McCain is Winning, McCain Leads 56% To 38% ,Obama Concedes Georgia

Uh, Rob, the excerpt you cut and paste was in response to:

And, I replied (note: "replied" means "comes after") with,

Now, not at all sure about your world anymore, but unless you can predict the future as well as misread the present, you indicated I called you names, and then to prove it this morning, you post an excerpt of my post made in reply to the accusation. In my world, that's illogical.

Also not sure, but in my world,

Is ignorant, because I'm not illogical in making my posts - unless you'd like to show me where, as I asked:

and

Not sure why you'd choose to defend yourself against being simple, but, again, since my posts largely consist of my thoughts, as I write them, this is another statement of ignorance.

If you believe I've called you names, please report it to the Mods, over complaining about it here, ad nauseum. They generally do their job quite well, in my experience, particularly Smyrl: our own version of "Fair and Balanced," except in her instance, it's actually true.

 

i dont like his face, he looks like joker in The Dark Knight

 

That's an insult to the late great Heath Ledger.

 

McCAIN is back on top as Wall Street bounces back. 2008 Election Map

Palin is reaching the middle Class voter and attracting white males age 30 to 45.

I do expect this to trend continue.

Another Election Map

 

RealClear:



RR:

These are what I'm seeing, anyway.

 

Northpointe - The graphic you have there is popular vote... not electoral. Certainly worth looking at as a general indicator of sentiment, but not as important as where the probable electoral count is swaying. [Referenced in your note at bottom I do realize].

Electoral vs Popular Vote Swings
For example... If 1/2 of the McCain supporters in Texas decided they want to have Obamas baby, but the majority of Texans still favor McCain... the number of electoral votes in Texas is still a constant 34. The popular vote can dramatically swing toward Obama without changing the electoral count in that example. Now multiply that scenario nationally and it just confuses the issue all to hell.

CURRENT Electoral Count (per same site)
Based on the format and terms RCP on the graphic its from the same site I watch a lot... but it isnt really an accurate representation of their primary data on the site. Electoral count they show still shows McCain 216: Obama 202 with 120 "toss-up" votes in the states currently in statistical ties. Advantage: McCain

Force: No-Leaners
They also show if you force all states based on minute leans one way (ie - no leaners allowed) their current figures show Obama 273: McCain 265 (pretty much the 2000 electoral in reverse) Advantage: Obama

Graph Below (See the live site for mouseover split stats)
As far as Obama making back all the pre-convention lead... possibly in the raw popular vote, but not even vaguely true in electorl count where he was ahead all summer by as much as 92 points. He started losing ground electorally as states started to lean one way or the other at the end of July, and by the start of the DNC convention his lead was about 54 points electorally.

Obama got a post convention bump that collapsed on Sept 5 (coincidentally the date of the Palin speech... and on Sept 11 the count crossed over the center point (see gray graph below) to Advantage McCain and has remained there, currently a 14 point electoral advantage. Bottom line the gray graph tells the tale as far as the lead... Obama was killing him all summer, the GOP convention made a huge impact, now it is a tight race that really cant be called. [NOTE: Look at live graph, the mouseover numbers help]

Bottom line: The stats are close...
with the tossups creating a margin of error that could take either party to the white house, and the count so close in leaner states that some vacilate between leaning and tossup. It's a horse race, and is as I said before gonna depend on which party gets out to vote. By no means has Obama made up his preconvention lead. Its about a tossup.

VOTER TURNOUT: Mission Critical
Traditionally the Republican demographics favor voter turnout as several strong DNC constituencies have a history of being highly vocal but less likely to actually show up on election day. Thats the bane of any political group from school board on up... doesnt matter how many like you, matters how many show up on election day. My guess is unless one side implodes we're all gonna be up late election night.

 

I expect to see serious mudslinging in Oct. Unfortunately, whoever is more effective at dirtying the other will probably win.

 

Popular vote is merely a "thermometer" reading, to me. I'm aware it means little without a structural, state-by-state assessment of how the electoral college lies. Can anyone say, "George W. Bush?"

The others you provided, thank you as well, and I do use all of them. Yes, I was speaking to Obama's "making it back" in the popular vote, obviously not the electoral college.

