quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
As for the senate race, though, I'm pretty sure Chambliss is going to mop the floor with Martin. Chambliss's ads are just ridiculous (Martin was fired, was he?), but Martin is so out of touch he's missing every obvious opportunity to get himself out there and take the lead.
Martin has by all accounts I've seen been an awful candidate. He seems to be within spitting distance of winning despite himself. As things look there's a good chance of a special run off election between Chambliss and Martin, where I imagine Martin will get smoked, though maybe not if Obama turns his entire organization to helping Martin get elected in December, which would be...interesting. His place in the polls is solely a result of Obama's popularity among the black population and backlash against Republicans. It has little to do with an actual preference for Martin. I still think it'll be a tight election due to downticket support from Obama.
Obama put a lot of resources into Georgia at the start, but pulled it out to fight battles in far more winnable states. If he had to choose between lacing North Carolina and Virginia with ads, and Georgia, obviously he'd pick the other two. Better to shore up two sure things than to throw money at a state where he's never led in the polls. But that doesn't mean he isn't spending money there. He's spent money on staffers, on opening offices, on a massive voter registration effort that has registered hundreds of thousands of new Democrats in Georgia. He's spending money, but it's groundwork money, not ad money, and if you look at what McCain spent there in groundwork money, Obama trounced him, and it's not even a state he was focusing on really.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: RCP actually has Arizona as a toss up now, but that's new, and the state is still polling for McCain, within the margin of error. Interesting.
At this point, Lyr, what's your no BS assessment of the chances of a McCain win? I've been going over and over the numbers, and McCain would have to pull out a victory in what, 10 states in which he is either down, or barely ahead? How could he do it at this point?
Slim. Before he could even look at the states he needs to steal away from Obama, he needs to save a lot of states that are bleeding blue away from him. North Carolina is on the cusp, that could swing back his way. He'd need to hold onto Virginia, where he's currently down like six or seven points. He'd need to win Ohio where he's down four or five, and Florida, where it's neck and neck. Now that's just to get him within striking distance. I think that right there is hard to accomplish. Obama has led in the polls in Virginia for weeks, months even. He'd need for the polls to be wrong in a bad, bad way.
On top of that, he has to steal CO, NM, or IA. All Obama needs to do to win is win every Kerry state plus IA and VA, or if not VA, then NM and CO. He's ahead in every state I just mentioned by at least five points. Races tighten in the last few days of a campaign, especially when the party of the incumbent is not leading. But that's too much ground, and he has too much ground to cover.
Obama just has too many outs. It's like a poker hand where McCain is driving for the inside straight while Obama is looking for 20 different cards to make his hand. He'd need pretty much EVERY poll to be wrong, and he'd need for Obama's turnout to be hugely depressed. But we already know that isn't going to happen from the huge numbers that have ALREADY voted. Another way to win would be some sort of hail mary play in Pennsylvania, but most polls have Obama up DOUBLE DIGITS there.
Short of a New Hampshire primary style snafoo in the polling, he has a chance, but it's ridiculously tiny, especially with the money he had to pull from his GOTV game plan to pay for the last TV ad buy. Obama is going to have the strongest election day team on the ground in the history of presidential politics. McCain's won't even rival what Bush had in 2000 and 2004.
There are maybe a half dozen states just east of the Mississippi that you can watch if you want Orincoro that'll decide the election before they even finish voting on the West Coast. Polls close at 8 in a lot of places around here, and based one exit polls you'll start to see results by 9 or so. Watch OH, FL, VA, NC and PA. McCain needs ALL of those to go red for him to win, and if any go blue, it's an almost automatic loss. In fact, I think if he wins all of those, he has a pretty good chance of winning, but the chances of him winning all of those are probably like 5%. It's a tiny, tiny chance. The reason I call it an automatic loss is that the other states he's safely considered to win right now, in the east and west, give him enough votes that if he wins ANY of those states I mentioned, he wins the election, even if just barely. That's a lot of ground for McCain right now in states where Obama is ahead in a lot of polls.
If you want my best guess? Obama wins with maybe 340-350 electoral votes. Florida has almost 30 electoral votes, and is neck and neck right now, so that could throw off my guess. Without Florida I think he wins around 330, with it, 357. He might pick up some surprises like Georgia, or maybe Montana or North Dakota, and maybe Missouri. I guess there's that chance that Obama even gets into the 380's, but best case scenarios make me nervous. I think the 340's are likely.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees, how are they supposed to make new hires?
I've always been interested by conservative focus on the supply side of economics (to exclusivity, it sometimes seems). Now, I'm a bio-medical engineer, not an economist, damnit, but isn't the demand side also important?
