“How Will You decide whom to Support?”

�

The Refugees Unleashed Forum Index -> General Election 2008

“How Will You decide whom to Support?” - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54 ... 67, 68, 69 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Alvin

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:07 am

AC wrote:

He just likes people to beg!

Remember this post, stalker ? Laughing

** Banned **

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1196

apodixis

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:41 am

Politics as Sport

The election is so close that it will likely be decided by a few swing states – Called the big ten after the Mid-Western Football organization, there is now a poll devoted to following the presidential preferences in those pivotal states.

Currently, Obama barely leads McCain by 1-2 % pts, in almost all but Indiana, where McCain leads by 4 % pts. Given the poll's margin of error, plus or minus four percentage points, Obama and McCain are virtually tied in all of those states.

So, on election day the battle between the Jack-asses and Dumbos will come down to a battle between the Wolverine, Wildcat, and Nittany Lion states.
Laughing

http://www.bigtenpoll.org/results.html

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

apodixis

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:14 am

Financial crisis Flips Electoral polls in Obama’s Favor

Obama/Biden 219, McCain/Palin 189, Too close to call 130

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

Before the financial crisis broke, McCain was leading Obama 227 to 217. The reversal confirms polls showing that over 50 % blame the Reps, while only 30 % blame the Dems for the financial fiasco - The GOP is traditionally associated with big business, while the Democrats are associated in the public mind with governmental action to deal with the 1929 Great Depression.

Obama's 30 vote lead now though is accompanied by a doubling of the votes in the too close to call category - which suggests that his lead may be tenuous

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

Need2Know

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:41 am

apodixis wrote:

The Democrats have controlled Congress for quite some time, this is not just a Republican mess; this should not be about partisan politics, it needs real and long term solutions, oversight, transparency and accountability. Too late for the blame game, voters are fed up with many things going on in Washington and Obama is not the great savior.

N2K

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8812

apodixis

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:03 am

18% still undecided as Friday’s first Presidential debate looms.

The first debate will be on foreign policy and national security. It will consist of nine nine-minute segments, with the same question being asked of each candidate, and then the candidates can ask questions of each other. Expected to draw an audience of 40 million, the debate will be broadcast live at 6 PM ET on all networks, and rebroadcast at 9 PM ET on CNN.

***********************************

"A recent AP-Yahoo News poll found that 18 percent of likely voters are up for grabs—undecided or willing to change their minds—little more than five weeks before Americans choose between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain."

"The AP-Yahoo News poll of 1,740 adults was conducted Sept. 5-15 and has an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The survey was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. "

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-09-24_D93D2EJG0&show_article=1&cat=breaking

****************************

George Will, the nation's best-known conservative columnist, wrote in his column yesterday: “It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.”

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/obama_endorsement_by_george_wi.html

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

apodixis

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:00 pm

The Political Chicanery Worked: McCain now again tied with Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110668/Gallup-Daily-Race-Back-Tie-46-Each.aspx

"You can fool some of the people some of the time..."

Poll question last night on GretaWire:

"Why do you think Sen. McCain is suggesting that the debate be postponed?"

Options:

"It is a Political Stunt" or "He is putting the country first".

175,650 votes, 70 % for latter option ( a political slogan )

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

woebedamned

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:03 pm

edit

Last edited by woebedamned on Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

Damn it All!!!!

Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker

apodixis

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:13 pm

woebedamned wrote:

Except those numbers are for the previous day. they run 24 hours behind, so that would be before McCain decided to go to Washington.

Correct. That's why I included the GretaWire poll data.

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

woebedamned

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:21 pm

edit -- too negative

Last edited by woebedamned on Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Damn it All!!!!

Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker

apodixis

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:41 am

McCain's Bizarre Behavior

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/bailouts-little.html

McCain has now flip-flopped and says he will go to debate.

This kind of erratic behavior on his part doesn't look good to the public.

Public says debate should go ahead by 60 to 22 % margin.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-09-26_D93EFU2G0&show_article=1&cat=breaking

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

Need2Know

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:50 pm

WASHINGTON — Senior Senate Republicans and Democrats expressed confidence Friday that they would complete a Wall Street financial bailout plan by midnight Saturday and put it out for a vote over the weekend, a turnaround from what appeared to be a collapse of negotiations just a day earlier.

But the deal is not done yet, and House Republicans continue to push for an alternative plan that they say would reduce taxpayer costs and win over wavering Republicans to a compromise bailout that contains elements supported by the administration and senators.

The speed of the negotiations could give Democrats cover that the huge government buyout of bad debt isn't on their shoulders alone. It also could allow Republicans to say that they did due diligence to protect taxpayers.

