing the Paulsen plan and they don’t like the way McCain and the Congressional Repubs are trying to run away from it. But who’s to say what next week’s polls will show?
Julie, yes if I was Pelosi I’d do the same thing.
Actually Adam,
I think this is the defining moment of the campaign.
What impression of action? He said he was suspending his campaign and immediately going to Washington then, went and did TV interviews for the rest of the day and didn’t get to Washington until over 24 hours later! He’s a fraud, and has been called out on it.
Yes GG I agree. McCain is behind, and when you’re behind you have to take more risks. He took a big risk with Palin, and so far it has paid off. Now he is gambling again. Maybe he will crash and burn. Maybe he won’t. Maybe Obama’s bland platitudes won’t cut it either. I don’t claim to know what will happen.
Dario, if McCain can claim to have cut the deal that gets a package through Congress with bipartisan support, and make that claim stick, he will be a big winner, and Obama will be seen as Professor Waffle again.
He’s got very little chance of that. He’s on none of the committes and the Dems won’t let him run the show. They’re not stupid. The guy just seems totally unhinged.
Adam,
At the end of the day you stand or fall by what you believe.
McCain and the Repubs believe the market will ultimatley fix all.
Obama and Co believe that you need controls and regulations.
People are really peeved atm re the economic situation. But, I believe the US belief in markets is too inculcated to believe their will be a massive change of attitude.
Attitudes change over time, but not instantly.
GG: No, at the end of the day you stand or fall by what the voters decide about you. Obama ought to be 20% ahead after such a catastrophic policy failure by the incumbent administration as this represents. So why isn’t he?
Dario: It’s all about impressions. Maybe the Repubs are pretending to oppose the Paulsen so that they be “won over” by McCain and he gets all the credit. Who knows? You don’t, and nor do I.
Adam (96)
I wondered about that scenario myself. There’s not much they wouldn’t do to hang onto power.
Aam,
Umm, Umh, Umhe……….
And I remind you that at this point in 1976 Jimmy Carter *was* 20% ahead of the hapless bonehead Gerry Ford, who was carrying Watergate on his back, and in the end he won by just 2%. There’s lots of juice in this race yet.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. He’s black.
Dario (100)
Ditto
Oh yes, if Obama loses that will be the Dems’ excuse – it was all racism. Bollocks. Most Americans would be happy to elect a black president. If Colin Powell had run in 2000 he would have won in a canter.
Adam (102)
Two big statements in that lot. Any evidence to support them?
It doesn’t matter whether ‘most’ would, as long as there are large enough sections of the community that won’t it will be a factor against him. I’m not saying he won’t win, but it will make it harder. To argue the opposite is naive in the extreme.
Um, Dario, “most” is by defintion more than 50%. So yes it does matter.
Are the values at intrade of any predictive value?
I don’t know what intrade is.
Possum runs some stuff on it as well.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933
I am in the Yahoo USA poltics chat rooms – boy is it hot.
Um no, for starters its not compulsary voting in the US, and just because more than 50% of those that vote may not have a problem with it, that doesnt mean they will vote for him
http://www.mahalo.com/Obama_Race_Factor_Poll
Dario,
Where did this recent information come from?
Dario “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. He’s black.”
Darn “Ditto”
Then yous & other Obama supporters were illjudged in supporting Obama in first place & giving th Republicans a chance to win
Where is th evidence to support this statement , Tell me which States being black huts Obama ???
(because Obama beeing black is HELPING him in Republican VA & NC wher there ar big black populations ! , I’m saying its not th colour of his skin thats th problem , but th colour of his politics)
TP, you’ll have to explain what all those numbers mean, but not now because it’s too late in the evening.
As I have said before Ron, I was originally behind Hillary
How are the sour grapes?
Read the link
Dario
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
Where is th evidence to support this statement , Tell me which States being black huts Obama ???
Read the link
Well if you’d not been lazy in just reading headlines but read th main poll its talking of ELECTION day not now !
Your sour grapes is you can not explain why Obama is not leading by a landslide now , whereas I hav , he’s not supported by working familys traditional labor supporters
I am really puzzled about this $800B rescue plan from the USSR (United States Socialist Republic) because nobody asks the most obvious questions:
1. Where’s and how the money coming from?
2. How many cents in the $ of the “toxic asset” they are paying?
I’m glad to see that the Hillary fans here have acted so predictably. When Obama won, I commented that we would get endless comments that “Oh, you are so silly. If you only had chosen Hillary, we would have won easily. Why oh why don’t you liberals ever listen to the voice of reason?” Repeated ad nauseum like a mantra.
George W Bush beat that windbag, powder-puff, lazy slob Gore, who was a centrist. Kerry was also a pathetic, born to rule centrist and he lost to The Imbecile as well. Obama is up against a much more electable McCain. Gore or Kerry would have been slaughtered by McCain.
It’s time a few Billary supporters got over themselves.
Finns,
Something must be done.
This is somehing.
Therefore, it must be done!
spoken like a typical precous elitist intellegentsia , whose phoney candidate SHOULD be winning by a landslide and isn’t because he’s not left policys so working familys don’t support him
And the difference is?
I just did. You haven’t explained anything, as usual. Back to your fantasyland Ron.
Amigo FINNS
US markets in financial ruins , democrats hav majority…why are they not passing there own legislation…could it be Obama’s presidential interests ar greater than US economys ?
I know that Sarah Palin just loves me.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hunters-dont-kill-finns/2008/09/25/1222217427624.html
You seem to be excluding the thousands of African-American working families who supported Obama during the primaries, and who are keeping him ahead of McCain on the national vote.
You don’t need to win in a landslide, all you need is 270 electoral college votes.
I’d also point out that the Republican base is comprised of the wall street executives who are almost completely responsible for the current melt down in the U.S., and thus the world, economies. What exactly does McCain know about economics? He even said during the Republican primary that it isn’t his strength.
Because if the Democrats pass legislation that Bush disagrees with he will veto it.
The U.S. political system is a lot different to ours.
ShowsOn
you wrote a long post but avoided th question WHY Obama is not leading by a landslide given Bush & Republicans ar on th nose and Wall Street collapse
ShowsOn
another post this time on economic avoiding th question
Ron
“US markets in financial ruins , democrats hav majority…why are they not passing there own legislation…could it be Obama’s presidential interests ar greater than US economys ?”
ShowsOn
“Because if the Democrats pass legislation that Bush disagrees with he will veto it. The U.S. political system is a lot different to ours.”
Ron
so what , then bush & Republicans can be blamed , read th proposed Bill
‘The proposed bill, largely crafted by Democrats with only modest Republican input, would also likely have included caps on the pay of executives of firms that take federal assistance, mortgage relief for families facing foreclosure, equity stakes for taxpayers and an oversight board to hold the Treasury secretary accountable, reports BS News correspondent Bob Orr. ‘
Can someone prove that Hillary would be further ahead than Obama? No. It is a matter of faith, like a religion. Just keep repeating your mantra and it will become true for you. It proves NOTHING.
Your faith is very strong. Your faith was also very strong when you ignored all possible evidence that Hillary was going to LOSE to Obama, which she did. WE WERE RIGHT.
As a great man said;
I think Nietzsche might have been a prophet.
Oh so sorry, I didn’t realise that it is my job to write things that you agree with! But here are some of my speculation, perhaps the polls are close because:
Because Obama is relatively young.
Because Obama is an African-American, and there has never been a non-white President.
Because some people think they should stick with Republicans because of national security issues.
Some people want Sarah Palin to be Vice President
Some people think John McCain still believes everything he believed in in the year 2000.
However, just because the polls are close now doesn’t mean the election will end that way on November 4th. A stuff up or two by either side (like McCain saying he would suspend his campaign when he hasn’t) could kill off their chance at victory.
Diog, if Obama is such a great candidate, why then he is not as amigo Ronnie has stated:
Please Explain.
Its alright diogenes , yous “elitist liberals” (your admission) live with different cultural attitudes & policy priorities to 90% of aussies so just keep telling yourselves your selection will win in a landslide
So what are you complaining about? Why don’t you just wait for this largely Democrat bill to be passed. Then see if Bush dares to veto it.
You should stick to making your own points rather than just cut and pasting things other people have written.
What are you talking about!? The current Federal Government, and every state and territory excluding W.A. currently has a Labor government, which are ideologically much closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican party. If John McCain was an Australian politician he would be in the Liberal party.
I have no idea how you come up with this “90%” figure, I figure you just made it up because you haven’t provided any evidence for it. “Elitist liberals” is simply a derogatory term invented by the Republican party to win elections. They even campaigned against Clinton as an elitist, even though he was a centrist. If you fall for that sort of rubbish you’ll fall for anything.
ShowsOn
I copied what was in th proposed Bill per CBS What you did NOT like is was th content of th Bill was drafted by DEMOCTATS and that DEMOCRATS hav th Congress majority & could pass pass it if they wished
so I said to YOUR point in #125
“Because if the Democrats pass legislation that Bush disagrees with he will veto it.
The U.S. political system is a lot different to ours.”
I replied “why do NOT th Democrats enact it ?”
You hav so far been unable to give an answer !
Wall St drops 130 pts the first 2 minutes and dropping
Try to type slower, there are so many errors in this that it is hard to understand exactly what you are saying.
You are completely ignoring the fact that they don’t have disciplined parties in the U.S. Just because a few senior democrats wrote most of the legislation doesn’t mean ALL democrats will vote for it.
I still have no idea if you think it is good or bad that the Democrats are mainly responsible for writing this legislation. Nor do I have any idea what this has to do with Obama.
Of course McCain has hardly anything to do with any of this, because he knows bugger all about economics, and admitted it earlier this year.
Finns
See 129
I would also add that McCain is as far from being a Repug as is possible so the Repug disaster taints him less than any other Repug candidate.
If anyone is wondering why McCain is still hiding Yup Yup, just watch this video of Couric interviewing her. It’s just pathetic that such a stool-pigeon could be a heartbeat from being POTUS. She’s a clown. (But at least she’s not a witch because we have seen her beong protected from witches also on youtube)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
If it was the year 2000 I’d agree with you, but since then he has changed most of his positions on major issues.
He was against the Bush tax cut plan in 2000, but now he is for it. He didn’t think a surge in Iraq would work in early 2003, but now he goes around saying he was his idea. He was for comprehensive immigration reform last year, but now he says he opposed it because the Republican base is opposed to it.
If John McCain version year 2000 was running in this election HE would be ahead in the polls. But the fact he has flopped around to get the nomination means he is struggling against a first term Senator.
Diog,
Exactly, exactly, exactly, so Obama should be 30pts in front!!!!!!! Not -
GW/Battleground Tracking 09/21 – 09/25 1000 LV 46 48 McCain +2
Gallup Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 2731 RV 46 46 Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 09/22 – 09/24 3000 LV 49 46 Obama +3
Please explain.
“The proposed bill, largely crafted by Democrats with only modest Republican input”
Democrats hav majority in congress to pass what they want , again you’ve avoided puting responsibility with them If Republicans were in majority you would be criticising them Thats double standards Th politcand there hav failed in this crisis
(yes I support th legislation in principal)
You also failed to answer why Obama isn’t leading in a landslide , last 4 of your points would not be supported by most Democrats
you also misstated ‘elitists liberals’ , they ar here on this site as well as in US They do not share egaltarian oz cultural attitudes nor key ‘left’ policy priorites at all , and your suggestion otherwise is nonsense
The election is 6 weeks away.
I doubt everyone has made up their minds yet. The polls could be close now, but either candidate could still win comfortably (by 50+ E.C. votes) on election day.
Finns
VPs don’t make any difference to voting. We’re up by 3.5% nationally on RCP and we’re winning by EVERY measure.
I love a good rant and Bill O’Reilly goes berserk about the crash on this piece and attacks right-wing talk radio as liars, and has a few home truths for the Dems as well. Bill’s not going to be happy if there isn’t a bail-out.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=182023
Oh rubbish. Palin is a clown Republican, but they elected Bush twice ffs. Being a clown Republican doesn’t make you unelectable… it adds votes!
Adam 102
“Most Americans would be happy to elect a black president.”
I’m sure most Americans would be happy to elect an honest, sane, competent president who used his powers for the national interest. Yet they almost elected Dubbya in 2000, and did elect him in 2004. Go figure. Who they elect is who they elect, however much you might wish for your side to win.
Rasmussen have Obama 50/45 today – I had the feeling that this poll was usually the lower one for Obama.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Finns
I should also add that Americans are cretins and can easily be persuaded to vote their country into becoming a septic tank. Democracy sucks when you have a nation whose education system allows you to graduate if you know which end of a pencil to hold.
OH FFS! You are applying Australian standards of party discipline (where everyone in the same party 99% of the time votes the same) to the U.S. system. It just doesn’t work like that. They have no party discipline, they vote however way they want.
What!? So you are criticisng an American politician because he doesn’t have Australian cultural values? Um, doesn’t that criticism apply equally to McCain and Obama? What exactly are these Australian cultural values, and why should American politicians adopt them?
When Republicans call Democrats elitist liberals it is because they support things like equal rights for gays, ethnic and religious minorities, low paid workers, trade unionists and indigenous Americans (Native American Indians).
What of those cultural values do you oppose? Which of those values does our current Federal government oppose?
FINNS
#139
Please explain.
Amigo you ask , and you ask , and you ask….for 6 month you hav asked …but alas an answer of either phoney or flawed non key ‘left’ policys candidate shall not come from there keyboard lips
Well there you go. Maybe that will shut Ron up a bit but somehow I doubt it.
No 146
Outrageous Diogenes. You obviously know very little about Americans.
and
“Rasmussen Markets data shows Obama as the clear favorite and currently gives the Democrat a 56.3 % chance of victory”
This from the Rasmussen release is quite telling:
Given the massive lead in voter registration that the Democrats have, that spells severe problems for McCain
Which coincidentally matches the current intrade price for Obama.
ShowOn
Its time for you to get off th fence about “elitist”
Obama talking about millions of working familys in Pennsyvania & other mid west towns
And he is talking ABOUT them BEHIND there back 3,000 kilometres away to an AFFLUENT fund raisers in far off San Francisco on 5/4/08 , and reported in ALL credible US media
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”
No context can hide this is “elitist’ , a poor cultural attitude of other citizens for whom you claim you wish to be elected to represent ONLY an “elitist” would deny these snobby condecending words were not “elitist”
Interesting. About 12% of Republicans voted for Clinton in 1992, and about 15% in 1996.
Ron
If Obama only appeals to elitist liberal, how come more than 50% of the US is voting for him? They must have a hell of a lot of elitists over there.
GP
By almost every measure, the US has the most ignorant population of any Western country. Only 13% believe that evolution is the sole reason we are here. 55% believe in God and creationism. You just can’t buy ignorance like that in any country other than the US. No country comes close.
Dario (152) – or anyone else who knows (Juliem?):
What are the actual voter registration figures for the two parties at present?
Also, what, if any, data is available on the registartion of blacks compared to previous elections?
LOL! After you…
Yes, Obama is overwhelmingly leading in the low income voting demographics, particularly African-Americans and hispanics. So, what’s your point?
Well those African-Americans and Hispanics (who tend to be religious) don’t seem to care about what he said. The fact he didn’t use weasel words like the current president probably worked in his favour.
But WTF does this have to do with “egaltarian (sic) oz cultural attitudes” (hint: I’m quoting you)? You attack Obama as a liberal elitist, and then have a go at him for attacking people who are anti-immigrant and anti-trade.
Are you an anti-immigrant protectionist? Did he offend your anti-immigrant sensibilities?
registration
The reason he is leading is because he is starting to eat away at McCain’s lead with white middle-class voters. I guess they are the new elites.
Plus most Americans think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, angels are real, and that there is a literal placed called “hell”.
ShowsOn
another question (my #154) you avoid…you don’t like hard questions , it was quite simple , did you see anything wrong in Obama’s remarks I quoted in #154
Last I checked the Dems were 11 million registered voters ahead… forget the totals but will see if I can find a link
Listening in to Yahoo US politics chat rooms the main topics of heated discussion was if Palin should be home with the kids and how that reflected on her family values.
Thanks Dario
I would also be interested in what percentage of the registered voters actually vote.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm
Why should I have to respond to your questions? It isn’t like you have tried in the slightest way to respond to any of the points I have made in my last 6 posts.
I’ll answer your question after you can explain what Obama said has anything whatsoever to do with “egaltarian (sic) oz cultural attitudes”.
To help you on your way, I think one important “egaltarian (sic) oz cultural attitude” is something called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I think Obama was using his right to free speech. So he was expressing a cultural value that all liberal democratic countries share.
I also note that you haven’t explained how or why Obama is wrong, instead you have just attacked him as a person by calling him a “liberal elite” (a term you haven’t even defined). I consider ad hominem arguments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ) completely useless and unconvincing irrespective of how many times you repeat them.
LOL! Letterman complains that McCain skipped his show because he had to go to Washington. But then he found out that McCain actually stayed in New York City, and didn’t leave for Washington until the morning after he was meant to appear on Letterman’s show.
What a clown, McCain’s “campaign suspension” is a joke.
Dario
That’s a huge difference. Do you think it is likely to even up a bit before polling day?
I won’t pretend to know the minds of Americans other than those I have met, who have generally been pleasant though I suspect unrepresentative because they were better educated than average. But I don’t think education is the (main) problem with the US today. I think its their national psyche. I think they are a nation that is outwardly optimistic but inwardly live in fear. That is why they wrap themselves up in reassuring, simplistic religeons and easily fall for the childish fear campaigns that the republicans have given them in recent years. They have changed from moral leaders to self interested neurotics. If the objective of terrorists is to win a struggle through instilling enough fear in their opponents to prevent sensible act, then Bin Laden defeated them in 2001.
So I won’t presume they will vote for Obama, an imperfect but intelligent man who can change them away from the path to further stagnation. They may prefer McCain, a once decent old man who is in decline with old ideas that have already proven to fail, and incapable of understanding their economy, much less fix it. But for their sake, and ours, I hope they don’t. If they can’t see it after Iraq, Katrina, and having $800 billion of their own money thrown away to save a bunch of con men masquerading as financial managers, then nothing will save them from the slide to a secondary power.
It seems pointless to try to convince some posters here that McCain is a disaster waiting to continue. Most right wingers seem incapable of admitting they’re wrong, no matter what their side of politics does. I woudl describe myself as centreist, which puts me to the left of the majority in todays politics. I can still admit though, that some left/labour/democrat politicans or governemtns don’t deserve election – like Latham or NSW Labour. But I rarely see the same honesty reciprocated, so such discusion seem pointless.
Poss I think I’ll stay on your elitist tree and hope in November that average Americans realise that electing an idiot like themselves is not a good idea.
Democrats always lead on registrations, it is getting them out to vote which is the hard part.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html
In 2004 there was a voter turnout of 64% of the voting age population, while approximately 72% was registered to vote. So that works out to about 89% of registered voters actually turning out to vote.
My first link with registration numbers was from 2004 so it’s probably changed a fair bit since then…
GG
What is FINNS and I to do with either rusted on believersor or elitist liberals believers , we ask , and ask , and they can not give straight answers , perhaps th questions ar too difficult
#130 WHY Obama is not leading by a landslide given Bush & Republicans ar on th nose and Wall Street collapse
#122 “US markets in financial ruins , democrats hav majority…why are they not passing there own Bailout legislation ? (then Bush & Republicans can be blamed) …could it be Obama’s presidential interests ar greater than US economys ?”
#154 Ar Obama’s words on 5/4/08 snoby condecending “elitist ?
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”
SHOWSON , th fact you can not simply say these ar snoby condecending elitist words demonstates you ar either an “elitist” also and afraid of ” outing”or ar incapable of even saying Obama on this occasion was 100% wrong….th former is more likely
addition “liberal”
Diogenes (156)
I have a university education, am not in any way religious and I think the theory of evolution (that’s what it is – a theory) has enormous problems. So I don’t share your view that the American people are necessarily ignorant because large numbers of them don’t accept it as a proven fact.
I do find it amazing however that in this day and age more than 50% of them believe that God is a proven fact.
Correction… I think those census.gov figures above are wrong.
Here is a better link which had voter registration at 65.9% of the VAP in 2004, and an actual turnout of 58.3% of the VAP. So that’s still around 88% of registered voters turning out to vote.
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab01.xls
So your argument is that Obama is an elitist because he says things that are elitist? Well, there’s a term for this, it’s called a circular argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I don’t find circular arguments convincing, they lack a) logic b) content
I hope you realise that if something ever replaces the Theory of Evolution, it will be another scientific Theory. If your problem is with the fact it is a Theory, that means you shouldn’t believe anything in science at all, because science only produces theories. You simply aren’t using the term “theory” in its scientific sense, you seem to assume that it means that it is opposed to “practice” (i.e. how things happen in the actual world), well, that’s exactly what scientific theories seek to explain.
Science doesn’t produce “facts”, it produces theories, which are “provisional truths” (the best explanation of truth given currently available evidence). Science does not produce “absolute truths” that never change irrespective of evidence.
I find it amazing that you don’t accept evolution even though it is supported by thousands of examples of evolution from the fossil record to DNA analysis. It is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, which is why it is the central unifying theory of all biology.
Obama
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”
Either you ar comfortable with Obama’s words on 5/4/08 describing millions of working familys in Pennsyvania & other mid west towns…OR you ar not …you refuse to say so , implying you reely do agree with Obama but ar uncomfortable admitting it
Biggest problem for “elitists” is outing themselves
As for Evolution , your argument is typical athiest dogma for which athiests can not alnswer all questions neither can religion (which is based on faith)
Well, why is Obama leading in most mid-western states!?
One of your biggest problems is that you attack people, instead of arguments. I think this is because you struggle to make arguments that are coherent and concise.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Ken Miller, one of the most famous evolutionary biologists still working, is a strict Catholic:
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222441775&sr=8-1
Darn
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The main reason people have problems with it is that they haven’t looked at the science. There are lots of good books on evolution such as Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero, or The Ancestor’s Tale by Dawkins.