Yes, the wealthy make hires, but they only make hires when it's profitable. If the increase in hires is not going to be followed by an increase in units moved and therefore profit, there is no reason to make a new hire. Rather, they'll sit on their larger profit.
In order to increase demand, you need more people able to buy. Now, I'm sure no one wants to see a 50's style redistribution of the wealth (when the United States' top tax bracket was 90%) - even though that's what created the much vaunted American Middle Class. But a balance is needed between supply and demand, and it seems to me that you've been swerving too far towards supply in the States (while here in Canada I think we have the opposite problem).
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good stuff. If McCain were running for commedian in chief rather than President, he'd have my vote.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But a balance is needed between supply and demand, and it seems to me that you've been swerving too far towards supply in the States"
I think there are 3 problems.
1. America has large Black/Hispanic/Asian populations, unlike, for instance, Sweden, Norway, etc., and in fact, all of Europe, except for the last 20 years or so. (Muslim migration was recent)
2. Many American communities are isolated by geography, and have been for hundreds of years. Media, particularly the internet, are starting to rememdy this. Starting. It's going to take a few years, at least.
3. Many rural communities (and for that matter, entire states. like Utah, Idaho, etc.) are lacking in diversity, racially, culturally, religiously, etc.. This is historically true.
The ignorance that arises from isolation can often lead to fear of the "other". It's more likely that politicians who seem to share this fear will get votes from people who also have this fear. We end up electing people who tend to err on the side of NOT funding government programs that might redistribute the wealth to minorities, members of other religions, and other cultures. I think it might change, though, if the internet and other media become a big enough part of people's lives. Hopefully it will allow people to become more comfortable with those who are not of the same race, etc. There are a lot of social programs that are questionable, but, unless we fund education, and focus lots of time and energy of making sure the money is well-spent, we will be sorry later. This is my belief, my mantra. It's the most important political fact for me. You can't just throw money at education, you have to make sure it's being well-spent. With the world changing so fast, there's more and more to learn. Minorities are less likely to turn to crime if they are given a good enough education. We are likely to be more qualified to handle the types of jobs that the 21st century will bring about if we fund education, and make sure the money is being well-spent. IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Lyr, do you think the shrillness of the debate here at Hatrack has ratcheted up due to the impending landslide? Maybe people are just marking their political territory for the next 4 years?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So Lyr, do you think the shrillness of the debate here at Hatrack has ratcheted up due to the impending landslide? Maybe people are just marking their political territory for the next 4 years?
I don't know, do you really think it's gotten that shrill here? I think it's two things: Denial on the side of McCain fans (or resigned, accepted defeat), and a certain sense of giddiness or vindication on the side of Obama fans. Things will settle down soon enough. I think the GOP is just waiting for Obama to not live up to a lot of his promises so they can say "I told you so!"
But people will settle into a new reality once this thing is decided Tuesday. I think a lot of natural emnities will fall away, and maybe new ones will be built, but the changing of the guard in Washington I think will also signal the start of a new era, be it for better or for worse, in both American politics and civil discourse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So to rephrase my earlier question: How effective is the Secret Service in guarding the president from snipers? For example, can't the Berreta .50 cal fire accurately from 3km away?
:EDIT: Correction the world record is 2,430 meter by a Canadian.
IP: Logged |
posted
Given the lack of snipers killing the President, despite quite a few people presumably trying to set up such a situation, I'd say they're very, very effective.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody heard anything about a supposedly damning interview that Obama gave with a San Francisco paper back in January? My manager came back from lunch in a froth over it; apparently some right wing talk radio host was going on about it, but I'm not seeing a whole lot about it online.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Which includes a response from the United Mine Workers.
quote: United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement:
"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
Here what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.'
Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families."
posted
Lyrhawn posted links to McCain's skits on SNL last weekend. I watched the show too and thought that some people might be amused by the long and hysterical parody that Ben Affleck did of Keith Olbermann on Countdown.
(Guess I'm not the only one who finds Olbermann coming close to being a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh, which is not a compliment.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was an absolutely brilliant impression of Olbermann. Sometimes I watch clips of him just for the entertainment. It doesn't matter that I totally disagree with him; he's so... pure. His disgust and outrage and utter clarity that he's right is actually inspirational.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It was an absolutely brilliant impression of Olbermann. Sometimes I watch clips of him just for the entertainment. It doesn't matter that I totally disagree with him; he's so... pure. His disgust and outrage and utter clarity that he's right is actually inspirational.
