Yes, indeed. Nate Silver had a good run of laughs about the IBD/TIPP poll. But, hey Phil, I wouldn’t encourage you to bet your house on it.
And I certainly wouldn’t want you to lose all hope of a continuation of Republican policies. At least not until the wee hours of the morning on the 5th of November.
Interestingly Obama enjoys more enthusiasm with Democrats/moderates&liberals than McCain does with Republicans/conservatives...
I do indeed remember Yogi Berra. And I’m not taking victory for granted. Neither is Obama and his supporters. That is why I suspect you will see an incredible Democratic turnout, and a Blue Tsunami that will 1) result in an Obama landslide, and 2) greatly improve the composition of the Senate.
IP: Logged |
posted
And I certainly wouldn’t want you to lose all hope of a continuation of Republican policies.
Yes, it will be a sad day when emphasis on free-enterprise, self-responsibility, strong national defense, reducing the size of government, etc. are lost in favor of government entitlement programs, dependency on government, weaker national defense and increasing the size of government. Kind of sounds like Europe, doesn't it?
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind, here, that no president has ever been elected who didn't carry the white male vote. Of course, there's always a first, and this year just might well be the one. There still are these 9% or so who are not sure -- most of them probably white males.
[ October 28, 2008, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phil: Keep in mind, here, that no president has ever been elected who didn't carry the white male vote. Of course, there's always a first, and this year just might well be the one. There still are these 9% or so who are not sure -- most of them probably white males.
Absolutely! At the end of the day you may well be right. As you wrote in another context: "It’s all about race. Absolutely!"
It seems the Republican campaign is down to its last straw.
IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
Re: The leftist, un-American media conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Phil: Shocking! The media (even in Alaska) endorses Obama!
Oh wow, my bad! Obviously I didn’t do my research. The Anchorage Daily News is a liberal newspaper. They have gone so far as backing Democratic Presidential candidates in previous elections as well. Clearly we can write them off as biased.
This leaves two distinct possibilities:
1) The Anchorage Daily News is part of an un-American, leftist media conspiracy to fool the "real America".
2) The major newspaper that has followed the blossoming political life of Sarah Palin most closely for years has found good, objective reasons to support the other ticket as best qualified.
IP: Logged |
posted
So, then, let's see who the people of Alaska end up voting for.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
I would wager that McCain/Palin win by a 15 % margin.
After all, Alaska is a pretty conservative state, and Palin is on home ground here. It’s one of the states that’s safely red -- a foregone conclusion.
IP: Logged |
posted
So, wait now . . . You're sounding like a journalistic snob, which I know you probably don't intend to be doing. But what you're clearly saying is that newspaper editors, the majority of whom are Democrats, are capable of making sound, informed decisions while insinuating that the majority of Alaskans, who will vote for McCain/Palin do not know how to make sound, informed decisions? Yes, that is what you're saying, and it is snobbish.
On another thread I posted the breakdown of who favors Obama vs. McCain. They didn't have a "journalist" category, but if they did, it would surely be with over 80% for Obama, as most journalists are Democrats and liberals who've trained in schools of journalism that were liberal and took this perspective to be normal.
Viewing the larger picture, what we find is that the groups favoring Obama are: - Black - Females - people from the West and Northeast - urbanites - under 45 - making less than 50K per year - non-investors - with high school degrees only - liberal ideology - Jews and non-church-goers - union members - people who don't display the flag see http://ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx?src=POLLTOPN
Now if you're prepared to say that this contingency makes more informed decisions than their opposites, I'll grant your point. But methinks you're on very weak ground, here.
Incidentally, something I noted in another thread but will re-state here is that no President has ever been elected who did not carry the white male vote. So far, Obama doesn't have it, and that 8-10% group of undecideds (mostly Whites) is still very much in play.
[ October 28, 2008, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Phil: So, wait now . . . You're sounding like a journalistic snob, which I know you probably don't intend to be doing. But what you're clearly saying is that newspaper editors, the majority of whom are Democrats, are capable of making sound, informed decisions while insinuating that the majority of Alaskans, who will vote for McCain/Palin do not know how to make sound, informed decisions? Yes, that is what you're saying, and it is snobbish.
Get off it, Phil! You really have gone off the deep end.
I stated unequivocally that I believed American voters would be making "sound, informed decisions" on November 4th. Naturally that includes Alaskans, who happen to be residents of one of the 50 states. I have at no point insinuated that they are less informed -- neither those who vote for Obama nor McCain.
Likewise I believe that newspaper editors are making "sound, informed decisions".
posted
HP, considering your contributions to this discussion and other similar ones, on the whole, it's seemed to me that you've been insinuating that voting for Obama is the more educated, enlightened choice, and that your citing the Alaskan newspaper was a case in point. Glad to hear you clarify that you didn't mean it that way.
