Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Janett_Reno · 07-22-2008, 09:04 PM

wm, alot of those republican states you mentioned is important for the reps but if they can pull off Mich, then they can lose a couple small or maybe 3 small reps states and still have Mich to counter that loss. This is why i feel he picks Romney and it's his best shot but it will force the dem hands and make them come with the big gun in Hillary. NC and GA is like a Mich for the reps to hold. It should get interesting. Roms was much better pres material than McCain. I hope he picks dudes man, Rudy, then i think the reps are sunk. I know many might think Nunn is really good for Obama but i do not. I feel that is a Rudy pick for the dems.

Janett_Reno · 07-22-2008, 09:20 PM

This is more of a republican leaned site than anything else but i do like to keep with there polls also and i feel they are pretty good on polling.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

CO, Obama up 4. Republicans have put alot of pressure on republican officials in co about drilling and it has been some stink about this. The CO reps do not or did not want this at all. As far as why CO is turning some, i am not sure unless it is just they are sick ofthis adm. That is very close and yes concern for the reps here.

VA, Obama up 1. Pretty much a red state and again a close call for the reps here.

MO, very important state here i feel and McCain is up by 2 1/2 points. This is one the dems should really go try to get as i feel it is key. I agree wm, if one party sweeps OH, FL, then the other party has alot to make up but as we see, Obama can make it up and McCain can't. I am with you on McCain needs Oh and Fl and he very well can win them both and this does put pressure on the dems.

They have Obama up in MI and up 1 in Oh but we also saw today McCain up 10 in Oh. When both pick the vp's, then it is going to be money spent like never before in an election with the pres and vp's barnstorming all over these states and money with ads like never before. I think the vp pick is very important for both and a wrong pick could hurt. I said they will ask why on Roms when McCain and him doesn't get along but a Hillary pick, they will ask the same thing but i feel both will take the heat and go with the two strongest and those two are them and now Roms helps McCain in Mich, Ind, Oh, Pa, Sd, Nh. Hillary helps with alot of those same states and she also brings in FL and Ark. She has a huge base. Bayh, he is good but i am not sure how many states he will turn blue but he is a good pick.

wmbwinn · 07-22-2008, 10:28 PM

Hillary won't give the Dems Arkansas. I lived there for a while. The people of AR are still very embarassed about Bill. That is why Arkansas voted for GW Bush both times. Previously, AR always voted Dem.

AR will vote Dem this time because:
1)GW Bush is not popular
2)a Clinton is not running

If Hillary runs as a VP, that might actually throw AR back to the Reps...

funny stuff really.

jefelump · 07-22-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Hillary won't give the Dems Arkansas. I lived there for a while. The people of AR are still very embarassed about Bill. That is why Arkansas voted for GW Bush both times. Previously, AR always voted Dem.

AR will vote Dem this time because:
1)GW Bush is not popular
2)a Clinton is not running

If Hillary runs as a VP, that might actually throw AR back to the Reps...

funny stuff really.

Wasn't Huckleberry voted in as Governor, as fall-out from the Clinton days?

wmbwinn · 07-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefelump

Wasn't Huckleberry voted in as Governor, as fall-out from the Clinton days?

Absolutely correct. And Huckleberry knew that his days were over, so he tried hard to extend his political career by running for Prez or VP...

Huckleberry and everyone else knew that the next AR governor would be a Dem just like the old pre-Clinton years...

Janett_Reno · 07-23-2008, 11:23 AM

Obama is behind in Ark as it stands now. Latest polls.

COLORADO (Rasmussen): Obama - 49%, McCain - 42%.
OHIO (Rasmussen): McCain - 46%, Obama - 40%.

COLORADO (Rasmussen): Congressman Mark Udall (D) - 47%, former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) - 43%

KENTUCKY CD-3 (SurveyUSA): Congressman John Yarmuth (D) - 53%, former Congresswoman Anne Northup (R) - 43%.

United Kingdom: Obama 60%, McCain 15%.

France: Obama 64%, McCain 4%.

Germany: Obama 62%, McCain 10%.

Here is a big problem that is rearing it's head for republicans, to many red states close or going for Obama. They have let there own party go and didn't think they had to do anything but snap fingers to make a rep vote rep but they are seeing this isn't so. So this is big probs and it's not only in VA but many.

Poll: Obama Narrowly Ahead In Virginia

A new poll from Virginia suggests that Barack Obama is holding on to a narrow lead in this unlikely swing state, which Obama is making a major play for despite the fact that it hasn't voted Dem since 1964.

The new numbers from Public Policy Polling (D): Obama 46%, McCain 44%, within the ±2.7% margin of error, and consistent with other recent polls showing a close race.

The poll has McCain winning white voters by a 53%-36% margin, much narrower than George W. Bush's 68%-32% margin in 2004. Curiously, the poll also has Obama ahead 77%-16% among black voters, a margin that will likely grow by the time Election Day rolls around.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also stick by anything less than Romney and Hillary, the two parties are cheating themself and won't get the best out of it. I hope McCain picks Jindal, Rudy or even Crisp. Obama i feel will go with either Hillary or Bayh. Bayh does help the dems with those states both parties are fighting for but Hillary gives him a homerun when she helps him big time in FL as well.

In a nut shell, reps are scarred to death of Hillary and you can ask dude, he voted for Obama because of how scarred he was of Hillary. McCain knows nothing about the economy and he can't speak. He needs Romney bad to talk for him and also a man that can help him on economics and also a republican and alot question if McCain is one of those.

Obama sure has done himself some good this week and now when he gets home he will go right behind McCain, in the states he has been in this week and he will talk about economics and you see what Obama talked about this week and has done a very good job so far.

92bDad · 07-23-2008, 12:19 PM

I can honestly say that I fear what will happen to this coutry, should the Dem continue to gain more and more power.

Notice the economy was going fine before the Dem took hold of the House and Senate...since then the economoy has gone down...now it appears as though the Dems will have the White House again...that is far too much power for the Dems and they will continue to tear this country apart out of personal greed.

The Dems are a "Self" interested party with absolutely no idea how to lead with the best intentions of the American Society.

When I see the Euro nations overwhelmingly in favor of Obama...I am asked, why do we want to be like Euro? Don't get me wrong, I am part French and I love visiting France, but the politics and the liberal government have done their best to ruin that country...

If we are going to tear this nation apart, can we simply make the East and West coast its own country and middle America to include Texas its own nation. Let the Liberals have the coast lines and give us conservatives a beautiful life in Middle America.

People could easily choose where they want to live, as for me, I would stay in middle America as a conservative and visit the coast on vacations, just as I do with France.

Flacolaco · 07-23-2008, 12:26 PM

Has anyone ever participated in any of these polls? I don't know anyone personally who has. Why don't they ever ask me what I think?

mcsluggo · 07-23-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I can honestly say that I fear what will happen to this coutry, should the Dem continue to gain more and more power.