But there are things that point to dynamic changes that don't bode well for McCain - not the least of which is the tidal shift (-26%) on one of his key demographic tactics - the female vote that was formerly Obama's; a tactic that has failed very badly, it seems to me, and this, I do think is key.

I think we weight your stat/live link, showing the 14+ advantage (216-202), differently.

Firstly, leaners are critical, and I'd say, leaners are not to be considered the GOP friend (partially shown by the no-toss up stat, and partially logically connected, to me, to the sour economic picture whose staying power will outlast the public's millesecond attention on other things).

Secondly, using the mouseover/live link, you mention the crossover was 9/11 - I'm not seeing that. What I see is that McCain has lost 6 points in the last two days, with a timeline as follows: On 9/12, the spread was +1, Obama leading; McCain jumps to +10 on 9/13; +20 on 9/14; stabilizes there through 9/17 - and then drops 6 points yesterday, where it remains today.

Additionally, you mention that Obama's lead collapsed on 9/5, the date of Palin's speech. In fact, he increased his lead, 9/4 (+53) to 9/5 & 9/6 (+64). The zero-sum bleed to McCain started taking place on 9/7. There is no denying the positive effect for McCain on his surprise introduction of Palin, and the strategies involved to shield Palin from scrutiny immediately after (what I would call a repeat of the 2004 "outrage" tactic, i.e., "outraged" over being asked any questions on the candidate - my opinion, of course); it initially worked quite well. But it is wearing thin. It seems to me Palin's star is on the wane, and particularly when the more that is revealed, the more she isn't looking as bright and shiny as she was polished to be for the RNC "ta-da" party, I think this factor is going to prove a net negative.

I said it somewhere else - I fully expected the race to tighten as the countdown happened. How it tightens can prove instructive, and so far, it seems to me things will not bode well for the McCain ticket. The next few days will prove whether I'm utterly full of shit, or rather my sniffing something in a secular decline from the +6 point drop over the last two days had some merit.

In my opinion, McCain will have a tough time divesting himself of this anchor. Completely, staring into a cauldron, admittedly, but this is my gut.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to address the voter turnout thing. I don't have any information that helps me to analyze whether your statement is accurate - Dems tend to be loudmouths who don't go to the polls. Historically, of course, Dems have always benefited, if not dramatically, from a high turnout, which means, at least from my (now foggy) memory of the historical record, that Reps have, historically, generally tried to keep voters home, and Dems have tried to get them to the polls.

There's no doubt that since 2004, many of these dynamics have changed, with Republicans doing quite well at getting people to the polls. This will be a slugfest, and both parties will do what they can to get their electorate out. A potential trouble spot for McCain is the dramatically higher numbers hitting the Dem primaries than the Rep primaries. It could go anywhere - many of those energized Dems were obviously Clinton supporters, and who knows whether they'll stay home; much of the lassitude of the Rep primary voter was prior to Palin coming on board. Again, my gut only, but I think Palin's star doesn't have that much gravitational mass, at the end of the day.

 

If its any consolation I'll always consider you full of shit either way. LOL (j/k... you know I still love ya). The rather in depth explanation was more for the viewing public, I'm aware that you know the mechanics of popular vs electoral vote, but it isnt always a widespread thing. I know many knowledgeable adults that never paid attention to the difference.

I dont see any major disagreement between your post and mine, just that basically IMO it's still just gonna come down to who shows up on election day. Yes, the Palin bloom had to fade, it was a new intro, but I dont think the "troopergate" thing has legs, and thats the biggest thing they seem to think they have on her. The trooper himself is still gainfully employed in the state where she's Governor, a fact that wouldnt be true if she was seriously vindictive... and the guy she DID let go served "at the Governors pleasure". The meaning of that term is critical to the case.

Having twice served in public positions "at the Mayors pleasure" I know that it basically means if they wake up on the wrong side of the bed they can remove you without recourse. From the sound of what I've heard, he was insubordinate on unrelated issues, and regardless of her reason... firing her own appointee who served at her pleasure is a legal kill.

