PDA

View Full Version : After Obama's Speech and Palin's addition, latest poll shows a dead heat



Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 01:22 PM
The latest nationwide survey by Zogby, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon (Saturday), shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

Apperently Palin's announcement killed any post convention bump expected by Obama or there never was one.

Anyway, looks like this one's going to the wire.

JohnnyMack
8/31/2008, 01:34 PM
I could post the new Gallup numbers or you could be a man and do it yourself. :)

Frozen Sooner
8/31/2008, 01:37 PM
Or the Rasmussen numbers showing that 31% of undecideds think the Palin choice makes it less likely they'll vote for McCain and only 6% said it made them more likely.

But hey, Zogby shows that Palin's pick only resulted in McCain losing half of his lead that only they showed.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/undecideds-dont.html

Mandibleclaw
8/31/2008, 01:42 PM
Some of the Republican naysayers are starting to come out, here is a article by David Frum who was Bush's former speech writer.

http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704

Frozen Sooner
8/31/2008, 01:49 PM
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080831DailyUpdateGraph1_mkadfo.gif

lexsooner
8/31/2008, 01:56 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/30/polls-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-while-obama-expands-lead/

Plus, a signficant number of likely voters doubt Palin's ability to be POUS. And the link is from Foxnews, so it must be accurate, right?

It probably pains a lot of folks on this board, but Obama's speech was out of this world, a huge hit, and he is probably going to be elected POUS. If your source of news is listening to the right wing pundits, you might not agree, but it sure is looking this way.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 01:58 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/30/polls-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-while-obama-expands-lead/

Plus, a signficant number of likely voters doubt Palin's ability to be POUS. And the link is from Foxnews, so it must be accurate, right?

It probably pains a lot of folks on this board, but Obama's speech was out of this world, a huge hit, and he is probably going to be elected POUS. If your source of news is listening to the right wing pundits, you might not agree, but it sure is looking this way.

Yup, Brack's purty speech locked it up. :rolleyes:

Okla-homey
8/31/2008, 02:02 PM
I think the most important poll numbers will be those of the second week of October. Whomever has a commanding lead in the average of the national polls (I like "realclearpolitics.com" for that reason) will prolly win. If it's still tight then, I think JSM will win because the GOP has consistently done a better job of getting out the vote. If BHO is running more than 10 points ahead at the end of that week, it'll mean curtains for JSM.

and yes, feel free to throw this back up in my face at that time.

Also, as a JSM/SHP guy, I am concerned that these polls generally don't reach those without landlines. The under 35 crowd (the heart and soul of BHO's base) who typically only have cell phones don't get polled. Thus, polling could be skewed favoring JSM.

A lot of those people will give money to BHO because they can do that with only about three clicks and a credit card on BHO's webpage, but they don't bother voting because they have to get off the couch and do that in person. Therefore, polling skewed in favor of JSM may not matter much in the final analysis in terms of its predictive accuracy.

KC//CRIMSON
8/31/2008, 02:02 PM
I could post the new Gallup numbers or you could be a man and do it yourself. :)

you're asking for a lot there......


Gallup Daily: Obama-Biden Ticket Leads by 6 Points:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx

King Crimson
8/31/2008, 02:07 PM
i really thought MCain would pick Romney. that would have made Limbaugh and the FOX heavy hitting pundits happy and mobilize the cause. unexciting, yes....but probably the better strategy play.

i kinda like the Palin pick though. on the negative, it seems to nullify the "experience" issue some (and that's the main talking point)... as i mentioned before seems to forefront (or accept) the "change" idea as the animus or zeitgeist of the remaining campaign. that would seem to favor Obama as the one dictating the language in play or terms of debate.

lexsooner
8/31/2008, 02:09 PM
Yup, Brack's purty speech locked it up. :rolleyes:

Nope, the bad/unpopular current administration, bad economy, bad foreign policy, lots more money for Obama than McCain, bad VP choice by McCain, and Obama's dynamic personality make it likely he will win. Obama didn't get this far by accident. People look for leaders who inspire, and he has it. His speech was a mere manifestation of this rare quality.

King Crimson
8/31/2008, 02:09 PM
I think the most important poll numbers will be those of the second week of October. Whomever has a commanding lead in the average of the national polls (I like "realclearpolitics.com" for that reason) will prolly win. If it's still tight then, I think JSM will win. If BHO is running more than 10 points ahead at the end of that week, it'll mean curtains for JSM.

and yes, feel free to throw this back up in my face at that time.

that's hard to say, Dukakis had a big lead and Kerry and Gore were both projecting as winners (by semi-comfortable margins) about that late and later. IIRC.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 02:10 PM
People look for leaders who inspire, and he has it. His speech was a mere manifestation of this rare quality.

What has he led before?

Frozen Sooner
8/31/2008, 02:12 PM
I think the most important poll numbers will be those of the second week of October. Whomever has a commanding lead in the average of the national polls (I like "realclearpolitics.com" for that reason) will prolly win. If it's still tight then, I think JSM will win. If BHO is running more than 10 points ahead at the end of that week, it'll mean curtains for JSM.

and yes, feel free to throw this back up in my face at that time.

I've been hitting RCP.com pretty hard as well. I like having the poll snapshots right there, though the averages are somewhat meaningless considering the wide disparity in sample sizes and methodologies.

Okla-homey
8/31/2008, 02:19 PM
that's hard to say, Dukakis had a big lead and Kerry and Gore were both projecting as winners (by semi-comfortable margins) about that late and later. IIRC.


You point out a very important fact of life in American politics. The only numbers that really matter are the numbers in the big swing states. As we all know, even a 15 point lead among the total population can be meaningless if the guy with fewer total voters supporting him can garner more electoral votes than the other guy. Put another way, if a guy has 95% of the voters in five of the most populous states, but the other guy has 51% support in most of the rest, that guy wins. I just haven't found a poll I trust that targets those states.

Sooner98
8/31/2008, 02:31 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

On August 25, the first day of the DNC, RealClearPolitics showed an Obama lead of 1.6 percent (45.5 to 43.9). On August 29, the day after the convention, the lead had grown to just 3.9 percent (47.8 to 43.9).