Notice the economy was going fine before the Dem took hold of the House and Senate....

sorry, I just couldn't read beyonfd this point

I willing to entertain arguments that the Bush/gop-dominated congress of this century are not directly responsible for this current mess ... but to argue that the bellweather economic turning event was the GOP loss of control of congress is beyond silly.

If it turns out that the rest of your post made it clear that you were just kidding with this introduction... then I am sorry

Janett_Reno · 07-23-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I can honestly say that I fear what will happen to this coutry, should the Dem continue to gain more and more power.

First of all the dems are going to gain power, so you can fear alot. The republiucans are not going to pick up seats in the senate or congress this next election. When you have guys running like Al Fraken and he is in the race against Coleman and Coleman is being pushed. This isn't good at all and yes Coleman should win that race. Then when Mitch McConnel is being pushed and the unknown is getting 40% of the vote against McConnel at this point. Go look up and read who Mitch McConnel is. Those two races should not be close and at this point, do the democrats even know who is running against McConnel. Why not throw in Red Skelton against him? The neoconservatives said join us republicans and if you don't, we will kick you to the curb. This wasn't Warner's, Hagels, Powells, Lugars and many more other repulicans fault and not even Newts fault but the neoconservatives fault tearing the republican party down. Greenspan, a republican said this adm did what they wanted to better benefit the neoconservative party without any reguard to our country. So in the end when it was all republican congress, all republican senate, republican judges and a neoconservative adm, hiding behind a republican name, they smeared alot of bad in the American publics face and Democrats. The democrats could do nothing about it as they laughed in their face and passed every single thing Bush and Cheney wanted. Newt, Dole, Gore and Clinton worked together and look what they did. This adm doesn't play fair with others. This has left a very sour taste in many republican and democrats mouth. Now, this adm can't pass every bill that comes down the line anymore. You can thank three people for a democrat senate, a democrat congress, a democrat president and also you can thank these three people for more republican senators and congressmen quitting their job like never in history. Many are dropping out like flies of races. Saying, oh no i quit, i am not running. Plus some are comming to the democrat side, in support of Obama. These three men are Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Donald Rumsfield.

Notice the economy was going fine before the Dem took hold of the House and Senate...since then the economoy has gone down...now it appears as though the Dems will have the White House again...that is far too much power for the Dems and they will continue to tear this country apart out of personal greed.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney decided to wreck this economy. They have done a great job. Again when they went into Iraq and stayed, this hurt our economy bad. Now dude has a good point he brought up, we do not know the end in Iraq and how this will play out in the end. Is this going to bring democracy all over Syria, Iran, Iraq and all the middle east? None of us know but they do not go by our 10 comandments and most do not have the beliefs we have. This war is not an Iraq thing and if you want the facts, it's a muslim and middle east thing, the way they believe and live and comparred to the way we live and believe. This war will not be won by a gun as Woolsey has said, when we buy oil from Saudi and all these places in the middle east and so much of our money goes into schools teaching we are the devils. Woolsey has sense. Many ways this adm has wrecked this economy and just ask me how if you want to know and i will give you a list and a long list. Now dude defends it by saying atleast they believe in what they are doing and we do not know the final outcome. I agree here with him somewhat but an open end policy won't work on the word forever. The neocons feel they have killed two birds with one stone. That is take Sadam out, who Israel feared but also Iran feared and open those oil fields up. They thought and still think, that Iraqi oil will be turned loose and flow in the right direction. The right direction means Europe, USA, and people we are allies to and they always thought if we freed them, they would automatically come to us but what they never knew, religion and what has been taught in schools and etc is a powerful thing and as Iraq buddies up to Iran and as Iran sometimes now speaks for Iraq, isn't good for us. They did not want that oil to go to Russia and China like where Iranian oil goes. What is scarry is if Iran keeps influencing them and Iraqi oil goes to Iran, Russia, NK, and China. It won't help us and we will not like it. Iraq and Iran want us out. How peaceful will it be when we leave and we have Haliburton, Exon/Mobile and others getting that oil? I hope for the best and it is peaceful and good but i won't bet on these things because the middle east isn't a country club.

The Dems are a "Self" interested party with absolutely no idea how to lead with the best intentions of the American Society.

Alan Greenspan is a republican and he said the very same thing you said about this adm in office now. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. Chuck Hagel isn't far behind Greenspan saying the same things. This was the downfall of this adm, greed. Self interested party. You said it just like Greenspan. He also said, they did not just recession us now, inflation us and bankrupt many people and businesses but also it would last alot longer, even when they left office because of the terrible things they have done that can't be fixed overnight.

When I see the Euro nations overwhelmingly in favor of Obama...I am asked, why do we want to be like Euro? Don't get me wrong, I am part French and I love visiting France, but the politics and the liberal government have done their best to ruin that country...

This adm again doesn't play well with others and most all of Europe did not and doesn't like this adm policies. That is why you see what the poll reflects. Bush and Cheney is very unpopular. If the American people approve of them by 32% then you can't help but think most of Europe wouldn't like them.

If we are going to tear this nation apart, can we simply make the East and West coast its own country and middle America to include Texas its own nation. Let the Liberals have the coast lines and give us conservatives a beautiful life in Middle America.

This is funny here. This adm has tore us apart several years ago. Since W and Chains did what they did on Katrina, your state has had a swarm of democrats move in. Look at the poll on Tx with McCain and Obama. I figure that state is safe and it is hard for me to believe it's as close as it is but something has happened. Latino's was split in who they voted for and maybe more republicans but since the neoconservatives have said we don't need your vote in actions, they are swarming to democrats. A man in office now and doesn't even protect our borders and when private indivduals are trying to raise money to protect the border of Tx with Mexico and they can't even get funded. No, not good. If you want a nice conservative state, maybe you should think about Kansas or maybe Alaska, when they get Stevens out. Conservative strongholds are falling pretty fast and you can thank your homeboy for that.

People could easily choose where they want to live, as for me, I would stay in middle America as a conservative and visit the coast on vacations, just as I do with France.

Something you could think about, go out west or maybe Alaska and buy up huge chunks of land and have a ranch named " We are only Republicans and Neoconservatives", and have it in the bylaws, you can't visit or be a member of the club if you can't show your votting card or explain the patriot act indepth.

Remember who you can thank for helping minorities to rise to the top fast, women to the top fast, and making the word liberal tied to faith and values. Remember who turned red states blue and you can also thank them for turning the political process upside down and probably will never be the same. When some of these states start turning blue in the south, it will never be the same in politics again.