I think it’s because science education in high schools has been declining over the last 10 – 15 years. I teach in the humanities at university and occasionally refer to evolutionary explanations for certain psychological phenomena. Sadly most of my students find this extremely difficult to understand because they either didn’t do any science in years 11 and 12, or didn’t understand evolution when it was taught so superficially at high school.
Ron
Atheists/science can answer about 99% of questions. Religion can answer none because it’s based on faith. As I said before “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. “
Seems McCain has a habit of pulling this kind of stunt.
McCain resurrects an old stunt
The candidate has used his ‘country-first’ rhetoric before. But will the Great Man act turn into a self-parody?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-welch26-2008sep26,0,5641824.story
No surprise, McCain heading for the airport now to go to the debate. Nothing but a dumb stunt.
LOL! What a clown. I hope Obama raises his attempted evasion during the debate itself.
ShowsON
A simple yes or no to my #177 post & 6 earlier posts asking same , was simply needed
We know know your avoidance is because you ar an “elitist liberal” , deal with it
I might add now that you’ve burned your bridges for an hour , is that a non elitist Labor supporter would simply say I don’t agree with Obama’s comment , its non Labor language & “elitist” but I’m still going to sort Obama in preference to a Republican
Diogenes
an admitted “liberal elitist” , do not like cultural attitudes of elitists on other citizens As to atheism , you ar also dogmatic & dismissive of people who believe in religion
My view is both science & religion hav not got all answers , so I respect people of genuine religous faith , th issues & questions complex
So rather than forming a coherent argument, now you are creating an ad hominem attack against ME as well as Obama. Stop it, you’re making me laugh.
Great. Does this mean you’ll start working on an argument now? Or are you just going to keep attacking the person, rather than their arguments?
So if we go back to Obama’s quote, that means you are endorsing prejudicial treatment of immigrants (bring back the White Australia policy?), reduced gun control, and you are opposed to free trade. OK, thank you for admitting that, but I think all those policies are nonsense.
I respect people to pursue any religion or other system belief that they want. That is anyone’s liberal democratic right.
However I am opposed to religion, faith, intelligent design, astrology, or homeopathy being taught to students in a science class room and told it is all supported by evidence, logic, and thus scientific.
Ron
That’s partly true. I am dismissive of the arguments of people who believe in religion. I am also dismissive of the arguments of people who deny the Holocaust. I happen to think they are wrong. While I think they are fundamentally wrong about an important topic, I certainly respect them as people still, after all my wife and daughter are both religious. I have high hopes for my son though. Many of the best ‘bludgers are religious. They have a lot of qualities that I admire greatly.
It’s about time McCain got his sh!t together. I used to like the guy but he’s really dropped in my elitist liberal opinion, which probably explains why he’s still going OK in the polls.
McCain will go to debate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13970.html
I liked McCain circa 2000, but it seems he sold out all his major principles to win the nomination.
Sad really, now he is just a parody of his former self. I think the U.S. would be in better shape now if McCain won instead of Bush.
Hahahahahaha now the McCain camp has jumped the gun and accidentally run ads declaring that he won the debate, a day early! So much for a ’suspended’ campaign! MCCAIN IS A TOTAL FRAUD
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html
Well he had suspended the suspendable ads, but the unsuspendable ads weren’t suspended so they didn’t face suspension.
A conservative columnist from the National Review says Palin is so bad at interviews that she should pull out. They really are cringe-inducing.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=#more
McCain’s next ten campaign stunts, according to Slate.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2200927/
1. Returns to Vietnam and jails himself.
2. Offers the post of “vice vice president” to Warren Buffett.
3. Challenges Obama to suspend campaign so they both can go and personally drill for oil offshore.
4. Learns to use computer.
5. Does bombing run over Taliban-controlled tribal areas of Pakistan.
6. Offers to forgo salary, sell one house.
7. Sex-change operation.
8. Suspends campaign until Nov. 4, offers to start being president right now.
9. Sells Alaska to Russia for $700 billion.
10. Pledges to serve only one term. OK, half a term.
Obama now up by FIVE in Virginia on the latest Rasmussen! McCain is falling apart…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election
This gimmick of McCain was seen through immediately and showed a desperate man. The moment he stalled was the moment Intrade went straight up for Obama.
But worse for McCain as it appears he had a hand in ruining the bail out package and now No.3 in the run, this omniscient victory.
Not only is his VP starting to fade into shallowness he too is starting to look like a joke.
I guess it is fitting that the immoral activity of Wall street greed culminates simultaneously with the immoral election campaign of the Republicans – they both sit grinning at each other – different sides of the same coin.
Even worse for McCain, I reckon a lot of the debate will be on the economy, a topic he generally sucks at. So I guess he will pull out some jargon and buzz words, but if more time is spent on that topic, rather than say national security, then it will just make Obama look even better. Obama leads McCain on “better for the economy” by 10 – 15%.
This week just killed off any chance of Bush having any positive legacy whatsoever. I mean some people say that it may turn out to be Iraq in 10 years time, but he will be remembered as the President who did basically nothing until the financial crisis reached the point when banks just didn’t want to lend each other any money. Only THEN he comes out saying that the entire economy is at risk. What has he been doing for the past year!?
Socrates @ 144,
Catching up on overnight chatter here. Glad to see that through the white noise
that someone posted something intelligent 
….
GOOD on you, you are the only one that I can recall in days, if not weeks, that has noted this point
Darn @ 157, don’t know but will look for an answer between now and when the debate starts. After the debate, it is full on with the GF the rest of the afternoon …..
Dario, glad to see those Virginia numbers. If memory serves from the Dems convention, their governor is a Democrat and quite popular too so that might continue to give Obama some “coattails” in Virginia …..
Unique campaigning story in the US State of Michigan where I am from. Note for those who aren’t aware – in the US, petrol/fuel = gas. What we call gas, I can’t remember what they call it, I never used it while living there so I don’t remember.
****
[ Obama gas? Detroit station swaps signs, lowers prices
By KELLY KOZLOWSKI • Free Press staff writer • September 25, 2008
Read Comments(153)Recommend(15)Print this page E-mail this article Share this article: Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Buzz up!
When it comes to campaigning for the presidency, sometimes a T-shirt and a pin just don't cut it. Sometimes you need a really big sign and a price cut on gas.
Whether or not either method guarantees a win remains to be seen, but Detroit Sunoco station owner Samir Bazzi and son, Nick, are giving both a shot.
Bazzi replaced his Sunoco sign with an Obama campaign sign five days ago and lowered gas prices to $3.49 per gallon. "Everything's down," Bazzi said. "We're trying to support people."
Bazzi is also selling Obama hats and T-shirts.
The owner of the station for the past seven years, Sammi said he has been a Democrat since he came to America from Lebanon in 1986.
“I supported Bill Clinton when I started voting and now I support Barack Obama. He is a good man who supports the poor people and looks out for those who have lost their homes and businesses.”
Bazzi said he plans to continue keeping the price of gasoline below those of his competitors and said if Obama wins the election in November he will throw a big party at the station, offering free food and drinks to his customers.
“Obama is a good man in the greatest country on earth and we need someone like him to lead us.”
"This is an Obama neighborhood," Nick Bazzi said, adding that sales have increased since the signage switch.
Many patrons voiced support as they filled up on fuel.
"It looks nice--real nice," said Eric Joye, 36, of Detroit. "That's free advertising. It just shows who he supports."
"I think it's wonderful," said Alma Raymond, 54, of Detroit. "He's going to get a lot of business, just like Obama's going to get a lot of votes. [Obama] is going to be our next president.”
Samir Bazzi echoed expectations of an Obama victory. “We support Obama they way he’s going to support us,” Bazzi said.
Phillip Young, 39, of Detroit called the gas station sign “unique.”
“It did get my attention when it first went up. With about 40 days and counting, I think everybody should come out and vote. Eight years is a long time, and it’s way past due.”
Nick Bazzi said the sign will stay up through Nov. 4. ]
Obama up by 4.2% nationally on RCP. Virginia goes blue. All the “Obama” states holding nicely (ie the Kerry states plus NM/CO/IA) with NH the most at risk. And Missouri enters the field as a strong contender as the next to flip.
McCain shown to be full of sh!t again by going to the debate when there is still no bail-out, largely because they’re still trying to explain it to the old man and Yup Yup. That could take some time.
Debate on ABC at 11am AEST.
Well McCain seems to be under pressure the past 24 hours with David Letterman attacking him for a second day over the non show on his program and Palin giving one of the worst interviews I’ve ever seen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/letterman-attacks-mccain_n_129467.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WkCZV83Cp8
Possum,
You ought to especially enjoy this one
…. lots of nice bar graphs and charts 
…. another source of data on the US elections and numbers registered vs. turnout.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
Diogenes @ 201,
I will be SO happy if Missouri goes, oh my goodness …… I’m the oldest of 4 children and between mother, father and 4 kids only one left the fold and is a Republican. She and her family (spouse also a Republican) live in Missouri ….. If Missouri goes AND Obama wins, she is going to hear about it
……
Since when have the opinions of late night hosts like Letterman ever meant a hill of beans?
Looks like a lot of the Obamaphiles here have swallowed the left wing media narrative hook, line, sinker and fishing reel.
GG loved the ad of yours in the paper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG
The House rollcall on the Economic Stimulus Bill.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/26/1919254-house-roll-call-on-economic-stimulus-bill
as my canadian friend said in an email yesterday
McCain looks like an evil chipmunk and sounds like an evil chipmunk and speaks like a an evil chipmunk.
So if the good ole us of a can elect a moron then i suppose even a chipmunk is a better option
as ive said all along (post hill that is) barry is goin to washington
(McCain will go back to storing more nuts for winter in his cheeks)
I told you so
……
Since late night TV hosts started showing the blatant hypocrisy of the McCain campaign.
McCain stayed in New York City, even though he told Letterman that it was urgent that he fly to Washington.
We also know that McCain’s campaign suspension was a disaster, because he didn’t actually suspend his campaign! It seems that he tested the waters, and when he realised it wasn’t focus grouping well, he bailed on his own bail out.
Wall St to GOP -Drop Dead.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/26/wall-street-to-gop-drop-dead.html
Funniest Palin video ever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc
She can’t think, she just speaks in a meaningless jargon language. Maybe it is Alaskian?
Ted Kennedy Hospitalized
(at this point, seems not to be a grave situation)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/ted-kennedy-hospitalized_n_129737.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/ex-adviser-mccain-blinked_n_129611.html
Shows on @ 212:
I have to say that the commentators in the US don’t mince words do they. She will get torn apart in the debate with Biden. I was trying to find an Aussie politician that imitates Palin and I have to say that I can’t think of one.
Whoever is coaching her in her answers has a lot of work to do. So much stupidity, so little time.
Can you imagine Palin up against Julia Gillard. ?
I predicted that Palin was going to be dismal. A certain commentator, who I won’t name, said what a great camapigner she would be. She needs to be hidden in an attic like the monstrously deformed family secret of the past.
The polls are continuing to go Obama’s way. I think we know now what effect the economic meltdown is having on each candidate.
Here’s a funny cartoon that is doing the rounds.
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1155.gif
The only thing that comes close to that clip is Danna Vale giving some absolutely terrible answers in Question Time when she was minister for veterans affairs. Howard dumped her 6 months later.
[Can you imagine Palin up against Julia Gillard. ?] LOL! Gillard knows the meaning of different words AND the right context to use them in. It seems that Palin knows neither.
Check out this video. Scroll to the 6m30s mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
At that point of the show’s taping, Letterman finds out that McCain skipped his show NOT to fly to Washington as he said, but to appear on the CBS News show with Kati Couric! He then stayed in NYC and didn’t fly to Washington until early the next morning!
They literally cut to the live news feed showing McCain having his make up done in the CBS News studio, even though he had told Letterman that he had to rush back to Washington to help fix the economy. (Of course Letterman jokes that after being on Kati Couric’s show he went on CBS’ cooking show).
She has her own unique nonsense speak instead.
OMG …. shades of Nixon all over again, McCain looks so fake, phoney, uptight ….. Obama looks organized and presidential ….
First question on the economy and Obama won a random coin toss so gets to answer first
McCain speaking to the moderator and NOT looking into the camera as if he were speaking to the people which he is ……. BIG boo-boo ……
McCain is looking off screen at Jim Lehrer, whereas Obama looked straight down the barrel of the camera lens during the opening addresses.
Yes what you said!
WHOAH ….. McCain tells another lie ….. “people will be held accountable in my administration (vis a vis the economy)” …… HUH? …….
He just said that the economy has fundamental problems, even though last week he said it was fundamentally sound!
He’s flip flopping again.
What!? They need to get spending in control, even though they are just about to buy $700 billion worth of credit from Japan and China to buy bad debt from banks!
So does this mean McCain is going to vote against the bail out deal?
Pinged Obama on earmark spending
I think he told Jim Lehrer that he “hoped he could vote for the plan” but don’t think he came outright and said yes. However, per Nancy Pelosi, the Dems will not vote for the plan at all UNLESS McCain and a majority of the Republicans sign on first.
Yeah, Obama should’ve mentioned that Palin supported the bridge to nowhere before opposing it.
Now McCain tells the truth – “I didn’t win Miss Congeniality in the US Senate”
Everyone expects Obama to win the debates, so all McCain has to do is hold his ground. He’s doing that so far.
ShowsOn, no real reason why he should, this debate is between the two of them and if he brings Palin’s name up it isn’t a good look. McCain has enough dirty linen of his own, he need not bring up Palin’s dirty linen as well
…..
When was it decided that this debate would be about domestic issues?
Adam
I thought this one was agreed to be on foreign affairs. The second one is free-wheeling and the third one is on domestic affairs.
When the U.S. economy started completely tanking.
No, there was an agreement that this debate would be on security issues
At the beginning of the show, Jim said that the current economic situation because it was a world wide phenomenon (sp?) fell under the broad umbrella of national security …..
……..
Adam, I sense you are a little edgy this morning
Adam
I disagree about the debate though. All Obama needs to do is get a draw. He’s winning at the moment with the momentum. And Yup Yup’s debate is on in a week’s time. How do you think she’ll go? Seen the interview with Couric?
Do you honestly think either candidate wants to talk about Iraq etc after what has just happened over the last week?
Wouldn’t that be the perfect way for them to show that they are completely out to touch?
Obama talking about rebuilding infrastructure, making education affordable ….. where have we heard that before? Come on down to QT, Obama, we’ll give you a seat of honor on the Speakers right hand side
I’ve got to agree with Adam on this one. McCain has been shafted by the change in topic. There’s going to be a lot of complaining from his campaign.
Julie, I’m very relaxed thanks.
Diogenes, it’s a well-known rule of debates that the front-runner has more at risk. Obama’s whole reputation is based on his rhetorical skills. (Since he hasn’t actually done anything.) Obama needs to win big to gain any benefit. All McCain needs is a draw, and I think so far he’s getting that.
Who’s Yup Yup?
I presume he agreed to the change.
Yup Yup is Palin. That was the answer she gave when she was asked if she was ready to be President.
This way he gets the national security debate closer to election day. That will be to his advantage.
I don’t think that makes. McCain has to demonstrate that he can understand economic issues as well as national security issues.
This is the national security debate.
Lehrer opened saying that this is the debate on security and foreign affairs. THIS IS IT!
Again, expectations for Palin will be very low, so unless she totally f*cks up it won’t matter much.
No, no change in debate topic. Jim Lehrer said at the beginning that the debate was going to be on foreign policy and national security and because the global economic situation fell in the area of national security (albeit “loosely”) that he would ask questions on that area.
Is anyone running the “worm” thingy that we saw in our last fed election?
In that case McCain is being robbed.
I agree, it would only kill of McCain’s chances of becoming President.
So are you saying he should’ve stayed in Washington?
Write a complaint to the independent Presidential debates commission:
http://www.debates.org/
Adam
Yep. He’s being robbed. It’s pretty poor really.
Oh, here we go … lessons of Vietnam vs. lessons of Iraq
…..
ShowsOn, I don’t respond to childish sarcasm (except sometimes).
McCain claiming a la Bush that we will “win” in Iraq and come home with honor ….. Bush’s 3rd term I say ……
He’s quite right.
Doesn’t this count as a response?
I like how the aim of creating a “democracy in Iraq” has turned into trying to create a “fledgling democracy”. It seems that the easiest way to make Iraq look good is to redefine the word “democracy” so that it includes political parties completely divided on sectarian lines.
This is the closest I could find to a worm:
http://mediacurves.com/
Independents are breaking to Obama over every issue so far.
ShowsOn, that was my comment ….. Adam isn’t that left of center
[ or if he is, I haven't seen it yet this morning 
]
cheers
Pinged Obama on not meeting Petraeus or going to Iraq. Obama contradicting himself on the Surge.
Possum, that URL won’t load ….. ??
Juliem – it seems it just crashed. Has been working for the last 20 minutes
Duh! CNN has the worm!
Obama’s problem is that no matter how “right” he is about Iraq on an intellectual level, he puts himself in the position of not supporting the troops in Iraq, which will cost him bigtime in the key demographics.
Possum, if you are watching on CNN PLEASE give as much running commentary with the worm as possible as I am watching this via the TV chip in my computer therefore I only have free to air channels, I’m watching on the ABC. We’ve got the large TV and cable on pregame for the GF ….. thanks
…..
This is a CNN studio audience working the worm? Who chose the audience?
The independents on the CNN worm are breaking to Obama over National Security in what looks like 2 to 1 with the CNN worm
Can do juliem
Adam @ 274, thanks for that
…. I am gathering from your comment that the audience that you are looking at is voting for Obama? 
……
McCain is getting slightly smaller peaks with independents than Obama, and over the full spectrum of his answers is getting what looks to be about half the Independent approval that Obama is getting on Nat Sec issues
SNIP: Defamatory comment deleted – The Management.
Possum, you are a legend, keep it up
……
This Obama answer is a flat worm, but they jumped over the “alienating the local population in Afghanistan”
Obama is getting murdered on foreign policy.
McCain’s screwed then.
The economic events of the past week will just help Obama in general. It just emphasises that the U.S. needs a clean break on so many different issues. What better way to do that than to elect a (relatively) young African-American for the first time? The whole thrust of the issues and mood is just working towards Obama’s favour. Maybe it will change over the next month, but I doubt it.
McCain talks about his record – slowly builds but can’t peak. Audience hesitancy… not good news for McCain on his strong suite. Jumps 15% over Kosovo remarks, flattens over Somalia, mentions the word “record” and down she goes to a nuetral flatline
Albert Ross, I loathe Nazi architecture, I post here under my real name, and I know some good lawyers. So watch your step.
GP @ 282, in your book perhaps, but the worm doesn’t lie mate
We’re a half hour behind in SA. 30 minutes in and I can’t imagine many Americans who haven’t fallen asleep yet. Both of these are pretty ordinary debaters.
Indies go negative on McCains answer – dont like using servicemen deaths as political props. Slowly moves up from initial negative reaction to be slightly positive
It all depends on who chose the audience. CNN has a broadly liberal audience. You can bet that if Fox News chose the audience, the worm would be behaving differently.
poss
is there signs of any fat ladies begining to warble and trill
ps obama comes across more statesmanlike whereas Mccain seems egotistic and a tad nasty
Obama is neutral on the bracelet thang, increases rapidly when he praises the troops, remains high on “taking eye off afghan”
No 286
The worm is stupid. As Howard knows, it often isn’t reflective of the election result.
It was reflective of the last result GP
Yes I agree, it’s a dull debate. Where is Al Gore when we need him?
McCain tanks, the worm goes south
Anyone appreciate the delicious historical irony of an American person of colour walking onto a stage at Ole Miss not pushing a broom but as a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
He comes to the door, he couln’t get in
All because of the color of his skin
What do you think about that, my frien’ ?
Interestingly, the Republicans reacted better to Obama than the Dems did to McCain.
McCains closing is about 10-15% above neutral and stable
The Indies live imposing sanctions on Iran
McCain: “We can’t allow a second holocaust, let’s make that clear.”
LOL! But the first one was so POPULAR!
Adam @ 289, likely that PBS chose the audience. PBS is like our ABC here BUT is more evenhanded than the ABC in Oz …… Jim Lehrer is from the PBS staff …..
Averaged 15-20% positive
I have to say that McCain is performing better than I expected.
wtf is the league of democracies that Mccain talks of??
McCain doing ok so far, but Obama probably ahead just. The change of topic at the start to the economy has definitely wrongfooted McCain, but given the situation in the US it’s hard to argue with the change.
Obama flatlining at about 5% positive, lists to 10% then 15% stable over Iran
Yes, sorry, I am watching on CNN but of course PBS is running the debates. But that’s OK, because PBS’s audience is even more elite and liberal than CNN’s.
Interestingly, Obama gets a more positive boost over Israel remarks than McCain did by about 2 to 1
No 300
Rubbish juliem. Our ABC is balanced.
Obama stable post Israel remark at about 20% positive, slightly higher than McCain
I have to say, Obama just comes across as a heap more Presidential than McCain. A lot more delivery to camera, and more confidence in his answers
No one seems to buy McCain on Iran/Israel, Indies going south over McCain digging at Obama. Worm asleep
McCain is doing as well as he needs to, given the general assumption that Obama is a better orator – in fact his whole reputation is as an orator. All McCain needs is an honourable draw, and I think he is getting that, whatever PBS’s audience think.
292,
Seems to me that the result was in sync with the worm – Kevin won mate
Generally flat for Obama – Indies like the word “diplomacy”. Work is running at about 15% positive, about twice the size of McCains last answer
Possum @ 297, that is good to know as that means there is yet some hope for my Republican sister in Missouri
……
On this answer – Indies and Democrats are giving the same size positive score to Obama…. interesting.
No 312
I agree Adam. Obama isn’t wiping the floor with McCain – at least on foreign policy.
The independents are probably worried that McCain will start another war with Iran.
GP @ 302, were your expectations that low?
Obama just smacked him
No 313
Howard lost the worm test in 2001 and 2004 and won both subsequent elections, julie.
McCain running between neutral and 5% positive
But I thought foreign policy is McCain’s strong suit (we know economics isn’t, he told us so himself). Shouldn’t McCain be wiping the floor during this debate?