Only a 2.3 percent bounce, following the greatest speech ever given in the history of mankind. I'm guessing the Dems were hoping for a bigger lead by now. We'll see what happens after McCain speaks on Thursday, but I'm expecting this one to be razor-close all the way to the finish.

GottaHavePride
8/31/2008, 02:33 PM
What has he led before?

Obama? Does it matter? See, to me, being President is far more about being intelligent enough to surround yourself with highly qualified, trustworthy advisors, and being able to represent the US well.

I'm still undecided here, but the Republicans certainly do NOT have a good track record on "highly qualified, trustworthy advisors."

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 02:35 PM
Only a 2.3 percent bounce, following the greatest speech ever given in the history of mankind. I'm guessing the Dems were hoping for a bigger lead by now. We'll see what happens after McCain speaks on Thursday, but I'm expecting this one to be razor-thin all the way to the finish.

I think they're pretty disappointed in their post convention bounce or lack thereof. Otherwise I think they'd be talking that up more and less about what a "rotten" choice Palin is.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 02:37 PM
Obama? Does it matter? See, to me, being President is far more about being intelligent enough to surround yourself with highly qualified, trustworthy advisors, and being able to represent the US well.

I don't disagree with you, but if someone wants to talk about Brack as a leader, well tell me - what has he led?

r5TPsooner
8/31/2008, 02:40 PM
I don't disagree with you, but if someone wants to talk about Brack as a leader, well tell me - what has he led?


Chirp Chirp. Dude, they can't.

SoonerStormchaser
8/31/2008, 02:41 PM
Chuck Norris at least lead a horse to water AND made him drink!

GrapevineSooner
8/31/2008, 02:42 PM
Just a hunch, but the most important poll numbers will be from November 4th.

Whatever happens on that date happens.

And GHP, therein lies the rub.


I'm still undecided here, but the Republicans certainly do NOT have a good track record on "highly qualified, trustworthy advisors."

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 02:55 PM
Chirp Chirp. Dude, they can't.

Exactly, if someone wants to say he gives good speeches then OK, but to equate that with him being a good leader makes no sense at all.

He might turn out to be the greatest leader in the history of the world, but as of yet there's no evidence that he can lead anything.

...unless leading a campaign counts for something, which of course is pretty much all his time in the senate amounts too so far.

Harry Beanbag
8/31/2008, 03:13 PM
Blindly following good speakers has killed 10's of millions of people throughout history. It's probably best to dig a little deeper and try to make it to the bathroom before you wet your pants.

soonerscuba
8/31/2008, 03:58 PM
Blindly following good speakers has killed 10's of millions of people throughout history. It's probably best to dig a little deeper and try to make it to the bathroom before you wet your pants.
Oh no you don't, we Democrats are the sole source of comparing presidents to Hitler. Find your own source of outlandish hyperbole.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 04:21 PM
you're asking for a lot there......


Gallup Daily: Obama-Biden Ticket Leads by 6 Points:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspxAnd you're a bastien of manhood? lol. Gallup's numbers aren't as fresh and the obama biden lead is only slightly outside the MOE.

Like I said, it's close and nothing you or others have said changes that.

tommieharris91
8/31/2008, 04:23 PM
And you're a bastien of manhood? lol. Gallup's numbers aren't as fresh and the obama biden lead is only slightly outside the MOE.

Like I said, it's close and nothing you or others have said changes that.

Umm, those Gallup numbers are from today...

Frozen Sooner
8/31/2008, 04:30 PM
Umm, those Gallup numbers are from today...
Don't confuse Ron with posted dates and results. He has internal polling data.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 04:32 PM
Obama? Does it matter? See, to me, being President is far more about being intelligent enough to surround yourself with highly qualified, trustworthy advisors, and being able to represent the US well.

I'm still undecided here, but the Republicans certainly do NOT have a good track record on "highly qualified, trustworthy advisor's."Yeah, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge were all Republican "highly qualified, trustworthy advisor's."

There's more but I can tell you McCain isn't your average Presidential candidate. Only one or two issues make him technically a Republican. I think Dem's will feel about a McCain Presidency like many Republicans felt about the first term (after we took control of the House) of Clinton. Not bad and certainly better than we feared.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 04:33 PM
Umm, those Gallup numbers are from today...
OK, good. Then it strengthens my argument, average out all the credible polling numbers and this race is neck and neck going down the stretch.

JohnnyMack
8/31/2008, 04:35 PM
Yeah, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge were all Republican "highly qualified, trustworthy advisor's."

There's more but I can tell you McCain isn't your average Presidential candidate. Only one or two issues make him technically a Republican. I think Dem's will feel about a McCain Presidency like many Republicans felt about the first term (after we took control of the House) of Clinton. Not bad and certainly better than we feared.

Palin scares me much more than McCain does. I wish he would have selected Lieberman.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 04:36 PM
Don't confuse Ron with posted dates and results. He has internal polling data.Only on certain states, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri and Kansas. Only states that I have clients in.

BTW - I had a poll published on the front page of the Tulsa World last week. The results saved Tulsa from a ridiculous 12 year 2 Billion dollar street plan.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 04:38 PM
Palin scares me much more than McCain does. I wish he would have selected Lieberman.
I kinda do too but McCain isn't seen as a conservative by base Republican voters. He would have lost by not having his base turn out had he picked him. Tough call for sure.

r5TPsooner
8/31/2008, 04:47 PM
Exactly, if someone wants to say he gives good speeches then OK, but to equate that with him being a good leader makes no sense at all.

He might turn out to be the greatest leader in the history of the world, but as of yet there's no evidence that he can lead anything.

...unless leading a campaign counts for something, which of course is pretty much all his time in the senate amounts too so far.




.

OklahomaTuba
8/31/2008, 04:59 PM
The One should be running away with this thing.

Dukakis has a 16 point lead at this point. I think Kerry's was large as well.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 05:01 PM
The One should be running away with this thing.

Dukakis has a 16 point lead at this point. I think Kerry's was large as well.

I've said before: this should have been a slam dunk for the donks. Instead they go and nominate Brack, and for that I thank them. :D

OklahomaTuba
8/31/2008, 05:03 PM
Nominating BHO gave the GOP a chance. Something we didn't have if they nominated Billary.

