McCain Opens up a 5 Point Lead over Obama, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:10 PM by saturnine_sweet

reply to post by maybereal11

No, they give away Nobel prizes for supporting the interests of those who give the prizes. I mean, seriously, what did Gore do to win that? Make a movie full of bad science? Drum up billions of dollars for GW thieves? If your definition of brilliant is scamming billions of dollars, then I guess he's brilliant. And take a look at some of the other "winners." Gore's not the only one who is less than worthy.

Newsflash...Did I say in there anywhere that I was for the Republicans? No...I was giving an honest analysis. To an outsider, the last few Democratic candidates have been a joke. A scam artist who campaigns for GW even though he doesn't even apparently have a shred of understanding about the subject, judging from his movie. I'm not really sure what to call Kerry; as I said, all he ever did was try to look presidential and be "the other guy." And then Obama...whom I already stated the drawbacks of.

Another newsflash for you: It's not arrogance to tell the honest truth about something. I didn't see you try to refute anything I said; you just tried to mock and degrade me. It is not arrogant to call a fool a fool. I would say the past couple of elections have supported my statements well, and the upcoming one is likely to as well. I will never bow down to the idiocy of "being nice" to everyone, even the blithering idiots among us. I try to be polite, but if it's necessary to give the stark truth about the idiocy or inadequacies of someone or something, I will not hesitate to do so. It has nothing to do with partisan politics, and I could very well do the same for McCain, those his weaknesses lie in different areas. I was simply giving a reason, based on observations that correlate with available data, as to why Obama is slipping, despite the media's perception of the political atmosphere.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:14 PM by nixie_nox

reply to post by Stormdancer777

My point is that either way there is only a few point difference. Not enough of a difference to be concerned about by either side.

Acutally yes, because this seems to be turning into another neck to necker like previous elections. Which is getting kind of old.

Would be nice to have a clear cut favorite for once.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:33 PM by Battleline

Polls are used to herd the sheep in any direction the system wants,just read the posts in this thread,doesen't matter who your for,you are being led around like sheep.
Just a thought(and a bit off topic)but has anybody thought how convinent this skermish in Georga is at this paticuler time.Puts McCain in quit a nice light.Just a thought.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:38 PM by southern_Guardian

I dont believe McCain is doing well campaign wise. We live in a nation where more than half voters put Bush into office, twice so why is this surprising? Americans give into fearmongering all too easily and to be frank I think its common for people to assume McCains "POW" experience will amounts to the sercurity of this nation.

On another note what is been asked of america is beyond what she would usually accept. If you were to tell somebody 4years ago that the first black democratic nominee would be elected in 2008 they would laugh in your face.

Look let me list below the impact of voting Obama:

-He will be the first black president in US history, and the fact it would be 2008, decades earlier than people would usually expect, Im surprised his been ahead of McCain for some time. Its amazing what the lies and recklessness of one party can push voters to give a black man a chance.

-In a gallup poll 19% of americans either said they wont vote for Obama because of race, they know people who wont vote for him on race or said america is not ready for a black president. Whether righties here want to continue to deny this and push this off as "playing the race card", race is a major factor fo many voters regardless of what Obama does.

-He will be the first biracial president of america and of any nation for that matter. Interracial marriage is still seen in some cases as taboo, especially between black and white americans. If Obama is elected he will bring into question the myths many carry regarding interracial marriages. It will be exceedingly hard for organisation of the likes of "white christians" and the "KKK" to get their message through.

-Obama will be one of the youngest candidates ever to be elected, only 47years old. In 20years time he'll still be younger than McCain

-Obama has been a virtual unknown up until 2007. The nation tends to vote in favour to those they know already regardless of other factors. They voted in Bush over Gore in 2000 despite the fact that Gore was expected to win and the favourite.

-He is inexperienced compared to McCain. He has relatively the same experience as Hillary if you compare their timelines. The perception of him being inexperienced can be increased by the fact McCain is older and has been known for decades.