Apparently they also brought in Olbermann during rehearsals (he does work in the same building) and he gave it his 'blessing'. Nice to see people with a sense of humor about themselves.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently they also brought in Olbermann during rehearsals (he does work in the same building) and he gave it his 'blessing'. Nice to see people with a sense of humor about themselves.
I watch Countdown pretty regularly. Politically, I'm not that far from Olbermann on many things and still find him obnoxious - and getting moreso.
I'll be interested to see how Affleck's impression of him is dealt with on Countdown tonight - I've never seen humor as one of Olbermann's strong points.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington Times confirms it. If so I'd say I wish she could have seen him win the election, but I think she already knows what is going to happen.
edit: Beaten to the punch.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty callous, jackass thing to say lobo.
I wish she could have lived one more day, whether he wins or not, just to see him finish it out. She should have gotten the chance to vote for her grandson.
Has anyone else been seeing some truly despicable ads today? It's like they waited until the day before the election to put out the absolute sleaziest ads there are, and they are all against Obama. The ones that I've seen have been anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despicable people call for despicable adds. I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
So you're saying McCain actually called and asked for the ads to be put on the air? Shocking!
quote:I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
Yes, at least based on your reasoning there. His grandmother helped raise him and they've always been close. He's only met his aunt and brother a couple times, actually only once I think for his brother (half brother). I have fourth and fifth cousins that I've met as many times as that, and I wouldn't put them anywhere near the same level of importance that I put my grandfather on the list of things I care about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that Sen. Obama had little contact with his father's side of the family as he was growing up, and that his grandmother had raised him, yes, it is pretty unreasonable.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's only met his aunt and brother a couple times, actually only once I think for his brother (half brother). I have fourth and fifth cousins that I've met as many times as that, and I wouldn't put them anywhere near the same level of importance that I put my grandfather on the list of things I care about.
You can't seriously equate a 4th or 5th cousin with a brother or aunt can you? The fact that he has only met or talked to them once or twice says alot about the man as well. The Aunt donated a substantial amount of money to his campaign and the brother has pictures of Obama plastered all over his mud hut walls... Sad
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that he has only met or talked to them once or twice says alot about the man as well.
Have you read his books? His relationship with that side of the family is explained pretty well.
quote: the brother has pictures of Obama plastered all over his mud hut walls...
Man, your manufactured "sympathy" for the poor guy -- who's actually perfectly happy where he is, thank you very much -- almost masks the latent racism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne Bradley. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that people were so attached to BHO. Almost as attached as you are to your ketchup it appears...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to take a look at McCain family relations - or those of Mrs. McCain - before you go deciding to use that as a measure of a person.
Family matters are complicated.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on my phone so I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure this "substantial" contribution from Obama's aunt was in the range of $125.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the FEC via WaPost, she contributed $265, which the campaign of course gave back when it was found that she was here illegally.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Just heard that Obama's grandmother has died. Looking for a link.
I find it really sad that she didn't live to see the outcome of the election. Of course I guess that's because I'm confident of an Obama victory tomorrow. If something goes really wrong, then maybe she was spared some unnecessary agony.
I also think its very sad for Obama to have her die right now, the day before the election.
I am reminded of McBeths soliloquy beginning "She should have died hereafter, there would have been a time for such a word"
Let us hope the remainder of that soliloquy does not become more appropriate in the next 24 to 48 hours.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You can't seriously equate a 4th or 5th cousin with a brother or aunt can you?"
There's a ranking? You're not allowed to make your relationships as events require, you absolutely have to love your relatives in a specific order? I am much, much closer to my brothers-in-law who are not related to me by blood than I am to any of my blood relatives.
Frankly, Iobo, I am astounded that someone who's been here as long as you (judging by the member #) would stoop that low. Whatever you feel about his policies, beliefs or life, how is it in any way OK to mock the man for losing one of his closest relatives?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most important issue of the election has finally surfaced: sagging pants. If this doesn't push undecides into the Obama camp - nothing will.
quote:ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: In an interview with MTV, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called local laws against sagging pants a "waste of time."
But while he does not favor legal prohibitions on low-riders, he said "brothers should pull up their pants."
"Here is my attitude," said Obama. "I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there."
"Having said that," he added, "brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear -- I'm one of them."
Amen brother. I can't tell you how many times I've been tempted to walk up behind some guy with sagging pants and just pull them up. This is the kind of real world common sense we need in a President. I'm so glad this came to light before election day.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despicable people call for despicable adds. I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
There are moments I wish this was a house, and it was my house, and I could ask you to leave.
quote:(Guess I'm not the only one who finds Olbermann coming close to being a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh, which is not a compliment.)
He irritates the heck out of me too. I was watching a clip of him on YouTube and I had to turn it off-- it's embarrassing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