Janett_Reno · 07-23-2008, 02:35 PM

This is a neutral site and go here http://www.pollster.com/ and look at the map. Just point your mouse over any state and you can see the poll numbers. Any republicans please do not be alarmed at the electorial vote Obama has over McCain now because Tx is in play, OH is blue and FL is don't know and Mich blue. All those states are huge and in Tx it shows only a 4 or 5 point lead for McCain and this is hard for me to understand. If it is any truth to this, then that is alarming because McCain should have atleast a 20 point lead in Tx.

Obama has McCain fighting for to many states on to many fronts. Wave your mouse over nc, sc, ms, sd, nd, tx, ak, mt, nv, co, ga and ind.

Some hope for McCain is nh, mi, and pa.

Remember, OH and FL won't be settled untill the night of the election. Those are big but both are going to have a knock down drag out fight for those two and it won't shake out untill the week or night of the election. Tx should never be in play and i won't go into all the others but it's way to many red states on the border line for McCain. MO is very close also and could go either way.

You need a base. You need a good big base of safe states. The democrats have broken into the republicans base and the republicans haven't defended. Now, they are also trying to break in the democrats of mi, pa. Atleast two of the base dems.

92bDad · 07-23-2008, 05:19 PM

Janett,

I cast the perseption that has fallen on America squarely on the Liberally biased mainstream media. The sheep keep following whatever the folks from CNN and other like them keep spewing.

It's pure liberal propoganda and when ever someone challenges them, they are called racist neo-cons.

I started my voting life as a middle/liberal...as I've grown older I move further and further to the right. I am a 40 year old white male. I'm married to my first and only wife, hitting 18 years this coming November. I have two teenage sons, getting ready to finish their final year of HS.

My oldest son will vote this November...He has stated that he will vote straight Republican, but we both acknowledge that McCain is not the best candidate for the Republican party. We also agree that we absolutely do NOT trust the Democrats.

Personally I was looking for Thompson, while my son was looking at Huckabee...Honestly, I would love to see a Thompson/Huckabee ticket!!!

Democrats have jumped on the Media bandwagon and served to destroy all that was positive with the Republican party.

Now we will have to survive through a very dark period in America as the Democrats unleash their brand of ideology.

Hopefully, I will see a day where we can rise above the liberalism that is taking place as we rise up with a TRUE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION!!!

I am for Family, for STRAIGHT marriage, for life, for freedom of religion not from religion, Creationism as an alternative theory to evolution and it should be taught in the schools.

I believe in individual responsibility over welfare. I also believe the government can help those in need, but I believe that those on welfare/unemployment should have to do some type of accountable work in order to obtain the free money.

I do not support immigration amnesty, but I do feel that a period of grace can be a compromise in order to make the transition a bit more efficient. Helping to expedite "Green Cards" ... however as they are here illegally, I would put a higher accountability to report where they work, where they live, etc...something similar to a prison parol system...any violations and they are kicked out of the country.

I believe that my money should not be taxed at a higher rate, should I continue to increase my income.

I believe that what I pass on to my children when I die should NOT be taxed.

There are so many topics that I continue to fall on the Republican/conservative side of the debate.

At the end of the day, I do NOT want the Liberal/Democrats to dictate how I should live my life...they preach tolerance...are they willing to be an example and tolerate my views and my life?

Janett_Reno · 07-23-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Janett,

I cast the perseption that has fallen on America squarely on the Liberally biased mainstream media. The sheep keep following whatever the folks from CNN and other like them keep spewing.

This has happened because the media and public are very disgruntled with this adm. It's also republicans very upset with this adm. Much of the media, talk radio, am, fm, shortwave was bought up by Murdock and more and they went very conservative as many radio station was going under, Murdock kept buying. So most radio was and is conservative but after awhile after many republicans was kicked to the curb, it was backlash. Gore brought this to the publics attention and also the democrats and he went as far as trying to buy media outlets himself to equal it up. What has happened is the media is very upset and turned on this adm. It has pulled many from fox and to msnbc and cnn. This was all because of actions of this adm. They also wasn't big Hillary fans either as media wanted change and they still do. Not Fox but alot of the others do and it seems like the list grows daily.

It's pure liberal propoganda and when ever someone challenges them, they are called racist neo-cons.

Many republicans are upset that this adm seemed to have one way on their mind and if you questioned them, you was kicked to the curb and neoconservative was used by more conservatives than liberals. Many claim also that Bill and Hillary are neoconservative also and throw them in the basket with Bush and Cheney. Now that word is used by some democrats and disgruntled republicans. Many republicans do not wish to turn or vote democrat but they took a stand to not stand with this adm anymore and then felt left out when McCain was put in.

I started my voting life as a middle/liberal...as I've grown older I move further and further to the right. I am a 40 year old white male. I'm married to my first and only wife, hitting 18 years this coming November. I have two teenage sons, getting ready to finish their final year of HS.

Congrats on your marriage and i think that is something to be very proud of these days.

My oldest son will vote this November...He has stated that he will vote straight Republican, but we both acknowledge that McCain is not the best candidate for the Republican party. We also agree that we absolutely do NOT trust the Democrats.

It is many republicans and democrats that do not trust this adm and McCain on the same path we are headed and that is why you are seeing many red states that are becomming swing states. Since 2004, 1 million republicans have dropped out of the party and 700 thousand new democrats have been added since 2004 but i am hearing it is going to be amazing on the new democrats this election and the young vote but we will have to wait and see how that turns out. The public got tired of the Clintons and now they are tired of the Bushes and normally it turns over to a new party and then back to the other.

Personally I was looking for Thompson, while my son was looking at Huckabee...Honestly, I would love to see a Thompson/Huckabee ticket!!!

I liked Huckabee also and i liked Romney but after this adm and the fact i really liked Obama and Hillary alot, i am going to vote for a democrat. I think father time caught up with Thompson and he just did not seem real excited about running this time.

Democrats have jumped on the Media bandwagon and served to destroy all that was positive with the Republican party.

