The polls are wrong - McCain is winning - and here's why..

reply to post by nyk537


Obama is for a socialist America? So what just happened to Fannie & Freddie wasn't what a socialists would have done or want? That was a capitalist act?

The bail out of Fannie, Freddie and AIG for that matter is a socialist act. The $700 billion bail out is a socialist act, as many Senators and Congressman have stated, on national TV no less. America has already gone socialist.

Its been obvious to me for a long time that the American educational system doesn't actually teach the definition of "Socialism". No doubt most of the McCane supporters would call all the western European countries "socialist" because of their universal health care and tighter regulations over the market. In truth, a socialist economy is one in which the means of production are owned by the state. This is not the case in the aforementioned countries. To the GOP (Greed Over People), any regulation that interferes with unfettered capitalism is "socialism". Well pals, we just got a huge dose of unfettered capitalism. Socialism? Bring it on!!

reply to post by Fromabove


Where did you get your statistics from? Polls I assume? I'm sure they must be accurate.

McCain-Palin are free falling, theres no hope for them what so ever.

I'm left wondering how do prove one Poll wrong when using other Polls? And what makes the Polls you used more accurate? Just wondering how you justify your claims? Surely you can justify them?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by TheHunted]

Originally posted by Office 4256
Its been obvious to me for a long time that the American educational system doesn't actually teach the definition of "Socialism". No doubt most of the McCane supporters would call all the western European countries "socialist" because of their universal health care and tighter regulations over the market. In truth, a socialist economy is one in which the means of production are owned by the state. This is not the case in the aforementioned countries. To the GOP (Greed Over People), any regulation that interferes with unfettered capitalism is "socialism". Well pals, we just got a huge dose of unfettered capitalism. Socialism? Bring it on!!

Forget that dude, the American educational system doesn't even teach children what OUR NATION'S government is.

They teach kids we live in a "Democracy", we don't, we live in a "Constitutional Republic".

Originally posted by Alethia
reply to post by nyk537

 

Obama is for a socialist America? So what just happened to Fannie & Freddie wasn't what a socialists would have done or want? That was a capitalist act?

The bail out of Fannie, Freddie and AIG for that matter is a socialist act. The $700 billion bail out is a socialist act, as many Senators and Congressman have stated, on national TV no less. America has already gone socialist.

Socialist is just a scare term to try an frighten the duffus among us. Are you scared? Can you tell the difference between Socialism, Democratic Republic or a Corpratacracy?

How?

[edit on 8-10-2008 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


No, I'm not scared, and yes I know the difference, or at least I have a perception of it. Socialism can be found in many forms today. Call a country socialist and one person will think that equates to communism, another something else. I have posted about this in another threads, and talked about the benefits of universal healthcare and a minimum wage, and suddenly I was a communist according to other posters, even though I don't call that communism, but socialism.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply to post by stikkinikki


yes, it can get worse........A President that takes office with the current economic disaster can even further bankrupt us by additional federal programs without specific and linked (by law) funding that cannot be spent on anything else......any MORE indications of chaos in the US or tons of dollars pumped into the global economy (happening now).

4 years ago John Kerry had a bigger lead at this time than Obama. The polls were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Someone keeps bringing up that Democrat registration is up. Wouldn't ACORN have something to do with that? Over half of their registrations are bogus. I didn't know the Dallas Cowboys players all lived in Nevada?

No one brought up the Bradley Effect yet. This will play a factor in this race.

We always hear the vocal left, but you never hear about the silent majority of the right. The silent majority shows up on election day, the vocal left don't.

McCain wins handily, and because the polls are so wrong that will lead to charges of voter fraud, cheating, Diebold bashing, and since a black guy is defeated, it will lead to charges of racism and riots.

America is facing tough times, and will not give the reigns over to someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama.

reply to post by RRconservative


You don't hear that? Listen Closely, its the chant "Change". It has swept across the country and theres no stopping. Listen again "Change" doesn't that sound great.

I do agree Polls mean diddly especially when the latest Poll only samples 685 people. I know you are very hopeful being a conservitive and all. With the brilliant move of linking McCain's polocies to Bush's I think in 27 days we will have a Obama-Biden presidency. "Change" that's what the people want. Say it with me "Change". Feels great don't I?