 

I love McCain, the man that puts "country first" because he knows what appeals to the sentiment of rural America. In other words, he thinks they are stupid, just like Bush thought, and he won.
Apparently, those living in rural America has big hard balls;they haven't woken up from slumber to see that the Republican Party has been stepping on their balls for years.

 

The next period will be very interesting, to be sure. CNN, for one, still has Obama leading in electoral votes. In a word, who the hell knows?

As to:

News I saw today said something about her statement about his "unauthorized" trips to DC being in fact authorized by Palin herself, and this may hurt her credibility, etc., but this isn't what I'm talking about anyway (besides, you're quite right - the Trooper in question isn't exactly a shining knight, from what I've seen, and any attempt to seize on this politically will only backfire). I just think the economy is going to hurt McCain, and have the double effect of dulling the sharp blade of Palin's surprise outing.

 

Well heck Raw... we just arent as smart as all you guys that get to have indoor plumbing and thaat thar book larnin'. LOL.

NPT - The economic stuff is a wild card... and would be more of a tossup had McCains handlers had the sense to call him off the "fundamentals are sound" soundbite instead of letting him repeat a quote that quite honestly was horseshit but was part of his standard speaking points. I dont think of McCain as an economist, and my guess is he'll appoint Romney to the appurtenant cabinet post because thats his schtick. Basically I trust his judgment , not his knowledge of economics... and think he'd put better people on it than we have on it now.

I'm not a blind follower of anyone... and anyone thats being honest recognizes there's bullshit coming from both campaigns in a lotta ways. I just have my thoughts on which group is more likely to perform certain acts I like or dislike. I wont repeat in this thread my entire litany of misgivings about the number of Fannie , Freddie, and Lehman people involved in Obama's head shed, but I suspect you can see why that could be an issue.

 

Like outdoor plumbing, and book learning. Equally at home with 1er Cru Vosne-Romanee and magret of moulard duck, liters of lager and brats. Own Au Revoir Les Enfants and Dumb and Dumber.

I like , the layers behind the obvious, in anyone.

Completely agree. Personally, I think we're going to hell in a handbasket, regardless of who takes the prize, or what is done. The only thing that matters to me, the only thing I actually give a damn about anymore, is the love of family, the timelessness found in what's left of the wilds, and the search for truth, across a few disciplines.

 

Has either candidate talked about the national debt, I mean, besides blaming it on the other guy?

 

Basically, from what I see, McCain rests his fiscal responsibility platform on cutting social spending, and a belief that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy and help, eventually, to reduce the deficit, a la Reaganomics. Obama rests it on cutting troop levels and defense spending, while allowing tax cuts for higher echelon earners to expire.

Both are full of shit, it seems to me, with respect to this issue. I posted elsewhere, don't have it handy, that a non-partisan Budget Watch group concludes that if everything were achieved by both, neither would end the deficit, and the difference of the bleed between the two is only 8.5%.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/373377_stances04.html

 

*Sigh* Dude you are wasting your time.
_____________________________

As for the economy that everyone wants to hear a solution to...I don't see how either candidate can have a solution within 3 days of a collapse that took years.

There is a solution, and I am sure they each will have their own proposal. Jumping out 2 days after with a plan to me is ridiculous and I don't even see how McCain can even stand behind any statements without the time to see exactly what happened, who , or what is responsible, and who if anyone is at fault.
When the news breaks on Mon. and you have a solution of Wed. It is obviously not well thought out or planned.

Between the two, no matter my politics, McCain does not have any education in economics...plain and simple, and anyone who says that doesn't matter obviously doesn't have one either. There is a math to it, proven principles, and a history...you can't just "street smart" it together.

As pissed as I am that this is happening again, you just do go out and announce that "I would fire him" when you don't have the whole story...to me that is someone showboating to get the flags waving, but it is not based on anything except appealing to emotions of people who don't know what happened either.

It may get some applause, but there is no principle to it. It has no depth, and it' s not based on any sound logic.

I keep hearing in McCains ads, and on the campaign trail that they keep saying that Barack Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes and it is a straight out lie.

First off if we all think that we are going to pull ourselves out of this mess and get a tax break and stimulus checks, you are all sadly mistaken. It is impossible, however, something that Obama has alluded to is the current tax breaks are absolutely ridiculous .

