Campaign 2008

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Yeah the best Fox News can come up with for recent dirt is "Biden laughes at Marxist questioning!!" How dare Obama's people avoid a station that pissed them off!

 

The reporter's husband works for the republicans BTW ( )

 

Fox had a guy on 2 days ago crying for McCain to bring Ayers back to the forefront. yeah.

[At Home 0]

Yeah the best Fox News can come up with for recent dirt is "Biden laughes at Marxist questioning!!" How dare Obama's people avoid a station that pissed them off!

 

The reporter's husband works for the republicans BTW ( )

 

Fox had a guy on 2 days ago crying for McCain to bring Ayers back to the forefront. yeah.

 

Yeah, on another political fo I go to, there's a number of threads where people are saying shit like "ROUGE JOURNALISTS CATCHES BIDEN IN A TRAP!" I think it's pretty funny. That shit is so stupid. It's seriously spoon fed to them. The far right moves in lock step with the McCain campaign. There's hardly a voice that presents anything other than SOCIALISM when McCain is all but calling him a socialist, there's hardly a voice that presents anything other than AYERS when McCain is tied up in that, etc.

 

And the Ayers stuff has proven not to work, and even backfired. CBS released a poll saying that 50% of people straight up do not care at all about the issue, and only 23% care very much about it. (Ironically, Bush's approval ratings are at about 23% too.)

[At Home 0]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

 

Tax rates since 1913. Interesting stuff.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I know what the Bradley Effect is but who's it based on?

[At Home 0]

Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 CA Governor's race. I don't believe that the effect exists. Bradley saw a decline in the polls a week before the election.

[Nightwing 0]

I know what the Bradley Effect is but who's it based on?

 

As much as I disdain Wikipedia, there are a lot of interesting cites in the article, particularly related to this election.

 

Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 CA Governor's race. I don't believe that the effect exists. Bradley saw a decline in the polls a week before the election.

 

Actually, one of them pertains to this, a Harvard study. It stated that it was real, but with the decline in issues that were traditionally more racially-charged (Welfare and crime), it is no longer applicable.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Nate Silver debunked the Bradley Effect with regards to recent (2006) elections with a black candidate vs. a white one. Here's the link:

 

Bradley Effect? Or Elephant Effect?

 

He's also written a lot more about the non-existence of the Bradley Effect with regards to this election, you can skim the archives for that.

[Nightwing 0]

I think people have the "Reverse-Bradley Effect" wrong, though. To them, it concerns black voters, but I think that white voters in racially-charged areas (Like the South) might be more reluctant to tell a pollster that he's in favor of a black candidate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

E-mail received from my university's president today:

 

Unfortunately, this morning an effigy of Senator Barack Obama was discovered hanging in a tree on campus. I am personally offended and deeply embarrassed by this disgusting episode. This is not reasonable political expression; it is just malicious. And it is unacceptable.

 

On behalf of the University of Kentucky I apologize to Senator Obama and his family. I will personally assure them that this is not who we are as a University or as a state.

 

As President of the University of Kentucky, I feel outraged and hurt. I am outraged because we work very hard, every day, to build bridges across the divides. Diversity and inclusion are among our most precious core values. Episodes like this serve only to erode our confidence in and respect for one another.

 

Regardless of your political opinions or the candidates you support, a University such as ours must be a place where spirited discussion can take place, but within the bounds of civility, common sense, and respect for the views and feelings of others. We have insisted - and we will continue to insist - that we as a University and as a state rise above hatred and acts of malice or ignorance. The line separating civil discourse from unacceptable behavior has been crossed, constituting a clear violation of the University’s code of ethics, and possibly constituting criminal acts, which would also violate University regulations. Such acts will not be tolerated. Those found responsible will be subject to the full force of university, state, and federal rules and regulations.

 

There is an on-going investigation into this incident, which includes federal authorities. If you have any information that would assist in this investigation you have a responsibility to contact the UK Police Department (859-257-1616).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

 

Tax rates since 1913. Interesting stuff.

 

I literally linked that like in the last page.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

[Dobbs 3K 0]

 

Where is that? I hate photos without any context given.

[snuffbox 0]

Panthermatt: One easy way to make a decision is to ask yourself what's more important to you, actually having more money in your wallet (Obama) or being told that you have more money in your wallet (McCain).

 

Well, that's only a half-true assessment of the scenario, really. Yes, my individual tax rate would go down under Obama (I'm at approx $54,000/yr, so firmly in the middle class). However, I also work for a giant insurance/financial corporation. Thus, if corporate tax rates are hiked, as well as tax rates for the rich, that would likely not benefit me; I'm pretty sure that the Company would choose a higher profit, as well as higher management bonuses and salaries, than to keep me on board.

 

Know what I mean?

 

I keep forgetting, when the Obama tax plan was the code for corporations and wealthy people in the 1990s, did everybody in the financial sector lose their jobs? Or was there more employment and prosperity at that point?

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I don't think Confederate flags and Vote for Obama signs mix together. One of these things isn't like the other.

[panthermatt7 0]

Panthermatt: One easy way to make a decision is to ask yourself what's more important to you, actually having more money in your wallet (Obama) or being told that you have more money in your wallet (McCain).