The democrats had to play the Karl Rove game and they had to wake up and play hard ball. Dirty politics is not fun but after Rove and how he attacks, the democrats had to start the same and play his game. They are now. It was not all the democrats and Greenspan mentions again this same thing you are pointing to. He claimed it was the republicans in congress and the senate caving into a bully and this adm that wrecked the morals, faith and values of what a republican stood for. He claimed that republicans should have stood up to him and Cheney and not passed everything that was sent down the line. Many things are now out in the open and the public asks, how do you feel on this or that and ask point blank and politicians are afraid, i hope i do not say the wrong thing because we might offend that group. This is both parties and the republican tore down the democratic party as well and Bill did not help when he did his thing with Monica. For the longest of time the democrats didn't have to say or do anything untill this adm ruined themself at every corner and they destroyed faith and values. Not just this adm but look at all the sex scandals from preachers to republican politicians the last 4 to 8 years. Remember Craig and Vitter was the main two that wanted to impeach Clinton or throw him in the slammer as Larry Craig called him a very bad boy. Then he turns around and ups Clinton with his toe tapping in mens bath room stalls wanting sex and atleast Vitter liked women. Look at one of McCains head men down in FL trying to get votes at a rally in the rep primary and he was roaming around in the park offering a male police officer 25.00 for something not very moral in the republican party. He did resign. You know about Haggard but none of these things was good for what the republican party stood for, when they claim only Clinton could do these type things. It happens on both sides and even Rudy, look where he stood on guns, abortion and gay rights. He did flip flop back to gun rights. Now i am not defending the reps or dems here but it is a media controlled world and they love sex stories and things that sell. Plus a mic is in your face at every moment and you have to watch what you say and the world is living out of the closet on many things now and it is harder now for a politician to try to say i stand for this but i also stand for the other and tip toe on very explosive questions. Obama is dealing with comments made by Barney Frank, if you pick Sam Nunn you will lose many gay votes, so see, it is a difficult thing for both parties.

Now we will have to survive through a very dark period in America as the Democrats unleash their brand of ideology.

We have had to survive the last 8 under an adm that didn't listen to anyone, so it can't be any worse.

Hopefully, I will see a day where we can rise above the liberalism that is taking place as we rise up with a TRUE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION!!!

This is the attitude that brought us here where we are. We have to have more Clinton, Gore, Dole and Newts that work together and not tear each other apart. The other way divides and doesn't work good.

I am for Family, for STRAIGHT marriage, for life, for freedom of religion not from religion, Creationism as an alternative theory to evolution and it should be taught in the schools.

I think many people are for this.

I believe in individual responsibility over welfare. I also believe the government can help those in need, but I believe that those on welfare/unemployment should have to do some type of accountable work in order to obtain the free money.

I also believe people that abuse the system should be held accountable.

I do not support immigration amnesty, but I do feel that a period of grace can be a compromise in order to make the transition a bit more efficient. Helping to expedite "Green Cards" ... however as they are here illegally, I would put a higher accountability to report where they work, where they live, etc...something similar to a prison parol system...any violations and they are kicked out of the country.

I also agree with you

I believe that my money should not be taxed at a higher rate, should I continue to increase my income.

The tax system is hard to please all and Huckabee had a plan on this and i am not sure it would work but atleast he voluntered it and pointed it out to the public.

I believe that what I pass on to my children when I die should NOT be taxed.

I agree and i think Bush did pass a bill here that helps and he did good on that.

There are so many topics that I continue to fall on the Republican/conservative side of the debate.

At the end of the day, I do NOT want the Liberal/Democrats to dictate how I should live my life...they preach tolerance...are they willing to be an example and tolerate my views and my life?

This is a good and fair question but many people can say what you just said about the last 8.

Sorry for my above mistake on my comments not in blue. I am pulling for Obama because i feel he will work with all and where McCain maybe won't. I do not like our path the last 8, so i can't vote for 4 more. I am also votting for someone that the people can talk to and a president other countries can like and respect and also have a conversation with. To be able to get things done in our best interest. I am excited because i feel Obama will win but i am saying to you, do not give up on McCain if he is your man and you desire a republican in office. The race has along ways to go. Anything can happen and McCain could be elected. We just do not know untill the votes come in but this is what is good about our country, it is in the peoples hands and this is the best country in the world.

92bDad · 07-24-2008, 09:18 AM

At the end of the day, we have to look at what we believe and pick the cadidate the is the closest to our own beliefs.

So here are the issues that come to mind: These are not in any priority listing, simply a list:

* Abortion - I am Pro-Life
* Marriage - I am Pro-Straight-Marriage
* Iraq - I am Pro-Freedom and support staying until the mission is complete, thus not putting a timetable on withdraw...we know we all want to come home, but I also believe we want to be sure that we never have to go back
* Oil - I believe we should tap into the oil off the coast and tap into U.S. based resources to remove our dependance of foreign oil.
* Nuclear Power - I believe we should build more Nuclear Plants in the U.S. - Thus creating jobs and lowering our dependencs on foreign power - America has the resources to be self-sufficient - why are some people blocking our ability to take care of ourselves?
* Tax - I am for a flat tax or a consumption tax - I am for protecting my wealth that I will pass onto my my family when I die.

I know that their are a ton of more issues...please continue listing issues and allow each one of us to write our view point. Then we can compare our personal stance with that of the candidate.

I can share that based on the above issues, Obama is NOT the candidate for me...thus I will find myself voting for McCain. I would rather have gone for Thompson or Huckabee, but they are clearly no longer an option.

Flacolaco · 07-24-2008, 10:20 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121684823498078481.html

This is from that new NBC/WSJ poll...

Hmmm.... which of the qualities listed here make a better president? Who's leading those ones?

Not like it will matter in the long run, but it's nice to see some people had their heads on straight.

92bDad · 07-24-2008, 10:33 AM

Interesting...McCain leads in everything that I believe is important for a President.

I don't care if someone is likeable...can they actually lead?

Was Vince Lombardi likeable? Was Troy Aikman likeable?

We want leaders, not nice guys!!!

The top one to me is "Commander and Chief"...that is the Presidents #1 JOB!!!

I want someone who I can trust with the leadership of our soldiers. Is there anyone more trustworthy than John McCain when it comes to our soldiers?

I want a coach/leader who is willing to take it to the enemy, not a person who is afraid of popularity and willing to back down at threats. Stand up, Stand tall and put the enemy in his/her place.

The more I go through these posts, the more I find myself believing that McCain can win and that he CAN make a difference. Then I'm reminded of the power of the media and how they continue to tear this country down...

Flacolaco · 07-24-2008, 10:47 AM

I wonder what would happen if they asked all those questions in the voting booth before having you make a final selection.

92bDad · 07-24-2008, 11:35 AM

I wonder if they could put together a new voting page.

Listing each position that is up for election within a persons district.

Each candidate running in that election - withOUT showing party affiliation.

Show the top 20 issues that actually fall into the rhelm of responsibility for each position and a blurb as to where each candidate stands on each issue.

Now to vote, we voters would actually have to READ what each candidate stands for...plus we could get a printed copy showing us who we voted for and what they claimed to stand for on election day.

This would be a means of holding individual elected officials accountable for their campaign talk.

I wonder how different elections would be?

Obviously voting would take longer then the 5 seconds it takes us today...but could we actually be better informed voters on election day? Or would some rather keep the voters uninformed?

Murphy3 · 07-24-2008, 03:06 PM

I don't want that dirty mexican as my president...

Flacolaco · 07-24-2008, 03:07 PM

George Lopez?