The League of Democracies is McCain’s proposal to get around the China-Russia veto at the UN and the dominant appeasement bloc in NATO. I don’t think it’ll get off the ground, but it’s a noble ideal.
Now running stable at +10%
gp@317
why did i suspect that you and adam would agree LOL
Obama is making mccain look very ordinary indeed
maybe mccain should be the one pushing the broom
McCain speaks , audience laughs, worm goes nuetral to slight negative., now negative, now stable negative.
Audience doesnt like flustered McCain
I haven’t seen McCain flustered.
321, I wasn’t in Australia then, I didn’t know that.
Obama growing to 20+% postive and stable
Argumentative Adam – wasnt getting his way in convo
No 327
He wasn’t flustered, he was energised.
Obama stable at 20-25% positive through the whole answer.
This is his best Nat Sec prolonged reaction so far, best of both candidates
GP – whatever he was, audience didnt like it, including Repubs
I think one is allowed to be argumentative in a debate.
“I looked into his eyes and saw three things: a K a G and a B.” LOL
McCain started slightly negative, moved to nuetral, sitting on 0-5% positive, moves up to 10% on energy answer
Why isn’t McCain wearing a flag-pin? Obama has one. Where’s his patriotism?
I don’t think it was argumentative, it was kind of patronising. How many times has McCain said “The senator doesn’t understand…” “There’s a bit of naivete there…” “He doesn’t understand this issue…”
Obviously McCain’s game plan is to make Obama’s relative youth a hindrance, i.e. to connect it with inexperience.
He suspended his flag-pin until other people sort out the economic crisis.
Indies move up to 15% positive on including Ukraine and Georgia in Nato process. Drops slightly back when he gives his travelling tales. Overall an average of about 10-15% positive average across whole answer
Utterly unpresidential
Diogenes @ 338, Probably left it in Washington in his suspended campaign’s disorganized efforts to get out of town to Mississippi
How ungentlemanly of him, to draw attention to the fact that Obama has no qualifications whatever to be president.
I reckon most viewers will have switched off by now. The economy is what seems to be on their minds the most, and the foreign affairs stuff is just getting bogged down in details that the average viewer doesn’t have a clue about.
Obama flat on about 5% positive. Lifts up to 10% thereabouts on energy policy
I don’t think Obama’s lapel-pin is a flag, if you look it on full screen.
Indies like positive plans rather than when the candidates start blaming each other – surprise surprise
No, only a Harvard law degree. They come a dime a dozen.
But it isn’t like executive experience helped the guy who is currently President. He’s managed to screw up basically anything on any policy area you care to name.
What a boring debate so far. For a brilliant orator, Obama is a lousy debater. For a lousy orator, McCain is not a bad debater.
McCain: “Offshore drilling is a bridge.”
Yeah, and the internet is a series of tubes.
ROFL at the idea that a Harvard law degree is a qualification to be president.
Indies like offshore drilling – stable 5-10% positive. Indies like storing nuclear waste safely. Smart people those indies.. like apple pie too.
No 349
A Harvard Law degree is no mean feat, but frankly it’s not enough to be President.
Agrees with Finns, it’s a flat debate, both are being careful to be polite.
Alan Dershowitz for President!
Whenever McCain mentions walking across the isle – it kills anypositive momentum he was building. Takes him a few sentences before it start building again. The indies like what happens when he talks about what he did when he reached across the isle, but the cliche itself takes a smallish nick out of him, or kicks his momentum around about 2 times out of three. Weird
Overall about 10% postive as an average across the whole answer
It’s more relevant than a qualification from a Naval academy!
No, you still need 270 electoral college votes.
Um, no it’s not.
Only someone who knows nothing about the US could make a statement like #358
Adam
It’s a US flag on my TV. I think these two guys would like each other if they weren’t pitted as enemies. God, this is getting even worse. Howie and Rudd’s had more life.
Indies like this answer. 20% positive, dips slightly over them terrorists, goes bacl to 20% with a bit of downside variability of a few percent, slowly drops to ten and stays stable until cooperation is mentioned, jumps to 20% and stays there with “Americas Standing” remarks, get’s up to 25% positive.
I didn’t realise the U.S. was a military dictatorship.
obama mentioned the shining beacon on the hill!
getting back respect for the usa!
Mccain blathers!
game set match
McCain attacks Obama, Indies go negative 5%, then 10%, “fragile sacrifices” lift it back to negative 5%, Petraues quote moves back to nuetral.
It’s a country which reveres its armed forces, and detests lawyers. Anyone who has ever set foot in the US knows that.
Obama hangs around 5% postive, moves to +10 over CHina, then +15 and remains stable, healthcare lifts to nearly +20, health as national security +25 to +30, goes back to +25 for rest of answer
If we were to judge the debate by the old saying of “the medium is the message”. I would say McCain has come across as more credible in feeling the pains of the punters.
McCain goes negative, Indies go negative 10%.
I find McCain rather condescending, and arrogant!
Heads back up to neutral, lifts postive 5% then 10% with remarks on Veterans,. Prosperity and peace sinks back to netrual
Yet some of its most popular presidents like Lincoln, FDR and Clinton were all lawyers.
Thanks for the laugh.
I hope the Obama campaign take up this “What Obama doesn’t understand…” mantra and focus some advertising on shooting it to bits.
Indies like this answer, +15% and stable.
No 373
Reagan was more popular.
Obama runs down the US! Very dangerous. That clip will appear in Republican ads.
He is being condescending to Obama, it is the only way he can imply that he is more experienced. He hasn’t actually clearly demonstrated that he has superior ideas.
McCain POW/MIA/Vietnam issue gives plus 5% and stable. Peaks at +10 at end
Yeah, and he was a trade unionist!
And no surprise that the Pro Hillary people here are bashing Obama!
Adam and Finnigans: you desperately want McCain to win!
If this is excruciating to watch, I shudder to think how painful 90 minutes of Palin vs Biden will be like. It would potentially come under the torture conventions.
First poll out in 2 hours
361 Adam,
I grew up there, you didn’t. I know what I am talking about. ShowsOn is right. When you have lived 43 years in the USA, then and only then can you tell someone what is right or wrong about that country. I don’t purport to have all the knowledge about what has happened in this country before I moved here (although I read and try to be up on my knowledge and information). I even asked the PB readership for background information on Menzies within the last few days. I don’t recall that anyone answererd me but that was beside the point. I can sort out my own answers in time by reading and learning about my adopted county.
Good on you, ShowsOn …….
Poss
does the worm do an aggregrate over the 90 mins?
I would say I *somewhat* want McCain to win. I only get *desperate* about Australian elections. I think McCain would make a better president, and certainly a better one as far as Australia’s interests are concerned.
The best candidate was not there.
No 384
Julie, you’re only saying that because you’re a Democrat supporter.
Julie, I of course acknowledge your superior knowledge of the US. But, do you *dispute* my statement that the US is a country that reveres its armed forces, and that McCain’s Navy record is an asset to him *vastly* superior than a Harvard law degree is to Obama?
No 387
I’d have to concede that Clinton would have easily defeated McCain.
Grrr “vastly superior TO”
Oh no, I liked that comment by Adam. It demonstrated that he had no argument, so he just attacked me as a person.
The idea that you need to be a graduate of a military academy to be President is just absurd. Plus, McCain is no Ulysses S. Grant.
How exactly? We have a free trade agreement with the U.S., so trade isn’t an issue. McCain says he wants to move quickly on climate change, but his right wing backers probably won’t let him. I think you are overstating this. Either administration would be fine for Australia. But Obama would be better for the U.S. economy than McCain, so over all that would be better for the world economy, which includes us.
How do you know this?
That wasn’t actually my point. But nice points for a well executed slide.
Well it was *my* point, and you disputed it, using your status as an American to do so. So kindly answer my question.
I’m not an American. I think you are confused.
all obama needs to say to mccain from now on is-
“your part of the problem,not part of the solution”
Adam: there’s an element of sour grapes in all your commentary!
390 “I’d have to concede that Clinton would have easily defeated McCain.”
Oh Please, GP. And the Hammock Man is convinced he would have beaten Rudd.
I am still waiting for the explanation of why McCain would be better for Australia than Obama. I really don’t think it would make a huge difference in terms of world security, but I think Obama would be better for the world economy. McCain has said that economics isn’t his strong suit, but now is the time for an Democratic administration to go in there and get the rich paying taxes again so the middle class can get a tax cut, so we can get money moving again in the U.S., and thus the world economy.
ShowsOn, even you should be able to see that my 394 is in response to Julie’s 393.
Even you should be able to quote text using square brackets.
Gus at 385 – not that I saw
What a day; presidential debate out of the way, and still the AFL Grand Final for lunch.
I try to assume I am dealing with people of at least average intelligence here. Probably an overoptimistic assumption.
Now now, Adam.
btw, hate to ask again, whatever happen to that all inspiring, kumbaya Obama with the “change you can believe in”? Has Obama put him under the bus as well.
GP, apart from death and taxes you can take it from me that another certainty is that anybody not starting, or eliminated from a race by definition cannot be the winner of that race.
So who won?
Why do you just end up attacking people when they disagree with you?
I asked you a serious question. Can you explain why you think McCain would be better specifically for Australia? You’ve proposed it as an opinion, I am just wondering what your reasons for it are? For the record, I think you are a very smart person who runs an extremely well researched and informative website!
I wanted Gore to win in 2000, because he basically would’ve continued most of Clinton’s policies which helped balance the U.S. budget (which IS indirectly good for Australia). Sadly Gore shot himself in the foot with this strange kind of radical populist campaign that helped Bush win.
I wish McCain had been the Republican in 2000, because that wouldn’t of been so bad. But the way he has flopped around to win the nomination has completely changed my opinion of him. He is now GWB Lite. I honestly don’t think he would do much different on the economy, because he doesn’t know any better than the Republican mantra of the trickle down effect. Or more to the point, that is what his economic advisers like that whiner Phill Gramm will tell him to do.
Obama won everything at the start concerned with the economy. McCain to me sounded more credible than Obama when discussing Iran and Russia. I think it was a dead heat on Iraq.
This debate was meant to be on McCain’s strengths, so if this debate is perceived as a draw, then that really counts as an Obama win.
But maybe it won’t matter, if Americans are primarily concerned with keeping their jobs on November 4, then they will vote for Obama. They won’t be thinking about what’s going on in Iraq, Iran, Russia or North Korea.
Diog, “who won”. More to the point, we all lost.
What we have here are two dud POTUS candidates plus two even more dudder (?) vice POTUS candidates. God help America, because nobody else will.
I don’t attack people when they disagree with me (well not always). I do attack people when they make stupid statements or engage in cheap sarcasm as a substitute for debate.
But we won’t pursue that or William will wield his Wand of Power.
I think McCain would be a better President for Australia because he keep the protectionist instincts of the Democrat Congress in check, because he will consolidate the west’s victory in Iraq rather than fritter it away, because he will stand up to Putin and support endangered democracies like Georgia and Ukraine rather than pander to European defeatism, and because he will be a genuine fiscal conservative and stop the US jeopardising the world economy with its gigantic deficits. He will need prodding on climate change but he is much smarter than Bush and can be brought around.
I meant to include Afghanistan in here, because Obama pointed out correctly that Afghanistan is turning to crap again, and will require a huge injection of troops sometime in the next 4 years.
I agree McCain is running 8 years too late, and perhaps Obama is running 8 years too early, but like it or not, they are the two candidates in 2008.
In retrospect it’s all the sadder that Al Gore didn’t run.
McCain performed much better than expected and was the victor, in my opinion.
Doesn’t really matter though. Americans seem to have fallen into the trap we did last year, throw a vacuous, non-entity into office who is clearly not up for the job. Rudd and Obama deserve one another.
We have a free trade agreement with the U.S. Do you honestly think the U.S. senate is going to tear up that agreement? Why would they do that to one of their most reliable allies?
Moreover, we are a net importer of U.S. goods. So if they tear up the agreement, it will work out worse for the U.S.! Why exactly would they do that?
Oh come on! There was a cigarette paper between McCain and Obama on policy towards Georgia and Ukraine in today’s debate.
Bush said exactly the same thing, but look what happened! I would’ve agreed with you on this point during the period that McCain was opposed to the Bush tax cut program – which is why the U.S. has such a huge deficit in the first place – but McCain realised that he had to support the Bush tax cuts (making them permanent) in order to get the nomination. So McCain is one of the people who helped create the huge deficit that he is now complaining about.
I don’t think his right wing backers will let him act properly on climate change. 50% of Republicans in the U.S. congress still don’t even think climate change is man made! So if he gets a deal, it will be thanks to Democrats. Well, why not make it even easier and have a Democratic president so the policy gets through even faster. Now that would be in Australia’s interests.
CBS Poll declares Obama the winner of the debate!
Adam, as a well known Hillary supporter here at PB. I have no prob with McCain winning the POTUS. But I do have prob with Sarah Palin as the VP because of McCain’s age and medical condition, then with the possibility of Sarah Palin becoming the POTUS if McCain drops dead.
On that score, Obama for POTUS for me.
#417 –
That is a credible as “Foxnews Poll declares McCain the winner of the debate!”
420 – Did a Fox poll declare McCain the winner?
OK I’m off to watch the footy. Normal vituperation will be resumed later. Go Cats.
William, why do all the default avatars look like fascist symbols?
McCain said HE won the debate.
Well, thats what his ads said, even before the debate had begun.
Mediacurves is back up – Obama won the Indies on every issue, including the pointy end of the Nat Sec ones.
http://mediacurves.com/
Those numbers are actually really consistent with the dreaded CNN worm and the Indie movement on that throughout the debate.
Adam, lots of people go to the military academies, but you do not go to those institutions with the aim of achieving a non military career in life. You go there if you are after a military career. If you are looking at life outside of the military you chose some where else. Noting you said “Naval military record”. That implies his military service which is apples and corn compared to what university he went to. The Reserve Officers Training Corps [ROTC] trains officers as well as the service academies. My ‘ex husband was commisioned an officer in the US Air Force through the ROTC program. ROTC units are components of regular universities across the USA.
McCain may have well had a stellar service career, no one is knocking that. At least I am not. If you end up doing other things in your life other than a straight out military career [like McCain is at present, moved into politics], good on him. But he didn’t chose his university with that in mind when he was 18. People pay through the nose for Harvard and for good reason. Yes, Harvard is a superior academic school. When McCain chose the Naval Academy he wasn’t thinking of a life long career outside of the military.
Now off to the footy at our house
…. chat with you later 
66% of independents supported Obama’s comments on Russian policy. I’d suggest this is because Obama explcitly said something like “we don’t want another Cold War posture”.
I don’t think the U.S. population could handle fighting terrorism, AND another Cold War at the same time.
Woah, I just noticed the last segment “Who won the debate?”
61% of independents said Obama.
The McCain campaign declared him the winner before the debate even began.
Finn (419)
I’ll give you full marks for clear thinking on that one. Frankly, it’s a frightening prospect for the world.
So Obama won the debate on national security.
McCain has dropped to 42% on Intrade. The punters weren’t too keen on him losing on his home ground.
Finns
If you think that now, just wait until you’ve seen 90 minutes of Palin next week. I have NEVER seen someone so badly out of their depth as watching her in those interviews. She should drop out for the good of the country she loves.
Before the debate McCain was expected to peform well as he has a reputation of being good at these things – and that it would be more difficult for Obama.
Listening to American commentators on the radio it appears McCain was able to get the more cutting phrases out there so would have got his message through more to voters but, say his ‘win’ on security issues was only small and that it was a failure for McCain as he should have been expected to clearly win this subject.
It is a failure for McCain in that he couldn’t dominate Obama and that Obama win or not win was able to demonstrate he was across the issues and knew what he was talking about – ie a safe pair of hands with national security (ie Kev a safe pair of hands with the economy). Thus the horses wouldn’t have been scared away by Obama and national security which is what the Republicans would have hoped for.
At the end of the day it was a tie.
The commentators said Obama should expect a small bump in the polls.
Dio at 431 – make sure you look at the right Intrade market – the Presidential Winner by Political Party (effectively the two party preferred market). The Contender markets have a lot of legacy contracts that are getting closed out and all sorts of silly buggers going on it it.
That winner by party market started the day with the Democrats on 59% and after a bit of up and down, have settled back on the Democrats at 59%.
The State markets are interesting. The Dems improved in a dozen or so States straight after the debate – many key states like Colorado and Florida. Only Virginia moved away from them.
Regarding the economic crisis in the US, here is a link to an excellent article in the NY Times that gors ot one of the root causes of the crisis – the shift to voluntary self-reulation (!!!) of the non-bank financial sector. Chris Cox teh head of the SEC has now aditted this was a failure and wound the program up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Note that this is firmly in Bush’s court (2005 decision) and Cox is linked to Gram.
I listened to the debate on the wireless and note that apart from the content of what was being said that I found Obama quite easy on the ears and that McCain creates a sense of unease (reminded me of late Howard) – at times I couldn’t listen to him. Something about that voice or his style.
As for content Obama didn’t sound flowing and really doesn’t get to the point quick enough for this format – like Kev too much detail or intro before the point maybe. McCain is more direct in style but was negative quite often which on the radio is more pronounced and quite off putting and, it was apparent he made a habit of misrepresenting Obama’s position or so Obama quite often said – which simply reinforces the messages coming out about McCain’s campaing generally.
However I thought McCain did ok, spoke well and direct to the topics but Obama proved his point on National security. I would have expected Obama to come over stronger on the economic questions.
IMHO
The funny thing Thomas is that none of the polling so far on the debate agrees with those commentators (now where have we seen that before!) in terms of McCain’s performance on National Security issues being a small win over Obama in the debate.
Possum
How wrong you are!!! The Drudge Poll has McCain 68% to Obama 30%.
I think McCain supporters got what they wanted and Obama supporters weren’t scared away – so it is an Obama victory really.
Looks very good for Obama in the polls.
He wins all of them as Possum said.
McCain really got shafted with the first 30 minutes being on the economy. Without that, he would have won. But he tanked on the economy questions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/debate-reviews-go-to-obam_n_129803.html
I think McCain shot himself in foot over the economy so many times it is probably gone. His last effort, to stop the world so he could save it, ended in his ridicule as it was obviously a gimmick, there was nothing he could personally do anyway, and his own side didn’t want him and for all the world it appears as though he stuffed it all up.
And who are we mere mortals to argue against the Drudge Poll!
Debate focus group discussion up on:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/
As is the debate.
Evan @ 418, CBS are more right wing as a TV station than The West is as a paper
…….. would expect no less from them 
441,
Possum, we won’t have the Drudge poll up in our perch in the tree
…….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/obama-to-mccain-on-iraq-y_n_129796.html
Direct Nixon to Kennedy debate comparison ….
Madeline Albright …. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madeleine-albright/a-breakthrough-night-for_b_129786.html
I just listened to Palin’s interview.
Holy f.
Which one? Do you have a link?
Curic interview
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6hELjmWfVBU&eurl=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/
Or in short all you need to see…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/jack-cafferty-if-sarah-pa_n_129724.html
[Or in short all you need to see…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/jack-cafferty-if-sarah-pa_n_129724.html
Oh yeah, this is hilarious. She is like a first year cultural studies student; they use lots of jargon, but don’t know how to think to save their lives.
The problem is I am sure McCain would love to change her but that would cost votes as well.
There is a precedent for that – Democrats in 1972. And you know how many votes they went on to win that year ……. Nixon got all but one state as I recall, might be wrong, but it was a huge margin. Not a good look when you dump the VP candidate but sometimes it has to be done
……
So instead his campaign (which I assume ultimately means McCain) simply isn’t letting her do interviews! Surely that means he recognises that she is a liability.
After just listening to Biden talking about the debate – wow, how is Palin going to debate him? I am betting she wont go to the debate otherwise it will be a total slaughter a gigantic embarassment. Got to feel sorry for McCain for being lumbered with this – he has to work for two.
Biden: ‘John’s wrong’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26909166#26909166
I don’t feel sorry for him, ultimately Palin was McCain’s choice.
My guess is Palin will get so bogged down using jargon words that she won’t actually say anything. Biden just needs to keep his attack simple.
Will the networks in the US get to interview Ms Palin reaction to the debate the same way as Joe Biden.?
Probably not, she may screw up.
451 Shows On. Wow I mean…. wow! what a terrible answer to Couric’s question on the finacnical crisis.
The answer is TRADE!
Look at the segment taken outside the U.N. building at the start of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
Couric asks her about a lobbyist associated with the McCain campaign, Palin has no idea about the issue. Couric asks a follow up question, Palin repeats her first answer.
Comedy Gold -”I can see Russia from my house”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joGiJNBbotI
So Finns I’m glad youre now in the Obama camp. I just dont get your logic in supporting McCain until the Palin pick given you were a Clinton supporter. It’s like saying you wanted Costello rather than Howard as PM so you’d vote for Rudd. IT’S THE OTHER TEAM!!!!
Re: the debate whilst most commentary and polls are showing an Obama win or draw, i think McCain did better than expected but not well enough to change the momentum
Palin also made a bizarre reference to health care reform. That is precisely what they won’t be able to afford if they spend $700B+ on the Wall Street bailout. She is clueless.
Finns if its any comfort (I supported Clinton too) there are reasons other than Palin to oppose McCain.
He has supported the deregulation movement under Bush that led to the economic mess, and his economic advisor, Phil Gram, was one of its architects.
Plus lets not forget Iraq: From USA Today
“McCain did say that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators — a common view, particularly among Republicans at the time — including in a March 2003 appearance on MSNBC.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/debate-reviews-go-to-obam_n_129803.html
McCain aides complain that Palin is clueless, that a mock debate they conducted was disastrous. Also conservative columnist, a former Palin fan, has called on her to quit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/report-mccain-aides-compl_n_129618.html
@ 465,
Adam, sorry, Geelong (nor McCain) are coming out the winner
……..
MAJOR gaffe ……. ” McCain said Pakistan was a failed state” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/major-gaffe-mccain-said-p_b_129780.html
[ " The Smirk - Could McCain's Facial Gestures Define Debate?" ] sounds like Costello
…… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/the-smirk-could-mccains-f_n_129831.html
Can someone please tell me that I’m not the only bludger who actually supported Obama from the start? Didn’t you people watch Hillary?
meow, meow, meow
Finns
How are you planning to send us back that footage of you on Macchu Pichu wearing a “The liberal elite intelligentia was right all along. Obama won!” T-shirt?