SoonerBorn68
8/31/2008, 05:11 PM
Palin scares me much more than McCain does. I wish he would have selected Lieberman.

...and this is why I like McCain's VP pick.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 05:12 PM
...and this is why I like McCain's VP pick.

:D

SoonerBorn68
8/31/2008, 05:13 PM
...Republicans certainly do NOT have a good track record on "highly qualified, trustworthy advisors."

I'm curious, who do you think these people are?

OklahomaTuba
8/31/2008, 05:15 PM
You can tell this is scaring the pi$$ outta the libz. Very little bounce, if one at all following the convention.

The fact they are trying to spread the rumor about her baby is very telling.

Change indeed.

LosAngelesSooner
8/31/2008, 05:16 PM
Except...it's not.

soonerscuba
8/31/2008, 05:17 PM
I'm curious, who do you think these people are?
You're doing a heck of a job...

Tits of justice are offensive!

DoJ, a place where diploma mill JDs call home!

Harriet Myers is qualified for the highest court in the land.

SoonerBorn68
8/31/2008, 05:19 PM
When did I become part of the government? Did I get a raise? Pension? Power? You flatter me scuba with your knee jerk finger pointing. The libs are getting riled & it's making me want to pee my pants.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 05:20 PM
When did I become part of the government? Did I get a raise? Pension? Power? You flatter me scuba with your knee jerk finger pointing. The libs are getting riled & it's making me want to pee my pants.

Are you getting all tingly? :P

OklahomaTuba
8/31/2008, 05:21 PM
You're doing a heck of a job...

Tits of justice are offensive!

DoJ, a place where diploma mill JDs call home!

Harriet Myers is qualified for the highest court in the land.

At least we know Joe Biden is probably more intelligent than all those people.

He has 3 degrees!

Oh wait, NM....

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 05:23 PM
At least we know Joe Biden is probably more intelligent than all those people.

I heard that he has a great memory, that he's able to quote others almost word for word. ;)

soonerscuba
8/31/2008, 05:26 PM
When did I become part of the government? Did I get a raise? Pension? Power? You flatter me scuba with your knee jerk finger pointing. The libs are getting riled & it's making me want to pee my pants.
You asked for suspect appointments by Republicans, I just stuck with the W admin and didn't bring up Bennet, North or Justice Thomas.

If you were confused, I meant heck of a job Brownie.

Personally, I am all tingley at the Dem beat down that will happen this fall, executive aside, the Republicans are on the cusp of getting smashed in the Congress, so even if McCain wins, and god forbid the mayor of Wasilla becomes President, there is a safe guard. If Obama wins, I would really prefer the Republicans to win win back the Congress in 2010, and hopefully lose the witch hunt this time.

It isn't knee jerk fingerpointing, it's ****ty appointments to important offices.

OklahomaTuba
8/31/2008, 05:29 PM
The One just lost another point today in the polls...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is turning out to be like 2004 all over again.

JohnnyMack
8/31/2008, 05:41 PM
That is a poll. Singular. Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

LosAngelesSooner
8/31/2008, 05:49 PM
OK, good. Then it strengthens my argument, average out all the credible polling numbers and this race is neck and neck going down the stretch.
BRR Debating Technique:

"Those polls aren't current, so they're WRONG and prove me right!"

"Those polls are extremely current, so they prove me RIGHT!!!"

:confused:

Mandibleclaw
8/31/2008, 06:49 PM
I think everyone should hold their collective breath till the VP debates to see how they perform against one another, but then again that probably won't give any true insight as both will claim to have won the debate afterwards. Neither candidate is going to change anyone's mind if they have been made up already, this race is coming down to getting the undecideds.

Big Red Ron
8/31/2008, 07:17 PM
BRR Debating Technique:

"Those polls aren't current, so they're WRONG and prove me right!"

"Those polls are extremely current, so they prove me RIGHT!!!"

:confused:
The first assertion of what I said isn't accurate. I was/am right still though. However you slice it, this race is a statistical dead heat. I would say. when given the fact that Republicans have won 8 of the last 11 presidential elections, Dems should be worried.

Getem
8/31/2008, 07:20 PM
The One just lost another point today in the polls...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is turning out to be like 2004 all over again.

The most important stat in that report:

"Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate."

swardboy
8/31/2008, 07:54 PM
Purely my opinion...SHP will not so much pull disaffected Hillary voters or independents as she will energize the Republican base of evangelicals. Their lukewarm desire to pull the lever for JM has now being turned into a white-hot fever to spread the word that "one of theirs" is now on the ticket.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 07:59 PM
Purely my opinion...SHP will not so much pull disaffected Hillary voters or independents as she will energize the Republican base of evangelicals. Their lukewarm desire to pull the lever for JM has now being turned into a white-hot fever to spread the word that "one of theirs" is now on the ticket.

Exactly why she was chosen.

IMO

Mandibleclaw
8/31/2008, 08:08 PM
Exactly why she was chosen.

IMO

But did not our founding fathers of this country construct an ideal for where religion would not be a roadblock to fair government representation. The intangible and the untestable were to remain in the completely separate sphere of church, while the practical and scientific were to constitute the sphere of state.

As a constitutionalist, I find religion in our elected government is in violation of what this country was based upon.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 08:11 PM
But did not our founding fathers of this country construct an ideal for where religion would not be a roadblock to fair government representation. The intangible and the untestable were to remain in the completely separate sphere of church, while the practical and scientific were to constitute the sphere of state.

As a constitutionalist, I find religion in our elected government is in violation of what this country was based upon.

Be that as it may, it is what it is.

Mandibleclaw
8/31/2008, 08:15 PM
Be that as it may, it is what it is.

So is the debate between Obama and Palin is that she is a real christian and he is really a muslim? Which I think is just a smear and you know it too. :P

Or are we really back to the abortion issue?

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 08:21 PM
So is the debate between Obama and Palin is that she is a real christian and he is really a muslim? Which I think is just a smear and you know it too. :P

Or are we really back to the abortion issue?