-Most americans are still ignorant of other cultures, many still believe that your born a muslim forever

The fact that Obamas father was a non-practicing muslim opened new doors for rightwing myths to be spread into the public. That and the fact that Obamas middle name is "Hussien". Although if these very people were to see a chinese guy with an english name and surname they would still see him as chinese. It is hypocritical in sense but this is the thinking process for most americans.

-Obama's unique family has also weighed in. Unlike the presidents and candidates in the past, Bush, McCain, Hillary, Obama does not have political parents able to get him that the Washington connection he may verywell need in this election. His been on his own for a long time now and the fact he managed to grow such a great campaign is an achievement on its own.

All of the above listed are factors weighted against Obama. Compare this to McCains old age and his ties to Bush, its either the same or less.

So am I surprised Obama is at McCains level.... no...... 2004 already showed me the willingness of many americans to sweep their ignorance and deniability under the rug.

I still believe Obama will win, I just believe it will be by a 4-3% margin. For the time being though the polls offer little insight into the future.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:42 PM by Fathom

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I still think this is going to be a surprisingly close election,

I disagree. this is going to be an easy win for McCain.
Democrat Pundits were saying that Obama needed at least a 15% lead by the convention in order to win by 5%.
So by the same math, Obama will lose by 17% ?

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Fathom]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:48 PM by walkinghomer

Without Reading through all the comments let me just add my 2 cents.

I believed that this would be a close race. Never ever thought Obama would be destroying McCain for these Basic Reasons.

1. He's Young and Does not have enough Experience. One Can Argue that McCain is Old and is filled with all the corrupted Politics that exist in Politicians nowadays.

2. McCain has promised to run a CLEAN campaign and this campaign is far from being clean. Obama hasn't even turn on the dirty campaigning that I know he's capable of. McCain on the other hand unleashed is minions of Carl Rovians on Obama.

3. The Media is NOT doing its Job. They have exposed all (or most) that there is to know about Obama but wouldn't the public want to know how Morally Bankrupt Mccain is. I mean leaving your wife when she's sick. Not to mention the Keating 5.

4. If Obama was fully white NONE of you can tell me he would not be in the lead. This is not the only reason why he's behind in the polls. But he came into a race with a "disadvantage" of being BLACK and has an uphill battle. Now, here is a stat from awhile back during the Democratic elections.

This morning’s New York Times reported that exit poll surveys in West Virginia showed two out of 10 white voters cited race as a factor in their decision

That is 20%, what about those that would not admit that race played a role. Lets just double that and that's 40%. Can you beleive that. Now mind you, not all states share those statistics but "Oh My GOD"
Poll: Race played role in Mountain State

You ask yourself why Obama is behind. Its an uphill battle for him but trust me, it's not over yet.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:56 PM by Stormdancer777

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

I thank god everyday you are here posting and keeping us on track!!!!!!

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 02:57 PM by Stormdancer777

reply to post by nixie_nox

I am sorry nixie, it is hard for me lately, to take politician seriously.

However, when you take into consideration how far BEHIND McCain was, in the polls, this might be significant.

[edit on 023131p://bWednesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:48 PM by tombangelta

i cant believe you people actually talk positively about a McCain victory. the guy is obviously a bush clone.

But that just about sums you Americans up the past 8 years are now just a sound bite or the last seconds of a commercial, now there selling you the same crap all over again.

If McCain gets in its more of the same , period.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:53 PM by jd140

We need a war time President and Obama just isn't it. As unpopular the war may be it doesn't change the fact that we are at war and need someone who understands that.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:53 PM by ChocoTaco369

reply to post by Stormdancer777

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading. Gotta love an op-ed piece in a radically leftist newspaper. No wonder the NY Times is absolutely tanking, having to lay off hundreds and hundreds of employees several times over to keep their head above water.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 03:55 PM by saturnine_sweet

reply to post by tombangelta

Sometimes more of that same is better than the change on the table. I don't want more of the same, but the change Obama represents is even worse. The rest of the world is welcome to socialism, but I don't want to see it here.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:32 PM by tombangelta

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by tombangelta

Sometimes more of that same is better than the change on the table. I don't want more of the same, but the change Obama represents is even worse. The rest of the world is welcome to socialism, but I don't want to see it here.