Diog, the best candidate is not on the ticket. Obama is the better of the two duds. Palin is scary.
No Diogenes, you weren’t the only one
…. I’ve been on Obama’s bandwagon all the way …. never supported Hillary at all. Wasn’t impressed with her, she always seemed too full of her self to me and like the Democrats OWED her the nomination. She, to me, exemplified the same arrogance that some have seen in McCain and also Costello here in Oz ….. I hope I can bottle the happieness I feel right now (I’m NOT a Hawthorn supporter BUT just an anyone but Geelong supporter today) and magnify it 1000 fold when the election returns come in 
…….
Maybe they could have Palin debate McCain?
Diog, the pre production is working on the story board, then the roadies will organise the on location shooting after that the post production will add the special effects with “i told you so, i told you so and i told you so” written in the Incas Gold carried by the Condors flying in formation over the Andes.
How could someone so clueless and inarticulate be the Governor of a state? Doesn’t say much for the intelligence of Alaskans.
Boo hoo, she lost
Darn
Alaskans are all vampires. I saw a movie about it called “30 Days of Night”. They got someone other than Sarah Palin to play the head vampire but they didn’t fool me. Why do you think Palin is never seen during the day at press conferences? She’d turn to dust.
Channel 7 news reports that most commentators thought McCain “outshine his younger opponent”. Ah?
Gary: the MSM is pro McCain, or Channel 7 was watching Fox News!
Both CBS and CNN polls of undecided voters declared Obama the winner.
Maybe they just looked at the Drudge online poll
Fox News actually said it was either a draw or Obama won. Channel 7 can only have been listening to the extreme right wing media like RCP or Politico, rather than the more moderate Fox News.
Maybe what the McCain camp is deliberately trying to leak information about Palin as having performed disastrously in the mock debates so as to lower expectations.
Already, people expect Biden to annihilate her in the debate – if he doesn’t, then it will be scored as a clear win for Palin.
As for today’s debate, I didn’t watch it, but the consistency of the poll results regarding the debate (as well the Luntz focus group results on Fox News) suggests that Obama won it by a relatively narrow margin, but without any knockout punches. Even if the debate is scored as a draw, it’s good for Obama, because:
1. McCain is supposed to be the foreign policy expert;
2. The next debates are on domestic issues, which Obama is stronger at; and
3. Obama has the current lead (and momentum) in the polls. McCain has to do better than draw debates – he needs to get clear wins to build up momentum in order to reverse the tide…
Media Curves put the result this way:
http://mediacurves.com/
Channel 7 even included a clip where Obama said “Jim”, as if it was a mistake, and he meant to say “John”. Jim was of course the name of the debate moderator!
A little fibbing was detected at the start too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/fact-check-mccain-lied-ab_n_129774.html
Yeah I’ve been thinking that too. From the few interviews I have seen of her so far, that is probably a very good idea.
Did they actually say that Obama had made a mistake with that??? FMD
Another corker from the Crooked Talk Express
Nope. Watch the interviews. She really is that bad.
It didn’t take the Repugs long to put out some of the grabs from the debate as an attack ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc
Thanks, Thomas Paine for the link to the Sarah Palin interview. Can the GoP be serious? I think it was P. T. Barnum who said something like no-one ever went broke under-estimating the stupidity of the American people. But, could they really do it?
Two new polls show the candidates tied in Missouri. If McCain can’t win there he is stuffed.
If Obama wins in Missouri, it will be because of the black turnout in St. Louis
……. they have to get the voters registered there and work to get them to the polls as well. A Democratic win in MO will NOT be by a wide margin.
Nifty little ad. I expect they’ll also use the clip towards the end where Obama says that no-one likes America any more. He may be right, but running down one’s country is always bad politics in the US.
Am I imagining things here or did Mccain really say ‘horseshit’ in the debate:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-says-Horseshit-on-by-Steven-Leser-080927-121.html
“Spain is a NATO ally”
“Horseshit”
wtf?
I reckon he said it allright. McCain is known for having quite a temper.
Very Presidential
not
CNN /opinion Research Corp rran a poll of an AUDIENCE showing Obama won 51/38 then says there were more Democrats in th audience than Republicans
Then Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher says ” It can be resonably concluded especially after after accounting for th slight Democratic bias in th survey that we witnessed a tie in mississippi tonite”
Presume audience would be th “worm”
Why would CNN do a poll of an unweighted audience as this means if they’d weighted in reverse McCain wins 51/38 ?
He says “Of course…” on the video, not “horseshit” – as in “Of course… I’ll meet with the Prime Minister of Spain.” Not that it would hurt him a bit if he did say “horseshit.”
Because there are more registered Democrats in the U.S. population than Republicans. So if you want to find an audience that is a representative sample of the country, you need to get more registered Democrats than Republicans.
If you want an analysis of only undecided voters, watched this Frank Luntz video. The audience was deliberately split 50/50 between Kerry and Bush voters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i23rDuymLwk
Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher says
“It can be resonably concluded especially after after accounting for th slight Democratic BIAS in th survey that we witnessed a tie in mississippi tonite”
He is not saying it was weighted on registered voters , just that there was a bias in audience numbers , and no reason given for mor democrats present BUT he is concluding there was a tie , so he’s not considering registered voters factor So what was point
So he doesn’t know anything about how polling is actually done.
That’s not exactly a rare thing in the media.
which as I said makes th poll useless
Another view of the latest GOP attack ad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/the-most-stupidest-mccain_n_129840.html
Well, it has about the same result as the other polls, including one full of undecided voters who voted 50/50 for Bush/Kerry last time.
I think the really important thing is that Obama won the independents, along with white working class families, those two demographics will determine who wins the election.
“including one full of undecided voters who voted 50/50 for Bush/Kerry last time.”
Well that was also useless as a guide to th result
I thought McCain just won th Debate on points and I’m informal and as I did not think there was any knockouts I did not think th Debate itself would hav swayed me either way
I think th “narrative spin” by both Camps & respective Media may or not however reflect in Polls in a weeks time when Debate excitement goes down
I think people were hoping that Obama would have a decisive victory over McCain but I think many under estimated McCain in a debate – he has been around a while and has been through this before. Having said that McCain should have done much better given this was meant to be his strength. In the end Obama did one important thing – that he understood foreign policy and national security issues and was not a risk in that area.
Given Palin’s abysmal interview with couric it might be worth having a wager that she will be dropped before the VP debate unless they are going for the mercy vote. Imaging Palin as president would be like imaging a 5 year old with a machine gun.
So you don’t believe any polls? Why bother posting at a psephology blog?
Surely McCain is stuck with Palin from here. If he changes then he will be seen as gaffe prone and indecisive.
On the other hand, Obama’s choice of Biden (instead of say Clinton) may just be the thing that gets him over the line. If the V.P. debate is heavily concerned with economics or foreign policy, Palin is stuffed. Well, unless she can cram more in the next 5 days the past month. But the problem is that here answers sound like cramming, rather than clear organised thoughts. It is as if she is trying to say everything she thinks is vaguely relevant to a question, rather than providing a logical answer. I don’t know how cramming more information can fix that.
Ron denegrating polls that say Obama won the debate… what a shock
I thought he was denigrating ALL polls just so he didn’t seem to be biased.
“So you don’t believe any polls? ”
Thats a nonsensical statement You’ve taken my comment out of context by omitting my last sentence that related to it Why post on a blog if you can not rely on your own arguments instead of misrepresenting others points
I listened to Biden’s critique of the debate. He is a very capable and forceful speaker, much more entertaining than McCain and Obama – contrasted with Palin it will be devastating, they may need to enforce the mercy rule unless she undergoes some great transformation.
On the debate this is the most accurate and even account I have run across – from the Washington Post no less – some of our media people ought to read it to learn how to do an even handed review.
Economic Jabs, Then Punches On World Affairs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092700059.html?hpid=topnews
Dario , so now you reckon you know more than th CNN expert….your arguments ar becoming pathetically biased HE SAID IT , not I
all I did was to query why he did th Poll in first place given his own admission that Poll was a tie What do you not understand what Alan Silverleib said
Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher says
“It can be resonably concluded especially after after accounting for th slight Democratic BIAS in th survey that we witnessed a tie in mississippi tonite”
He’s obviously not much of an expert if he doesn’t know how polls are done.
The poll wasn’t a tie.
There was no bias in the survey. The sample was weighted according to voter registration to reflect the uneven voter registration of entire country.
The fact this moron thinks the sample was biased just demonstrates he is a moron, it doesn’t mean the sample was biased.
Doesn’t matter who won the debate, matters what the effect it had on voters which the polls will reflect soon I gather.
I remember Rudd beating Howard and then the murdoch press saying Howard won or it was a tie. Didn’t really matter that much, what mattered was what people saw and felt when watching the debate.
I agree, and I think there are further similarities with Howard / Rudd. The main expectation on Rudd was, would he be competent? Or would he stuff up? Whereas for Howard it was ‘has he got anything NEW to offer?”. I think there was a similar dynamic with today, where McCain is old and seemingly had to differentiate himself from both Bush and himself, whereas Obama hasn’t been around very long, so he just had to look like a plausible President.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
I notice a little bit of movement on Intrade on the ‘Palin Withdrawn’ market.
I actually didn’t understand what that particular ’sentence’ meant.
I must admit I find it curious that a lot of Labor supporters seem to think McCain would be better for the U.S. and / or Australia. The U.S. needs a clean break from the last eight years of abject lunacy. I can’t see how a 72 year old guy who agrees with Bush most of the time will change much.
The whole direction the U.S. is going just suits Obama. If you are after a radical change and a new way, then it is obvious to me that Obama at least has the potential to start things fresh. Of course he won’t be perfect – no politician is – but at least he will let the U.S., and the world put the idiocy of the last 8 years behind it.
Of course. Given this debate was meant to be to McCain’s strength and that he is looking a fair way down in the polls, he really needed something decisive or a ‘gotcha’ moment. It didn’t happen. Obama looked presidential, and I think he did enough to make undecideds feel comfortable enough to vote for him.
Maybe Palin herself put some cash down?
She wants to get SOMETHING out of this whole experience.
So now Dario & ShowsON think Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher is a moron and they ar poll experts because Dario & ShowsOn do not like his conclusion it was a tie…talk about blinkered Obama supporters
His conclusion was as he said th survey WAS BIASE towards Democrats in th Poll , probably because th Poll caught more Democrats watching simply th Debate
Put away your bias & amateur polling knowledge and take notice of an expert like th CCN Chief politcal Researcher
hahahaha anything’s possible!
Shows on 524:
The situation in the USA is exactly as it was in Australia under Howard. Another term of Howard would have been disaster for Australia and its democracy. We forget easily what it was like under Howard, people were beginning to be careful what they said unless they cop vilification or abuse from the government. It was starting to have some very worrying signs about it. We were heading to an extreme right regime.
II said “I thought McCain just won th Debate on points and I’m informal and as I did not think there was any knockouts I did not think th Debate itself would hav swayed me either way”
Reading an unbiased account (ie. NOT huffington Posdt or fox News) th writer seems to hav taken an objective view of Debate , and my sense from his Report is his conclusion was probably a tie with both candidates achieving there broad objectives & scoring no knockouts…not a huge variance to my view
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092700059.html?hpid=topnews
for what is worth
I think it more likely that Mr Obama will win although a win by Mr McCain is not out of the question. The democrats are likely to improve their votes in Congress in both houses of parliament. Mr McCain was the best possible choice for the Republicans.
I think Mr Obama will hold all the states Kerry won last time. So it becomes a question of what he can pick up. The swing states are New Mexico, Nevada,Colarado, Virginia
Ohio, Missouri Iowa & florida. I can say for certain if Mr McCain does not win Florida
he will not be president
Agree , Obama due to timing of Wall Street collapse has probably made it for Obama
Naturally even winning all 3 States of Iowa , New Hampshire & Nevada does not win POTUS without one of other 5
The McCain camp has brought out an ad with the debate extracts where Obama said he agreed with McCain. I’m not really sure if this is going to work out the way they think it will…
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc
Dario 533:
A free ad for Obama it seems to me. Are these people thinking right? Showing Obama agreeing with McCain on somethings is not a bad thing in fact it is a good thing. And giving free vision of Obama?
Huh? What are the upto – maybe play the music backwards or something.
After the number of crazy things they have done I think they just have very poor campaign management
However, Sarah Palin would beat Joe Biden in a moose shooting competition LOL
Maybe the McCain campaign thinks McCain’s policies suck?
McCain’s suspension of his campaign lasted all of a day, and it was one very poorly thought out stunt(intended to wrongfoot Obama), which backfired on him spectacularly! I thought Senator McCain was meant to be a smart bloke, but he’s made some dumb decisions lately, or he’s getting poor advice.
In some states he didn’t even stop playing his attack ads on TV. So it seems that he secretly suspended the campaign suspension.
I think McCain was desperate. Things were slipping, the subject was the economy and Palin was Ms Albatross which he couldn’t hide away forever. Her had tried this type tricks at other times in his life and they had worked well.
However it was Obama who short circuited the stunt with his press conference setting out the chain of events and make two very important points that won him that battle 1. the crisis was the very reason the debate should go ahead 2. A President should be able to handle more than one thing at a time.
And it didn’t help that everybody knows that McCain knows nothing about economics. In the end it hurt him more – and Intrade immediately went up after he announced the delay.
ShowsON
#519
“There was no bias in the survey. The sample was weighted according to voter REGISTRATION to reflect the uneven voter registration of entire country.
The fact this moron (Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher) thinks the sample was biased just demonstrates he is a moron, it doesn’t mean the sample was biased.”
I’ve rearched this further believing Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher would be more of an expert than ShowsOn & Dario , and this is what he said notwithstanding 51/38 result per my #501 post ” It can be resonably concluded especially after after accounting for th slight Democratic BIAS in th survey that we witnessed a TIE in mississippi tonite”
But I find revealingly notes to Poll report say
“The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate
The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole”
So th Poll was not based on registered voter weightings as ShowsOn unqualifiably said at all ! Furthermore th expert conclusion it was a tie due to bias was based on th above , despite ShowsOn and Dario’s ‘expert’ contrary view
Bias also seems to be demonstrated by these 2 Obama ‘experts’ only because they did not like CNN’s conclusions
Quite laughable when my post was intended both to highlight CNN said it was a tie and I wondered why they had not removed bias in first place by polling registered voters per registration weightings or otherwise , and th response I got was un-expert bias , and pro Obama sensitivity all over one Poll
Ron
Democrats were thought to be overrepresented in the sample by 5-7%. So the general population might be 36% Democrats and 27% Republicans. How well does this explain a result of 51/38?
Appeal to authority. Of course we should also accept unquestionly the interpretations by The Australian’s hacks of their Newspolls!
Its time
“The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole”
put away your bias and your Obama calculator
A fuller quotation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
Hahhahahahah that is McCainish selective quoting there by Ron.
Read the full article yourself and tell me where my numbers contradict your source.
As far as I can tell Ron’s last 6 posts are all repeating the same thing.
He seems to be playing the repetition = truth gambit.
Its Time
Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher made an unqualified conclusion of th Poll that it was a tie because as he says “accounting for bias to Democrats …that was his first sentence and which I quoted
That is th only sentence that relates to his assessment of th result of th Poll
You know as well as I do , his 2nd sentence relates to his subjective psephological judgement that seeing overall polls ar going towards Obama , then of course a tie subjectively rrepresents a ‘win’ in that there has NOT been a reversal of general polling trends …
BUT in no way does he intend that remark to represent his interpretation of th CURRENT poll seeing he’’s already said so in th preceding sentence
Is that your view ?
Am subsequently happy to discuss th stats themselves you raised , as I don’t quite agree with you there either but no use mixing 2 points up
SNIP: Poor quality comment deleted – The Management.
First of all, I am on the Obama for POTUS side of this debate. I feel the US needs a change of direction and a change of party in the White House.
If the debate was meant for there to be a knockout blow for either candidate it didn’t happen.
Much the same as the debate between Mr Rudd and Mr Howard, I agree with those that say that all Senator Obama had to do was look competent and in control of the issues, and this he did fairly well I thought.
The clincher for me is Ms Palin. This is one scary lady who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. If GW Bush is seen as a failure, heaven help us if sarah Palin ever gets control of the WH.
I give credit to the majority of the women in our parliament as they leave her for dead.
Neither the ALP/Libs/Nats/Green parties have to “hide” their respective female candidates and members, although I’m sure they wish some would just go away.!
Everytime McCain starts talking about slashing spending Obama should ask for details of the government programs and services he intends to cut.
I seem to recall reading that the last time the republicans started slashing spending (not on war or tax cuts for the rich of course) the funding needed to complete the New Orleans levee banks (before katrina) was withdrawn.(and when the cyclone hit, the rescue services were an absolute shambles due to neglect).
ShowsOn
That’s the “Hunting of the Snark” gambit.
Six times means it’s doubly true.
Every poll has Obama winning the debate. FFS even Krauthammer gave it as a draw!
The only commentators I’ve seen in the US for McCain are the usual three who have been sockpuppets for McCain all along, ie RCP, Politico and National Review. Even Fox went with Obama.
Ron
Using the limited data provided in the CNN item, what do they consider to be the national percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents (or undecideds)? They must have a baseline in mind in order to claim that the sample overrepresented Democrats by 5-7%.
Obama now up by 6 in the latest Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Dario (554)
The trend continues. Guess it’s all up to Sarah Palin now to deliver the knock out blow. lol.
Any idea if ABC is streaming and / or broadcasting the vice presidential debate? I think it is next Friday our time.
ShowsOn @ 556, SBS said on their news tonight they will cover all the debates live.
I hope that includes the VP debate. I couldn’t get any of the U.S. streams to work today, I had to use the ABC one.
ShowsOn
According to my info the VP debate will be broadcast by ABC1, beginning at 11.00am next Friday.
Including the VP debate which is OCT 3 I believe.
ShowsOn
It’s on ABC on Friday at 11am. But you would have to be a very sick puppy to watch Palin try not to drool into a microphone for 90 minutes. I’m not enough of a sadistic voyeur to watch it. There’s only so much cringeing you can do in a lifetime.
Dario @ 554
Keep in mind that particular Rasmussen poll was done *before* the debate. The real indicator post-debate polls will be out in the next few days.
All in all though, a good lead for Obama and the Democrats.
Tend to agree with that Diogenes (561). The look on Katie’s face was bad enough.
Diogenes @ 561, I think it will be fascinating to watch. IF she comes across the same as she does in the links provided in this thread then in my opinion McCain is a goner.
She has to show she has a clue, about a lot of issues.
hahaha glad I’ll be at work
Well, the big question is will she make any sense. If she can’t, then McCain’s campaign is doomed. So McCain will have to come out with some more stupid ideas to attract more attention.
Yup. Given that it’s a three day tracking poll which has been steadily moving to Obama, the trend is definitely on
Seeing context is being distorted here by Obama supporters here because they do not like th idea CNN called th Debate a tie , here ar relevant full quotes
‘ The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey is not a measurement of the views of all Americans, since only people who watched the debate were questioned and the audience included more Democrats than Republicans.
Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night’s debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better.
“It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight,” CNN SENIOR POLITCAL RESARCHER Alan Silverleib said. “But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama.”
The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.
The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole ‘ end of CNN Report
What is clear is
1/ ShowOn #519 & Dario’s unqualified assertion that poll was of registered voters is false
ShowsOn #519 “There was no bias in the survey. The sample was weighted according to voter REGISTRATION to reflect the uneven voter registration of entire country.
The fact this moron (Alan Silverleib CCN Chief politcal Researcher) thinks the sample was biased just demonstrates he is a moron, it doesn’t mean the sample was biased.”
2/ CNN say it was a tie given th Democrat bias
3/ CNN did not in next sentence contradict themselves to say th debate itself was an Obama ‘win’ , as was falsely claimed by ShowsOn & Daio
4/ CNN said whilst th Debate was a tie , a tie given general polling favouring Obama represents a win in th sense Debate did not make Obama go backwards
5/ representation was 41% Democrats to 27% Republicans which clearly is biased as taken against Democrats overall share of population
6/ over sensitive rusted on Obama supporters here ar ceasing on any “apparent”
adverse Obama info to falsely create a narrative
7/ given point 4/ , objective Obama supporters should be pleased
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Ron,
I refer you to the following site for the “result” of the debate.
Scroll to the bottom – you will see that over 61% of independents (as opposed to Democrats or Republicans) thought that Obama won the debate:
http://mediacurves.com/
Swing Lowe
That is a different Poll by a differnt pollster (Media curves) from CNN/Opinion Research Corp , ar you suggestinhg it invalidates my #568 post regarding th CNN poll ?
Who ar they , as you know BOTH Partys hav ‘there’ own pollsters and what was sample and how was sample drawn from ?
I thought CNN would not be questioned by anyone as its so well known
Yes would like to know more about them.
If those polls are anywhere near right then the big issue with independents is ‘enough wars please’
Hotline/FD Tracking
48/43
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
“Obama holds a striking 55-29% lead among Inds.”
“Yes would like to know more about them”
and as we don’t , should not take notice
CNN is credible and supplied full sample details including voter groups represented , and so whilst we know polls ar not perfect at least CNN passes above 2 tests
IF we look at credible newspapers
Washington Post – 2 writers…indicate a tie , no knockout blows
La Times…indicate a tie , no knockout blows
Wall Street Journal …McCain wins on FA and Obama wins on Economy…suppose a tie
New York Times……. McCain wins on FA and Obama wins on Economy…suppose a tie
Thats a reasonable spread of feedback…consistent with CNN as well
I would hav thought a tie given general preceding days polling favouring Obama represents a win in th sense Debate did not make Obama go backwards , and objective Obama supporters would hav been quite pleased with a tie
The smarties are finally waking up to the next bull market being green.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/hurowitz/
Further to 352, [ Adam in Canberra
Posted Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
ROFL at the idea that a Harvard law degree is a qualification to be president. ] and further to 426, [ If you end up doing other things in your life other than a straight out military career (like McCain is at present, moved into politics), good on him. But he didn’t chose his university with that in mind when he was 18. People pay through the nose for Harvard and for good reason. Yes, Harvard is a superior academic school. When McCain chose the Naval Academy he wasn’t thinking of a life long career outside of the military. ]
take the following from todays age – [ of McCain's result at the Naval Academy — fifth from the bottom in a class of 900. http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/learning-from-experience-20080927-4pb7.html?page=-1 ]
Obama went to Harvard folks and was president of the Law Review there and has passed his bar exam and while not practicing, is a certified lawyer. McCain has his military record and that is all. His academic record is for all intents and purposes, zero as noted above.