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by RRconservative

 

You don't hear that? Listen Closely, its the chant "Change". It has swept across the country and theres no stopping. Listen again "Change" doesn't that sound great.

I do agree Polls mean diddly especially when the latest Poll only samples 685 people. I know you are very hopeful being a conservitive and all. With the brilliant move of linking McCain's polocies to Bush's I think in 27 days we will have a Obama-Biden presidency. "Change" that's what the people want. Say it with me "Change". Feels great don't I?

I've been hearing Change, Hope, and Future, for what...about 18 months now. I still have no idea what it means?

The American people, and definately the Silent Majority, are not gullible enough to fall for simplistic campaign slogans, and that will show November 4th.

BTW: The next President will not take over until January 20, 2009 which is 104 days away.

reply to post by RRconservative


My friend, I know when the presidency actually begins, my friend. My friend, I was referring to when the election was final, my friend. My friend, I apologize I was not technical enough, my friend. My friend, the "Change" is no conservitives in office, my friend.

Wow I almost had myself convinced I was the real John McCain (scary).

A "Change" is going to come. Tax breaks for the wealthy, investments in renewable energy, a nice Health Care system, pull out troops out of Iraq, and yes finally a federal budget. Never thought I would hear that ever again.

reply to post by RRconservative


The nationals polls at this point mean little what you need to look at is at the state polls. Those are the one that right now can give you a clear picture of what is going on in this election.

Sen. Obama is holding solid leads on the states that Kerry won in 2004, he is leading in almost every swing state, he is penetrating in red states

State Maps
Electoral Map 2004

At this point Sen. McCain needs to win in every single state that Bush won in 2004 and at this point that seems very unlikely.

Sen. Obama would win if he manages to win all the state that Kerry won in 2004 (which is at this point a given) and win these states or the combination of:

1.Ohio (no republican president has ever been elected without winning Ohio) 20 electoral votes and he is leading in the polls there.

2. Florida, 27 electoral votes and he is leading in the polls there

3. Two of these states: North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, he is leading in all of them except Indiana.

4. Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada (or two of these and one from #3), he currently leads in the polls, he currently holds solid lead in the polls of Iowa and Nevada and is leading slightly in New Mexico.

As you can see it doesn't look favorably at all for Sen. McCain, the Bradley effect as real as it is can not compensate the odds that McCain is facing in the terms that he needs to sweep all the state that Bush won in 2004 and that at this point seems highly unlikely.

Sen. Obama right now looks as if he is going to pull a Bil Clinton in 1996 and thats saying a lot. I think is not going to be that kind of a landslide giving the Bradley effect but Sen. Obama looks right now that he is well on his way to the White House

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by TheHunted

A "Change" is going to come. Tax breaks for the wealthy, investments in renewable energy, a nice Health Care system, pull out troops out of Iraq, and yes finally a federal budget. Never thought I would hear that ever again.

Raising taxes on anyone in this economy is exactly what we don't need. Let private individuals find renewable energy, and let the oil companies do what they do best at the same time. We have the best Health Care System in the world. Thanks to John McCain the surge has worked, so we may eventually get out of Iraq with a victory.

AND............

Just like you got the day the next President takes over wrong, you also got finally getting a federal budget wrong. We get one EVERY year.


Here is a budget question for you.....How much did President Bush raise the budget over the years? HINT: Anything over 0 is wrong!

[edit on 8-10-2008 by RRconservative]

I just have to point out that if you actually look at the polls from October 8, 2004, Kerry did not have this magical huge lead that everyone seems to be talking about.

So to go ahead and nip that little bit of disinformation in the bud, why don't we do a little research before saying such things? Deny ignorance, mmkay?