 

Well, that's only a half-true assessment of the scenario, really. Yes, my individual tax rate would go down under Obama (I'm at approx $54,000/yr, so firmly in the middle class). However, I also work for a giant insurance/financial corporation. Thus, if corporate tax rates are hiked, as well as tax rates for the rich, that would likely not benefit me; I'm pretty sure that the Company would choose a higher profit, as well as higher management bonuses and salaries, than to keep me on board.

 

Know what I mean?

 

I keep forgetting, when the Obama tax plan was the code for corporations and wealthy people in the 1990s, did everybody in the financial sector lose their jobs? Or was there more employment and prosperity at that point?

 

The 90s tech boom resulted in profits of such magnitude that taxes are almost irrevelant to the discussion. I think a better basis of comparison would be the 80s.

[RepoMan 0]

Francis Fukuyama is now endorsing Obama.

Altough one of the less offensive neo-cons, his endorsment made me consider throwing away my vote on the Green candidate for a quarter second.

 

Funny thing in New York is that if Obama isn't left wing enough for you, you have the choice between Nader, the Green candidate, the Socailist Party candidate, and the Socailist and Liberation Party candidate.

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Here's another way to assess the state of the race right now: We've drawn up a chart comparing the Real Clear Politics averages right now in 13 core battleground states with the RCP averages in the same states from right before the 2004 election.

 

The results are startling. Obama is currently leading in eight swing states that Bush led in just before Election Day 2004, in several cases by big margins, and he's leading in all of the selected battleground states except for West Virginia.

 

Take a look:

 

RCP 2004 Result 2004 RCP Now

Colorado Bush +5.2 Bush +4.7 Obama +6.2

Florida Bush +0.6 Bush +5.0 Obama +2.7

Iowa Bush +0.3 Bush +0.7 Obama +11.4

Michigan Kerry +3.5 Kerry +3.4 Obama +17.0

Minnesota Kerry +3.2 Kerry +3.5 Obama +11.3

Missouri Bush +4.2 Bush +7.2 Obama +0.6

Nevada Bush +6.3 Bush +2.6 Obama +3.5

New Hampshire Kerry +1.0 Kerry +1.3 Obama +7.7

New Mexico Bush +1.4 Bush +0.7 Obama +8.4

Ohio Bush +2.1 Bush +2.1 Obama +6.3

Pennsylvania Kerry +0.9 Kerry +2.5 Obama +10.8

West Virginia Bush +8.5 Bush +12.9 McCain +8.0

Wisconsin Bush +0.9 Kerry +0.4 Obama +10.6

 

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...2004rcp_now.php

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Is anyone else amused how Drudge only uses the "traditional" Gallup poll (which only counts people who voted in previous elections) and just ignores the "expanded" model, which counts "new" voters?

 

He even cut out the DESCRIPTION of the traditional poll on that little screenshot he put up.

 

Having followed sites like pollster, realclear, and politico heavily in this campaign, i've found drudge less and less relevant to me, I mean i knew he was selective but it never really hit me exactly how ideologically selective he is.

[RepoMan 0]

I expected the Obama infomercial to play it safe, but its REALLY putting me to sleep.

[RepoMan 0]

Ladies and Gentleman, in six days we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Yeah, this thing was really dry...but it wasn't meant for the people that are really following the election. I guess it was meant to make him put up a face of being a "safe" face of "change" that will benefit the middle class working folks. Although how anyone could be undecided with 2 candidates that are so different from each other boggles my mind.

[hyperchord24 0]

My brother in law who lives in Las Vegas said that he will bet on who wins the election. Now I've seen it all.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

What's the spread?

[At Home 0]

I'd put the entire fucking house on Obama.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'd put the entire fucking house on Obama.

 

Hey...if you lose...McCain will buy your house!

[At Home 0]

Maybe I should bet McCain then, because if Obama wins, he'll just kill a rich person and give me their house.

[RepoMan 0]

Yeah, this thing was really dry...but it wasn't meant for the people that are really following the election. I guess it was meant to make him put up a face of being a "safe" face of "change" that will benefit the middle class working folks. Although how anyone could be undecided with 2 candidates that are so different from each other boggles my mind.

 

I think anyone undecided at this point is either an attention whore or is willfully ingnorant. Even if you don't like either of them, one of them has to appear to be the "lesser of two evils" according to your political views.

 

If I'm living in a swing state by the time I'm a middle aged family man that the news networks love to pay attention to, I'd consider pretending to be an undecided voter to get on TV. I'd love to have a candidate show up on my door or give me a call to pander to me or be in one of those CNN debate night focus groups.

 

[At Home 0]

So was he holding a copy of the Communist manifesto the whole time?

[Nightwing 0]

Overall, with the continued negative campaign by McCain, this infomercial did well to keep McCain looking bitter, angry, and petty. It might not have been the most substantive thing he could have done, it was a good primer for those who still didn't know what the heck he was about. Overall, a "B" for the thing; not exciting, but it did the job it needed to: make McCain look bad without actually saying his name.

[At Home 0]

I'll give your review a "C". Too concise, no specifics. You know better.