Beats me, I don't particularly care what religion any of them are, and I have no strong stance on the abortion issue either. Other people do care about these matters, and as such a candidates religious views have long been something that some part of the electorate looks at to help them decide their vote.

JohnnyMack
8/31/2008, 08:39 PM
Exactly why she was chosen.

IMO

I find that to be an already overhyped angle. Fact is the right wing moonbats weren't going to stay home and let a black man they've been told is a terrorist, a muslim and Osama Bin Laden's gay lover into the WH. They were going to vote. This election is about the independent, undecided voters. It's about the blue collar democrats in the rust belt getting over not having HRC moreso than it is about McCain. Palin is far from the scariest choice McCain could have made. She might swing about 20 HRC voters her way. Total. If McCain had taken someone moderate from Pennsylvania like, oh, say Tom Ridge I would have been nervous.

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 08:44 PM
I find that to be an already overhyped angle. Fact is the right wing moonbats weren't going to stay home and let a black man they've been told is a terrorist, a muslim and Osama Bin Laden's gay lover into the WH. They were going to vote. This election is about the independent, undecided voters. It's about the blue collar democrats in the rust belt getting over not having HRC moreso than it is about McCain. Palin is far from the scariest choice McCain could have made. She might swing about 20 HRC voters her way. Total. If McCain had taken someone moderate from Pennsylvania like, oh, say Tom Ridge I would have been nervous.

Overhyped or not, it is what it is. Nothing like shoring up the base.

Now, if you want to talk about overhyped, lets talk about CHANGE.

JohnnyMack
8/31/2008, 08:47 PM
Now, if you want to talk about overhyped, lets talk about CHANGE.

OK
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/542389855_811a187e7b.jpg

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 08:49 PM
http://www.nomansblog.com/wp-content/themes/3ColumnK2/images/biden.jpg

Curly Bill
8/31/2008, 08:50 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/BidenCaveman.jpg

LosAngelesSooner
9/1/2008, 04:36 PM
The first assertion of what I said isn't accurate. I was/am right still though. However you slice it, this race is a statistical dead heat. I would say.Revised BRR Debating Technique:
No matter how you slice it I am still right!!!!

;)


when given the fact that Republicans have won 8 of the last 11 presidential elections, Dems should be worried.Well, duh. That much is obviously true. I never underestimate the Dem's ability to somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a Presidential Election.

Harry Beanbag
9/1/2008, 05:33 PM
Revised BRR Debating Technique:
No matter how you slice it I am still right!!!!




You should feel honored, he obviously learned it from you.

;)

LosAngelesSooner
9/1/2008, 05:50 PM
You should feel honored, he obviously learned it from you.

;)
Look, just because I'm smarter than you, better looking than you and make a better quiche than you, you shouldn't let it make you so derned ornery.

;)

:D

Harry Beanbag
9/1/2008, 05:52 PM
What movie is that line from, it sounds familiar.

;)

:D

Big Red Ron
9/1/2008, 09:22 PM
Revised BRR Debating Technique:
No matter how you slice it I am still right!!!!

;)

Well, duh. That much is obviously true. I never underestimate the Dem's ability to somehow snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a Presidential Election.In that particular situation is happened to be correct.

Big Red Ron
9/1/2008, 09:25 PM
Look, just because I'm smarter than you, better looking than you and make a better quiche than you, you shouldn't let it make you so derned ornery.

;)

:D
You are right on on all those points but I can;t make a quiche. I love it for breakfast but making it, no.

JohnnyMack
9/2/2008, 09:53 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

lexsooner
9/2/2008, 11:54 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

No, Johnny, no! BRR will neg you if you argue anything other than "dead heat." Worse yet, you present actual evidence, so your spec will be in the negatives! You have to accept the fact it is a "dead heat" and McCain will win in the end, or you will get it. ;)

The Maestro
9/2/2008, 12:18 PM
Obama didn't get this far by accident. People look for leaders who inspire, and he has it. His speech was a mere manifestation of this rare quality.

"I am going to recruit an Army full of new teachers and pay them more!"

"I am going to make sure the elderly get Social Security checks!"

"I am going to ensure that all drive thru orders at fast food joints are always correct!"

Dude, how does the hook taste? Obama is a good speech giver, but his DNC speech was watered-down same ol, same ol, politics. Were you one of the people crying while watching...or did you just applaud in your home while watching it on T.V.?

He just gave the same kind of promises EVERY POLITICIAN DOES but really gave no clarity in how to make it happen. Just promise the moronic voter everything and deal with the reality later...Politics 101.

KC//CRIMSON
9/2/2008, 01:12 PM
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.


F You Daddy Yankee and Teenage Pregnancy!

lexsooner
9/2/2008, 01:34 PM
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.


F You Daddy Yankee and Teenage Pregnancy!

Right, in other words it's a DEAD HEAT. You throw in the margin of error, the natural liberal Marxist polling bias, and you have an even race, and once McCain gets his big bump from the inspiring RNC and his brilliant choice of a running mate, it will propel McCain into the lead. ;)

KC//CRIMSON
9/2/2008, 01:55 PM
It's going to take one hell of a speech plus Governor Palin bare chested on the cover of "Guns & Ammo" to propel McCain into the lead.

LosAngelesSooner
9/2/2008, 05:26 PM
It's going to take one hell of a speech plus Governor Palin bare chested on the cover of "Guns & Ammo" to propel McCain into the lead.Or her starring in an episode of **** hunter. :mad:

At this point I'm PRAYING that the 12 McCain staffers he just sent to Alaska to "further vet her" are going to can her before he has his speech at the convention. There's still time to kick this train wreck off the ticket and get a GOOD VP with him.

picasso
9/2/2008, 05:36 PM
It's going to take one hell of a speech plus Governor Palin bare chested on the cover of "Guns & Ammo" to propel McCain into the lead.

I'm pretty sure it's the vote that's the most important part. still a few months away.;)

SoonerProphet
9/2/2008, 05:48 PM
Anyone posted Pat's article.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74137

JohnnyMack
9/17/2008, 01:01 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Bye, bye, bounce.

Also, Palin now has the lowest favorable ratings:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

People are realizing she's got zero substance and that her views aren't even close to mainstream America's.