Do you not think its time for change. My god things cant get much worse.
So you would rather have extreme capitalism , where vice presidents proffit from war and defense secretaries profit from selling Aspartame to children.

In my estimation 50% of the people who frequent this site know very little about whats actually going on.

Obama may not be the solution to the problem but in all honesty a McCain presidency wold be nothing short of a nightmare.

And to the gentlemen that said we need a war president because we are in a time of war. that is one of the saddest things i have had the misfortune of reading

edit : spelling

[edit on 20/8/08 by tombangelta]

[edit on 20/8/08 by tombangelta]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:34 PM by Multiple Junkie

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Multiple Junkie]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:37 PM by Multiple Junkie

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Multiple Junkie]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Multiple Junkie]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 04:42 PM by Multiple Junkie

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Multiple Junkie]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 05:03 PM by Becker44

reply to post by Multiple Junkie

Everything O.K. Multiple?

Do we need to throw you a life line or something?

Becker

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 05:18 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by maybereal11

No, they give away Nobel prizes for supporting the interests of those who give the prizes. I mean, seriously, what did Gore do to win that? Make a movie full of bad science? Drum up billions of dollars for GW thieves? If your definition of brilliant is scamming billions of dollars, then I guess he's brilliant. And take a look at some of the other "winners." Gore's not the only one who is less than worthy.

Newsflash...Did I say in there anywhere that I was for the Republicans? No...I was giving an honest analysis. To an outsider, the last few Democratic candidates have been a joke. A scam artist who campaigns for GW even though he doesn't even apparently have a shred of understanding about the subject, judging from his movie. I'm not really sure what to call Kerry; as I said, all he ever did was try to look presidential and be "the other guy." And then Obama...whom I already stated the drawbacks of.

Another newsflash for you: It's not arrogance to tell the honest truth about something. I didn't see you try to refute anything I said; you just tried to mock and degrade me. It is not arrogant to call a fool a fool. I would say the past couple of elections have supported my statements well, and the upcoming one is likely to as well. I will never bow down to the idiocy of "being nice" to everyone, even the blithering idiots among us. I try to be polite, but if it's necessary to give the stark truth about the idiocy or inadequacies of someone or something, I will not hesitate to do so. It has nothing to do with partisan politics, and I could very well do the same for McCain, those his weaknesses lie in different areas. I was simply giving a reason, based on observations that correlate with available data, as to why Obama is slipping, despite the media's perception of the political atmosphere.

I am going to try to ignore the tone and phrasing of your response and acknowledge the points that have some credence and forget the rest. Though reading through your response again I am having a hard time. Let's try this...

Yes, the DNC has put forth some weak candidates in recent elections and/or managed the campaigns poorly.

Yes, Obama should be doing better than he is and the campaign would do well to review strategy. The DNC could share some blame here.

I think despite these facts that Obama is the better candidate for a plethora of reasons that have been covered on various threads.

I think John McCain is doing very well right now given what he is selling and what he is up against. I think he has a natural arrogance that is constantly checked by his campaign staff and suspect that a boost in confidence in his camp will turn out to be bad thing and he will start to get himself in hot water.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by maybereal11]

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 05:28 PM by Alxandro

Originally posted by Becker44
reply to post by Multiple Junkie

Everything O.K. Multiple?

Do we need to throw you a life line or something?

Becker

Well at least he certainly lives up to his name.

reply posted on 20-8-2008 @ 05:35 PM by Scramjet76

reply to post by nyk537

The fact of the matter is that neither Obama nor his supporters thought they would be anywhere near this close at any point. This is an election season where the Democrats should be able to win nominating a stuffed animal for President, and yet Obama has never been able to pull away from McCain, and now in some instances...is trailing.

Can't feel good...

It doesn't feel good. Did you see walkinghomer's post? 20-40% of Americans are too lazy to formulate opinions based on critical thinking so they will vote by the color of the candidates skin. If that isn't alarming then I'm not sure what is?

The other alarming aspect is most "diehard" libs and conservatives don't really care that the people around them make decisions in such a manner. Their sole focus is to win the election and shove it in others face!