Kirobaito · 07-24-2008, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=92bDad]Janett,

I cast the perseption that has fallen on America squarely on the Liberally biased mainstream media. The sheep keep following whatever the folks from CNN and other like them keep spewing.

It's pure liberal propoganda and when ever someone challenges them, they are called racist neo-cons.

And whenever people challenge the conservative propaganda spewed by FOX or Limbaugh, they are called naive terrorist sympathizers. What's your point?

I started my voting life as a middle/liberal...as I've grown older I move further and further to the right. I am a 40 year old white male. I'm married to my first and only wife, hitting 18 years this coming November. I have two teenage sons, getting ready to finish their final year of HS.

That's wonderful, but I don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to associate the right with 'family values' (whatever those are)?

My oldest son will vote this November...He has stated that he will vote straight Republican, but we both acknowledge that McCain is not the best candidate for the Republican party. We also agree that we absolutely do NOT trust the Democrats.

What the heck leads you to trust the Republicans, after this administration abashedly lied its people into supporting a war which has killed 4000 of our young men and women?

Hopefully, I will see a day where we can rise above the liberalism that is taking place as we rise up with a TRUE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION!!!

Unfortunately, history shows us that liberals win. They won when they freed slaves, they won when they established workers' rights, and they won with the Civil Rights movement. Conservatives lost all of those debates.

This is a tricky subject to touch (because people inevitably assume that by arguing this, I'm calling people slavery supporters, when in reality the point is that they're not), but world political history shows us one thing: things get more and more liberal. The definition of conservatism gets more and more liberal throughout history, while the definition of liberal gets more and more, well, liberal.

I am for Family, for STRAIGHT marriage, for life, for freedom of religion not from religion, Creationism as an alternative theory to evolution and it should be taught in the schools.

Well, that's wonderful. Nobody is forcing you to marry a man. But is not banning gay marriage forcing your ideology upon people in the same manner that you claim the Democrats will do to bring about dark times?

Creationism cannot be taught in schools because there is no evidence for it. If you want to teach your children creationism you can do it at home, and nobody will ever stop you from it. Schools can focus on what there is evidence for. If you teach Creationism, you must also teach every other viewpoint that exists. That cannot be done, so I'll gladly stick to what there is evidence for, kthx.

I believe in individual responsibility over welfare. I also believe the government can help those in need, but I believe that those on welfare/unemployment should have to do some type of accountable work in order to obtain the free money.

I agree to a certain extent, but not entirely. I think a return to certain New Deal programs, such as providing government service jobs to the unemployed would help with this issue.

I believe that my money should not be taxed at a higher rate, should I continue to increase my income.

I believe that what I pass on to my children when I die should NOT be taxed.

Unfortunately, with the state of America today, this issue is not "Tax lower" or "Tax higher." The issue is "Tax the way things are" and "Tax responsibly." This administration is the first in history to combine a war with a reduction in taxes for the wealthiest of people. Our tax rates are among the lowest in the industrialized western world when with this war they shouldn't be, because this administration does not understand the ideal of fiscal responsibility.

At the end of the day, I do NOT want the Liberal/Democrats to dictate how I should live my life...they preach tolerance...are they willing to be an example and tolerate my views and my life?

I don't think you should inherently group "Liberal" and Democrat. Liberalism, despite how much Conservatism loves to bitch about it, is the founding ideal of this country, and the most important thing to happen to civilization. By its nature, true liberalism does tolerate your views and your life, because its main point (and the root from which it comes) is freedom... which is definitely not what conservatism comes from (tradition). The conservative media and punditry has largely demonized the word 'liberal' because they don't have an argument against it. Candidates are now no longer allowed to call themselves 'liberal' even though the majority of Americans support liberalism (even though they don't call it that, due to the above movement).

The modern conservatism movement teaches anything but tolerance. I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in your speaking about Liberals/Democrats trying to dictate how to live your life, and tolerate your views, while you've also mentioned many times how "Pro-Straight Marriage" you are, which I assume means you are Anti-Gay Marriage (because you otherwise wouldn't bring it up)?

DirkFTW · 07-24-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

The modern conservatism movement teaches anything but tolerance. I wonder if you see the hypocrisy in your speaking about Liberals/Democrats trying to dictate how to live your life, and tolerate your views, while you've also mentioned many times how "Pro-Straight Marriage" you are, which I assume means you are Anti-Gay Marriage (because you otherwise wouldn't bring it up)?

I think you missed his point. Tolerance is the argument that is used to make us shut up by branding us as bigots. The very act of believing something as truly right or wrong requires intolerance. 92bdad's point is that tolerance presumes that it is even possible for everyone to accept everyone else's viewpoints. Theoretical tolerance must be tolerant of even intolerance. But the tolerance that is often used as a political weapon is anything but tolerant of such opposing views.

Quote:

Unfortunately, history shows us that liberals win. They won when they freed slaves, they won when they established workers' rights, and they won with the Civil Rights movement. Conservatives lost all of those debates... The definition of conservatism gets more and more liberal throughout history, while the definition of liberal gets more and more, well, liberal.

That presumes a starting point of human civilization which includes the utmost pinnacle in tyranny, bondage, and servitude. Then, from there, mankind has endeavored to slowly cast off the shackles and chains to embrace freedom. Yet, obviously, history did not start in such a state. Likely, mankind had to have started in some very lawless, chaotic state with total freedom, ie the state of nature. Thus, history would strongly suggest some sort of wax and wane, tug-of-war between complete freedom and complete control, with mankind searching for some Utopian balance 'twixt the two.

Furthermore, my understanding is that Ancient Greece/Rome was far more liberal in terms of sexuality than the rest of the world for quite a long time. And our own national history shows that we have gone more conservative by restricting both the drink and the prostitute.

Quote:

Creationism cannot be taught in schools because there is no evidence for it. If you want to teach your children creationism you can do it at home, and nobody will ever stop you from it. Schools can focus on what there is evidence for. If you teach Creationism, you must also teach every other viewpoint that exists. That cannot be done, so I'll gladly stick to what there is evidence for, kthx.

This is a touchy subject because some people hold that science must by definition exclude any solution that includes God or the supernatural. I think this needs to be defined first before we can meaningfully talk about the existence or non-existence of evidence for Creationism.

Regardless, check out Michael Behe's arguments regarding irreducible complexity. Also, my personal view is that the latest views on the Big Bang are WAY over the deep end. Finally, there are compelling philosophical arguments, such as the problem of getting something from nothing, that suggest a Creator rather than a Nothing as the root origin.

Quote:

What the heck leads you to trust the Republicans, after this administration abashedly lied its people into supporting a war which has killed 4000 of our young men and women?

I think what the Congressional inquiries and media have discovered and concluded is that the war was based on faulty intelligence. Lying presumes intent to deceive, and from what I know, the Senators and reporters seeking such culpability for impeachment reasons have failed to find evidence of such.