A website that is taking predictions on Obama’s approval rating after his first 100 days in office
….
http://www.hubdub.com/m17154/If_Obama_is_elected_what_will_his_approval_rating_be_after_his_first_100_days_in_office
The wisdom of Sarah Palin interviews.
http://interviewpalin.com/n3
Map with no tossup states is now reading 286 as opposed to 273 EV for Obama. They’ve moved Virginia over into his column now
.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10
Ron
What was CNN’s baseline for Democrat / Republican / independent or uncommitted voters in the community from which they assert that there was a 5-7% overrepresentation of Democrats? Does this fully explain the 51/38 outcome?
Here’s a group that voted Bush 2:1, with more registered Repugs than Dems. They, along with every other poll (except Drudge’s online poll!) give the debate to Obama 38-27, although the net vote change was zero.
There’s a very good analysis that follows. The three things that stood out for me were;
1. Obama is increasingly passing the Commander in Chief test
2. Obama killed McCain on energy policy
3. Obama’s “likeability” improved from 40% to 69%
http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2008/09/first-presidential-debate-obama-makes-important-personal-and-national-security-gains/
good morning Diog,
4. And he is still black to the deer hunter boys & girls, hispanic, asian etc
Obama now 4.3% ahead nationally with the latest Rasmussen 6% and Gallup 5%.
And Iowa is definitely in the bag by 9%. I read last night that Iowans hate McCain because he’s always opposed the ethanol subsidy because he thinks it’s pork-barrelling and bad policy (I agree with him). There is a lot of corn grown in Iowa for ethanol production. In 2000, every mainstream presidential candidate except McCain supported the ethanol subsidy. McCain didn’t even bother to campaign in Iowa because he knew his stance was poison there. He re-iterated his opposition to the ethanol subsidy last night.
Mornin’ Finns
We’re winning the Hispanics easily.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/poll-sharp-reversal-for-o_n_114747.html?page=3
Bad news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzuIHjQYW2c
steve
That Edvard Munch “Scream” gravatar is fitting. That clip gave me existential angst!
Diog (583)
Who won Iowa in 2004 and how critical is it seen to be this time around?
The red states that would seem to be in the bag for Obama are Iowa and New Mexico.
Assuming he holds all the Kerry states from 2004 & picks up Iowa and New Mexico, Barack still needs one out of Ohio/Florida/North Carolina/Virigina/Nevada to get across the line.
Obama is more likely to win CO than any of those. IA+NM+CO is enough, provided he doesn’t lose anything. That’s why McCain is working so hard on MI and PA. If Obama loses either of them, then IA+NM+CO is not enough, he needs a big state. VA seems to be his best prospect.
Here’s the “turnout ad” to end all turnout ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkWAhuXtalw
Bush won Iowa.
Since IA seems certain to go to Obama, for reasons stated above, it’s actually not very critical. The “key marginals” (to use an Australian expression) are NM, CO, NV, OH, MI, PA, VA and NH. I don’t think Obama can win FL, but some think he can.
The East is Red.
I thought it is rather symbolic that China has broken the space monopoly between USA and Russia by having its first space walk.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
While USA’s capitalism is crumbling and the Chinese is holding 40% of the US Treasury Bonds thus “If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down” (this is one of the few intelligent things that Dubya has ever said) if she decides otherwise.
All insta polls from the debate can be seen here:
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Daily%20Kos%20tracking%20poll
Looks like Obama did very well with Inds
I think Obama will win Michigan, Philadelphia and New Hampshire.
Obama will win New Mexico (Gore won it, and Bush only won it by 0.79% in 2004). Obama has been leading there since April, and the gap is increasing.
I think Obama will win Colorado, he is up by 2 – 5% in the latest polls, and there is a popular Democrat running for the Senate there.
I think Obama will win Virginia, the long term trend is a tie, however Obama is up by 5% there in the last 2 (different) polls.
I think McCain will ultimately win Nevada and Florida. So I think Obama will win 306 votes, and McCain will get 232
Maybe the most important figure out of all of those is this:
“Sarah Palin’s fav/unfav are now -8.”
The gloss has come off her pretty quick! After just one month she now has a higher unfavourable than favourable rating.
I don’t think the V.P. debate next Friday will exactly improve that figure.
Adam
I think Missouri is now in play and should be added to that list.
The Obama team says Palin is a “terrific debater”. They have looked at footage of her in Alaskan debates (presumably about how many polar bears can set up their holiday camps under the proposed pipelines) and she’s really good.
I for one would never suggest that they are lying and trying to raise expectations of Palin in the VP debate.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A4478CC2-18FE-70B2-A8049DE0A5561895
ShowsOn
Someone on another site pointed out that Palin’s “favourable” ratings have basically mirrored George W Bush’s but in fast motion. She has dropped like a stone and now is a negative for McCain. When they hide her, the public and media want to know why. When they let her out, the public and media realise why she was hidden. I swear Couric was struggling not to laugh at her during that interview.
She might debate better than she interviews though. Biden will waffle and look smarmy but certainly won’t make a stupid game-breaking error. Palin just might and the “gotcha” media will kill her for it. Still, I think the VP’s are pretty irrelevant from here.
Beautifully summarised.
But this works out good for Biden if the main expectation of the debate is whether or not his opponent is going to make a fatal error. That means he can effectively aim lower, and doesn’t have to get into complex details and nuance much. It will help him keep his message simple.
But if she makes a HUGE mistake, then what does McCain do? Dump her? Or let her screw ups suck away another few campaign days? I don’t think he can afford that at this stage, I think he is behind by about 50 – 75 E.C. votes.
re post 595 on the balance of probabilities I think you are right
Ohio & Missouri also come into play
I think if McCain does not win Florida He will not be elected president
I agree. I’d also add Indiana, which is a traditionally Republican state, but according to Pollster.com McCain is only leading by 2.5% on a long term trend.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/in/08-in-pres-ge-mvo.php
So it should be his, but if he can’t win there he is gone.
ShowsOn
It would have to be a whopper to drop her, like saying all those WMD’s they found in Iraq justified the War. I doubt she will do anything like that. She’s not stupid, she’s just very ill-prepared and unsure of herself. The more likely thing is that she’ll look really uncomfortable and people will feel sorry for her. McCain will cop some criticism for putting her through this. Romney has been very quiet. He must be really pissed off.
What about if she says the President of Iraq is Hamid Karzai?
You know something that the media can jump on that demonstrates she doesn’t know enough about the world outside of Alaska. Something that can be a 15 second TV clip that reinforces an opinion that a lot of people already have about her.
I think even something like that could be extremely dangerous for McCain, because it would reflect back on HIS judgment in selecting her in the first place. It will make McCain seem like the risky choice.
The Crash claims it’s first victim (allegedly). Contrary to popular belief, there was NO appreciable increase in suicides in the US when Wall St crashed in 1929. A few brokers committed suicide but it was only once the Depression started to effect the rest of the population a few months later that the 20% suicide increase happened.
Credit crunch banker leaps to his death in front of express train
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063356/Credit-crunch-banker-leaps-death-express-train.html
I was reading a bit about the great depression. Apparently it took until 1954 for the U.S. stock market to reach its pre-crash level. That’s an astonishing about of time, I doubt what we are going through now will be anywhere near as bad as that.
ShowsOn
The US recovery would have happened a lot earlier except that WW2 sort of screwed things up on the productive investment front through basic resource allocation issues (money invested in guns vs widgets etc)
Those pesky undecided voters.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Undecided-Voters-Dumbest-People-In-America
Ah good point Possum. So was the U.S. close to a recovery before it entered the war?
Here’s an inside report on Paulson trying to get his bail out package through:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=2&sq=bush%20economy%20sucker&st=cse&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
[ In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi [Democrat], the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”
Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.” ]
Can you remember when Luntz did his thing here on Sky News? That audience was completely uninformed about political issues, but ultimately most of them must’ve voted for Rudd. Based on the responses of that audience, it seems that more people were impressed by Obama than McCain. They want McCain to essentially take Obama’s style. I don’t think it is possible for a 26 year veteran of the Senate, and a 72 year old guy to do that in 5 weeks.
It looks like the Freddie Mac money trail is closing in on the McCain camp. I noticed it was the first question asked in the Palin interviews last week but I have heard no sane response from the Repugs as to exactly how the situation complies with all the responsible lobbying stuff we have heard from McCain for ever.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218
How long would it take, in the coming VP debate, before Biden utters “Governor, you are no Hillary Clinton”.
Possum
I’ve been reading that Mundell, a Nobel prize winner in economics, blamed the Depression, the rise of the Nazi’s and WWII on bungled monetary policy in the late 1920’s. That’s an awful lot to be blamed for. He said that if the major central banks had pursued a policy of price stability instead of adhering to the gold standard, the Depression, Nazis and WWII wouldn’t have happened.
Churchill was one of those to blame coz he was in charge of Treasury after WW I.
The chemistry of the VP debate will be very tricky, and even though Palin may not know Iraq from Switzerland, that doesn’t mean Biden will win. All Palin has to do is perform better than expectations, and since the media have been depicting her as a moron all week, expectations are now very low. In fact she isn’t stupid, just ignorant.
Here is a clip from the Bush-Ferraro debate in 1984.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4-1E4ooX0
As we see, Biden will have to be very careful not to (a) patronise (b) ridicule or (c) bully Palin. If he is seen to do so, REGARDLESS of the merits of what he says, women voters will rally around Palin. That doesn’t leave him many acceptable ways of attacking her. He will need to get his tone just right.
I agree the debate could still be disastrous for Palin and thus for McCain. But Biden isn’t exactly Abraham Lincoln. There’s plenty of ways for him to screw up, too.
Diogenes, that’s hardly an original observation. Keynes published a book called “The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill” in 1924 arguing that the return to the gold standard would cause a depression, and he was absolutely right, as he nearly always was.
Adam
Evidently Churchill was in the public gallery of the NYSE watching the carnage on Black Thursday, quite oblivious to his role in it all. The book said Hoover tried to blame FDR for the Crash because he was Governor of NY at the time and regulation of the NYSE came under his jurisdiction. No-one bought the argument.
Amigo FINNS
#611
“How long would it take, in the coming VP debate, before Biden utters “Governor, you are no Hillary Clinton”.
Obama reely needed Hillary to be sure of winning , but now in replace of ” Hillary” now Bush has supplied a “Hillary” in th form of “Wall Street”….same effect , its an “anti bank wedgie”
Most suppose ‘experts’ hav wrongly I think believed th Wall Street collapse has hurt th Republican brand & McCain because Republicans ar seen to have brought econamic ruins to Wall Street Think this th economic literates view only & is only part of Wall Street problem as seen by majority of voters th non econamicaly skilled minded voters
We hav a contradiction Obama , McCain , Congress pollies and th “financial experts” all out there variously supporting a Bailout , but they may be in total disconnect with th voters out there in th reel lands , because in reel voter land I think voters do not instinctively like th enemy th disliked Banks getting $800 billion of there tax monies reely (Chinese) to prop up Banks..and further , Banks whose exec’s get robber baron wages
I don’t think most voters even understand Wall Street fully , they may see future lost jobs & higher interest rates for sure but abov all is from th lips of a Republican POTUS , HE Bush a Republican is giving $800 billion to Banks and not to them
Thats Bush’s probable election winning ‘gift’ to Obama…an anti Bank wedgie to voters
So far Congress appear to be simply (almost innocently) dealing with this “Bush” $800 billion gift to th disliked Banks , and all th fluff on TV by “experts” trying to convince voters th Banks reely “need” the voter’s own money there $800 billion monies will never be happily accepted , if acceptd at all
So my take is different from Commentators & Polls so far , its not th alleged Bush economic mismangement so much as voters monies being given to Banks & there greedy CEO’s , $800 billion worth , an anti Bank wedgie , and that is vote changing
I believe its this factor (voters instinctive Bank feelings getting 800 billion allegedly only from Republicans seeing bush said it Nationally on TV ) that has primarily changed th Polls and not solely economic irresponsibility (although obviously th primary factor then consequentsially strenghens th second factor) Todate US TV commentators do not share my view
Biden needs to direct his replies to the moderator or the audience, not to Palin. All these expectations that he’s going to savage her could be counter-productive to Palin’s team. If Biden is respectful, fair and firm, he could earn praise for diplomacy and decency which would then allow the substance of their debate to be the main talking point.
Churchill’s knowledge of economics was nil. I doubt he ever read Keynes’s book or understood what he had done. When he put Britain back on the gold standard he was acting on the advice of Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who should probably be regarded as the real father of the Depression. Norman was also responsible for handing over the Czech gold reserves to Hitler, after the Czechs entrusted them to the Bank of England.
This article at Slate sets out what Biden’s approach should be:
http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/
Basically he should pretend she is a man.
Ron
The Democrats certainly share your view. They know that the “bailout” could well be electoral poison. That’s why they are making sure the Repugs are well and truly on board with the bailout. As you have pointed out, they do have the numbers to get it through by themselves if they really wanted to. McCain is trying to obstruct the bailout for just this reason. He is putting politics ahead of his country and everyone can see it. He knows nothing about economics but has inserted himself into the process as a spoiler.
For all his talk of bipartisanship, the first thing McCain did after the debate was make an ad criticising Obama for agreeing with him on several issues. I thought the ad was madness. Is Obama meant to say that McCain has never been right about anything?
But Palin isn’t a man, and if Biden debates her as he would have debated, for example, Romney, he will alienate women voters in droves. It may be irrational and unfair, but it is a fact that most people, and particularly most women, expect men to treat women differently to how they treat men, even when the women are doing non-traditional things like running for VPOTUS. If Biden is seen as sarcastic, patronising, bullying or contemptuous it will bite him bigtime.
Diplomacy is weakness! Ignorance is strength! Budweiser is beer!
Kim Beazley extensively quoted on RealClear politics site article.
The Candidates and the Asian Century
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/how_will_the_candidates_deal_w.html
Not too sure about this. the moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS was in desperation because Obama and McCain would not engage each other directly. He was virtually begging for Obama and McCain to attach each other directly.
#624 – attach = attack
@The Finnigans: Yeah, but it came across as pretty lame… like trying to get school kids to apologise to each other in the playground. Not sure the other moderators will try to duplicate this effort, given the drubbing Lehrer received in the press.
I think it’s probably a good suggestion, though it may seem dismissive. Biden is definitely going to have a tough time finding the right posture to take on Palin, even though he’ll have no trouble at all finding the right material, relevance, experience and panache.
Finns
The format is different in the VP debate.
That’s good for Biden in that it should minimise any negative interaction with Palin. It gives them both less rope to hang themselves with.
McCain refused to even look at Obama, let alone interact with him. That was clearly a tactic to make it look like Obama didn’t belong on stage with him. Howard tried the same with Rudd and it didn’t work either. It just made the two grumpy old men look grumpy and old.
I think Biden should ignore Palin as much as possible, should not make any references to her, and should talk directly to the audience about why he and Obama are so fabulous. If he is aked directly whether he thinks she is qualified to be VPOTUS or POTUS, he should say he will leave that judgement to the American people.
Read the article, of course the writer makes that point.
But anyway, I don’t think women are as sympathetic towards Palin as they were to say Clinton. Women thought Obama won yesterday’s debate 60/40. I predict that they will split the same way for the VP debate. The idea that women are going to vote for McCain/Palin just because they are women doesn’t make sense. They seem to prefer Obama/Biden policies, so I think that is where they will end up voting.
Plus, if Palin does screw up all on her own – without being provoked by Biden – then they will probably perceive Palin’s candidacy as tokenism; McCain rushed out to find any woman to put on his ticket, even though he chose one who is unsuitable.
What has McCain got against Spain? He didn’t contradict Obama when he said that Macca wouldn’t meet with the PM of Spain? He could easily have nipped that in the bud but he actually said “I’m not going to set my visiting calendar….”. The State Department must be sh!ting itself about having a POTUS who won’t meet with a NATO ally.
There’s a story about the Biden / Palin debate on NewsRadio now.
He’s probably annoyed that the Cerntre-Left government took their troops out of Iraq after their train system was bombed by terrorists.
I read the article. And I didn’t say that women will vote for McCain/Palin because Palin is a woman (although some will). I said women will react badly to Biden if he patronises or bullies Palin. That is what the article also said. I disagree that he ought to debate her by pretending she’s not a woman. He ought to be very mindful that she’s a woman, and not do any of the things that a man of his generation might normally do when speaking to a woman. The best way to square that circle is to ignore her as much as possible and talk to the audience.
BREAKING NEWS!!!. The bailout is going to pass, despite opposition from the far left and far right. They had to find a few Repugs who were retiring at these elections to get the numbers! There seem to be a lot of smiling Democrats. Paulson looks like he’s had a week he’d rather forget.
Breakthrough Reached in Negotiations on Bailout
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28bailout.html?hp
Now that the convention volatility has washed out, I see no evidence anywhere that women voters have flocked to Palin – and even during the convention volatility I saw no evidence that Palin was attracting anything other than a few points extra of women Republican-leaners that mostly live in States where it doesn’t matter anyway, and whom have long since ditched her.
All this stuff about women voting on the basis of ovarian solidarity in National elections doesn’t seem to have much substance to it from the data we have so far this cycle and from what we saw with Geraldine Ferraro in 84. What gets me is that it’s mostly men pushing the the argument.
What we have seen is people changing their vote away from the Republicans (especially Independents) as a result of them not trusting Palin to take control should a 72 year old McCain President kick the bucket. For those people, expectations management in the VP debates wont bring them back, simply because “Palin wasnt as bad as I thought” is a whole world different from “Palin is ready to be President”.
To get Palin to pass that “Ready to be President” threshold for those voters that matter on this requires her to have been educated on a decades worth of knowledge (that she clearly doesn’t have) in a single month (and from the interviews so far with Palin – that ain’t going too well), or to get her to pull off the best “baffle with bullshit” routine the world has ever seen.
Her upside from performing well in the debate is minimal at best because of that enormous credibility gap. The downside on the other hand is huge, because it’s easier to convince people you’re a dud than it is to get people to change their minds that you aren’t one once they’ve already thought it.
For Biden to not lose votes out of this – he only has to turn up, keep breathing and not jump the podium and sock her one.
For Palin to gain them – she has to do something pretty close to cleaning Biden’s clock. Anyone reckon Palin is capable of that?
Course not (GP and friends excepted)
I think most of them do already
After Bush I find it hard to fathom why anyone would take into consideration anyone’s readiness to be President. If he’s shown anything it’s that anyone can do it.
LTEP – Bush was good at the whole “I’m really smarter than I look” shtick. Especially in the demographic coalition that gave him his election wins.
She tried to do that in the Couric interview, but she seemed to be baffling herself (the credit crisis can be solved by “trade”!?)
I agree. The expectations aren’t low for her, they are actually very high. She has to prove that she could be the next President, and that she knows as much about international relations as McCain and Biden.
True.
I feel a bit sorry for her. She looked like she was about to crack in the Couric interview, which was even worse than her last two. She totally decompensated when asked about the bailout, linking it to healthcare reform and not being afraid of trade. She must realise that she could single-handedly lose the election in one minute. The pressure must be enormous to learn so much stuff and she doesn’t look like a quick learner to me.
She tries to say too much. She should just try to say one thing.
To me it looks like the cramming is making things worse. She is learning about different things, but not how they relate to each other. It’s like a bad essay by a first year uni student.
seeing there has been a day full of what Biden should do , there ar 5 obvious counter measures Palin could hurt Democrats on , mostly all achievable by Palin & partly game changers
Queston is not if Palin can do , but whether Republicans hav th politcal nouse to properly consider options , not that todate th Republicans hav displayed great ingenuity So this Debate is not necessarily a lay down straight
She looked like she was about to get up and run out the door. Did they explain to her exactly what she had to go through, did she understand or was she so excited she though she could pull it off?
I think people are used to Biden shooting people in the foot – so there is a discount in it, just another gaffe.
What are these “5 obvious counter measures”?
Ron
Does one of Palin’s obvious counter-measures involve a “wardrobe malfunction”?
LOL!
Another campaign suspension perhaps?
The risk for Biden is that he ends up looking like Al Gore did in the 2000 Presidential debates.
In 2000, Gore was supposed to cement his victory during the course of the debates. Instead, whilst most commentators agreed that he won the debates on the issues, he lost his lead because of his constant sighing and perceived “arrogant” behaviour during the debates.
Whilst VP debates are no where near as important as Presidential debates (see the 1988 Bentsen v Quayle debate as an example), the Democrats should try to deny any momentum to the GOP atm – so that they soon can create a feel of “inevitability” of the election results…
Palin v Couric Round 2. I think she does a lot better on this occasion. I especially like the bit where she asks to use a lifeline on a hard question.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=183443
Has anyone read anything to the effect that McCain has said he will ONLY serve one term? I read this through a comments section off of a blog article and I don’t know if the commenter was on the level or not. I haven’t seen anything myself that says that, but I am looking now. If anyone can answer that in the affirmative, please post the details and the source so it can be verified. Cheers
If anyone has been following the dramas surrounding McCain’s refusal to release his medical records, get a load of this. It is public knowledge that McCain has had 4 different melanomas removed over the years, most recently in 2002 (that we know about). Now, this. Apparently, it has turned up through a radio talk show that McCain had another melanoma removed this spring (US season, so like around Easter time more or less). [comment from a poster to a blog]
julie 651. If McCain had said this it would be all over the media.