I've provided information below for you guys to refresh your memory about October, 2004 B=Bush, K=Kerry, N=Nader. Kerry never once had a statistical lead in the polls. Edit: C&P graphs suck. The first number after dates is Bush, second Kerry, third Nader

---------------B K N
10/11-13/04 46 45 1 1 - - 7
10/10-12/04 45 45 2 1 - - 8
10/9-11/04 45 45 2 - - - 8
10/8-10/04 44 47 2 - - - 7
10/7-9/04 45 46 1 - - - 8
10/6-8/04 45 46 1 - - - 7
10/5-7/04 46 45 2 - - - 7
10/4-6/04 46 44 2 - - - 8

Polling Report

And here's an actual article talking about how some circles are propogating this rumor, and an accompanying RCP graph of the polls during the time.

Oliver Willis RCP Report

Just thought I'd mention it


[edit on 8-10-2008 by Avenginggecko]

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Avenginggecko]

Originally posted by jam321
Likewise how many reps you think will sit at home thinking Obama has already won this one?

And how many Republicans do you think are going to vote for Obama?

Republicans defect to the Obama camp

DISILLUSIONED supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.

Tom Bernstein went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president’s reelection campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing.

And a few more articles for your viewing pleasure!

Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama
Wa. Republicans for Obama
Republicans for Obama Launches
Obama snags more Republican endorsements
Oregon's Republican Senator Cozies Up to Obama
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama
Republicans defect to the Obama camp
Welcome to Republicans for Obama
Why this lifelong Republican may vote for Obama

Okay, enough of that, now how about the republican political figures?

Two Republicans endorse Obama
Former L.A. Mayor crosses party lines, endorses Obama
Susan Eisenhower Joins Other Republicans in Endorsing Obama
Republican congressman endorses Obama
Chafee Endorses Obama
Jim Leach endorses Obama
Republicans Flee Party: Major Republicans Endorse Barack Obama
Republican Rep. Endorses Obama
Major Conservative Republican Endorses Obama!
Mayor Whitaker endorses Obama
Republican Senator's Wife to Back Obama

Okay, I think you might get the idea now! If not, here's the Google search I did to find these articles. There's PLENTY of more articles on republicans crossing party lines to vote for/endorse Obama!

Google Search - Republicans endorse Obama

They even have t-shirts!
Registered Republican Voting for Obama - Dark T-shirt



[edit on 10/8/2008 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by RRconservative

 

You don't hear that? Listen Closely, its the chant "Change". It has swept across the country and theres no stopping. Listen again "Change" doesn't that sound great.

I do agree Polls mean diddly especially when the latest Poll only samples 685 people. I know you are very hopeful being a conservitive and all. With the brilliant move of linking McCain's polocies to Bush's I think in 27 days we will have a Obama-Biden presidency. "Change" that's what the people want. Say it with me "Change". Feels great don't I?

Who cares what the chant is?

I thought you guys said the GOP controlled the Diebold machines.

Originally posted by Fromabove
This is what I am hearing from some news reports.

You forgot this report!

Surge in younger voters seen favoring Obama

Young Americans could turn out in record numbers in the November presidential election and all signs are that Democrat Barack Obama stands to benefit.
******SKIP******
More than half the 44 million eligible U.S. voters aged 18 to 29 are expected to vote on November 4, analysts say, a turnout rate that still lags their elders but would narrow a shrinking gap.

If young voter turnout exceeds 50 percent, it would be only the third time since the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972.

"They're registering in record numbers. They sense the capacity they have to effect change in this country," said former Iowa Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack.

A USA Today/MTV/Gallup poll published this week said that 61 percent of voters under age 30 favored Obama compared to 32 percent backing Republican John McCain -- which the poll said was the most lopsided ratio of any age group.

Doesn't look like this SURGE is going to go the way McCain would like!

Originally posted by Fromabove
This is what I am hearing from some news reports.
******SKIP******
The majority of military voters are in McCain's camp.

Military families support Obama

Veterans and military families received a lot of praise and attention at the recent Democratic National Convention, and for good reason.