With House Minority Whip Roy Blunt now in charge of negotiating for Republicans, several lawmakers say they feel more optimistic that a deal can be reached.

Blunt said House Republicans think they can build on a framework laid out early Thursday afternoon among a close-knit group of bipartisan negotiators. That deal fell through after Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, said he didn't have the authority to negotiate for Republicans.

RelatedStories
Bush: 'We Will Rise to the Occasion,' Bail Out Wall Street Video
President Bush: Move Quickly In response to the new optimism, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was "a shame that Republicans boycotted our negotiations" of Thursday. She said senior Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank had been orchestrating a deal for several days, and the GOP put Bachus in the mix without allowing him to represent them.

A senior Senate Republican nearly concurred.

"Yesterday almost had to happen to get House Republicans to wake up and see this is serious," the Republican told FOX News.

On Thursday, President Bush hosted a historic meeting at the White House on the financial crisis. It included not only Hill leaders but presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama, as well. But the meeting was divisive, and all sides departed leaving in limbo a $700 billion package to help Wall Street deal with its load of bad mortgage securities.

On Friday, Bush kick-started negotatiations with a statement that Congress will pass a rescue plan.

"There is no disagreement that something substantial must be done. The legislative process is sometimes not very pretty, but we are going to get a package passed," he said in a statement aimed at calming financial markets and American citizens. "We will rise to the occasion."

Bush spoke as markets opened more than 100 points down upon an announcement by federal officials that JP Morgan would be buying up Washington Mutual after it suffered the largest failure in U.S. banking history.

Bachus on Friday was removed from the negotiating table and replaced by Blunt, who said Republicans needed to see that safeguards are in place to protect taxpayers. He said a lot of miscommunication had hampered the negotiations.

But he added that the essence of the deal has to be about liqudity returning to the market. And he didn't rush to a midnight deadline for a compromise.

"We want to get this right. I am going to the negotiating table. ... It's more important we get this done right than we get it done quickly. There's no reason to impose an artificial deadline here," Blunt said, saying he'd like to have a deal before markets open on Monday, but he isn't going to press it.

While many aspects of the deal discussed Thursday remained in play — no "golden parachutes" or severence packages for executives who helped companies fail; congressional oversight that includes transparency and accountability; and a way to get taxpayer money back — House Republicans were still floating an alternative plan.

According to Republican Rep. John Campbell, a member of the GOP negotiating team, the Republican plan would require a new government entity, modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., that charges premiums to insure risky mortgages.

The more toxic the mortgage, the higher the premium, Campbell said, but the mortgages would then have government-backed guarantees against future losses, which in theory would draw private investors to purchase it from the institutions and get new liquidity into the mortgage-backed securities market. This would be paid by the mortgage industry, not taxpayer dollars, according to the GOP vision.

Any instutition that participated would have to suspend dividend payments temporarily to free up funds to pay the insurance premiums, which Campbell acknowledged could be steep. If necessary, institutions could borrow from the Federal Reserve to pay the premiums.

The Republican alternative would also provide new capital by allowing recent operating losses to be carried back for up to 10 years and to provide immediate, giant tax refunds to all the institutions. However, Republicans acknowledge that a capital gains tax cut proposal has been dropped due to cost factors and Democratic pushback.

Republicans are estimating the package to be somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, less than the $700 billion proposed. If a private/public sector solution is at hand, Republicans will get a mechanism they prefer and the political cover they need to vote for the finished package.

But Reid has already said that he thought the insurance idea was a no-go.

"Secretary Paulson has said their insurance programs won't work. Whether he will say that publicly, I don't know," he said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not include GOP details in negotiations being considered by the administration, and she said the "insurance suggestion" is unlikely to "take over the whole program."

"One of the things that understandably people wanted to have was more transparency and oversight. So we are willing to work with them on that," she said. "In addition to that, there's the issue of executive compensation ... and Hank Paulson is trying to work with his team on the details as to what that would look like."

But Blunt and other Republicans say the GOP package needs to get an airing.

"Do you want to negotiate in a way that is truly bipartisan ... or do you want a deal that every Democrat is going to be happy about?" Blunt asked.

FOX Business Network's Peter Barnes, FOX News' Chad Pergram and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

N2K

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 8812

CancunMole

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:05 pm

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
-How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
-They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1842

annie13

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:24 pm

CancunMole wrote:

I get it, I do understand, but what about all the businesses, like the oil companies and the big tax breaks Wink

Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1570

CancunMole

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:20 pm

annie13 wrote:

I get it, I do understand, but what about all the businesses, like the oil companies and the big tax breaks Wink

With respect to Oil Companies and others, farmers even who are paid NOT to plant certain crops, who receive tax incentives, I wonder how much Oil products and the others would be IF these various Companies did not receive any incentives and prices were completely dependent on the principles of supply and demand only?