KC//CRIMSON
9/17/2008, 01:11 PM
Should have wagered a pizza pie.

Big Red Ron
9/17/2008, 01:17 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Bye, bye, bounce.

Also, Palin now has the lowest favorable ratings:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

People are realizing she's got zero substance and that her views aren't even close to mainstream America's.
For both of them. This was to be expected. Unfortunately for the Obama crowd, they're plan was to have a big enough lead going into the R convention to come out ahead after McCain's bounce went down. No Dem can weather this close of an election. At this time in past elections Gore and Kerry each had decent leads. Obama's still behind.

Big Red Ron
9/17/2008, 01:17 PM
Should have wagered a pizza pie.
Since Obama is still losing, I doubt it.

picasso
9/17/2008, 05:24 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html


http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

People are realizing she's got zero substance and that her views aren't even close to mainstream America's.

sheesh. like Obama's is. please.

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 12:09 PM
Since Obama is still losing, I doubt it.

heh

picasso
9/18/2008, 12:13 PM
I'm wanting JM to explain how in the hell Obama's spread the wealth policy is "mainstream" America. what a friggin joke.

JohnnyMack
9/18/2008, 12:20 PM
I'm wanting JM to explain how in the hell Obama's spread the wealth policy is "mainstream" America. what a friggin joke.

You mean like the way Palin did with oil revenues in Alaska?

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 12:23 PM
You mean like the way Palin did with oil revenues in Alaska?
Good point

picasso
9/18/2008, 12:40 PM
You mean like the way Palin did with oil revenues in Alaska?
is that her plan as VP in Amurrica?

are you seriously going to try and say anything Obama wants to do fiscally is mainstream? was he mainstream in Congress?

and I'm still looking for the part about Palin running for President. I'm just happy about the fact that she's pulling back some of those Republican votes and it's causing everyone on the left to crap their lower persons.

sucks huh?:)

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 12:55 PM
is that her plan as VP in Amurrica?

are you seriously going to try and say anything Obama wants to do fiscally is mainstream? was he mainstream in Congress?

and I'm still looking for the part about Palin running for President. I'm just happy about the fact that she's pulling back some of those Republican votes and it's causing everyone on the left to crap their lower persons.

sucks huh?:)Yet an even better point. Piccasso, you should check out the George Will column I posted. It's pretty darn good and makes several balance points, you too JohnnyMack.:pop:

JohnnyMack
9/18/2008, 01:14 PM
is that her plan as VP in Amurrica?

are you seriously going to try and say anything Obama wants to do fiscally is mainstream? was he mainstream in Congress?

and I'm still looking for the part about Palin running for President. I'm just happy about the fact that she's pulling back some of those Republican votes and it's causing everyone on the left to crap their lower persons.

sucks huh?:)

You can't see beyond the end of your own nose. Someone says "taxes" and you screech like a howler monkey.

MrJimBeam
9/18/2008, 01:19 PM
are you seriously going to try and say anything Obama wants to do fiscally is mainstream? was he mainstream in Congress?



Who knows, he never voted.

KC//CRIMSON
9/18/2008, 01:57 PM
heh


Originally Posted by Big Red Ron View Post
Since Obama is still losing, I doubt it.




OH NOES! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 02:20 PM
OH NOES! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)Oh goodness, you're bragging about floating around in the margin of error, several days after the whole thing? lol

lol, it's close but as I posted in another thread about polling bias and state by state, Obama gonna lose brutha. This is D1 football. :D

KC//CRIMSON
9/18/2008, 02:33 PM
Oh goodness, you're bragging about floating around in the margin of error, several days after the whole thing? lol

lol, it's close but as I posted in another thread about polling bias and state by state, Obama gonna lose brutha. This is D1 football. :D


Keep telling yourself that, old man McDesperate needs all the help he can get.

Does your manager know you're floating around on soonerfans on his dime?

Quick, go make him some coffee!

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 02:40 PM
Keep telling yourself that, old man McDesperate needs all the help he can get.

Does your manager know you're floating around on soonerfans on his dime?

Quick, go make him some coffee!Ha, someone else makes the coffe thank you.

I just don't see it in the cards. It isn't often that the voters give one party all three branches of government. Whichever party that's always a prescription for fail.

KC//CRIMSON
9/18/2008, 02:46 PM
OH NOES!


Link to Bush still hurting McCain, poll finds
Candidates back to where they were before conventions, and Palin pick

WASHINGTON - Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. Mr. McCain is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates “the Palin effect” was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.

The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August.


The poll showed Mr. McCain had some enduring strengths, including a substantial advantage over Mr. Obama as a potential commander in chief. And it found that for the first time, 50 percent of those surveyed in the Times/CBS News Poll said they considered the troop buildup in Iraq — a policy that Mr. McCain championed from the start — has made things better there.

Excitement over Palin
The poll also underlined the extent to which Mr. McCain’s convention — and his selection of Ms. Palin — had excited Republican base voters about his candidacy, a development that is no small thing in a contest that continues to be so tight: 47 percent of Mr. McCain’s supporters described themselves as enthused about the Republican party’s presidential ticket, almost twice what it was before the conventions. As often happens at this time of year, partisans are coalescing around their party’s nominees and independents are increasingly the battleground.

But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among female voters in general. White women are evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women by a margin of 44 percent to 37 percent.

By contrast, at this point in the 2004 campaign, President Bush was leading Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic challenger, by 56 percent to 37 percent among white women.

The latest Times/CBS nationwide telephone poll was taken Friday through Tuesday with 1,133 adults, including 1,004 registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents and for registered voters. Among other groups, Mr. Obama had a slight edge among independents, and a 16 percentage-point lead among voters aged 18 to 44. Mr. McCain was leading by 17 points among white men and by the same margin among voters 65 and over. Before the convention, voters aged 65 and older were closely divided. In the latest poll, middle-aged voters — 45 to 64 — were almost evenly divided between the two.


The poll was taken during a period of extraordinary turmoil on Wall Street. By overwhelming numbers, Americans said the economy was the top issue affecting their vote decision and they continued to express deep pessimism about the nation’s economic future. They continued to express greater confidence in Mr. Obama’s ability to manage the economy, even as Mr. McCain has aggressively sought to raise doubts about it.

