The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[strangegrey]

Obama is now in the lead or tied in 8 key states, all of which Bush took in 2000 and 2004:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_battlegrounds

Bro...everyone knows Obama is going to win...relax...

It's the fact that there is a lot of fraud going on via ACORN and other Obama surrogates that is troubling.

Especially when he probably doesn't need it.

Yeah, I agree with you on this Stu....

Every so often, I see a blip of an indicator that McPain might be closing the gap...but it's a blip...then it goes away...and it's clear that at this stage, Obama's not worried about the win. He's worried about how much he can run up the score.

If he squeeks out a win in on tuesday, and congress goes slightly more to the left... he has to step carefully prior to the 2010 elections. Because there will be a kneejerk reaction to the right.

However, if he destroys John DisDain in a biblical landslide....and the left wins enough seats to start thinking about constitutional amendments....then there will be a perceived mandate on the shoulders of Obama...

...and that's what the far left wants. They want this percieved mandate so they get to play with a blank check for the next 2-4 years....

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Bro...everyone knows Obama is going to win...relax...

It's the fact that there is a lot of fraud going on via ACORN and other Obama surrogates that is troubling.

Especially when he probably doesn't need it.

Looking at the recent polls, I wouldn't be so quick to hand victory over to Obama. I don't believe the Bradley effect is being taken very seriously and McTard will benefit from that. Just as there are many voters who will vote for Obama because he's black, I suspect there are a equal number or more that will not vote for him because he's black, like it or not.

I was certain Obama was going to win. I'm not so sure now.

Mike,
I am absolutely sure. If nothing else ACORN will deliver it for him, but as I have said I don't think he will need it.


It's going to be a LONG, LONG election night but in the end, Senator Obama will be the President Elect.

Yes unfortunately this is ONLY the natural tightening of polls that happens a few days before an election. ( i wish it werent the case
but it is )

Humphrey closed on nixon in 68
Ford closed on carter in 76,
Dukakis closed on bush in 88,
bush on clinton in 92,
dole on clinton in 96,
gore on bush in 00,
kerry on bush in 04,
And Obama will close on Jindal in 12


goldwater, carter and mondale are the only losers to have not closed in the polls during the last week of the race.


its like a baketball game one teams up by 35 and the other team always closes it to 2 in the last few minutes of the fourth quarter, but arent able to get a last jump shot off.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends).

obama's not in trouble unless he sinks below 50 % . If he sinks below 50, I'll revise the theory I expounded two posts above

[Indyjoe]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends).

What do you think of Obama's "one man television blitz" (AP's wording)? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends).

What do you think of Obama's "one man television blitz" (AP's wording)? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

The wide geographical distribution of the blitz proves Strangegreys point a few posts above. Obama's sure hes already won - this is his first presidental blitz so that he can start pushing his mandate and kick his first 100 days off early as soon as pelosi and reid come back for the lame duck dec session.

[strangegrey]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends).

What do you think of Obama's one man television blitz? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

It's hard for anyone to think what's going to come out of this TV thing, as it's never been done before. It could backfire due to a whole gaggle of reasons (overkill, too much information for the opposition to pick apart, etc) or it could be a masterful kill shot to the McCain campaign. Who knows!?!?


I will say this...I'm quite surprised the McDrained camp hasn't called out Obama on his pledge one year ago to keep his campaign within the confines of public funding....as stated by Rachel Maddow last night. It seems, given DisDain's hard on for campaign finance, that he would've stomped all over that ... and he didn't.

[Skylorde]

....and the left wins enough seats to start thinking about constitutional amendments....

That will *never* happen. Given our current divide and the bi-partisan support needed for an amendment, I cannot imagine there could ever be enough cooperation to amend the Constitution.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

[Saint John]

I heard on the news this morning that Chicago Police are secretly terrified about the Obama rally in Grant Park. It's estimated to perhaps have over 1 million people there election night. I can't see that being a civil event.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

....and the left wins enough seats to start thinking about constitutional amendments....