From an e-mail circulating and I was not able to find anything on snopes to dispute this.......

Quote:

Who Has The World's Most Oil?

Like you, I've been absolutely blown away by what has happened to the price of a gallon of gas. More like just plain MAD! But it's time (way past time, obviously) for all of us to put up or shut up. And by that I mean
quit belly-aching to one another (trust me - I do it as well - so I'm talking to myself, too, here!) ... and DO SOMETHING. And trust me ... not buying gas from one or two of the 'Big Boys' for a month, or electing to not
buy gas on a given day. is not the answer. The answer is one I know you know, and have heard many times before from people a lot more well-versed in this than me: LESSENING our dependence on foreign oil.

Just poking around the Internet recently, I simply "Googled" the search "Untapped US Oil Reserves," and the result (like the current price of a gallon of gas - BLEW ME AWAY! Go ahead, take a minute and see for yourself! Never mind, I'll share some of the highlights I found.

1. Ever heard of the Bakken Formation?

GOOGLE it. I did, and again, BLEW my mind. The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('0 Cool

that only scientists and oilmen/women knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been
updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable le... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea" says Terry Johnson, the Montana
Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as
the "Bakken." And it stretches from Northern Montana through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U.S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the "Big Oil" companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER
BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

If THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people!

2. "U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!"

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006. Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world - more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

* 8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
* 18 times as much oil as Iraq
* 21 times as much oil as Kuwait
* 22 times as much oil as Iran
* 500 times as much oil as Yemen - and it's all right
here in the Western United States.

HOW can this be? HOW can we NOT be extracting this?
Because we've not D. E. M. A. N. D E D legislation to come out of Washington allowing its extraction, that's why!

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study, says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East - more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves
of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think "Big Oil" will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, and if they can extract it (here) for less, they can afford to sell it for less - and if they
DON'T, others will. It will come down - it has to.

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it ... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

3. Take 5-10 minutes and compose an e-mail, fax or good old-fashioned letter to our elected officials in Washington ... and their respected leaders. We'll start with them, and here's how you can send them your e-mail/fax, DEMANDING the immediate Legislation/Energy Plan that calls for tapping into these (OUR OWN!) re serves, as well as allowing for the offshore drilling for OUR oil, in OUR offshore waters and inter-continental shelf ... not to mention Alaska. Technology ain't what it used to be, people (ever had arthroscopic surgery?). They can surgically extract OUR oil, and get us on the way to at least some measure of Energy independence, and accomplish it in an environmentally friendly manner.

If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices... because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1842

dithers

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:00 pm

Quote:

1. Ever heard of the Bakken Formation?

GOOGLE it. I did, and again, BLEW my mind. The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('0 that only scientists and oilmen/women knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been
updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:

My sister lives in No. Dak. and she says the oil companies are moving in big time for this oil. Young guys are being paid like $250 - $350 a day to work for them - and let me tell you, in No. Dak. that ain't chicken feed. My brother in law had to close his business because the workers were all going to the oil companies. But he did lease his bldg. to them and they were so anxious he had to move his own business out in one weekend so they could move in.

Just as Alaskan's realize so much state revenue from oil - so will many other states come to see this as a goldmine. Here in Florida we would kill to be getting revenue from offshore drilling.

Pretty in Blonde

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468

apodixis

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:19 am

Denial is not a River in Egypt.

People's impressions of the first presidential debate were presented in focus groups on Fox News by Frank Luntz.

While folks agreed with the polls that Obama had won the debate, what was interesting about these focus groups was that they noticed things like how McCain refused to look at Obama during almost the whole debate.

This so typical of McCain’s right wing Fox audience supporters who post on the Greta Wire Blog. When presented with facts that contradict what they believe, they refuse to look at those facts by claiming that the source is “Liberal” biased, or by simply hurling personal insults at the poster pointing out the facts.

You can watch a video of one of these focus groups in the topic “Obama vs. McCain: Whose Words Worked?” here:

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/27/obama-vs-mccain-whose-words-worked/#comments

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

dithers

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:30 am

apodixis wrote:

Denial is not a River in Egypt.

People's impressions of the first presidential debate were presented in focus groups on Fox News by Frank Luntz.