After six years of war on two different fronts, perhaps no group of citizens is more directly affected by the decisions and judgment of this administration. Soldiers and Marines in core infantry units are in their second or third deployments, with others heading out for their fourth, fifth or sixth. Our military families are increasingly suffering from their own combat stress, having borne the burden of current conflicts with little shared sacrifice or attention.
******SKIP******
This is why we founded Blue Star Families for Obama. We are "Pro-Military, Pro-Obama" because we believe that a strong national defense is vital to a healthy democracy. We honor Sen. John McCain's service to his country. But we believe Obama is the candidate who will best protect the health and strength of the country's military families in these challenging times. This includes the 65,615 active duty, reservists and national guard members who live with their families in Washington.

Obama's cosponsorship of the new GI Bill, his vote to stop cuts in Tricare reimbursements and his commitment to fully funding the VA are all evidence that this candidate "gets it" like no other. This commitment is a refreshing contrast to the past administration's attempted cuts in the P/X system, health care benefits and, incredibly, combat pay.

Voter Profile: Military Veterans

Retired Brig. Gen. John Johns supported Sen. John McCain’s bid for the U.S. presidency eight years ago.

"The first political sign I ever put in my yard was for John McCain in 2000," Johns, who lives in the Lansdowne, said.

The retired Army officer attended the National War College with McCain and considers the Arizona senator a friend.

But Johns, who left the military 30 years ago, will not be supporting McCain in the upcoming election Nov. 4. The veteran was the keynote speaker at a "Veterans for Obama" event Oct. 4.

"John McCain is the only one that insists we need to stay the course [in Iraq.] It is tearing our Army apart. … It is wrecking our military and John McCain is stubbornly staying the course," he said.
******SKIP******
"I think you will find that officers skew Republican and enlisted folks skew Democrat," Beres, a retired colonel who served for 26 years, said.
******SKIP******
"During [McCain’s] 27 years in Congress, he never volunteered to be on any committee or subcommittee that deals with veterans and veterans’ rights," Beres said.

And here's a few more articles.

I'm Pro-Military So I Support Senator Obama
Why retired Generals and Admirals support Barack Obama
Military Support for Obama

And here's a Google search on the subject if you'd like to read more.

Google Search

I actually couldn't find ANYTHING anywhere that actually gave a percentage of how many military personnel were for any candidate though!

[edit on 10/9/2008 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Fromabove


What do I think? I wish I liked McCain because I'm really don't like Obama. (Mostly because of his wife, his pastor, Ayer, and his Farrakhan and Muslim favoritism. (Kenya story developing?) But McCain makes it hard to like him. He just doesn't have a likable personality, nevermind his politics. I wish Palin and McCain could change places. Palin is a real person, not a typical lying politician willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. Obama will promise the world. Most Democrats do. That's because it's easy to give away someone else's money. McCain can't be honest because he's trying to appeal to the independents. Meanwhile, he's losing as many Republicans as he's gaining independents with his wishy-washy, nice-nice softball campaigning. Meanwhile, the candidate with the real balls is Palin. Ironic.

Do I trust the polls? No. Do I trust either candidate? No.

reply to post by Matrix1111

Palin is a real person, not a typical lying politician willing to say whatever it takes to get elected.

Is that why she gets caught lying constantly?

www.factcheck.org...

politicsanew.com...

I’m not saying she is any worse than anyone else; however she is certainly not separate from other politicians. If she was in any respect she wouldn’t be evading a court case she said she’d participate in addressing her alleged corruption until after she was picked as the VP.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

Palin is a real person, not a typical lying politician willing to say whatever it takes to get elected.

Is that why she gets caught lying constantly?

www.factcheck.org...

politicsanew.com...

I’m not saying she is any worse than anyone else; however she is certainly not separate from other politicians. If she was in any respect she wouldn’t be evading a court case she said she’d participate in addressing her alleged corruption until after she was picked as the VP.

It's the lawyer politicians that lie the most. (Obama, Binden, Clinton) Palin isn't a politician or bureaucrat. I looked at the factcheck.org page. It appears to be splitting hairs as to whether Palin was lying. In any case, she's not a professional one. And she doesn't have to legalize every utterance of hers with ... uh, uh, uh... while trying to figure out to give multiple-meaning answers (convoluted) as lawyers are known to do. Ever read a legal document?

Again, reiterating my point, she's the better pick than Obama, Binden and McCain. At least with her we won't be getting more of the same. (bogus personalities and false promises)