That will *never* happen. Given our current divide and the bi-partisan support needed for an amendment, I cannot imagine there could ever be enough cooperation to amend the Constitution.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

You are right there will NEVER be the agreement to amend the Constitution , so what do you do ? Stock the Supreme Court with folks who LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH and REINTERPRET the Constitution. No need for amendments if you do that- and thats just what will happen

[strangegrey]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 47%. This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 (see trends).

What do you think of Obama's "one man television blitz" (AP's wording)? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

The wide geographical distribution of the blitz proves Strangegreys point a few posts above. Obama's sure hes already won - this is his first presidental blitz so that he can start pushing his mandate and kick his first 100 days off early as soon as pelosi and reid come back for the lame duck dec session.

Yeah, they're not playing for a win at this point. They're playing for a mandate...and they'll probably get it.

Maddow had this fantastic, creatively done football screen setup last night on her show. Despite any perceptive closure of a national poll gap....there are other very STRONG indicators that are showing just how much Obama will destroy McCain.

In the pictoral, Maddow equated several states to 50 yard line states...i.e. Florida, Ohio, NH, etc. Almost all of those 50 yard states are now strongly obama, as per polling. Then, she started to show some of McCain's 35 yard line states...like NC, Indiana....and 20 yard line states....like Montana.....If Obama is campaigning in those states (and mccain is forced to defend them)...

...this is not a case of the president kicking a fieldgoal for the win and coming out with slightly better numbers. This is a case of the president walking into the end zone without getting touched...and then strolling in again for a 2 point conversion, again, untouched.

It's going to be a rather bad loss for DisDain...

[Skylorde]

It's hard for anyone to think what's going to come out of this TV thing, as it's never been done before.

I saw a talking head on one of the news shows discussing Obama's purchase of TV time. In recent times, Candidates have shyed away from it due to the cost and also the benefit from the internet. Perot was doing it back in 92 and there was another example however I cannot remember who it was.

[Saint John]

Obama made a huge mistake calling for people to take the day off of work to help get out the vote for him. Granted, well over 90% of those without jobs will be voting for him in hopes of garnering a check for doing nothing under the guise of "redistributing wealth." But that's insulting to average working Americans. They know they can go to work and vote as that's what they've always done. It's really not that fucking hard. I guess those fine Americans that ACORN is registering just haven't been able to juggle holding a job and the tough, tedious task of voting once every 4 fucking years.

[Ehwmatt]

Yeah, they're not playing for a win at this point. They're playing for a mandate...and they'll probably get it.

Maddow had this fantastic, creatively done football screen setup last night on her show. Despite any perceptive closure of a national poll gap....there are other very STRONG indicators that are showing just how much Obama will destroy McCain.

In the pictoral, Maddow equated several states to 50 yard line states...i.e. Florida, Ohio, NH, etc. Almost all of those 50 yard states are now strongly obama, as per polling. Then, she started to show some of McCain's 35 yard line states...like NC, Indiana....and 20 yard line states....like Montana.....If Obama is campaigning in those states (and mccain is forced to defend them)...

...this is not a case of the president kicking a fieldgoal for the win and coming out with slightly better numbers. This is a case of the president walking into the end zone without getting touched...and then strolling in again for a 2 point conversion, again, untouched.

It's going to be a rather bad loss for DisDain...

It's hard to imagine the media/pollsters getting it wrong for a third PotUS election cycle in a row, and I personally think Obama has it bagged, but Obama supporters should really tread lightly these next six days. Very recent history advises you to do as much. Tuesday will be interesting and relieving when it's all over, whatever the outcome.

[strangegrey]

....and the left wins enough seats to start thinking about constitutional amendments....

That will *never* happen. Given our current divide and the bi-partisan support needed for an amendment, I cannot imagine there could ever be enough cooperation to amend the Constitution.

I'm not talking about amendments next year. I'm talking long term. As I've already stated, the republican party suffered massive damage due to bush (and to a lesser extent, McCain) over the past decade. Combine that with a republican majority that has been largely failing it's constiuency between 2000-2006....and you've got the recipe for a super majority in congress for the democrats for not just the next 2-4 years...but possibly for 20-30 years. It really depends on how things progress following this election. It's not out of the question....it really depends on how things go.