Biden vs. Palin
This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared to those of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s choice for a running mate. More than 6 in 10 of those surveyed said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.


And 75 percent said they thought Mr. McCain had picked Mrs. Palin more to help him win the election, rather than because he thought that she was well-qualified to be president. By contrast, 31 percent said they thought that Mr. Obama picked Mr. Biden more to help him win the election, while 57 percent said it was because he thought Mr. Biden was well-qualified for the job.

This poll was the taken right after Mrs. Palin sat down for a series of high-profile interviews with Charles Gibson on ABC News.


Over the last two weeks, Mr. McCain has increasingly tried to distance himself from his party and President Bush, running as an outsider against Washington. The poll suggested the urgency of Mr. McCain’s task: The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is conducting his job, 68 percent, is as high as it has been for any sitting president in the history of polling by The New York Times. And 81 percent said the country is heading in the wrong direction.

The poll found that 46 percent of voters thought Mr. McCain would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, while 22 percent said he would be more conservative than Mr. Bush. (About one quarter said a McCain presidency would be less conservative than Mr. Bush’s.) And at a time when Mr. McCain has tried to appeal to independent voters by separating himself from his party, notably with his convention speech, 57 percent of all voters said they viewed him as a typical Republican, compared with 40 percent who said he was a different kind of Republican.

“From everything I’ve heard that he plans to do if elected, McCain doesn’t sound different from Bush to me,” said Susan Bearman, 47, an independent and writer from Evanston, Ill., in a follow-up interview.

Obama advantage on 'change'
Although nearly half of voters also described Mr. Obama as a typical Democrat, the party’s brand is not as diminished as the Republicans; the Democratic Party had a favorability rating of 50 percent in August, compared with 37 percent for the Republicans, a fairly consistent trend in the Times/CBS News poll since 2006, and part of the general political landscape that many political analysts believe favors the Democrats.


In one of the sharpest differences highlighted in the poll, 37 percent said Mr. McCain would bring change to Washington, up from 28 percent before the two parties’ conventions. But 65 percent of those polled said Mr. Obama would bring real change to Washington.

Despite weeks of fierce Republican attacks, Mr. Obama has maintained an edge on several key measures of presidential leadership, including economic stewardship. Sixty percent of voters said they were confident in his ability to make the right decisions on the economy, compared with 53 percent who felt that way about Mr. McCain. Sixty percent also said Mr. Obama understood the needs and problems “of people like yourself,” compared with 48 percent who said that of Mr. McCain.

And more than twice as many said an Obama presidency would improve the United States’ image around the world — 55 percent — compared with those who believed a McCain presidency would do so. Mr. Obama also gets high marks for “sharing the values most Americans try to live by,” despite concerted Republican efforts to portray him as elite and out-of-touch with average voters. Sixty-six percent said Mr. Obama shared their values, compared with 61 percent who said that about Mr. McCain.

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 03:04 PM
Meh, purple jesus plays football, he's not running for POTUS.

KC//CRIMSON
9/18/2008, 03:13 PM
and Maverick is a bat shizt crazy scientologist, he's not running for POTUS.

soonerscuba
9/18/2008, 03:15 PM
You can ride my tail.

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 03:28 PM
Bottom line, the polls will ebb and flow for the next 46 days and 9 hours. Obama mamas will get al giggly when he's up, McCainiacs will do the same. We've seen this movie before.

The last Democrat to win a two way national election was Jimmuh Carter (1976. Wow, We'll see.

Collier11
9/18/2008, 03:40 PM
Too bad the national vote doesnt matter, the latest electoral college numbers show a dead heat with 3 toss up states to decide

Civicus_Sooner
9/18/2008, 03:42 PM
Too bad the national vote doesnt matter, the latest electoral college numbers show a dead heat with 3 toss up states to decide
Shhh, this is been kinda fun.

lexsooner
9/18/2008, 03:48 PM
The Palin celebrity moment in the spotlight is fading fast, and voters are pretty much back to their original sentiments before the conventions. The economic crises of recent days has also helped the Obama campaign. Obama is in excellent shape - he leads in the states which went blue in 2000 and 2004, and is either ahead, tied or running real close in a number of previously red states, like Virginia, NC, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, NM.

Whet
9/18/2008, 03:52 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2868878306_9196f67fb8_o_d.jpg

Collier11
9/18/2008, 04:27 PM
The Palin celebrity moment in the spotlight is fading fast, and voters are pretty much back to their original sentiments before the conventions. The economic crises of recent days has also helped the Obama campaign. Obama is in excellent shape - he leads in the states which went blue in 2000 and 2004, and is either ahead, tied or running real close in a number of previously red states, like Virginia, NC, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, NM.

actually Mccain is stronger on economics and defense...what else matters right now?

KC//CRIMSON
9/18/2008, 04:27 PM
The Palin celebrity moment in the spotlight is fading fast,

McCain chose Palin so he wouldn't have to be faced with the possibility of Mitt Romney giving him mouth to mouth/CPR.

OklaPony
9/18/2008, 05:09 PM
OH NOES!


Link to Bush still hurting McCain, poll finds
Candidates back to where they were before conventions, and Palin pick

WASHINGTON - ...But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among female voters in general...

Yeah, but...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080918/en_afp/usvotedefection_080918171625

Top Democratic fundraiser backs McCain over Obama

Thu Sep 18, 1:16 PM ET

A former supporter and generous donor to Hillary Clinton announced she had endorsed Republican John McCain for president, saying she did so because the Democratic nominee Barack Obama was too elitist.

Even before jumping ship for the McCain campaign, Lynn Forester de Rothschild did not hide her dislike for Obama, who narrowly defeated Clinton in a months-long battle for the Democratic nomination.

In July she told CNN: "Frankly I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

Rothschild, wife of British banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, and long-time member of the Democratic Party, gave more than 100,000 dollars to Clinton's failed bid for the party's nomination.

"Senator Clinton disagrees with her decision," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand.

Appearing on CNN Wednesday, Rothschild backtracked somewhat to stress that she didn't not like Obama, but "I said critical things about him because I don't think he should be president in this election."