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released today, said two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over that period....as I wrote on 8/12/08.

This is what Obama is talking about and what McCain is lying about. These corporations need to start paying their share, and if you ask me, they own us money over those years. Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money that we will never see, and now some of the very same companies are bankrupt...those breaks do not work and all it does is allow top level management to pocket a few million extra and skip out the check holding us with the bill. Again.

You just can't sit on a plane and sketch out an economic plan...if you did, I wouldn't trust it. But at least we can get to the point where it is fair for everyone, not just for a few. My personal opinion is, if tax breaks are the only way that you can keep your business open and you use that as a "threat" not to keep people employed..then go ahead an shut it down. it's over for you.

 

Harold, I know the two of you are having a feud, and I can't know where the division of "truth" lies - and to be honest, I don't want to know, really. I've been where the both of you are, it sucks, I enjoy both of your posts and this spat murks up the forum here, as much as my spats, say, with Guerilla, have done in the past. I'm happy to say that as bad as it got between Guerilla and myself, the both of us owned up to our culpabilities, and we moved on - something I'm glad for. To the above, I will only say that Rob and I had some exchanges, we moved on as well, so the above post is dated, now. I hope the both of you find a way out of the morass.

Agreed - moronic, but inevitable, that the next President is being put at center stage in a "test" of crisis management.

Agreed again, though Obama has done the same thing.

I don't know Obama's education here, but I do think Obama's ability to grasp anything under the sun is light years ahead of McCain. In other words, presuming neither knows anything - as a hypothetical only - and given a cadre of qualified economic experts in their team, Obama's ability to "get" it readily and thoroughly is something remarked on regularly.

Yep, that was lame.

 

I may come off as picking on Mccain/Palin and sometimes I do...but if this is where we are now, and what we need done...the war on terrorism will go on forever into the next 20 Presidents, so that cannot be the only platform, because we are not scarred anymore, we now know it will go on and take sacrifice.

Between the 4 candidates...Obama and Biden have Masters degrees with minors or majors in economics. If it came down to just who is smart enough...I gotta go for the guys that took the time to learn it and excel in the principles.

I wouldn't let a mechanics nephew fix my car just because he watched his uncle do it for years. I want someone that studied how my car works. That's all I'm saying, and I think we all practice this in our everyday life. Best man for the job. It's not personal, it's business.

 

Harold, if you thought I was calling you to task over your views on the McCain ticket, I'm not. I think Palin is a zero, have showed why, and think her pick was a cynical attempt to coopt Clinton's supporters, at best, and a stranglehold by the far right religious wing of the GOP, more likely, from what I can tell. John McCain has shown he will adopt any platform, so long as it gets him into the White House (the latest only one example - "hands off, government - unless it's hands on, in a big way, much like the present administration).

That said, and though I definitely think the Obama-Biden ticket is ahead in the brains department by orders of 10, Obama has shown he's willing to trade his much vaunted positions for political gain as well. His gift wrap of FISA to the President, being only one. I can't respect that.

I don't see anyone out there that wows my boat, actually. I do believe that unless we build a society where the opportunities are better available to all, we're less for it, and so I support the things Obama has fought for all his life - as a former member of the Campaign for Economic Democracy (until I vomited at the ascendancy of Jane Fonda's limousine liberalism, but another topic), my views on progressivism, as a concept, haven't wavered.

But I think folks like Guerilla and other classicist liberals have a point. I don't buy Obama's rationale as to how he's going to pay for it. It might work, actually, if we were flush with cash (and here, I do differ with the paleoliberal argument), but we don't. There's nothing left. If Reaganomics was bullshit (cut taxes, but spend, spend, spend, on national defense, but spend nevertheless; and "it will all work out in the wash"), I would say, so is the notion that we can use worthless money to inject worthless money into antiquated systems, in order to effect "efficiencies" that will help to reduce the worthlessness of that very money.

 

I think the only way it will work is if everyone pays their fair share of taxes equally. No one should pay more, and certainly large corporations should not pay less.

As long as someone doesn't dish out another stupid $600 stimulus check, I can see where we can adjust the tax code a little and cut back some waste.