Regardless, it seems to me that there's enough potention in this coming election for the democrats to win enough of a majority to have their blank check regardless...With that, they can enact any legislation they want...with zero regard for constitutionality..

And this is why, Gin&Tonic....who needs to legislate from the bench, so long as you have a supreme court sympathetic to the current congress? The supreme court turns down tons of cases a year, with zero interest. If there's a majority in the supreme court that doesn't feel the case is worth hearing...they dont HAVE to legislate from the bench. All they have to do is decide not to take the case...and the legislation out of the legislature stands...

[RossValoryRocks]

Though I think Obama is going to win, it should be noted that in 2004 Kerry was up 8 at this point on Bush...and everyone was saying "it's over for Bush".

[Skylorde]

Obama made a huge mistake calling for people to take the day off of work to help get out the vote for him. Granted, well over 90% of those without jobs will be voting for him in hopes of garnering a check for doing nothing under the guise of "redistributing wealth."

I saw this headline yesterday. I was thinking to myself .."the impact on the workforce, by and large, won't be measurable"

Relax, just a little humor

[Enigma869]

I heard on the news this morning that Chicago Police are secretly terrified about the Obama rally in Grant Park.

I guess their terror isn't much of a secret, if it was on the news!


John from Boston

[Saint John]

Relax, just a little humor

Accurate humor!!!

[Tito]

The only reason people know about ACORN's fraudulent registrations is because ACORN was obligated to turn them all in under federal law.
They were appropriately flagged.
The process worked.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the potential impact of wide scale voter fraud. Election officials in a number of states have said it is physically impossible to verify each and every single registration.

yeah but don't you have to show ID when voting? we do in CA

Not in Illinois. One of the local stations has a report about non-citizens voting in the election.

[Tito]

You did.

The only way McCain wins this election is through massive voter disenfranchisement and intimidation in ten swing states. Not even your party can pull THAT off.

Well Obama is going to win...with MASSIVE voter fraud helping out...so it balances out...

MASSIVE voter fraud? care to expand on that?

Are you not reading what ACORN has done?

Don't give me the bullshit about "Mickey Mouse" either, for every Mickey Mouse registered there is a Jim Smith with the same SSN registered in 12 different places who has case 10 early votes in Ohio especially (they don't require ID, same here in PA, no ID required) and those votes are going to be counted.

The republicans don't want to disenfranchise anyone, but they do want to make sure every vote is LEGAL. How can you not agree with that?

They need to get rid of early voting. This is a joke.

[Enigma869]

What do you think of Obama's "one man television blitz" (AP's wording)? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

I'm personally uncomfortable with Obama taking out what amounts to a paid informercial, masquerading as his first presidential address. Also, I heard he raised $150 million just last month. What the hell does he do with all that money when the election is over? He clearly isn't pissing through that kind of dough in the next 6 days! Maybe he should donate it to the U.S. Treasury, to assist with all of our new business ventures

If this election isn't proof positive how badly fucked up the American political, two party system is, I don't know what is. While I don't even disagree with those on the right questioning scumbag organizations like ACORN, they don't have a leg to stand on, because both sides of the aisle pull shit like this, ALL THE TIME! There are enough corrupt fuckers on both sides of the aisle to make it illogical to defend either side!


John from Boston

[Skylorde]

I am absolutely sure. If nothing else ACORN will deliver it for him, but as I have said I don't think he will need it.

It's going to be a LONG, LONG election night but in the end, Senator Obama will be the President Elect.

Voter rolls stuffed with dead and absent registrants
LINK

Some quote bites:

Mississippi's voter situation is hard to believe. Places like Madison County have over 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18.

"It is terrible," he says. "Combined with the fact that we don't have voter ID in Mississippi, anybody can show up at any poll that happens to know the people who have left town or died -- and go vote for them."

"We have people who registered in 1965 who have never voted," she says. "We have 486 people (registered who are) over 105."

It's easy to dismiss these individually but you MUST consider their cumulative effect...

[strangegrey]

Yeah, they're not playing for a win at this point. They're playing for a mandate...and they'll probably get it.

Maddow had this fantastic, creatively done football screen setup last night on her show. Despite any perceptive closure of a national poll gap....there are other very STRONG indicators that are showing just how much Obama will destroy McCain.