While folks agreed with the polls that Obama had won the debate, what was interesting about these focus groups was that they noticed things like how McCain refused to look at Obama during almost the whole debate.

This so typical of McCain’s right wing Fox audience supporters who post on the Greta Wire Blog. When presented with facts that contradict what they believe, they refuse to look at those facts by claiming that the source is “Liberal” biased, or by simply hurling personal insults at the poster pointing out the facts.
You can watch a video of one of these focus groups in the topic “Obama vs. McCain: Whose Words Worked?” here:

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/27/obama-vs-mccain-whose-words-worked/#comments

How many times have we heard liberals accuse Fox (Faux as they love to say) of being 'conservative' biased when they don't like what they hear?

Isn't it interesting that so many call Fox a right-wing conservative biased source of news but here they are presenting facts that put right-wing conservatives in a negative light.

C'mon, I could post a dozen or more sites where I could say the same thing about liberal bias and insulting posters and people choosing to wear blinders.

Pretty in Blonde

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468

apodixis

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:42 am

dithers wrote:

C'mon, I could post a dozen or more sites where I could say the same thing about liberal bias and insulting posters and people choosing to wear blinders.

Of course there are some lefties who are as blinded to reality by their ideology as some righties.

I am just a little more familiar with this on the right since I follow the Gretawire blog pretty regularly. But the vitriol on the Gretawire blog, poured on Luntz for telling it like it is, or on Fox's Bill O'Reilly for even having Obama on his program, far exceeds what I have ever seen from "liberal" sources.

( The excess may also have to do with the completely unmoderated format of the Greta Wire Blog )

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

woebedamned

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:23 am

edit -- too negative

Last edited by woebedamned on Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Damn it All!!!!

Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker

dithers

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:45 am

apodixis wrote:

Of course there are some lefties who are as blinded to reality by their ideology as some righties.

I am just a little more familiar with this on the right since I follow the Gretawire blog pretty regularly. But the vitriol on the Gretawire blog, poured on Luntz for telling it like it is, or on Fox's Bill O'Reilly for even having Obama on his program, far exceeds what I have ever seen from "liberal" sources.
( The excess may also have to do with the completely unmoderated format of the Greta Wire Blog )

Go check out dailykos or the Huffington Post.

Pretty in Blonde

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468

apodixis

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:02 pm

woebedamned wrote:

I think its a given that certain groups will say Obama won, while others will say the opposite. Our local newspaper poll had McCain winning.

Obama: 24%
McCain: 54%
Tied: 3%
Sorry, I went to the game: 19%

Now, admittedly, most here wouldnt vote for Obama even if he were the only one running, so I wouldnt say the poll represents "average Amercians". It simply represents our little group.

I thought it was a draw based on the issues; But apparently different groups of the public are basing their view of the debate more on the candidates' demeanors. It's a small sample of only 700 nationally, but the latest USA/Gallup polls shows Them believing that Obama won the debate 46/34 %. The Daily tracking polls show no change - Obama still leading by 5 %.

My guess is that Obama was seen by those who think he scored better in the debate, as being more assertive, more presidential, less professorial, matching McCain's gravitas. But the question is whether the polls are able to compensate for the "Bradley effect".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

apodixis

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:06 am

We demand a more ignorant President ROLFMAO

“Though more voters still see McCain as more knowledgeable, Obama was seen as more "presidential" by 46% of debate-watchers, compared with 33% for the Arizona senator.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-poll29-2008sep29,0,7188433.story

Yesterday's Gallup Daily Poll showed Obama surging ahead of McCain by 8 % points - probably due as much to the GOP's negative association with big business in a time of financial crisis.

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

woebedamned

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:51 am

delete -- too negative

Last edited by woebedamned on Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Damn it All!!!!

Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 6287
Location: pathetic joke of an American, bitter, gun clinging, God loving, racist cracker

resigned

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:58 am

woebedamned wrote:

It's the American way. Let's face, looks are FAR more important than brains to many.

.....and brains are far more important than looks to many.

Click your heels together...

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27035
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk

apodixis

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:25 pm

Funniest comment of the day:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, interviewing Fareed Zakaria, said that Gov. Sarah Palin had Alaskan executive experience and majority public support there.

Zakaria pointed out that most of Alaska’s state revenue simply comes from oil revenue.

And that would just qualify Palin to be Governor of Saudi Arabia. Laughing

( Women can’t even drive cars in Saudi Arabia !!!! )

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3196
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia

Display posts from previous:

	The Refugees Unleashed Forum Index -> General Election 2008	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54 ... 67, 68, 69 Next
Page 53 of 69

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