Someone above mentioned the Bentsen v Quayle debate in 1988. A good analogy. Quayle was a seriously underdone candidate, and in fact he was less qualified to be POTUS than Palin is, because although he had a bit more experience than she has, he was much dumber than she is. Bentsen ran rings around him. But who won the election? The under-rated George Bush Sr, who beat the clever northern liberal Dukakis with the scurillous Willy Horton ad and by saying “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
Adam, I have no idea at all what is going on over there with the MSM. I do know that they are skittish big time about the health records. I googled the terms “Hartmann”, “AAR” and “McCain”. I found the reference. Anyone can find it, it is out there. I’m baffled as to why people aren’t focusing more on this. Follow the audio clip associated with this URL. About 60% or so of the way through the clip, it comes up. It happened (McCain’s 5th surgery and the one that they are NOT telling us about) in February of this year. The Associated Press in the USA broke the story. No one else carried it. Had I not been plowing through comments for one of the stories I am reading tonight, I wouldn’t know about it either.
http://airamerica.com/content/thom-release-mccain%E2%80%99s-health-records-now
The AP is a reliable wire service of news in the USA. It is not the National Enquirer so has an established track record of trust.
There is no question that Michelle has got the best behind since Agnetha of ABBA.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/06/01/anni_frid_abba_narrowweb__300×409,0.jpg
Do you have some poll evidence for this assertion?
60 minutes
has a segment on Georgia and Russia tonite
Am sure th defenders here of peace keeper friendly Russia will find there case for friendly Russia and against th savage Georgia justified by 60 Minutes
McCain considered promising to only run for one term during the primaries, but I believe his campaign decided that this could be seen as a sign of weakness or lack of commitment. So he decided against doing it.
I think it’s a pretty close contest.
That statement of course helped Clinton win in 1992, after the 1990 budget broke that promise.
It’s remarks like that one that make me not take you seriously, ShowsOn. Palin is not stupid, and no-one in a position to know (which you are not) has said that she is. What she is is ignorant, and that can be fixed, though not overnight. Quayle on the other hand was just plain dumb, and that didn’t improve in his four years in office. But my point was that it didn’t matter anyway. Bentsen’s superior qualifications to be VPOTUS didn’t help Dukakis win the election.
I think that’s a fair summary. It remains to be seen how much she can cram in by Friday. I’m guessing not much.
LOL! She’s a young earth creationist, that’s a perfect sign of extreme stupidity. Remember, it took years to find out exactly how stupid Quayle was, Palin has only been on the national scene for a month. Give her time!
I think Palin is stupid for accepting the nomination, when we are all finding out that she is so IGNORANT that she is going to harm, rather than help McCain’s campaign. If she wasn’t stupid she would’ve understood that her ignorance would undermine McCain’s attacks on Obama. But she wasn’t SMART ENOUGH to determine that her interests didn’t mesh with those of her party.
Palin is a female version of George W. Bush, she doesn’t understand issues in any complex way, so she pretends things are black and white. We’ve been through 8 years of this, we don’t need another of her type of ‘thinkers’ in an influential position in world affairs.
ShowsOn, your trouble is that you are blinded by your own political self-righteousness, like many on the left. You think creationism is stupid, and anyone who believes in it is stupid, ergo Palin must be stupid. I think creationism is a false belief, but I acknowledge that millions of American Christians, many of them highly intelligent people, believe it to be true, because they put religious faith ahead of scientific observation. I think they are in error, but I don’t conclude that they are stupid. It’s this kind of intellectual arrogance that makes it increasingly difficult for the left to communicate with people outside the intellectual elite.
I think that can be equally covered by ignorance
This is killing me but I’ve had to agree with everything Adam’s said today. There are millions of intelligent people who believe weird things (creation, homeopathy, astrology etc) , just as there are millions of good people who can do evil things (Holocaust, war crimes, vote for Howard/Bush).
Actually Adam, I do disagree with you on one thing. Quayle was and is not dumb. He gave a damn good impression of being stupid and he certainly was ineffectual but he’s not dumb.
He gave a recent interview in which he made a few good points about Obama, Clinton and McCain.
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/07/17/former-vice-president-dan-quayle-on-the-record/
Diogenes , previously you’ve been completely dismissive of people who hav religous beliefs and hav indicated Palin is stupid
I hav disagreed with you previously on both matters , th first that it lacks tolerance , and th second as it ignores her defeating imcumbant Republican Governor in Primarys and then preceding Democrat Governor in an election to win Governorship
Tonite you hav reversed your positions
Ron
I disagree with both comments, although I can see why you think that. I am anti-religion but I like religious people (except for their belief on religious matters).
On Palin, stupidity is really an epiphenomenon. The underlying cause is either low intelligence or ignorance, or both. She is intelligent but ignorant.
I’m very consistent on both of those positions. Sometimes my opinions may be expressed with a bit more poetic license than if I was making a purely intellectual argument, and it looks a bit more blurry than it really is.
Palin appears to be much more dangerous than Quayle.
I should add that she is ignorant on foreign and national affairs, but she is well versed on energy and Alaskan affairs.
ShowsOn,
Have been flat out with Australian Idol tonight and haven’t caught up totally on this specific thread BUT you are SO right on with this statement. I think it would take blind Freddie to not see that McCain was pandering moreso to the right wing of his party as opposed to the female vote (getting both in the same package was a bonus for him). It won’t wash with the voters in November.
Come on up to the tree with Possum and I, if you aren’t already there
…… Cheers mate 
You got me here! I don’t think the earth is less than 7000 years old. Young earth creationists are by definition dogmatists who refuse to consider evidence when forming opinions. Such people are dangerous to the future of human existence, especially when they are in positions of political power.
No, you can’t be intelligent and think the earth is less than 7000 years old. Those two things are mutually exclusive. You’re just redefining the word “intelligent” so that it is completely meaningless. (You tend to do this often, like when you redefine “democracy” so you can claim Iraq has been a complete success).
Does that mean young earth creationists are really smart, and the people that actually understand that the earth is billions of years old are dumb? Well, that would be stupid.
I have no idea why you are going out of your way to defend an indefensible position. It sounds like a bizarre version of post modernism and / or nihilism.
Refusing to challenge beliefs that are patently wrong is what creates simpletons who think the world is black and white. The world is too complicated for simplistic thinking that rejects evidence, thought, reflection, study, and reflection. It creates the impression that understanding things is easy, when that isn’t the case at all. That’s how the populace gets led into stupid “you’re with us or you’re against us” false dichotomies that completely ignore the complexity of issues.
Palin’s candidacy is just another example of the irrational populist strand of U.S. conservatism trumping the reasonable and considered strand that respects research, reflection and informed debate; you know the type of conservative that John McCain was back in the year 2000.
WTF!? Since when is pointing out that someone believes something unsupported by evidence (oh sorry a “false belief”) equates with “intellectual arrogance”!? This is political correctness gone mental! You can’t tell someone they are wrong anymore. Oh dear…
I think it is intellectually arrogant to propose (without providing any evidence) that the what people believe in bares no relation to their intelligence! This is the sort of obfuscation that the right loves. They want to blur the lines between what is true and what is false, because they can’t win arguments based on evidence.
Smart people are considered smart because they believe in things for reasons. If you don’t accept that connection, then I guess that makes Einstein a stupid idiot, but just a really lucky guy.
How can they be “intelligent people” but believe in “weird things”? To me that is simply a misuse of the word “intelligent”.
I don’t understand how Adam knows Quayle was dumb, but thinks Palin isn’t.
[Diogenes , previously you’ve been completely dismissive of people who hav religous beliefs and hav indicated Palin is stupid
I hav disagreed with you previously on both matters , th first that it lacks tolerance[
Oh dear Ron. You go out of your way to completely misunderstand the distinction between respecting everyone’s right to beliefs, and challenging those beliefs.
For the thousandth time, everyone is free to believe whatever they like, that is a fundamental liberal democratic right. But that doesn’t magically turn their beliefs into irrefutable facts that can’t be challenged.
If people hold irrational beliefs then they can be considered a direct reflection on how smart they are. If they want to be smarter, they should re-evaluate their beliefs and only support things backed up by reason, logic and evidence.
You’ll get over it, Diogenes. Thanks for the Quayle clips. He certainly seems smarter than I remember him, but it’s 20 years ago now and I was more judgemental then
McCain ought to wheel out Palin to make a big speech on energy, something she actually knows a lot about.
There’s a big difference between religious faith and fundamentalist belief. She has shown time and time again that she’s of the fundamentalist bent, far beyond good sense and balance. That should raise enough “stupid” or “ignorant” alarm bells for anyone — of faith or not.
Surely we’ve all had enough of religious fundamentalism now…? Islamic, Christian or even those beyond religion… fundamentalist beliefs are all incredibly destructive.
I agree with you. I think most religious people don’t actually believe in a literal place called hell, and the third coming. I think they believe in belief; they want to believe in SOMETHING that guides them.
But Palin is of the fundamentalist persuasion, so she views everything as a fight between good (everything she agrees with) and evil (everything she disagrees with).
Ultimately such a world-view completely contradicts liberalism, because it doesn’t accept the fact that people value different things differently. It essentially assumes there is only one way to live a good life, which is just absurd.
Yes. Exactly.
ShowsOn
{No, you can’t be intelligent and think the earth is less than 7000 years old}
There are scientific ways of measuring intelligence and I doubt that all people who believe the earth is only 7000 years old (I’m not one of them by the way) would fail the test. You seem to be saying they would. .
Well, no, there isn’t really, not in the US anyway. The great majority of American Protestants are more or less “fundamentalist” in their beliefs. 55% of all Americans believe that “God created man in his present form.” Only 13% believe that evolution took place without divine direction. Are they all stupid?
I think Mr Quayle was dumb… there is a video of him misspelling a certain vegetable
on a blackboard…… Ms Palin … may or may not be stupid……I suspect not
however she is not qualified to be US president if something happened to Mr McCain
this will effect some votes for the Republicans
Well then you’d be using a specific scientific definition of the word “intelligence” (which itself is hugely controversial because it is difficult to determine exactly what aptitude or I.Q. tests are testing).
But if we accept that the word intelligence has a common meaning used in general discussion; I don’t consider someone intelligent if they believe in things that are wrong.
No, that 13% are smart.
A great many Christians in the USA and elsewhere are indoctrinated whilst growing up. They are taught to believe whatever line was put to them the same way they way they were taught right and wrong and their language and their family and community culture – it being a part of everyday life in everything that they did. When you ask them they will tell you there was never a time they didn’t believe. It is not much to do with intelligence apart from how to rationalise scientific reality with what they religously believe.
“epiphenomenon”
#668
Diogenes Here I thought th O’possum Factor took th cake vainly arguing against me when reely it was a thorough New York Times investigative report (& ABC News Report) linking Rezko and Obama that was my basis , but “epiphenomenon Diogenes” your #668 moves to number one easily , your #668 zig zagged forward then back and then upside down & then in reverse straddling religous tolerance & intollerance & Palin’s alleged ’stupidity’ you said of her before
If you ar now conceding she is indeed intelligent , then she may may a great VP on your criteria seeing her “environment” creating beliefs you so disagree with based on her ‘alleged ignorance’ may be inteligently moderated with sound councel (afterall she does hold a senior executive position being a governor no mmatter th size of th State & defeated 2 experienced politcal opponents both Democrat & Republican)
potatoes IIRC
A classic statement of left-wing intellectual arrogance. ShowsOn, I should have you put on display somewhere as Exhibit A of why the left has lost so much ground both in Australia and elsewhere since the 1970s.
Adam, you may be right that Palin is ignorant not unintelligent. However, there are two sorts of ignorance. You can be ignorant because you got a bad education and never had the opportunity (or never took it) to learn. That’s not Palin. She’s willfully ignorant, and that can’t be corrected. She has no intention of learning a lot of the things she needs to because she sees scientists and various other intellectuals as the enemy.
As for saying she knows a lot about energy, I’d question just how much one can know about energy when you refuse to accept that fossil fuels are associated with global warming. Does she even accept the biogenic theory for oil formation? If not its kind of hard to maintain a meaningful policy on where to drill.
When the Libs here put a climate change denier in charge of responding to the ETS you rightly slam them for it. McCain picks one to be his replacement president and you don’t have a problem.
You’ve already said this once. So I’ll repeat myself as well:
What? You can’t tell people they are wrong anymore!? This is political correctness gone stupid.
Like Ron, you don’t seem to understand the difference between respecting someone’s right to a belief, while reserving the right to challenge that belief.
I can only conclude that you don’t think truth is important anymore. You must be one of those post-modernist “everything is equally right and wrong” people.
LOL! Don’t go all fascist on me now. I’m an end not a means remember.
My understanding is that Palin does not deny that climate change is taking place. She has expressed doubt that it is anthropogenic, but has not actually denied it. I believe she established a climate change office in Alaska last year.
I don’t see any reason why a creationist can’t know a lot about energy policy. Oil is still oil even if you believe God buried it in Alaska 7000 years ago.
Of course. I call people wrong all the time. I don’t equate error with stupidity as you do. Let me remind you that Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, Leonardo da Vinci believed that the sun goes round the earth, and Louis Pasteur believed in the virgin birth. They were all (in my opinion) wrong. Were they also stupid?
Exactly!
Exactly! So in a weird way Adam and Palin are the same – according to both, truth doesn’t matter; the stronger you stick to an opinion irrespective of the evidence to the contrary should be considered a virtue. Well, that reminds me a lot of George W. Bush, and look where he has taken the U.S.
Yeah a bit strange really.
Credit where credit is due, McCain was one of I think two Republicans to say they believed in the Theory of Evolution during the primaries.
How is Palin “wilfully ignorant”? When I said earlier she was ignorant, I meant about foreign affairs and other matters she has never up till now had any need or reason to know about. She is perfectly competent and well-informed on things she needed to know about to be governor of Alaska.
maybe is off topic
but why could’t God have used the process of evolution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I didn’t say that. And since you are wrong about what I believe, therefore you are, by your own standard of judgement, also stupid. I concur.
Bye for now.
Error!? This isn’t an error. Palin is a fundamentalist who just refuses to expose herself to any evidence that opposes her fundamentalist beliefs. This is WILLFUL ignorance, which makes perfect sense to abbreviate to stupidity.
Wow, a reverse argument from authority.
With respect to those ERRORS yes, they were all stupid, unreasonable, and misinformed. But if Isaac Newton was ONLY an alchemist, and not also a mathematician and physicist, do you think his ideas would still be taught in high schools around the world?
No, he would be placed in the dustbin of history. The only reason we remember them and their ideas is because they had other good ideas that were worth keeping due to their reason and intellectual rigor. That is what makes them smart in the end.
M Q (690)
{maybe is off topic
but why could’t God have used the process of evolution?}
I think that is a position which some catholics hold.
The first is not a fundamentalist belief. The second is not particularly surprising, given that only a few Americans identify as atheist.
Believing that God had a part to play in the universe is not a fundamentalist belief. It is hardly surprising that many Christians who have a deep understanding of a particular scientific field believe that the extraordinary beauty they find might be inspired by God. Again, these are not fundamentalist beliefs.
Believing that a snake told a woman constructed from a rib of the first man (with no connection to creatures that came before him) to eat an apple, which imparted all the wisdom of the universe (now lost), whose children lived beyond 500, after which one of their ancestors made a vessel larger than any known before our century and with his family, were the sole survivors of a global flood which destroyed everything except the carefully gathered pairs of animals brought with them… that’s a fundamentalist belief.
… and it should be noted: When commenting about survey results on a blog devoted to polling, one should take note of the very careful language used.
Ron
I know you hate my “nuanced” arguments. feral sparrowhawk is pretty close to my opinion. Palin is of above average intelligence, as is Quayle and even George W Bush. Part of intelligence is your openness to other views of the world. Bush scores appallingly on this. Palin, I suspect, will score poorly as well. She will improve her knowledge but an unwillingness to view the world from others POV leads to having a Manichean view of the world which is potentially dangerous.
Mick
That view is very common in the US. About 30% believe in God and think he put evolution in place. Sadly, there is no scientific argument to show that this is incorrect so us atheist evolutionists have to wear it.
Because she ignores any information that may challenge her ideas, i.e. she is a fundamentalist.
Because according to the Theory of Evolution speciation (the formation of different plants and animals) occurs without any external guiding force. That’s why it is sometimes called “natural selection”, it works by natural ‘forces’ (the slow adaptation of plants and animals to their environments). If it required a god like force to explain how it worked, it would no longer be a scientific theory.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church accepts now that living things evolved in the way Darwin described. However they propose that “God started it”. But this demonstrates that the Catholic church does not actually understand what they are endorsing.
Palin has been governor of the state experiencing the most drastic climate change in America (and one of the states most likely to suffer as a result) yet she has on two occasions publicly denied that global warming is anthropogenic, in the face of every credible climatologist alive and literally thousands of research papers. That’s willful ignorance.
Roads in Alaska are cracking up because the permafrost they are built on is melting, entire towns are in danger of being washed away yet Palin chooses to believe its all the result of some natural phenomena – in which case there is a 50-50 chance of the situation reversing. She chose to take the position there was no evidence things were going to get worse. Once chosen as McCain’s running mate she denied having denied global warming is anthropogenic, despite the record being clear. So we can add dishonesty to her issues. She also sued the federal government for listing polar bears as endangered, since there was no reason to believe global warming will continue.
As for oil still being oil even if God buried it there 7000 years ago, that part’s true. However geologists choose where to look for more oil based on theories about its formation and movement. The details of these theories are still contested, leading geologists of different schools to look in different places, but there’s a lot of common ground, which is essential to ideas of how much oil there is left to dig up, how much of that is in the US or friendly countries etc. If you believe the geologists are all heathen liars (I’m not sure Palin does this, just suspicious) then you’re not going to accept their conclusions and the whole basis for your policy will be problematic.
Here is a good article (on a religious tolerance site!) about US beliefs on creation and evolution.
It’s got enough poll data for Possum to run one of his fancy analyses on.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
This God is all powerful – it sees the end from the beginnings, omniscient, nothing happens that it wasn’t God’s will and so forth. So for the Catholic church God probably sets the initial conditions and, having perfectly seen the ends from each of the trillions of beginnings he imagined, he decided to set in place the beginnings that bought about the result now. Thats how their rationalisation works – I have seen them (individuals) do this type of thing. They quote the bible passage about the wisdom of men being that of fools – ie what we think we know is foolishness. So if you are taught all that stuff what chance do you have?
Just sad. It is like there is something in us that makes us enjoy self loathing instead of enjoying life while it lasts.
But if God did start evolution, does that mean he created HIV, Ebola, Golden Staph, E Coli, conjunctivitis, influenza, and that virus that causes cervical cancer?
Why is God trying to kill us all? Sounds like a pretty mean bastard.
Oh, and why did he let Paul Newman die?
ShowsOn (697)
The theory of evolution makes the assumption that there is no external guiding force. The catholic church (of which I am not a member) makes the assumption that there is. Neither of those assumptions is provable. .
Rasmussen another day at 50/44
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This is how God often gets into hot water about heaven and hell. How can you if you are all knowing create those people who end up going to hell to suffer for all eternity when you made them in the first place.
This one from Palin is a shrewd piece of work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092702834.html
True, but the Catholic Church assumption is just a lot less likely. Because it presupposes that at a time when there were only simple things, there was something that was extremely complex (God), and thus there must’ve been something even more complex that created that (proto-God), and so on.
So it is a hypothesis that doesn’t actually have any explanatory power. It is simpler – and more likely – to propose that there was nothing.
Its turtles (God’s) all the way down.
So yous all now disclaim th religous Kevin Rudd
How do yous rationalise your support Kevin07 a believer in a 7,000 years old earth
@Thomas Paine: With questions like that, I think you should go to Sunday School and ask “Why does God kill babies?” It’s worth having a working knowledge of the basic, non-academic theological answers for stuff like this.
Kevin Rudd is not a young earth creationist.
No, everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want. However, simply believing something doesn’t make it true. (I’ve written this about 12 different times in replies to your posts).
@Ron: He doesn’t believe the Earth is 7000 years old — he’s not a fundamentalist.
ShowsOn
#679
“I don’t consider someone intelligent if they believe in things that are wrong.”
You believe people that believe in God ar wrong
Now Kevin07 believes in God , is he unintelligent ?
I did the theology study bit many years ago. They usually answer the question with sort of original sin (not gods fault) and God’s ‘perfect’ justice and sort of free / non-free will semantics and talking in cirlcles. But this is all messy stuff and not for this blog really. I am happier with the turtle holding up the earth with it being turtles all the way down.
It is impossible to prove that God (or anything else for that matter) doesn’t exist, it’s just extremely unlikely. If Kevin Rudd wants to believe God exists, that’s fine. But he can’t actually prove it, nor can I disprove it.
You mean like Yertle the Turtle? Here is the sacred scripture:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P0RGEHaCL._SS500_.jpg
enough of the turtles already
we value our peace and quiet
“epiphenomenon”
#696
Ron
“I know you hate my “nuanced” arguments’ Diogenes no , follow th “nuancing” , its th zig zagging on ‘positions’ you elastically perform that causes some mirth & am wishing to claify
You said “Palin is of above average intelligence Part of intelligence is your openness to other views of the world. Bush scores appallingly on this. Palin, I SUSPECT, will score poorly as well”
So she is above average intelligence you believe , but you suspect she has a closed mind , but ar not sure Do think she is wilfully ignorant or wilfully has a closed mind as has been otherwise alleged
ShowsOn (707)
As I’ve stated before on this site I have enormous problems with some aspects of the theory of evolution. But I also have huge problems with religious explanations as well. So I’m not as sure as you are that one seems more likely than the other. Nevertheless, for the sake of the discussion I’ll accept your statement that the evolutionary account is simpler and therefore more likely. Where does that take us?
As a betting man, I spend a lot of my time dealing with and assessing probabilities in races and I can assure you that very often what seems most likely – even “certain” – is not what actually occurs. Even the most red hot favourites do get beaten. There is certainly nothing wrong with evolutionists choosing what seems to them to be the simplest and most likely explanation, as long as they present it as a theory – which can be proven wrong – and not a proven fact.