Rothschild said she was resigning Wednesday from the Democratic National Committee's platform committee, but that she would remain a registered Democrat.

Former president "Ronald Reagan might have said it right, the Democratic Party left me, I didn't leave the Democratic Party," she said...
That's a pretty significant defection, don't you think? Who knows, maybe it's nothing, but it could very well be a bad sign of things to come for Obama.

soonerscuba
9/18/2008, 05:26 PM
Yeah, but...


That's a pretty significant defection, don't you think? Who knows, maybe it's nothing, but it could very well be a bad sign of things to come for Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

Heh. Any Rothschild calling anybody else elitist is hypocritical on a level that defies any sort of logic.

She can do what she wants, but if the Illuminati backed Clinton can't beat Obama, no one can. ;)

tommieharris91
9/18/2008, 05:43 PM
actually Mccain is stronger on economics and defense...what else matters right now?

I don't either candidate is very strong on economics. But the McCain guys are the ones going around saying nothing's wrong...

Harry Beanbag
9/18/2008, 05:55 PM
Yep, I checked again and polls are still worthless.

Big Red Ron
9/18/2008, 09:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

Heh. Any Rothschild calling anybody else elitist is hypocritical on a level that defies any sort of logic.

She can do what she wants, but if the Illuminati backed Clinton can't beat Obama, no one can. ;)
If she's calling him an elitist, it's a double slam. A) He's simply pretentious and B) He's not worthy of such an attitude.

Civicus has an undeniable point, which is a Democrat hasn't won the White House without a legitimate 3rd party candidate (Ross Perot) since 1976. Liberal policies just don't pass muster.

As much as some here like to cite Bush's low favorability (around 30%) keep in mind that's about 10% higher than the Democratic controlled legislature's favorability numbers.

OklaPony
9/19/2008, 10:47 AM
I don't either candidate is very strong on economics. But the McCain guys are the ones going around saying nothing's wrong...
I must have missed that press release.

Vaevictis
9/19/2008, 10:59 AM
As much as some here like to cite Bush's low favorability (around 30%) keep in mind that's about 10% higher than the Democratic controlled legislature's favorability numbers.

Yeah, but isn't that pretty typical, especially at this stage of the election cycle?

Fugue
9/19/2008, 11:02 AM
Yeah, but isn't that pretty typical, especially at this stage of the election cycle?

So THAT'S why you guys are all bitchin' at each other. :P

Collier11
9/19/2008, 11:11 AM
I don't either candidate is very strong on economics. But the McCain guys are the ones going around saying nothing's wrong...

Research much? Mccain is the one who has beein offering a solution to this freddie/fannie issue for several yrs...Mccains plan is alot stronger than Obamas overall

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 02:03 PM
Yeah, but isn't that pretty typical, especially at this stage of the election cycle?Well yeah, that's the point. History will look back and reassess Bush, much like Truman and the results will be similar.

tommieharris91
9/19/2008, 02:31 PM
Research much? Mccain is the one who has beein offering a solution to this freddie/fannie issue for several yrs...Mccains plan is alot stronger than Obamas overall

Yes, I research a lot. I really don't like it when McCain's economic advisers go around and tell everyone that this economic mess is all in people's heads. You look at GDP numbers, you look at all of the financial issues, and you know that there are very real problems. I've seen his economic thinking, and I think McCain is an economic nitwit.

While I think Obama has a better grasp of macroeconomics, a lot the things he says and stands for go completely against it.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 02:35 PM
While I think Obama has a better grasp of macroeconomics, a lot the things he says and stands for go completely against it.
Huh, all I've heard from Obama is tax "The Rich" and give to "The Poor."

Do you believe higher taxes and more government regulation is what will get the economy going?

Honest question and not at all meant as anything negative.

What makes you think McCain is less understanding than Obama on the economy?

JohnnyMack
9/19/2008, 03:17 PM
Huh, all I've heard from Obama is tax "The Rich" and give to "The Poor."

Do you believe higher taxes and more government regulation is what will get the economy going?

Honest question and not at all meant as anything negative.


How many times will you have to be hit over the head with these situations to realize that when corporations and banks are allowed to run around unregulated that greed and corruption will rule the day? Over and over again corporations and banks use the threat of govt. regulation and **GASP!!!** taxes to scare the masses into thinking that less govt. is in the best interest of everyday folk like you and I. If we don't have regulation over these companies this pattern will repeat itself. Big business has for the better part of a century pushed for less regulation (why do you think that is?) so they can do whatever they want and used scary words like TAXES!!! to scare people into going along with their policies. The U.S. Govt is about to fork over nearly a TRILLION dollars in hopes that what they buy for that money will be able to eventually turned over for a profit. The way this debt was amassed this time however it won't be nearly as easy as it was during the S&L liquidation.

Vaevictis
9/19/2008, 03:26 PM
Well yeah, that's the point. History will look back and reassess Bush, much like Truman and the results will be similar.

You may be right, but I don't see how you're concluding this based off of the poll spread.

I mean, Jimmy Carter had about the same spread end of term. Are we going to re-evaluate him as a president?

CORNholio
9/19/2008, 03:32 PM
A P.O.W. for the pres and the only politician I have ever heard say things that I totally agree with running for VP (her inexperienced/uncorrupted political career is a plus in my book). What's not to like about it. Too bad they are running against the ticket from hell and there are too many sheep that drink their socialist kool-aid too win this election.

CORNholio
9/19/2008, 03:37 PM
You know I think Marx predicted that given enough time a democratic society would evolve itself into socialism eventually. He may have been on to something. It's what you get when you ask "what your country can do for you".

Collier11
9/19/2008, 04:57 PM
This is what is sad about this election, Obama is a socialist, a liberal extremist, he believes in post birth abortions for God Sake but he is a rockstar that everyone wants a piece of! America is slowly crumbling around us as the greatest country in the world and if we dont do something about it, we arent going to have much else to keep us a float.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 05:27 PM
You may be right, but I don't see how you're concluding this based off of the poll spread.

I mean, Jimmy Carter had about the same spread end of term. Are we going to re-evaluate him as a president?