[ October 28, 2008, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
When the decisions of others is construed as "bias", or written off -------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am not suggesting that Obama supporters are more educated or enlightened. My point was this:
You’re voting for McCain/Palin. I have every reason to think your doing so in an informed decision! You have shared your reasons. I respect your reflections.
You live in Kansas, a predominantly Conservative/Republican state, which has a rather "red" voting record. It would be disingenuous and more than a bit arrogant for me to suggest that "It’s all about you being a Kansan. Absolutely!" As if your voting decision was to be written off as "biased", a mere reflection of your demographic.
What I insist on is that we grant Colin Powell the same respect. God knows he has proved he’s earned it! And not write off his decision and reasons in the simplistic way that you have been doing.
By the same token it is disingenuous to write of the editors of The Anchorage Daily News, as you have done.
My own feeling is this: In these cases Phil St. Romain is showing a bias, writing off decisions you happen to disagree with, and thus the persons making them. And I don’t think that is right.
What I would really like is to hear you retract your "It’s all about race" comment and concede that Colin Powell is making a sound, informed decision when he endorses Barack Obama for President.
You don’t have to agree -- but it is wrong for you to disrespectfully write him off.
posted
HP, honestly now, do you really think Colin Powell would have endorsed a young, very liberal, 1st term Senator, White Democrat running for President against John McCain? I surely don't.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
With the same good qualities that Barack Obama has displayed?
In contrast with the choice of Palin, McCain’s handling of his own role in the bailout discussions, the profound negativity of their campaign, and recent years rightward drift of the Republican party?
Yes, absolutely. And these were all reasons sited by Colin Powell.
You may not like it, but in recent months Barack Obama has displayed far greater political maturity than his counterpart. That comes as quite a surprise to many, including some very conservative people who will be voting Obama.
But I understand that is hard for you to digest.
IP: Logged |
posted
HP, the problem with you and so many others is that you're evaluating Obama on the basis of how he has run his campaign and his considerable rhetorical skills rather than going on the actual record of his past deeds. Statements like "Obama has displayed far greater maturity than his counterpart" tell me that you're not considering McCain's long, distinguished career of working on both sides of the aisle (he's hardly a right-winger) on a wide variety of issues. If, furthermore, Colin Powell is making his endorsement using such shallow thinking, then all the more reason to ignore him. It's inconceivable that he would have endorsed, say, Edwards, had Edwards run a campaign as good as Obama's, especially with someone like McCain running in opposition (Powell and McCain go way back).
Flippant, sarcastic remarks like I understand that is hard for you to digest indicate that you've reached the limits of your ability to rationally and civilly present your points of view. And, fwiw, very few conservatives will be voting for Obama -- less than 10% according to most polls.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
There is no flippancy or sarcasm, nor any disrespect, in my "hard to digest" comment.
This is merely an observation: your comment about not understanding why Obama feels qualified to become President, for one; your cavalier dismissal of the reasons cited by Powell, for another.
It seems so unimaginable that a well-reasoned Conservative can arrive at this conclusion, that you dismiss it out of hand.
Incidentally, the very same reasons that were given by Powell have been identified as key moving factors by many pollsters, and they have been cited by a great number of supporters, including other prominent Republicans.
Here are few more Republican voices:
"For me, the decision is based on the long-range needs of our country and which of these two candidates I feel is better suited to recharge America's economic health, restore its prestige abroad and inspire anew all people who cherish freedom and equality.
"I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president. I would contend that it's the most important election of my lifetime."
-- Arne Carlson (Republican), Former Governor of Minnesota
"It's not often you get a guy with his combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that's a product of his equally deep intelligence.
"Senator Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America's standing in the world. We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Senator Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire. Throughout this campaign I've watched his steady leadership through trying times and I'm confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward."
-- William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts (Republican)
"From the very beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama."
-- Scott McClellan, Press Secretary under George W. Bush
IP: Logged |
posted
HP, not all Republicans are conservatives, so the names and endorsements you cite above don't mean much. McClellan, in particular, has already written a nasty book about the Bush admin.
Your comment above was that some very conservative people were throwing in for Obama. The few polls I've seen show that over 90% of conservatives are going for McCain, which is not surprising since he's more conservative than Obama. That said, many conservatives view McCain as more of a moderate. Obama, however, is clearly a liberal, and conservatives generally don't vote for liberals (and vice versa) because, well, they're liberal! Very conservative conservatives certainly don't vote for liberals and none will vote for Obama because he is a very liberal politician. - Obama was voted the most liberal Senator for 2007
Now, fwiw, Colin Powell is not a liberal, nor is he a conservative. He's more of a moderate, independent guy, much like McCain. In fact, when he was considering a run for President in 2000 (or maybe earlier), there was a real question of whether he'd run as a Democrat or Republican.