Karl Popper, widely recognised as one of the greatest philosophers of science argued that nothing in science can ever be proven. The best science can ever do is come up with theories to explain what it observes and then constantly try to prove them wrong. To the extent that it cannot prove a particular theory wrong it may continue to hold it as a LIKELY explanation for the phenomenon it is studying. But nothing more than that.
If we accept Popper’s analysis – and I do – the evolutionary account may well be spot on. But we will never, ever know for sure. So I prefer not to be too dogmatic about it and allow for the possibility that there may be another explanation. . , .
I would argue there ar numerous questons including but not restricted to , how earth evolved , th ‘balances’ between different species and th actual mind we possess that ’science’ has not fully explained , OTHERWISE millions of objective intelligent human beings would not believe in religion nor in varying degrees th bible On other hand religion also has unanswered questions also
What I quetion is firstly athiests dogmatic belief they ar right , and secondly there often quite dismissive & often almost arrogant view of th alternative religous viewpoint ..genuine religous believers millions of which ar objective & intelligent
But then that also has been applied by a zealatory almost messiah faction of Obama supporters on this site , to those of th ‘left’ who ar not at all converted to Obama but refuse to support a Republican
[As I’ve stated before on this site I have enormous problems with some aspects of the theory of evolution. ] What specifically are the “enormous problems” as you seen them? I’ve never read exactly what you think is wrong.
[I’ll accept your statement that the evolutionary account is simpler and therefore more likely. Where does that take us?] I was simply referring to the Catholic Church argument that evolution happens, but God started it. The exact biochemical explanation of how certain genes are favoured instead of others is actually complex, and probably requires a degree in genetics and evolutionary biology to completely understand. So I am not saying evolution is simple and therefore true. I am just pointing out that God would need to be really complex to be very powerful, so suggesting that God exists is an extremely complex theory that is MORE complex than even evolution.
[Even the most red hot favourites do get beaten. There is certainly nothing wrong with evolutionists choosing what seems to them to be the simplest and most likely explanation] Again, I am not saying evolution is true because it is more likely. It is true because it is supported by overwhelming evidence from DNA (genetic) analysis to the fossil record. It is impossible to prove that God exists, but it is possible to prove that evolution occurs. For example, there are bacteria that can metabolise (eat) nylon. These bacteria obviously evolved because nylon is a synthetic (human made) substance.
[as long as they present it as a theory - which can be proven wrong - and not a proven fact. ] Of course Evolution is a theory, because science only produces theories! If you fault science for producing theories, then you shouldn’t believe any science at all.
Moreover, as I said in a post to you last night, you are using “theory” in the everyday sense where it is opposed to “practice”, or to what happens in the “real world”. However, this is not the way the word is used in science. A scientific theory must explain all natural phenomena (i.e. things that happen in the real world) that the theory is designed to describe. A new theory will replace on old theory only if it explains both old and new observations better. So scientific theories are the highest forms of scientific knowledge, again, if you can’t accept this. Then you should reject everything that science has ever claimed. That would include all the technological breakthroughs facilitated by scientific discoveries, such as the computer you are currently using.
[Karl Popper, widely recognised as one of the greatest philosophers of science argued that nothing in science can ever be proven.] No. Popper said that for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE. For example “God exists” is not a scientific statement, because it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.
Science produces PROVISIONAL TRUTHS, that is, the best approximation of the truth given currently available evidence. You are mistaking Popper’s statement for claiming that there is Absolute Truth which never changes. Science is always open to better explanations, because evidence, data, and observations which will enable better theories that explain more at a later time. Just because we can’t get to Absolute Truth doesn’t mean we can’t get to good approximations of it.
Sure, but LIKELY explanations are more LIKELY to be true in the long term than unlikely explanations! Just because we can’t be completely certain of something doesn’t mean we can’t be somewhat certain, or even really, really certain.
For example, science can’t explain EXACTLY where electrons are on an atom at any given moment, physicists just use probabilities to say the electrons are more likely in a certain area (orbitals) than other areas. But does this stop electronic devices from working? Does this stop lights from turning on when you flick a switch?
Our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology is now so complex that we have to explain things by relying on PROBABILITIES rather than absolute certainty. But saying you can’t be 100% certain about something DOES NOT mean you have absolutely no idea bout how something works.
Well, what do you mean by “spot on”? Scientists are constantly refining different aspects of evolution all the time. It isn’t like evolution is like the answer to the question “1 + 1″, it is a broad explanation to a whole series of inter-related questions.
Evolution is just supported by so much evidence that it is now impossible to accept that evolution will be completely overturned, rather, it will just be constantly refined and updated as more evidence comes to hand. For example, Darwin had no idea what DNA was, but DNA sequencing is now one of the most powerful ways that evolution has been verified.
Evolution is the UNIFYING theory of all of biology. If you honestly think evolution is someday going to be overturned by an idea that requires a supernatural creator, then you are effectively saying that all of biology is wrong.
Of course there may be another explanation. By definition science ALWAYS holds out the possibility that there may be other explanations, it would be dogmatic to do otherwise. But evolution has been researched for 150 years now, it is supported by so much evidence that it will always be the dominate theoretical framework for all of biology. There may be changes as new fossils are found, but a version of evolution will forever be biology’s unifying theory.
Remember, science doesn’t deal in absolute truth, it deals in provisional truth – the best approximation of truth given available evidence – but just because an answer is provisional, doesn’t mean that it is probably wrong. Just because there is some doubt, doesn’t mean that ANY answer would be equally good.
Just a re-post of the first part to make it easier to read:
What specifically are the “enormous problems” as you seen them? I’ve never read exactly what you think is wrong.
I was simply referring to the Catholic Church argument that evolution happens, but God started it. The exact biochemical explanation of how certain genes are favoured instead of others is actually complex, and probably requires a degree in genetics and evolutionary biology to completely understand. So I am not saying evolution is simple and therefore true. I am just pointing out that God would need to be really complex to be very powerful, so suggesting that God exists is an extremely complex theory that is MORE complex than even evolution.
Again, I am not saying evolution is true because it is more likely. It is true because it is supported by overwhelming evidence from DNA (genetic) analysis to the fossil record. It is impossible to prove that God exists, but it is possible to prove that evolution occurs. For example, there are bacteria that can metabolise (eat) nylon. These bacteria obviously evolved because nylon is a synthetic (human made) substance.
Of course Evolution is a theory, because science only produces theories! If you fault science for producing theories, then you shouldn’t believe any science at all.
Moreover, as I said in a post to you last night, you are using “theory” in the everyday sense where it is opposed to “practice”, or to what happens in the “real world”. However, this is not the way the word is used in science. A scientific theory must explain all natural phenomena (i.e. things that happen in the real world) that the theory is designed to describe.
A new theory will replace on old theory only if it explains both old and new observations better. So scientific theories are the highest forms of scientific knowledge, again, if you can’t accept this. Then you should reject everything that science has ever claimed. That would include all the technological breakthroughs facilitated by scientific discoveries, such as the computer you are currently using.
No. Popper said that for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE. For example “God exists” is not a scientific statement, because it is impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist.
ShowsOn (720)
{If you fault science for producing theories, then you shouldn’t believe any science at all}
It’s getting way past my bedtime, but one last response. I do not fault science for producing theories. Quite the contrary. My point was that theories should not be presented as fact.
{ No. Popper said that for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE}.
You are right that Popper argued that scientific theory must be falsifiable. But he also maintained – from a philosophical standpoint – that scientific study could never absolutely prove anything. I recall having a lot of difficulty accepting that at the time. But eventually I came to understand what he was getting at.
Anyway, sleep beckons – au revoir for now. .. . .
As a comedic interlude for all those GOP-haters, I invite all of you to watch Jon Stewart’s demolition of Palin:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185184&title=Gov-at-First-Sight
An interview spoof Palin on Saturday Night Live
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/
Yes and Palin was a disaster in the Couric interview.
LOL TP. Good vid.
Read a book on the scientific method, again you aren’t using the term “theory” correctly in its scientific sense.
And I have explained that science doesn’t seek absolute truth, it seeks provisional truth. No one can ABSOLUTELY prove anything in the world. But that doesn’t mean we can’t PROVISIONALLY support things by making observations to back up claims.
He was explaining something that all scientists understand whenever they do their work. It doesn’t stop them from finding out provisional truths about the world.
Essentially you are presenting the post-modernist humanities critique of science; you are assuming that since we can’t be completely sure about something, then that means we can’t be sure of anything at all. Although this belief is common, it is also wrong.
Kind of sad that McCain could exhibit such terrible lack of judgment in selecting her.
What about Lieberman, Huckabee, Arlen Spector. You know a sensible conservative type who actually has a bit of a policy brain.
Gallup poll (the first ‘real’ poll on the subject I’ve seen so far) gives the debate to Obama.
701 respondents
63% had watched the debate
Better job in the debate: Obama 46%, McCain 34%
Best solutions to country’s problems: Obama 52%, McCain 35%
Opinion of Obama since debate: More favourable 33%, less 13%
Opinion of McCain since debate: More favourable 21%, less 21%
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-28-debate-poll_N.htm?csp=34
No 728
What is alarming is that she should have been able to answer those predictable Couric questions. What has the GOP been doing in the background??? Obviously zero on prep.
Furthermore, I felt she did much better in the ABC interview.
God help her on Thursday.
Expect another McCain stunt in the next couple of days. He has to stop Obama’s momentum. Maybe he will announce some radical policy. He needs to do something before the V.P. debate on Friday our time.
Given the financial situation it can’t really be anything that’s going to cost much…
ShowsOn , i was surprised in your long posts you’d acualy sow th seeds of demolishing your own argumet claiming “for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE”
Firstly , that methodology of FALSIFIABLE although ‘convenient’ perhaps to athiests , is not universally accepted by scientists and nor is a scientific fact
Secondly by your own admission , science can not disprove th existence of a ‘God’ anyway , and therefore to be 100% dogmatic in denying his existence is not a scientifically based argument
Thirdly on “for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE” , then therefore there were no “black holes” in space when scientists said there were , seeing they’d be hard then to observe to make them ‘falsifiable’
As to issues of what there was in th universe before there were solar sysytms & planets when there was nothing , and what was there before there was nothing , and how th original nothing became more nothings , i’ll leave my underpinning quesions on these to another time
Suffice to repeat , neither science nor religion hav all answers , however your earlier tonite dismissiveness of being unintelligent those millions believing in religion millions incidently who ar both objective & intelligent is intolleranceat best and elitism at worst
I thought it sounded like OVER PREP. Too much jargon, not enough meaning. Why is she effective in Alaska? Probably because she is a down to earth type who just gets out there and says what she thinks, like say Barnaby Joyce. But now she must have swarms of minders, advisers and spin doctors running around her, so she is just completely unfamiliar with the situation.
Here is the infamous Letterman clip that shows that McCain brushed off his appearance on Letterman, told him he was flying to Washington, but he was really down the road in an interview with Katie Couric! Remember, part of the Palin interview was on Couric’s show on the same night, so McCain went over there it seems to make up for Palin’s terrible interview:
(Scroll forward to 6m30s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
ShowsOn (727)
{And I have explained that science doesn’t seek absolute truth, it seeks provisional truth. No one can ABSOLUTELY prove anything in the world. But that doesn’t mean we can’t PROVISIONALLY support things by making observations to back up claim]
I can live with that. I think if you re-read my 718 you’ll realise that is pretty much what I was saying.
Regarding the word “theory”, I was using it in the philosophical sense. Philosophy sits above science and defines the boundaries of what it can achieve in its search for truth.
No 734
Yes, she did sound scripted, but the thing is, after a month of preparation and the same questions being asked time and time again, she should not be stumbling and rambling incoherently. It is an absolute travesty watching her get demolished in an interview with which she should have easily dealt.
My long post had absolutely nothing to do with Athiesm, it was concerned with the Theory of Evolution, and the nature of the scientific method. Many people believe in God AND the Theory of Evolution, including some of the most famous evolutionary biologists still working (e.g. Ken Miller).
You can’t DISPROVE the existence of ANYTHING. For example Ron, there is currently an invisible pink unicorn sitting on top of your head. Prove to me that it doesn’t exist. (Please don’t say to me ‘I can’t see it”, because OF COURSE you can’t see it, it is invisible.)
“Falsifiable” doesn’t mean “hard then to observable”.
A bit long, but disturbing if true in any degree. Talks about the voting at the beginning (and 500 emails accidentally sent to the wrong email address by Rove) and addresses the issue in more detail from about 26 detail.
Greg Palast: Rove Has Already Fixed the 2008 Election
http://www.truthout.org/video/greg-palast-rove-has-already-fixed-2008-election
Greg Palast
Gregory Allyn Palast (born 1952[1]) is a New York Times-bestselling author[2] and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation[3] as well as the British newspaper The Observer.[4] His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups. Notably, he has claimed to have uncovered evidence that Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation, rigged the ballots during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued, and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional “spoilage” of Democratic votes.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
I agree, I think that’s it
Sure, but you seem to be saying that uncertainty leads to no-certainty.
I am saying that uncertainty leads to VARYING DEGREES of certainty. We can be very certain that the Theory of Evolution is provisionally true, because it is supported by a great deal of evidence.
We can be very certain the earth is roughly spherical, but a lot less certain that the earth is flat.
Sure we could hold discussions like this, but it is easier to say “it is a fact that the earth is roughly round”, even though whenever we use the word “fact” we are really saying “It is provisionally true, and a lot more likely because it is supported by a lot of evidence that do not support other theories”.
Well, if you want to critique a scientific theory, you must use “theory” in the scientific sense, else you can’t provide a valid critique of the theory. You can’t import a term from philosophy and expect it to mean the same thing. This happens all the time in the humanities, which is one reason it progresses much more slowly than science. Scientists are good at defining their terms, then sticking to those meanings.
Also, I don’t think philosophy is in a hierarchy above science. My reason for this is simple; to make a philosophical conjecture you must provide evidence and use linear reasoning so you come up with logical answers that hard hard to refute.
Well, those two things – evidence and logical reasoning – are parts of the scientific method; which is a epistemology concerned with finding out out reliable information about the real world.
Of course science requires other things, falsifiability, testability, repeatability, as well as an understanding that humans are separate from the world they live in. But fundamentally, science relies on evidence and logical reasoning, which is the same as analytical philosophy. (I mean philosophy in its strict sense, not in the ‘I’m a philosopher so I can write mountains of jargon sense, which is very popular these days).
No ShowsOn , you hav made a dogmatic assertion there is no “God” but then admit it can not be disproved You’re caught up in your own circular argument
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Generic Person
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 at 1:28 am | Permalink
No 734
“Yes, she did sound scripted, but the thing is, after a month of preparation and the same questions being asked time and time again, she should not be stumbling and rambling incoherently.”
I would put that down to th advisor’s deficiencys probably over cramming unnecessary detail , a temptation that I’m sure even Obama & McCain avoided
ShowsOn
I don’t hav to disprove anything You made an asseryion that scientifically you can not disprove which is a circular argument
Further you then incorectly relied on “for something to be considered scientifically valid it must first be FALSIFIABLE” which is not a scientific fact either nor a universal scientific methodology which is also a circular srgument s
Can we move on from this, please.
Oh dear…
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/
But wait, there’s more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_el_pr/palin_ethics
What Palin’s home sale from years ago , how about Obama’s sleazy house purchase arrangements & later further land adjoining..all with th sleazy Rezko
Or th 10 years of other ‘dealings’ with Rezko
Would think a potential POTUS’s history is more relevant
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WireStory?id=4171763&page=4
I shudder at the thought of being a politican in the United States. Everything – and I mean everything – is on the table. Nothing is off limits when it comes to discussing the candidates. Ugh.
OH please …………………………….. If McCain and company really seriously think that THIS will get them back in the polls, they are walking in la la land.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece
I just read back through last night’s discussion. A very high-class exchange for once, I thought. A pity the Stalinist William cut it off
I’m shocked to see that GP has given up on Palin. Ye of little faith! Since when did conservatives care that their candidates were morons? Who cares what the pinko intelligentsia and leftoid media thinks, GP? It’s what the key demographics in Ohio think that matters, and they will strongly identify with someone who believes that The Flintstones was a documentary, or whatever it is she believes. The key to every Republican success since Nixon has been to ignore the intelligentsia (”pointy headed elitists who can’t park a bicycle straight” as Spiro Agnew so memorably called them), and focus on the Cletus Spuckler vote, which decides the key states. What you need is a bit of discipline, GP!
That works fine in low-turnout elections, where it’s only the Republican base that is energised, but I don’t think that will be the case this election
GP I have to give u credit for being honest about Palin. I appreciate that it probably hard to do, but I would hope if Obama had chosen someone like her us Obama supporters would have been as honest.
Re the Couric interview, I am astonished that after all the prep she cant answer a simple question about the bailout, rambling about trade, jobs, healthcare etc. It reminds me of The Castle and the lead talking about “the vibe of the thing”
Seems McCain has some interesting gambling habits
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Well, Biden isn’t spectacular (he can provide some classic gaffes himself), but he’s streets ahead of Palin I think
I think McCain deserves a bit of credit for the Palin pick, regardless of the difficulties she’s presenting him now.
At the stage of the pick, McCain was about 2 points down and the Democrats looked energized coming out of their convention. He could have picked the Republican equivalent of Biden (e.g. Romney or Pawlenty), which would have seemed solid but safe – all of which wouldn’t have changed the trajectory of the election.
Instead he chose to throw a “hail mary” with Palin – high risk but maximum payoff. For a few weeks, it looked like a brilliant idea – for the first time this year, Republicans actually thought they may actually win in November. The fact that she has since fizzled doesn’t detract from this initial effect – McCain knew she was going to be a risky choice, but he needed to take on that risk if he wanted to have any shot of winning in November…
Dario 753 i think it will be a low turnout election with all this talk of the American public angry at having to bail out wall street to the tune of 700 billion. It makes Americans angry at Democrats and Republicans alike. The only energerising force in the election is probably Sarah Palin who will ensure that evangelical christians will come out in force to ensure a Republican victory.
You don’t think the idea of having the first African American President could ensure a higher than normal turnout of African American voters?
The fhat fact that the elite media and the intelligentsia are deriding Palin as an ignorant rube won’t hurt her standings at all with the demographics she was picked to appeal to – smalltown voters who don’t have college degrees, who are very plentiful in MI, PA and OH. These people are natural Dem voters, and many of them voted for Clinton in the primaries. But they are also social conservatives and most of them are evangelicals of one kind or another. Palin is the perfect pick to appeal to them, no matter how badly she does in the national media. They would have ignored a pompous millionaire like Romney (not even a proper Christian!).
That sounds more like wishful thinking to me. The Republicans have had control of the house for something like 12 of the last 14 years, and have been in the Whitehouse for the last 8. Sure SOME people might blame both sides, but I don’t think it will be all that many.
I think that’s a given
Well, it has. Her favourable/unfavourable is now -10. Three weeks ago it was +15.
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Daily%20Kos%20tracking%20poll
In another poll, Palin’s rating fell 10 points in 3 days:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx
On Sunday McCain distanced himself from Palin’s policy on Pakistan, that probably won’t do her any favours either.
So why don’t McCain / Palin have clear leads in any of those states? Michigan is an Obama win, PA is leaning Obama, OH is the only clear toss up out of those, but if the trends continue Obama will win it by a few percent.
I’ve noticed on this thread a general perception that the Republican Party is the only political party on the nose in the United States. Lets bring some reality into the discussion in the last forty years the Democrats have only won the white house on three occasions 1976 under Carter and under Clinton 1992 and 1996. And both these men where Conservative Democrat Governors of Southern States. The premise that a Northern Liberal Democrat will win in November is rather questionable but then we shall see.
The U.S. congress is set to pass $700 billion worth of liberalism tomorrow.
I see the point you are making, but I think the state of the U.S. economy is going to help a candidate who wants to secure the homes, health care and education costs of middle class voters. McCain wants to put social security on the stock market, and give another huge Bush like tax cut to corporations and the wealthy. I think that is an extremely risky economic policy to have during the current climate.
Moreover, I think Obama is a more talented guy than Jimmy Carter. If Carter got elected, I can’t see why Obama can’t. Especially when he is against a guy who has changed his position on most issues over the last 8 years.
Well perhaps you could explain to us why the Democrats would be more on the nose than the Republicans, given that the Republicans have had control of the house for something like 12 of the last 14 years, and have been in the Whitehouse for the last 8, rather than just stating it and providing nothing to back your statement…
Gallup and Rasmussen Tracking are now 8% and 6% to Obama. Obama is up by 4.8% nationally on RCP. McCain is in an awful lot of trouble. These figures are now including the debate (they track over three days). And Sarah Palin’s kid having a shotgun wedding ain’t the answer. It’s time for Macca to look for a few rabbits and hats.
ShowsOn
I don’t think it’s the bad publicity that’s killing Palin. I think it’s the lack of exposure. People are really wondering why she is being hidden from the public. So then they take extra notice of her infrequent appearances which just hurt her all the more as she’s so nervous.
He needs to do something before Wednesday. If he doesn’t whatever he does will be swamped with the lead up and after math of the V.P. debate.
True. Also the media still wants to write about her, so what are they doing? They are digging into her background and coming up with stories about dodgy house sales, and possible unlawful interventions into plebiscites on mining. So since she isn’t giving them anything new, these old stories are being dredged up from her past.
ShowsOn @ 763,
If Obama continues to lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania, you would think that this has to spill over into Ohio, esp. vis a vis Pennsylvania with the NE corner of Ohio being heavily populated
….. However, given that Virginia is now considered by RealPolitics to be no longer a tossup state [given their EV map with no tossup states], I think that the Fat Lady is warming up her vocal cords. If McCain can’t carry Virginia, Ohio doesn’t matter, Obama will win. No Virginia, no WH for the Republicans 
Things can change quickly remember. But the convention bounces are out, the Palin bounce lasted about 10 days, and that’s gone. McCain received no advantage from the debate, in fact it seems to have helped Obama. Meanwhile, as the economy still falters, Obama will benefit.
At this stage my guess is Obama will win about 300 E.C. votes. McCain has to take away a traditionally Democratic state to win. Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin AND Minnesota, I just can’t see that happening.