Well, Carter isn't really applicable for comparison, as he was a one termer, not a war-time president and really didn't do anything of consequence. Whereas, Bush literally changed the structure of national defense and turned an enemy nation in the middle of a region full of terrorists into a democratic ally. Neither was easy, both left the next President a better position.

I must point out that it was a Charles Krauthammer column that brought this (Bush vs. Truman comparison) to mind and he made some very good points.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 05:27 PM
WASHINGTON — For the last 150 years, most American war presidents — most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt — have entered (or re-entered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.
But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.

In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence — not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq War.

We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome — transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror — was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years — about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible at the time of 9/11 — he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.
But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that these measures occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information, and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) — also absent an attack on the U.S. — that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

SoonerProphet
9/19/2008, 05:28 PM
Well yeah, that's the point. History will look back and reassess Bush, much like Truman and the results will be similar.

This smug, self-congratulatory fallacy assumes that “history” is walking around out there somewhere, waiting to enter the stage and pronounce solemn judgments. It is Hegelian and Marxist to the core.

SoonerProphet
9/19/2008, 05:29 PM
The same can be said about Krauthammer...just another reformed Trotskyist.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 05:36 PM
This smug, self-congratulatory fallacy assumes that “history” is walking around out there somewhere, waiting to enter the stage and pronounce solemn judgments. It is Hegelian and Marxist to the core.
No, it assumes that rational, intellectuals will look back at what Bush was handed and how he dealt with it and left the office for the next president without a partisan ax to grind.

Admit it Profit, your hate clouds any chance of objectivity with regard to Bush.

SoonerProphet
9/19/2008, 05:40 PM
Don't pull that old saw with me, you know better. Hate has nothing to do with it. What it assumes is that "historians", likely on the governments dime, will decide from on high what has been best for you and I. Court jesters aren't to far removed from court historians.

Objectively speaking, our security has not improved much since the collapse of the Soviet bloc. We continue to muck about in the same tar pit.

Vaevictis
9/19/2008, 05:44 PM
I still don't see how that has anything to do with the spread between Bush's approval ratings and Congress'.

I mean, yeah, okay, you have some reasons why you think that. I just don't see how the spread fits into that (as you originally said.)

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 05:48 PM
Don't pull that old saw with me, you know better. Hate has nothing to do with it. What it assumes is that "historians", likely on the governments dime, will decide from on high what has been best for you and I. Court jesters aren't to far removed from court historians.

Objectively speaking, our security has not improved much since the collapse of the Soviet bloc. We continue to muck about in the same tar pit.You still refuse to allow facts to get in the way of your conclusions.

"History" is the result of hindsight based on the long term effects of events today. You know that as well as I do. Time will tell but president like Truman, Reagan and to some extent Clinton were virtually despised at the time of their departure of th oval office and then they became popular once "the chickens came home to roost."

Do I think they'll be looking at chiseling Bush on Rushmore? Hell no. I do believe he'll be judged as an above average President based on what he was dealt. Heck, there are few president that had more serious and dangerous national security issues laid at their doorsteps.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 05:49 PM
I still don't see how that has anything to do with the spread between Bush's approval ratings and Congress'.

I mean, yeah, okay, you have some reasons why you think that. I just don't see how the spread fits into that (as you originally said.)
We've moved on. That was just a fact thrown out there. It's not even that important, just the case.

OklaPony
9/19/2008, 06:00 PM
I mean, Jimmy Carter had about the same spread end of term. Are we going to re-evaluate him as a president?
We already have and we've concluded that he still sucks.

SoonerProphet
9/19/2008, 06:04 PM
You still refuse to allow facts to get in the way of your conclusions.

"History" is the result of hindsight based on the long term effects of events today. You know that as well as I do. Time will tell but president like Truman, Reagan and to some extent Clinton were virtually despised at the time of their departure of th oval office and then they became popular once "the chickens came home to roost."

Do I think they'll be looking at chiseling Bush on Rushmore? Hell no. I do believe he'll be judged as an above average President based on what he was dealt. Heck, there are few president that had more serious and dangerous national security issues laid at their doorsteps.

You assume the fact that "history" has a central and universal end point. A Hegelian/Marxist viewpoint if you will. This is simply not a very sturdy start point. It also assumes that at some future date scholars will somehow be more intellectual then us dimwits living now.

For you see there are many vantage points to history and the actors surrounding events at a given time, all subject to different interpretations. Much like political debates, there is no right and wrong viewpoint, only varying shades.

Big Red Ron
9/19/2008, 06:13 PM
You assume the fact that "history" has a central and universal end point. A Hegelian/Marxist viewpoint if you will. This is simply not a very sturdy start point. It also assumes that at some future date scholars will somehow be more intellectual then us dimwits living now.

For you see there are many vantage points to history and the actors surrounding events at a given time, all subject to different interpretations. Much like political debates, there is no right and wrong viewpoint, only varying shades.
That's very cute. Making an obvious statement shrouded in your quasi-intellectual jargon isn't something that impresses me.

I am a member of the Choctaw Nation and we certainly have a different view of several historic figures.

I am speaking specifically of judgments made about a president (specifically) that can only be made in the view of hindsight. There is no way to judge a president that has done this much without the morass of partisanship of current observers.

I'm going out with my red, hot, smokin wife. :D out.

SoonerProphet
9/19/2008, 06:44 PM
That's very cute. Making an obvious statement shrouded in your quasi-intellectual jargon isn't something that impresses me.

I am a member of the Choctaw Nation and we certainly have a different view of several historic figures.

I am speaking specifically of judgments made about a president (specifically) that can only be made in the view of hindsight. There is no way to judge a president that has done this much without the morass of partisanship of current observers.

I'm going out with my red, hot, smokin wife. :D out.

No don't get all fussy. You might be figuring it with your "judgement" comment though. Then again you went and ruined it with some kind of quasi-intellectual, billow biting charade about partisanship.

Have a nice evening, I'm gonna chill out at home with my smokin' hot wife and have some Mommakowa.

Blue
9/19/2008, 11:34 PM
C'mon. Neither of you have wives and your both gay for each other. Admit it! :D