In the pictoral, Maddow equated several states to 50 yard line states...i.e. Florida, Ohio, NH, etc. Almost all of those 50 yard states are now strongly obama, as per polling. Then, she started to show some of McCain's 35 yard line states...like NC, Indiana....and 20 yard line states....like Montana.....If Obama is campaigning in those states (and mccain is forced to defend them)...

...this is not a case of the president kicking a fieldgoal for the win and coming out with slightly better numbers. This is a case of the president walking into the end zone without getting touched...and then strolling in again for a 2 point conversion, again, untouched.

It's going to be a rather bad loss for DisDain...

It's hard to imagine the media/pollsters getting it wrong for a third PotUS election cycle in a row, and I personally think Obama has it bagged, but Obama supporters should really tread lightly these next six days. Very recent history advises you to do as much. Tuesday will be interesting and relieving when it's all over, whatever the outcome.

Well, I dunno how you can get from what I wrote, that I'm implying that the pollsters are going to get it wrong...

I do believe that pollsters have had a hard time factoring in the right to their polls. People on the right, are historically less inclined to want to talk to pollsters...and on the left, you get very enthusiastic people. The polling agencies factor this into their models and the models are very scientific...so I will submit that to the effect of left vs right interaction w/ pollsters, I think after 2-3 presidential elections where the landscape has changed....they've got it dialed in well enough now.

What I don't think the pollsters are prepared for, adequately...is the so-called bradly effect (or even a reverse bradly effect). There *might* be a group of people that will be fearful of admitting they're going to vote against a black man, and actually do so when the curtain closes. At the same time, there might be a group of people that are afraid to say they're voting for a black man, and actually do so when the curtain closes. To the extent that one group cancels out the other....it's a non-issue. To the extent that one group will materially cancel out the other is something that I think polling agencies are going to have a VERY difficult time trying to sort out....I don't think they'll be able to iron out that until after this election.

[Saint John]

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/1 ... n-indiana/

[Tito]

..and you've got the recipe for a super majority in congress for the democrats for not just the next 2-4 years...but possibly for 20-30 years. It really depends on how things progress following this election. It's not out of the question....it really depends on how things go.

It will be at least that after the illegals get their amnesty and start legally voting.

[strangegrey]

What do you think of Obama's "one man television blitz" (AP's wording)? That's a whole lot of channels(seems overboard to me).

I'm personally uncomfortable with Obama taking out what amounts to a paid informercial, masquerading as his first presidential address. Also, I heard he raised $150 million just last month. What the hell does he do with all that money when the election is over? He clearly isn't pissing through that kind of dough in the next 6 days! Maybe he should donate it to the U.S. Treasury, to assist with all of our new business ventures

One issue that's raised with winning an election with this kind of bankroll is one that people use in sports...in reference to teams "buying championships". This argument has been used with respect to the Yankees at times...and in some cases, the argument might have merit. In other cases, eh...not so much. (you actually have to win a championship to be guilty of buying it).

Now John, I do realize that I'm bringing in an analogy that you and I might argue over...but try to look at this objectively. The sheer advantage that Obama has generated in cash donations, has allowed him to flood every market with election propaganda.

Is this a just way to win the presidency? I dunno...I'm not voicing a viewpoint here...just raising a point. This kind of funding doesn't come out of the grass roots...it comes out of corporate funding, pac funding, billionaire funding. So clearly...special interests have an interest in Obama this year.

Getting the message out is one thing. Is flooding the other guys message the same thing?


again, I'm not voicing an opinion here...just raising a point. For example....the free-market, capitalist pig in me can also counter that he should be able to raise as much fucking money as he can...and more power to him.


I dunno...thinking out of the sphincter here....but I'm curious to hear other opinions...

[Enigma869]

One issue that's raised with winning an election with this kind of bankroll is one that people use in sports...in reference to teams "buying championships". This argument has been used with respect to the Yankees at times...and in some cases, the argument might have merit. In other cases, eh...not so much. (you actually have to win a championship to be guilty of buying it).

