The election

[Topaz]

The election in the US will make Obama or McCain the president. Today, there's Iraqis who want the US to go, all of them and because of the invasion of Iraq alot of the people around the world have a very negative view of the US. On the news last night, they reported that people don't see the US as they use to. They think of the US, as we in the west viewed Russia in the 1960's. Mccain is a Republican and so is Bush and so if the US is going to change the world's view they HAVE to elected Obama to show the world they do want change and they aren't going to invade other countries unless the rest of the world is behind them. Unfortunely for McCain, GW stopped him the first time he ran for president and GW will be the cause he'll lose the run for president, if the Reps. don't pull as fast one with the voting machine as they did with GW.

[Pliny]

I wonder how they will "steal" the election this time.

The implication they "pulled a fast one with the voting machine" is rather out of place. Obama has no chance of winning. If he were in Canada running for Prime Minister he would be a shoe-in.

[bush_cheney2004]

....and so if the US is going to change the world's view they HAVE to elected Obama to show the world they do want change and they aren't going to invade other countries unless the rest of the world is behind them....

Who says the US wants to change the world's view...that's a Canadian (Please Love Us) value...not American. Hell, your own nation just returned "NeoCon" PM Harper back to power and remains in Afghanistan doing a fine job of invading and occupying.

If Obama wins, then North America will only have Canada as the last "NeoCon" hold out...how ironic.

Bush Bush Bush Bush...has been re-elected after all...in Canada!

[Riverwind]

McCain is in meltdown mode. Even right wing pundits are starting give grudging support to Obama.

[Shady]

The implication they "pulled a fast one with the voting machine" is rather out of place.

Exactly. The only election fraud being perpetrated, is by ACORN. One of Barack's associations.

[Pliny]

McCain is in meltdown mode. Even right wing pundits are starting give grudging support to Obama.

McCain enjoys being the underdog. Overcoming adversary is the American Dream. He lives it.

[Pliny]

Exactly. The only election fraud being perpetrated, is by ACORN. One of Barack's associations.

...and speaking of the economy......isn't it ACORN that organized pickets to go to banks and bankers homes if they refused to give mortgages to the "underprivileged"? Of course, on the other side of the fence Barney Frank encouraged bankers to make those loans, after all, Fannie and Freddie would back them.

[Peter F]

...and speaking of the economy......isn't it ACORN that organized pickets to go to banks and bankers homes if they refused to give mortgages to the "underprivileged"?

Jeez! The nerve! Homes for the underprivileged! Only in America...

[Guest American Woman]

McCain is in meltdown mode. Even right wing pundits are starting give grudging support to Obama.

Powell has just given his support to Obama:

Retired General Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.

Powell said a big job of the new president will be “conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.”

link

Edited October 19, 2008 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Powell has just given his support to Obama

I just read that. You should hear Republican commentators ripping him this morning.

[bush_cheney2004]

Secretary Powell also endorsed mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq!

[BubberMiley]

Secretary Powell also endorsed mobile biological weapons laboratories in Iraq!

I suspect the more Republicans try to smear Powell in the next few weeks, the more Obama's numbers are going to go up.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect the more Republicans try to smear Powell in the next few weeks, the more Obama's numbers are going to go up.

I sure hope so, because they have been going down. If the "truth" about Powell is no longer welcomed, we know why.

[jdobbin]

I suspect the more Republicans try to smear Powell in the next few weeks, the more Obama's numbers are going to go up.

I think there is still life left in McCain yet to continue to make terror links and the like about Obama.

McCain says he likes being the underdog. I think those words were used by Dion as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/campaign.wrap/

Sen. Barack Obama leads McCain by 6 points, according to CNN's latest average of national polls.

"I love being the underdog. You know, every time that I've gotten ahead, somehow I've messed it up," the Republican candidate said.

I expect we'll see McCain continue to mess up.

[Shady]

McCain slowly gains on Obama

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

UTICA, New York - Republican John McCain continued a slow advance on Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, moving back within three percentage points as the race begins to head down the stretch run, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows.

Zogby

Pollster John Zogby said the numbers were good news for McCain, and probably reflected a bump following his appearance in the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday.

"For the first time in the polling McCain is up above 45 percent. There is no question something has happened," Zogby said.

Reuters

But wait. I thought CNN told us that Obama won the debate?

For all of Obama's supposed political talent, I'm not impressed. He has an unpopular President to run against. An unpopular opposing political party to run against. An unpopular war to run against. He's also out-raised his opponent by a tremendous amount, and is setting a record for spending on advertising, outspending McCain by 5 - 1. And all he can muster is a 3 point lead?

Also, Ann Coulter has a great column this week, citing example after example of polls under-estimating Republican support. And coincidentally, it's always the Republicans that get under-estimated. What Liberal media right?

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

Link

[GostHacked]

Also, Ann Coulter has a great column this week, citing example after example of polls under-estimating Republican support. And coincidentally, it's always the Republicans that get under-estimated. What Liberal media right?

You are kidding me. Ann Coulter? She is only great at one thing. Being an idiotic unknowledgeable attack dog. Not to mention she looks like one. Everytime she opens her mouth it is hate.

[White Doors]

McCain is in meltdown mode. Even right wing pundits are starting give grudging support to Obama.

Count me as one. After Palin was shown to have no substance, there really is no other choice.

Now if McCain had chosed Condoleeza Rice as VP...

[White Doors]

Jeez! The nerve! Homes for the underprivileged! Only in America...

The sense of it all! Mortgages for people who can afford them! Who woulda thought?

[White Doors]

You are kidding me. Ann Coulter? She is only great at one thing. Being an idiotic unknowledgeable attack dog. Not to mention she looks like one. Everytime she opens her mouth it is hate.

And this post of yours is so loveable...

[Sir Bandelot]

Now if McCain had chosed Condoleeza Rice as VP...

Problem is "that one" would really tie McCain to the Bush administration, 4 more years of the same old same old, and thats not what the maverick wants to do.

[GostHacked]

Count me as one. After Palin was shown to have no substance, there really is no other choice.

Now if McCain had chosed Condoleeza Rice as VP...

Now that you mention it, that would have worked well for McCain for sure.

And this post of yours is so loveable...

I have no love for Ann Coulter. So that post reflects it. I make no apologies about it.

[White Doors]

Now that you mention it, that would have worked well for McCain for sure.

I have no love for Ann Coulter. So that post reflects it. I make no apologies about it.

I think so.

As for Coulter, you say that you dislike her for her being so vociferous and agressive in her attacks.

Yet you are very aggressive in your attack on her.

How are you different from Coulter?

[White Doors]

Problem is "that one" would really tie McCain to the Bush administration, 4 more years of the same old same old, and thats not what the maverick wants to do.

I don't think Condoleeza Rice was painted with that 'brush' and even if she were, her sheer intellect and political prowess would have made short work of it. Biden would not have enjoyed debating Rice. (to say the least).