Murphy3 · 07-24-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

George Lopez?

Obama

wmbwinn · 07-24-2008, 09:13 PM

"Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then--we elected them."
- Lily Tomlin

Do we really have to elect Obama?

It is sad enough that the other option is McCain.

dude1394 · 07-24-2008, 09:48 PM

I really don't understand the McCain hatred actually. Now I don't like that he's a senator and some of his policies are kinda wack to me. But in essence he is a damn fine man and an honest and honorable one. I think he's not a very good politician and of course he's old which is a problem. But I'm not sure I've seen a major political guy more honest in politics to tell ya' the truth. Well dubya comes to mind.

Here is a guy who not only talks the talk but walks the walk.
http://cnnvsfox.blogspot.com/2008/02...-earmarks.html

Quote:

Hillary Clinton: "... $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." [The group is Taxpayers for Common Sense.]

Barack Obama: "... $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed."

John McCain: "one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending."

Way to go McCain!!

The article also noted:

"As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities. McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year."

Unlike the other candidates he was willing to do it, not just demagogue it.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly shot down an effort Thursday night to ban "earmark" spending for one year -- quashing an effort backed by all three senators seeking the presidency.

wmbwinn · 07-24-2008, 10:03 PM

I just really liked the other Republican options better. Too often, Mr. McCain has really annoyed me.

But, I'll vote McCain

Janett_Reno · 07-25-2008, 01:13 PM

COLORADO (Quinnipiac Univ.): McCain - 46%, Obama - 44%.
MICHIGAN (Quinnipiac Univ.): Obama - 46%, McCain - 42%.
MINNESOTA (Quinnipiac Univ.): Obama - 46%, McCain - 44%.
WISCONSIN (Quinnipiac Univ.): Obama - 50%, McCain - 39%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Co poll, this would be bad for the reps to lose this one, Mi would be a bad one to lose for the dems and again i feel Romney is vp trying to pull Mi but by making that vp first and before the dems make a choice, i feel will force the dems hands and grab Hillary and then watch out Oh, Pa, FL. I have not researched on how Wisc and MN normally vote. Dem or Rep. Mn is very close.

NM Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 43% is close but i fel Obama pulls this state. Latino voters, are breaking now over 67% for Obama. Remember red states like Co, Tx, NM(not really red or blue as it votes both ways), Az, Ca, Fl, Ny, Il and yes ca, il and ny the reps have not a chance but watch the latino votes that come in from all of the above and the red states. Look at Tx, you know the reps are shaking to see a red state with that many votes, closing in on McCain within like 5 points of him in big red. They did paint LA reder and LA will go red but in the process alot of blues moved to Tx and it is showing in the polls. McCain loses Tx, he is history. Do not get me wrong, i am just as surprised as anyone when it comes to Tx as i figured Az, some of the south and Tx and even Ak was very safe havens for McCain but i see it's not.

ND McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 42%. Red state and look how close.

MS McCain (R) 51%, Obama (D) 42%. Big red state in the south and McCain has a good 9 point lead here but i feel Obama will close this gap. Obama has done himself alot of good this week in the world and at home and now when he gets home and stats to sweep across the usa, he will then come right back behind McCain and the word he will spread "economy" and even alot of these close states will understand that word, "economy". He needs to talk alot and i mean alot on that word as he goes around and point out, McCain is another Bush/Cheney and he isn't.

Gallup poll today Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 41%

Rasmussen today Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 44%

Big Senate race here to keep your eyes on in NH...

Shaheen (D) 51%, Sununu (R) 45%

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wonder why so many reps are skipping their convention? Well i know why Ted Stevens isn't attending. If you do not know, go google this man up and read about him. It's not like he is one of your faith and values role models.

Nine of 12 targeted Republicans running in the most competitive Senate races this fall are either skipping the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., or have not decided whether to attend.
Among those who will not attend are Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who is not close to presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is a McCain loyalist. Stevens and Collins will use the convention week to focus on their campaigns.

Also sending regrets is former Rep. Bob Schaffer of Colorado, running for the seat being vacated by retiring GOP Sen. Wayne Allard.

Six others -- Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gordon Smith of Oregon and challengers John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico are still on the fence. Their spokesman offered responses ranging from "there are no plans yet" to "no decisions have been made."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other news, National Enquirer is reporting they have caught John Edwards with another woman. Let's see how that works out. So much for John being a vp.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon Confirms That It Told Obama He Couldn't Visit Army Base With Campaign Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In closing i want to say in June, Obama had bigger leads in those top 4 states i reported on, so McCain has closed in and in some by alot.

Here is McCain's prob, Obama has 232 strong where McCain has 72 strong. Tx should not be a swing state but now Obama will make the reps spend money in Tx. Obama has 48 leaners and McCain has 75 leaners. Obama has McCain fighting to many states. If McCain wins Fl, Oh and even Mi but loses alot of these others, he can still lose even while winning the big Oh and Fl. This election can break McCains way in many of these states as you go look at the yellow, light red and light blue and him pull this off in a close election or if the majority of those states break Obama's way, this could be a blow out. Looking at that map, i don't see how McCain can beat Obama by big numbers.

http://www.pollster.com/

The next poll shows Obama at 292 and McCain at 195. You can read down below the map and one poll they say today has McCain out in front in Co.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

GuerillaBlack · 07-25-2008, 03:21 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Ga...pe-Effect.aspx

July 25, 2008

Gallup Daily:

Obama by 6, Is There a Europe Effect? Obama moves back to significant lead over McCain

GermanDunk · 07-25-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Germany: Obama 62%, McCain 10%.

Forget it. Germans are insane. Look at me !

jefelump · 07-25-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Ga...pe-Effect.aspx

July 25, 2008

Gallup Daily:

Obama by 6, Is There a Europe Effect? Obama moves back to significant lead over McCain

I don't see any "Europe Effect" in this chart. For the most part the line graph is flat for both candidates. It has only very minor fluctuations up and down. 47 to 41 is not a "significant" lead. What is their margin of error? It looks to me like they remain statistically tied. The Messiah's great awakening doesn't appear to have helped him at all in the polls. Germans don't vote in US elections.

GermanDunk · 07-25-2008, 05:18 PM

But aren´t such charts completely irrelevat, because the goal is to win a state ? When one candidate wins 51 % in CO 49 % of the other votes are worth zero ?

jefelump · 07-25-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But aren´t such charts completely irrelevat, because the goal is to win a state ? When one candidate wins 51 % in CO 49 % of the other votes are worth zero ?

Exactly right. Unlike the Primaries, each state is "winner take all," so you're right. These charts are useless. That is why Al Gore won the "populare vote" in 2000, but Bush won the election.