Most polls are showing that Obama up by 3 – 5 in Colorado. Kerry lost Colorado by nearly 5%, Gore lost it by nearly 9%.
Ronster and ShowsOn
On the “wilfully ignorant” topic about Palin, I probably wouldn’t put it that way. She’s more comfortable in her ignorance that her world view is right and other views are wrong. It makes life easier and more simple for her. There are two quotes that sum up my thoughts on that;
People who don’t change their mind when presented with conflicting information are responsible for almost every bad decision ever made. Not only do they make bad decisions, they fail to take advantage of any new information.
There was an excellent example here yesterday which showed why Adam is the best political commentator here IMHO. He said that Quayle was dumb, which is a common belief. I put up a video of Quayle giving a good interview about the election. Not only did Adam watch it and admit he might have been mistaken about Quayle, he picked up on something Quayle said BEFORE the debate which has turned out to be true. Quayle said that the Repugs needs 2 things; a narrative and an Energy Policy. The thing McCain did worst on in the debate was Energy, much to my surprise. He got killed on it and it’ll be worse in the second debate. Palin actually knows a lot about energy, which is her only strong national issue (she is equivocal about AGW but she says GW is happening and whether humans have caused it or not, we can lessen it’s impact).
Adam suggested that Palin give a major speech on Energy. It solves McCain’s lack of credibility on Energy, it shifts the focus from the economy and it makes Palin look good for a change. It’s political gold. And Adam saw it BECAUSE he was happy to review his opinions and find a positive. Most people would have refused to reconsider their opinion, not looked at the video and made a comment about potato ending in a “e”.
I agree with ShowsOn 763 that Palin is not simply an appeal to lower educated voters. It seems to me that the group the republicans have most gone after with the Palin VP pick is not the uneducated but religeous fundamentalists. Many of these are poorly educated but some are not. I say “fundamentalist” deliberately as in those who oppose positions accepted even by many mainstream religeons. A lot of these people are in the south rather than midwest, and I think Palin will help the republicans hold the states they were going to win anyway, but cost them the ones that were borderline.
The trouble is, she is so extreme in that respect (religeous views) that anyone else is being actively deterred. For example, I would expect a large turnout from female voters, catholics, and migrants in this election, many of whom will be oposed to Palin.
Ok everyone, now you get to put your prediction hats on. I subscribe to the Monthly since the Federal Election last year. Thanks to the PB’er who put me onto that magazine, I’ve forgotten who you were, but I love it. Got this in my inbox today and they said “share it with a friend”, so I am sharing it with my PB friends. Go for your life folks
.
Prize is a trip to DC to see the Inauguration
My point was that Palin is this type of person. She is a fundamentalist who avoids information to the contrary out of fear it may upset her world view. Apparently she thinks dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time because she has seen a dinosaur fossil near a human foot print! http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/print.html
We’ve had enough of these types of people in important political positions in the U.S. over the last 8 years. They go to Washington saying that Government is bad, then they set out to prove exactly how bad Government can be. Let’s get some people in there who think that government can do SOME good things to improve living standards. After all, I thought that is why Adam was a member of the ALP…
Diogenes,
This statement is based upon a false premise. It assumes that conflicting information is correct information. Conflicting information might also be incorrect information. No reason why I, or any other citizen, should bail out on our beliefs to follow the sheep over the cliff if we can see the trainwreck on the horizon
…..
ShowsOn
I agree she is that kind of person, as is Bush II. He’s also got that reformed alcoholic thing going which tends to make people very dogmatic so he’s even worse than her.
juliem
All conflicting information should be analysed for it’s truth and weighted accordingly. And everyone should be aware that their mind will try and minimise cognitive dissonance due to conflicting information using a whole range of tricks. Continual scepticism is a very uncomfortable way of looking at the world which is why it’s now very popular. Most people like certainty.
I don’t understand why we can rush to judgment about how stupid Quayle is, but not do the same for Palin!
Like Quayle, it seems that her primary political skill is winning elections. She does this primarily through populism; i.e. attacking oil companies and “liberal elites” (thanks Ron). Does she actually have any other policy credentials other than being a climate change denier, and anti-abortion activist?
On Saturday she endorsed Obama’s policy on incursions into Pakistan, but I mean something that differentiates her from the standard issue Republican that has screwed up so much of the last 8 years.
She is more of the same, you can draw a line through Bush, Quayle, Palin. They are different versions of the same thing. At his best McCain is a different Republican, he is a Teddy Roosevelt type who realises that politics has a role in shaping culture, and that culture can reform society.
Palin is the opposite, she is the standard reactionary conservative who thinks if you win the culture wars, then everything will be OK. Well, I think the last 8 years has proven that that ideology doesn’t work.
“Like Quayle, it seems that her primary political skill is winning elections.”
If a politician has only one skill, that is perhaps the most valuable.
After all, what’s the point of being a politician if you can’t win an election?
Great. I prefer politicians to also have secondary skills!
I see that ShowsOn @ 763 has deliberately misquoted me, a typically dishonest trick.
ShowsOn quotes me as saying
then cites a poll to show that her standing, overall, has declined.
However what I actually wrote was
ShowsOn’s poll doesn’t address that point, so he deliberately falsifies what I wrote. About the standard I’ve come to expect.
I think it is extremely unlikely that her favourability rating has declined by about 25 points in 3 weeks; yet has somehow stayed the same – or improved – in the supposed key demographics you refer to. More likely her standing has declined everywhere.
I note that you didn’t bother to address the fact the Democrat ticket is leading in two of the three states you felt were so important. So Palin – and McCain’s – decline in favourability over that period probably isn’t helping them in those states.
This should be NET favourability rating (favourability – unfavourbility)
No 752
Firstly, I haven’t given up on her. She is not a dumb woman nor a moron, she is simply ignorant.
That George Bush made into the White House with what most rational people would conclude to be very low intellectual capacity, demonstrates that Palin may not be on the out just yet.
The annoying thing is that it really wouldn’t take a lot to improve her media performances. After all, she must know how to predict the questions by now.
ShowsOn, are you going to acknowledge that you deliberately misquoted me?
No. That would by lying.
Are you going to explain how McCain is going to win Michigan?
If McCain wins Michigan, I’ll eat my hat…
Obama is up 6.6 points on the RCP averages there, which includes a 13 point lead in the last poll out (from the Detroit Free Press/Selzer).
No Republican has won Michigan since 1988 and I’m willing to bet that this particular trend won’t be broken this year…
According to Adam it is in play thanks to – wait for it – THE PALIN FACTOR. (see 760).
Kerry and Gore won both MI and PA, I don’t see how Obama won’t.
I guess McCain could announce a bail out package for Ford or something.
Adam: you’re letting your sour grapes over Hillary’s defeat cloud your judgement!
Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 both won Michigan! You’d have to be a brave person to hang your hat on Obama losing the state in 2008!
McCain is now way behind in New Mexico and Iowa, take those two out of his column, and he’s immediately in trouble! If he loses Colorado as well, he’s done!
I think Obama will win Colorado. Gore lost it by 9%, Kerry lost it by 5, Obama is currently leading polls there by 3 – 6 depending on which one you look at. It definitely seems to be trending to the Democrats.
Interestingly, Clinton won it in 1992, but lost it in 1996.
Hmm – yes, I’m sure McCain, the proud exponent of free trade and NAFTA (which I personally think is an admirable quality, but anyway…) would be a prime candidate to do that.
After all, he lost the Michigan primary to Romney primarily (IMHO) because of his refusal to commit to a bail out/subsidy plan for automotive manufacturers. The fact that Romney’s dad used to be the Governor of the state was pure dressing on top for Romney…
And if the Western states swing to Obama in a big way, don’t rule out Nevada and even Montana. Forget Arizona – I doubt McFake’s home state would vote against him.
Clinton won Colorado in 1992 solely because of Perot.
Perot polled 24% of the vote in Colorado in 1992, most of which were libertarians who would otherwise have voted for Bush. Clinton won the state 40-36.
In 1996, Perot got fewer votes (10% in Colorado) and Clinton lost to Dole 46-44, even though his national victory margin was greater.
The Perot factor in 1992 was probably also the reason why Clinton won Montana and Georgia in 1992, but lost them in 1996…
I meant it as a joke. But my point is he will probably come out with a stunt of some sort within the next few days to end his current poll slide. He needs to do something before the V.P. debate, else that will over shadow whatever he does.
Remember, Bush was a “market guy” until last week.
The problem he has is that everyone knows it’s coming. Just like at the last election here, the ALP made sure they put plenty of talk out there about Howard having lots of things up his sleeve with a track record of being a ‘clever’ politician, and so the electorate at large saw the things like Haneef coming.
McCain is now in a similar boat where he has tried a few stuntish ploys now, and the talk about expecting more to come is there to dampen the effects of any in the pipeline.
I’m not having any further political discussions with someone who would deliberately falsify what another person says. Such a person is beneath contempt, and certainly beneath debating with.
In reply to other persons, I agree that McCain is slipping in the polls. But the polls do not always tell the whole story. There is always a late “narrowing” which favours the Republicans – Jimmy Carter was miles ahead at this point in 1976 and only won by 2%. On top of that I think there will be some “Bradley effect” working against Obama on 4 Nov. He will need to be 5% or so ahead to be reasonably confident, and even then he could lose with a majority of the vote, as Gore did in 2000, if the states don’t fall the right way. I think MI, OH and PA are all still in play, and so do most commentators in the US who are not blinded by partisanship. Of course if the current polls hold, and Obama wins IA, NM and CO, and loses nothing, then he will win. But he doesn’t done it yet.
Whatever you want to cling to…
It’s a historical fact, Dario.
It’s also the usual excuse of someone who is 6 points down in the polls a month out from polling day, rather than looking at the real reasons for it
LOL! Who’s the elitist now!
I didn’t falsify what you wrote, anyone can read everything you wrote in post 760.
You still haven’t explained how Palin’s net favourability could drop 25 points, yet she still retain the same support in your mystically important demographic. More likely she lost support by varying degrees, but across the board.
People who still see her in an extremely positive light are probably Republicans who would never consider voting for Obama/Biden anyway.
And after the first debate G W Bush was ahead by 3 – 6%, but won by 0.01%. Oh crap, Bush is a Republican.
Precisely
On 10 September 2000, Gore led Bush 47/44. Who won that election?
What REALLY needs explanation is why Obama isn’t 20% ahead, given the objective situation.
Maybe the Republican narrowing started early this year!
I agree showson the Democrats really should have one this election perhaps it comes down to candidate selection. I’ve always believed that Hillary Clinton would have made an outstanding President with no concerns as how she would handle the Commander in Chief role.
I’m sure if he wins it will be the last thing on his or his supporters minds
I agree. I wanted Clinton to wind during the primaries too. But the idea that Obama is completely unsuitable, and that John McCain is some how saviour of the U.S. and the world is absurd.
He had to compromise most of his principles just to get the nomination, and he couldn’t even pick his preferred V.P. candidate (Tom Ridge, or Joe Lieberman) because the right wing of his party wouldn’t let him select a pro-choice candidate! So instead he has a V.P. candidate who is completely unsuitable for V.P., let alone President, which makes me think he has completely lost critical judgment over the last few years.
The right wing Republican establishment has been running the U.S. for the last 8 years, and look where it is?
The Intrade election pendulum has a whole lot of states that the usual US punditariat are describing as ‘too close to call’ as being called along time ago.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/09/29/the-obama-surge/
Bottom chart.
For anything on that chart with a probability of Minnesota or higher to go to the Republicans would be the first time in the literally hundreds of election contests Intrade has run markets on, that such high probabilities of victory this far out from the election were wrong.
-
Adam, come off it:
Why isnt he 50% ahead, or 90% ahead!
This could still end in a landslide anyway. I mean “the polls do not always tell the whole story” remember.
When speaking about popular vote margins – this chart is probably worth keeping in mind:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=3012
Ahh, now I get it. Adam things Obama needs to win by 500 E.C. votes to have a mandate.
Well, I think he is going to get about 309 E.C. votes, which will be 39 more than enough.
I think this whole “why isn’t Obama leading by more” stuff is just a weak attempt to denegrate him when everything else has failed. A win is a win is a win.
And the Dems will control the house. Quite a mandate indeed.
Adam: when was the last time someone won a U.S Presidential election by 20%?
Answer: never!
It’s time to take off the Hillary rose coloured glasses! She didn’t win the nomination, simple as that! Get over it, and stop whining!
Dario: I’d call anything over 300 electoral college votes a landslide!
Now, let’s see. Byb Dylan wrote about it a while back. It goes like this:
How many years can a mountain exist
Before its washed to the sea?
Yes, n how many years can some people exist
Before theyre allowed to be free?
Yes, n how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesnt see?
The answer, my friend, because he is black,
The answer is because he is black.
Evan – three times.
Roosevelt in ‘36
Johnson in’64
Nixon in ‘72
Correct answer:
Nixon won in 1972 by 60.7 to 37.5 (23.2%)
Johnson won in 1964 by 61.0% to 38.5 (22.5%)
Roosevelt won in 1936 by 60.8 to 36.4 (24.4%)
Hillary would have won by 25%!!!!
This election OUGHT to be playing out like 1932, 1952, 1968 or 1980: an unpopular incumbent and a devastated economy and/or an unpopular war (although this one is not as unpopular as it was before the surge). Obama ought to be winning it in a canter. But he’s not. This is not whining, it’s stating facts. Obama is ahead, but not by much, and frontrunners have lost from Obama’s position before – ask Al Gore.
Finn, I have acknowleged that the Bradley effect (ie, racism) plays some part in Obama’s strange weakness as a candidate. But I think it is a minor part. I think his liberalism, his lack of credentials, his Harvard professorial tone, and the resentment of Clintonista women, are all working against him.
How about FIFTY!!!!
It’s not far from 1980 (Reagan had a 9.7% margin) since he’s on 8 in Gallup and growing.
The question for Obama is how far it will grow since it’s pretty much a done deal that McCain wont win.
Such presumption, Possum. Remember North Sydney and Wannon? I do.
Re 787,
Adam and ShowsOn, I lived in Michigan for 43 years. McCain is not going to win Michigan, it won’t happen. It will be a cold day in H*** before McCain carries the Great Lakes state. Cheers
Re 793, I don’t know if a Presidential candidate has ever lost his home state. Would be an interesting search to see if it has happened. I doubt it though as if it had, you would think I would have been taught that information in school and not one teacher ever brought up that instance. Even in 1972, I believe McGovern carried his home state but think that was pretty near the only one he carried.
In Intrade I trust
Gore lost TN, McGovern lost SD, Stevenson lost IL twice, Dewey lost NY.
Adam @ 797, you must be blind Freddie to not see the fat lady warming up her vocal cords, most of the rest of us can see it
…….
you will note I said “warming up her vocal cords” not that he WILL win, just that virtually everyone else is giving him more of a chance given the current circumstantial evidence than you are and the diehard conservatives. interesting to find you in their camp on this one …. hmmmm …….
Now, now Dario, dont be greedy. We have seen what greed did to Wall St.
Landon lost KS, Hoover lost CA.
Adam @ 803,
The historical facts will show that Al Gore won the election. The Supreme Court put George Bush into the White House, NOT the people.
Cox lost OH, Davis lost WV, Taft lost OH
ShowsOn @ 811,
You said 309, I’ve entered that contest I put the link up for earlier today and I said 338
…. glad to see that we are both in the ballpark 
…..
Finnigans @ 816, you have it on the head. And referring back to Michigan, the reason he (Obama) will win Michigan is simply because for those people who can’t bring themselves to vote for a black man? There are LESS of them in Michigan than there are black people themselves
…. Get the black vote to the polls in Flint, Saginaw, Pontiac and Detroit and Obama can smile all the way to the White House 
I’m afraid that’s mythology, Julie. Gore won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn’t win a majority in the EC, because Nader took the crucial votes from him in FL and NH. Possibly he would have won FL if the Palm Beach Co butterfly ballot (an error by a Democrat county official) hadn’t happened. But subsequent counts of the FL vote (by the Miami Herald if I recall) showed that if the Supreme Court had not intervened, he still would not have won the FL count.
Juliem, are you related to the Czarina? (one of the Amigos old sparing partner). just asking.
No Finnigans, probably not, no idea at all who she is? I just try to stay clean and keep my nose out of trouble (vis a vis William) because I got on his bad side on one thread about a month out from the Federal Election and I don’t want to go there again
…. but I can’t resist getting my two cents worth in when people who haven’t lived in the United States before talk as if they have and they simply don’t understand it. They need to be set straight BUT once the facts are out there, if they chose to not accept them, that is their choice.
I’m with Possum up in the left wing corner sitting in the tree out on the White House lawn
“but I can’t resist getting my two cents worth in when people who haven’t lived in the United States before talk as if they have and they simply don’t understand it.”
That’s almost Shanahanian.
Julim – I’m more than happy to sit up in the libertarian left end of the branch with you, but just dont talk economics with me or I might have to push you off
Florida just went Democrat on Intrade.
Holy Moley
Possum, I don’t know economics at all (got a C- in it in my only course with it at university). I’m even worse with maths
…… No worries there at all …..
Juliem, it’s good to know that you are not the Czarina. and dont try one hand blogging at 4am.
yes, the song says you have to go to saginaw to look for America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCbOEZ8c8dM
Just be aware of “the left wing corner” because that is where my possum comes out everynite to sit and waiting to be fed.
I have checked the matters refered to in #836.
If the butterfly ballot error had not been made, Gore would definitely have carried FL – it probably cost him 6,000 votes. So we can thank Ralph Nader and a Democrat county official in Palm Beach for the Bush presidency.
If the recount Gore had requested had been completed, rather than been cut short by the Supreme Court, he would NOT have won. The post-mortem recount, funded by the Miami Herald and the New York Times and carried out by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, showed that Bush would still have won if the count had been completed, PROVIDED that the same criteria for what was and was not a valid vote had been followed. The only way Gore could have won the recount was if there was a liberalisation of the validity criteria, to allow “over-votes” (where people voted for a candidate, then also wrote in the candidate’s name in the “write in” box). But Gore did not request this, nor did he request a full statewide recount. So although the Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore was undoubtedly partisan, it was not what decided the election.
There is also the frequently made point that in 2000 a federal law precluded most ex-convicts from voting. In Florida, the majority of ex-convicts are black, and most of them would have voted for Gore had they been able to vote. Gore voted for the law that precluded these people from voting. So he can partly blame himself. (And of course he would not have needed FL if he had carried TN, his home state.)
Bye for now
Adam and Possum:thanks for the correction!
Nevada was 50/50 yesterday, it’s now 53/47 for Obama.
The Supreme Court should’ve ordered a state wide recount of every ballot in Florida.
If they did that then Gore probably would’ve won.
Nevada is now in Obama’s column?
The landslide is on!
Obama currently has narrow poll leads in Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia. If he wins all three, McCain needs two out of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan; or one plus Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Currently Ohio is the only one that is genuinely line ball, Obama has narrow leads in all the others, which is why I think McCain is currently trailing by a lot.
Is Obama under performing? There is a race effect operating but it is not the Bradley effect. The main driver is McCain he has a compelling personal story which makes him attractive to voters, although voters also like Obama as well. At the gut level Americans think of themselves as being moderately conservative and they feel closest ideologically to McCain, Obama and Clinton are both seen by voters as well to their left. But on policy voters are moderately liberal and tending increasingly liberal (abortion is the exception here where opinion has changed little), as the election comes closer voters focus more on policy subject to the fact that a presidential candidate has to pass the compotence/likeability test which Obama has done. I suspect Clinton would have been a slightly stronger candidate but who knows? If race is a liability it has to be challenged eventually, if not now 40 years + after civil rights then when? Sometimes in politics you have to take a risk, otherwise you end up like the NSW Labor party. As for Palin she’ll out perform expectations in her debate and survive.
About 15% of the US is African-American. That will create a Reverse-Bradley effect which should partly cancel out any Bradley effect. The way the EV falls this time, Obama is more likely to beat Macca despite losing the popular vote than vice versa.
Another take on the VP debate. More reason for Biden to shut up and ignore Palin. Is anyone buying the “sexist” BS?
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117992965.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
Oh, so it’s sexist BS Diogenes?
How’s this for MSM treatment of Palin.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24415592-663,00.html
How about some retrospectives of Obama or Biden in a kini. Vomitous.
GG
I sit corrected. How low can a paper go? Even Daily Kos, Huff and Matty Drudge haven’t gone there. That really is fcuking awful.
GG et. al,
Get a look at this ….. [ "Conservatives try to sabotage McCain's loss by asking Sarah to drop out"
http://www.236.com/news/2008/09/26/sarah_do_not_listen_to_those_b_9168.php ] and this …….
Guess the heat is getting a little hot in the kitchen
…. these are conservatives asking her to walk away ….. 
JulieM,
So what?
I am sure neither McCain or Palin are phased. Just more grist for the mill from the never ending pro Obama media coverage.
Well, it is a British news paper, so I’d say pretty low.
It looks like Thursday debate between Biden Vs Palin is shaping out to be critical. If Palin crashes, so will McCain’s presidency. If she holds out, McCain will still in there with a fighting chance.
GG
The favourable coverage Obama is getting could actually be because he’s the better candidate. If the media are 2/3 for Obama and 1/3 for McCain, that would just be a fair and balanced representation of what the American public are thinking.
Finns,
If she continues breathing after the event, it will be regarded as a win!
Perhaps this is her best debating strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcDYBPNw9o
Diogenes,
It is not the media’s role to decide who is the best candidate. There isn’t a lot of balanced coverage in the MSM. And the Blogastoria is pro Obama. As Adam has said previously, it is difficult to fathom how much of this unrelenting pro Obama reporting bias is getting through to middle aged voters who will dieide the election in swing States like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I think she needs to really surprise everyone and beat Biden to save McCain. His numbers are looking terminal.
That’s what polls are for, and they don’t look good for McCain
Diog, the best team did not win on saturday.
So let me be my own parrot. the best candidate is not even on the ticket. The two duds are on the ticket.
SNIP: Poor quality comment deleted – The Management.