We don't disagree on this, at all. The truth of the matter is that the Yankees are one of the few teams, in all sports, who have won championships, with the highest payroll. It almost never works out that the team with the highest payroll wins it all. Ask the NY Rangers about this!

Now John, I do realize that I'm bringing in an analogy that you and I might argue over...but try to look at this objectively. The sheer advantage that Obama has generated in cash donations, has allowed him to flood every market with election propaganda.

Is this a just way to win the presidency? I dunno...I'm not voicing a viewpoint here...just raising a point. This kind of funding doesn't come out of the grass roots...it comes out of corporate funding, pac funding, billionaire funding. So clearly...special interests have an interest in Obama this year.

Getting the message out is one thing. Is flooding the other guys message the same thing?

Again, we don't disagree on this, Frank. It seems to me that the election should be won or lost on the message of the parties involved, not how well financed each campaign is. As I've said in the past, I don't love either of these candidates. I go back and forth on this, because of the primary election. I'm quite sure that Mitt Romney had FAR more money than McCain, and it didn't seem to do him any good. I guess we'll never really know if Obama won (assuming he wins), because of how well financed his campaign was, versus his positions on the issues of the day.



John from Boston

[RossValoryRocks]

One issue that's raised with winning an election with this kind of bankroll is one that people use in sports...in reference to teams "buying championships". This argument has been used with respect to the Yankees at times...and in some cases, the argument might have merit. In other cases, eh...not so much. (you actually have to win a championship to be guilty of buying it).

Now John, I do realize that I'm bringing in an analogy that you and I might argue over...but try to look at this objectively. The sheer advantage that Obama has generated in cash donations, has allowed him to flood every market with election propaganda.

Is this a just way to win the presidency? I dunno...I'm not voicing a viewpoint here...just raising a point. This kind of funding doesn't come out of the grass roots...it comes out of corporate funding, pac funding, billionaire funding. So clearly...special interests have an interest in Obama this year.

Getting the message out is one thing. Is flooding the other guys message the same thing?


again, I'm not voicing an opinion here...just raising a point. For example....the free-market, capitalist pig in me can also counter that he should be able to raise as much fucking money as he can...and more power to him.


I dunno...thinking out of the sphincter here....but I'm curious to hear other opinions...

Anyone seen the report in the NY Post about Obama's donations site not having the AVS turned on? So there is no way to verify who is using the card, so that a person could possibly give multiple $200 donations over and over and over again in violation of campaign finance laws, in addition FORIEGN donations can be made this way and not tracked as well?

From the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/po ... htm?page=0

From the NY Times:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... 0&emc=eta1

and more...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... obama.html

Appearently it is fixed now...but up until the 23rd or so of October is was non-stop.

Some of the names used: Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Ben Dover all went through with small dollar donations prior to Obama's camp making the changes...but it makes you wonder HOW MUCH he took in from illegal sources?

[Skylorde]

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/cnn-exposes-obamaacorn-voter-fraud-in-indiana/

That's interesting SJ. Another site was linked within the one you posted www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com

The quick and dirty; Democrats accusing Obama of stealing the primary with "dirty Chicago politics", using voter fraud.

Quote bites from link above:

Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn't happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for "dinners," etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone

We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama Campaign "Chicago Machine" dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of "change" from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in "We Will Not Be Silenced."

We are not angry liberals; we are disappointed Democrats, who love our country and feel the DNC needs to stand for truth, care about its voter base and stop committing actions worse than what we only thought possible of the worst Republicans. The DNC and the Obama Campaign need to be held accountable for the catastrophe of the 2008 Democratic Primary.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

again, I'm not voicing an opinion here...just raising a point. For example....the free-market, capitalist pig in me can also counter that he should be able to raise as much fucking money as he can...and more power to him.


I dunno...thinking out of the sphincter here....but I'm curious to hear other opinions...

agree with this, as long as the money comes from a US citizen source , and is not obtained by illegal activities, get as much as you want , spend as much as you want. If the voter dont want to buy it he wont regardless of how many commercals he sees. Shit, I see Bud light adverts till Im blue in the face every Super Bowl Sunday. Do I turn around like a zombie and buy that horrible weak shit....hell no