GermanDunk · 07-25-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefelump

Exactly right. Unlike the Primaries, each state is "winner take all," so you're right. These charts are useless. That is why Al Gore won the "populare vote" in 2000, but Bush won the election.

So - and this is a slight advantage - polls are useless. I doubt Obama will win the so called swing states in the north. Most germans think Obama will make a clean sweep, but how should he win the votes of the white workers in Ohio ? Unbelievable.

dude1394 · 07-25-2008, 09:16 PM

It's hard to understand the McCain hatred imo.

McCain speaking to a military audience. He's right, he was more than willing to put his political life on the line.

Quote:

Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.

We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.

By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."

If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. ...

Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.

Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. ... In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.

Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

GuerillaBlack · 07-26-2008, 12:48 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109099/Ga...ead-48-41.aspx

July 26, 2008

Gallup Daily: Obama Retains Lead, 48% to 41%Second day with Obama holding a significant lead over McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Saturday, July 26, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the bounce is continuing for Barack Obama. The presumptive Democratic nominee attracts 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 49% and McCain 43%. Just four days ago, the candidates were tied at 46% (with leaners). Obama is viewed favorably by 57% of voters, McCain by 55%.

Janett_Reno · 07-26-2008, 02:19 PM

SC McCain Rasmussen (R) 53%, Obama (D) 40% - This is some space between the two now and this is good news for McCain here. It is a red state but Obama was creeping in to make it a state to possibly swing. Nice spread here for McCain.

Gallup - Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 41%

In the end the latino vote can be huge and will really help Obama.

Hispanic registered voters support Democrat Barack Obama for president over Republican John McCain by 66% to 23%, according to a nationwide survey of Latinos conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, from June 9 through July 13, 2008.

Obama is rated favorably by 76% of Latino registered voters, making him much
more popular among that voting group than McCain (44% favorable) and
President Bush (27% favorable). He now appears to be even more popular than
Hillary Clinton among Latinos (73% favorable).

In addition to their strong support for Obama, Latino voters have moved sharply
into the Democratic camp in the past two years, reversing a pro-GOP tide that had
been running among Latinos earlier in the decade. Some 65% of Latino registered
voters now say they identify with or lean to the Democratic Party; compared with
just 26% who identify with or lean to the GOP. This 39 percentage point
Democratic Party identification edge is larger than it has been at any time this
decade; as recently as 2006, the partisan gap was just 21 percentage points.

2008 Latest Senate Polls
------------------------------

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ls/senate.html

Minnesota Senate Rasmussen Coleman 46, Franken 49. Now this is simply amazing as i thought Coleman was doing ok. It could be the fact that the American public is so frustrated with Bush/Cheney that they want to vote the opposite. Franken is not even a politician. This was not even suppose to be close for a Coleman win. To be fair, i have seen Coleman up more than what Franken is in this poll.

Virginia Senate PPP (D) Warner 57, Gilmore 32. This is the seat John Warner, republican retired from. Both Warners, republican and democrat are really liked in VA. This is a clear cut win for the dems here.

New Hampshire Senate University of New Hampshire Sununu 42, Shaheen 46. I expect Shaheen to win this race and this is a major blow to the republican party. NH is one of the northest states that can swing but more and more reps are being beat. Sununu wasn't all that long ago his name was kicked around in pres and vp talks, just like the guy from VA(senator) that Jim Webb took out. That senator(Allen) was suppose to be where McCain is now, that was the reps pick. When he started using racial names and he had like a 20 point lead on Webb, his lead shrunk and he was out, not only as pres or vice pres but now as a senator and politics. Webb is doing good also. He makes me proud.

Colorado Senate Rasmussen Udall (D) 49, Schaffer 46. If the dems keep on with Co, here is a red state going towards blue. This is a good close race and will be right up untill election day. Very important for the reps on this state.

Alaska Senate Rasmussen Stevens 44, Begich 52, Und. 4. Now here is old man Stevens, sucked in with big oil, more than Bush and Cheney. All three of these guys are like brothers. He is part of the big oil neocons. This old guy was suppose to be like Mitch McConnel and never get beat and also he is in one of the redest states in all the USA. He has been trying to keep his butt out of jail for the last year than having anytime for a senator. I have not seen other polls showing him getting beat this bad as i thought it was alot closer. This dude is bad news and greed as the best he could have done and helped his party, was retire and go retire with Bush and Cheney and live in Crawford and let another rep run but no, old man Stevens can't pocket enough money to be happy. This might be the only man older than McCain running, not sure.

Georgia Senate Rasmussen Chambliss 59, Jones 29. This is a ray of hope in the rep party here and it was even talks of him being vp. It looks like he has a good future in the rep party. Very safe win for the reps here.

Maine Senate Rasmussen Collins 53, Allen 43 Collins +10.0. I feel this is a win for the reps. Congrats on the win.

New Jersey Senate Strategic Vision (R) Lautenberg 48, Zimmer 32. It's hard to beat Lautenberg and the dems win here.

North Carolina Senate Rasmussen Dole 54, Hagan 43. Congrats to Lizzy Dole as i feel she holds her seat here.

Oregon Senate Rasmussen Smith 46, Merkley 46, Und. 8. Great race. Down to the wire. Let's get out in Oregon and sign up some more democrats. The color blue is pretty.

Kansas Senate Rasmussen Roberts 61, Slattery 33. Like Alaska, this state is painted reder than red and it's hard to even start with bue in this state. Congrats reps on a big win.

South Dakota Senate Rasmussen Johnson 60, Dykstra 38. Nice big win for Johnson and great to see him healthy again. The reps thought this was the one state they could win in the senators race and take it over after Johnson had a brain hemmorhage. This is a blow out for the dems.

Michigan Senate Rasmussen Levin 59, Hoogendyk 36. The dems very safe here as Levin has always been strong.

Louisiana Senate Rasmussen Landrieu 49, Kennedy 44. I thought the reps could possibly win here but Mary is running strong. Yes it is up for grabs but looking blue now in a red state.

Illinois Senate Rasmussen Durbin 63, Sauerberg 28. Durbin is strong like Levin. Nice win dems. Blow out.

Rhode Island Senate Rasmussen Reed 72, Tingle 20. Blow out for the dems.

Massachusetts Senate Rasmussen Beatty 27, Kerry 58. Blow out for the dems.

Alabama Senate Rasmussen Sessions 58, Figures 34. Reps win in the south and a red state.

Kentucky Senate Rasmussen McConnell 48, Lunsford 41. Very embarrasing for ever rep in the usa if McConnel loses. This is within reach for the dems and yes it is hard but you never know how many anti Cheney/Bush voters come out to vote in Ky. This man is carammed up Bush/Cheney's butt so far it is hard to get it out. This is anotherone that would probably go retire with Stevens, Cheney and Bush in Crawford. Maybe kick back with some vintage Billy Beer and talk about old times and like how it use to be. The days ole Chains could go out hunting and shoot whatever moves, the good ole days when Ramsfield was their leader, or when Stevens made more money in oil than Bush and Cheney. Mitch the yes man. Want a yes, go to mitch. When he retires, let's hope he does it in Crawford.