I'm not alone in considering his endorsement of Obama to be more about race than anything else. For years now, he and Condoleeza Rice have been called "oreos" by the Black community because they served in the Bush Admin. (if that's not racist thinking, I don't know what is). That must smart! There's no doubting Powell's abilities in many areas, but a good part of his significance was the racial ground he broke as a general in the military and then as Secretary of State. - see http://tinyurl.com/55wm2j for a good summary of the Powell/race endorsement issue.
[ October 29, 2008, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought of this after I saw Phil's "joke" about the monkeys: -------- The Ant and the Grasshopper -------- OLD VERSION : The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
——————————————-
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool, and laughs, and dances, and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth,this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so ?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper ,and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing kum-by-ya. and ‘We shall overcome.’ Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Hillary and Barack go on national television agreeing that the plight of the grasshopper is the fault of George Bush. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in,which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
posted
Will we see John McCain win an upset? -----------------------------------------------
As Phil has said: "It ain’t over til it’s over." I wholeheartedly agree!
Could it be that it’s about time the press -- and not just Fox News -- highlight some of the good news that is coming in for John McCain?
Many seem to write off John McCain’s chances of winning this election as almost non-existent. That is probably being defeatist. Seen from a Republican viewpoint, there is actually some very uplifting recent news coming in from pollsters.
Pennsylvania First of all, McCain is focusing on Pennsylvania as his "last stand", if you will. Could this be yielding results? Well, let’s see...
A number of polls have showed Senator Obama with a two-digit lead. However, the Mason-Dixon poll that was released last night shows McCain having reduced the gap to just 4 %! That’s progress.
Keep in mind that Pennsylvania has a whopping 21 electoral votes. Winning these would take a huge bite out of Obama’s "projected" Electoral College win, and feed a possible red-meat Republican victory!
Florida an other states Also worth noting is last night’s Rasmussen poll from Indiana (11 Electoral Votes) that has McCain scoring 3 % higher than his Democratic counterpart. Zogby, however, had McCain ahead by 6.2 % (25 Oct).
Florida is another state where McCain and Obama have been running neck-and-neck. The National Journal poll (25 Oct) has McCain trailing Obama by only 1 %. Keep in mind, however, that Strategic Vision (21 Oct) had McCain ahead by 2 %, and Mason-Dixon (21 Oct) and Rasmussen (19 Oct) had McCain leading by 1 %. In other words, Florida is still a toss-up and could go McCain’s way. If it does, that’s another 27 Electoral Votes.
Missouri? CNN (26 Oct) has McCain ahead by 2 %. NorthCarolina? Rasmussen has McCain holding the state at +1 %. Ohio? Strategic Vision has McCain at +3 % (21 Oct).
Nationwide lead closing Even more interesting is the Fox News poll that has McCain national popular vote disadvantage pegged at a mere 3 %.
Should the Fox News poll be dismissed as biased? Most definitely not! Nate Silver scoffs at the idea, pointing out that Fax was one of the few polls that projected John Kerry’s win of the popular vote in 2004. Besides, its national figures are identical to those of Battleground (27 Oct) and they are not far behind the IBD/TIPP poll (also 27 Oct) already mentioned on Shalom Place.
Also note that two other recent national polls -- Rasmussen (28 Oct) and Research 2000 (Oct 29) -- have Obama at only +5 %. That’s a far cry from the CBS/NYT poll (27 Oct) that has Obama up by a whopping 13 %. (biased?)
Wow! Certainly there is no reason for Obama supporters to be complacent. But could it be that something dramatic is about to happen?
I'm expecting Obama to win, but to carry no more than 17 states. That's all the Dems need to do, provided they're the right ones -- states with large urban populations. They learned this lesson from the last two elections.
Jonathan Edwards had a theme of "two Americas," and that seems to be the case, only it's more about urban vs. rural than anything. As population demographics shift more and more to urban living, the Democrats should do well in this and forthcoming elections. What this means, I'm not sure. Nor dare we venture to guess why over 90% of African Americans vote for Democrats in election after election. If over 90% of White Americans voted for Republicans, the GOP would be accused of being racist, I'm sure. We are a nation of double-standards, however.
What would help McCain now? - a video from OBL endorsing Obama - running those videos of Rev. Wright again - Sarah Palin falling ill, and Mike Huckabee agreeing to take the VP slot - Vladimir Putin endorsing Obama - more Roman Catholics recognizing the priority of the anti-abortion position - etc.
It's not over, for sure, but it's time for the two-minute offense.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
HeartPrayer
unregistered
posted
Re: Palin and the Real America --------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Phil: What would help McCain now? - Sarah Palin falling ill...
Whoa! Are you saying that McCain’s choice of Palin was a mistake?
But as far as I understand, a good number of Republicans are currently pushing her forward as their 2012 candidate. And judging from reports from the campaign trail many hard-core conservatives, especially many religious conservatives, love her.
On the other hand, I have heard that some members of the McCain campaign are accusing Sarah Palin of positioning herself for this, and not giving a hoot about being a team player...
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