Nebraska Senate Rasmussen Johanns 60, Kleeb 33. Win for the reps and a blow out.

Texas Senate Rasmussen Cornyn 52, Noriega 35. This is closer now but chalk up a win for a win in Tx for the reps.

NM - July 25 Rasmussen Udall (D) 61%, Pearce (R) 35%. The Udalls are tough. Chalk up another for the dems. Let's Udall Co also. Paint them all blue and then next election, maybe we can start in KS, TX and AK.

MS - July 24 Res. 2000 Wicker (R) 45%, Musgrove (D) 44%. Very close here and again you are looking at a red state with big blue running strong. Let's get some more money in MS and put Musgrove in office. This is Trent Lott's seat. Remember him? Haley Barbour put Wicker in, appointing him.

In Wyoming Sen Michael Enzi republican will hold his seat. Sen. Thad Cochran republican will also hold in MS and keep the reps happy with that win.

One race i want to give the reps and that is kick Liberman out of the blue colum. He could be and should be the new Mitch McConnel and i sure hope the blues force him to turn red and if he can't hack it, retire him on Ole McDonald's farm in Crawford with his pals.

One Gov's Race we need to throw in.

NH - July 24 Univ. of NH Lynch (D) 67%, Kenney (R) 16%. Big blue win here.

In the end, here is what you are looking at or possibly looking at. Dems possibly picking up senate seats in ME(up hill battle), AK, CO, NH, NM, and VA. Reps picking up seats, a big fat zero. MN could be in play also for the dems.

Projected Senate after this election... Dems 57 and Reps 43. That sounds good to me.

In the house, dems 239 to reps 196 as it stands today. I will be reporting on the house also but for now, blue is sure looking good and i expect the same thing in the house races.

92bDad · 07-26-2008, 03:21 PM

Who cares about POLLS?

What is the history of the candidates as well as their current positions...as they claim them to be?

This is not a popularity contest, but an election to award the leadership of the free world. We see clearly that Obama would have allowed our soldiers to lose the war and make all the sacrifices for NOTHING, all to win an election...while McCain shows that he was willing to risk political suicide in the interest of Leadership and giving the soldiers what then needed and wanted.

The result, McCain's plan has lead this nation towards victory in Iraq and ultimately long term success that will save future lives.

rabbitproof · 07-26-2008, 03:24 PM

Polls, in general, are important as they show whose beliefs and intentions are backed by the majority of the populous... ahem, kind of the point of a republic/democracy.

Underdog · 07-26-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Who cares about POLLS?

The what she said!

(she was a lesbian...)

Janett_Reno · 07-26-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Who cares about POLLS?

What is the history of the candidates as well as their current positions...as they claim them to be?

This is not a popularity contest, but an election to award the leadership of the free world. We see clearly that Obama would have allowed our soldiers to lose the war and make all the sacrifices for NOTHING, all to win an election...while McCain shows that he was willing to risk political suicide in the interest of Leadership and giving the soldiers what then needed and wanted.

The result, McCain's plan has lead this nation towards victory in Iraq and ultimately long term success that will save future lives.

What i am seeing is the American people are liking the democrat current positions more so than the republican current positions. It shows in the polls. Obama has said nothing about losing any war. He is the one wanting to win Afghanastan when this adm and McCain thought nothing much of it or as dude said, Afghanastan wasn't important. When Obama said it was important and the American people agreed with him, now Bush and McCain has came on board and now agrees with Obama. As far as Iraq, Bush said mission was accomplished long time ago.

If you want to know about Iraq, Bush said no timetable and so did McCain and Obama took the position of timetable. Now the Iraqi gov says we want a timetable for when you will get out. Now McCain and Bush says we need to start pulling troops out soon and again, jump on over to Obama's side and thinking. On most every article on the Iraqi war, it is reported McCain and Obama's position is almost the very same for Iraq. Attacking Obama because he is half black and half white won't work. Attacking him by using his name won't work. Attacking by saying the reps have faith and values and the morals won't work because look who really has faith and values. Most everyone knows Obama is much stronger in running an economy than John McCain. As far as more wars and threats, it seems that Obama proved himself very nicely this week in Europe on allies wanting to stand behind him, not divide and split allies. He knows how important it is to work with people and allies instead of trying to run them off.

It's not a fluke why he is popular. He works with people and the public and allies likes this. Oh by the way, Obama opposed the Iraq war and even gave a speech opposing the war. The war we went in on because of weapons of mass destruction but Greenspan(republican) says we went in because of oil.

As far as you saying saving future lives in Iraq. Do you think with this adm making Iran stronger is good? Now Iran is buddy/buddy to Iraq, i am not so sure how good this will be on how future lives plays out when Iran is on your back door, influencing you, buddied up to you.

You do not know how Iraq and Iran is going to play out and neither do i. The middle east is a powder keg. I hope for the best in Iraq and with a president "that has allies" then the situation in Iran is alot better. Why? I'll tell you why, because when you have one man going around saying better do it our way or we will get cha, it don't work real good and it makes the American people lose to many lives, cost the tax payers way to much money to try to police the world, when most don't want to be policed. Now if you have allies, Iran starts to act up, then it is many countries that can come down on Iran and say we stand together with the USA and we will help them military, money wise, then things tend to get done better, faster, without as much force but it takes someone that has sense, can talk, can listen and do what is best for the country. This is Obama in my opinion. This is why it is hard to attack Obama and why he is getting so much coverage. He is also going to be very hard to beat and especially by a Joe Liberman type republican that can't even carry enough of his own base. Even this poll shows up.

The last 8 years has been run by republicans and a chunk of them neoconservatives and let the American people be the judge on how good they have liked the last 8 years. I feel it will be reflected in the up and comming election and let's just see how the American people vote. Senate, Congress, Governor and President. I predict it is going to be a blue picture painted for the republicans but i could be wrong.

I talked to a friend today and at one time he was really doing good and now he is hurting. I heard out of his mouth today, asking me who i was for and even before i said anything, he said Obama seems like a very smart and good man and he said "as far as i am concerned, i hope the democrats get in and see if the can change things around from where they are now". His dad is known for a big time republican and this is no kid, his son. He is pushing 50 years old and republican and stated today, i am republican but it is time for a change. He also said why did the reps pick McCain and he stated his age was not good at all. The reps must get the base out to vote and reps or many i have talked to are not excited at all and even alot of them are for Obama. This is why McCain has probs.