An observation regarding all of the negative threads about Obama that are cropping up

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Thunderdog, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. The smell of fear and desperation.

    Have all of you fearmongers checked your Depends lately? Yes, it's time for a change.
     
  2. I agree.

    Financial Times had a great article about this:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bf5c59a-5666-11dd-8686-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

    One simple way to predict a victor

    By Clive Crook

    Published: July 20 2008 18:17 | Last updated: July 20 2008 18:17


    [​IMG]

    One cannot help but be struck by the current disconnection in US presidential politics between, on one hand, the excitement and enthusiasm that attend Barack Obama’s candidacy and, on the other, the tightness of the race according to recent polls. The first suggests a sweeping victory for the Democrat in November, the second a close election and the distinct possibility of a win for John McCain.

    Most would agree that Senator Obama has so far waged a polished and efficient campaign. He stumbles occasionally. His endless iterations on troop withdrawals from Iraq, for instance, have given Senator McCain a valuable opening. But he recovers quickly from his missteps and despite them projects an air of competence and assurance that belies his lack of experience.

    Mr McCain, in contrast, has all the experience one could wish but little, these days, of the composure and gravitas that it is supposed to confer. When he trips up, the error seems to stick and he looks ridiculous. Mr Obama looks presidential. Mr McCain, sad to say, does not.

    Mr McCain has to contend with the US media’s increasingly shameless bias in favour of Mr Obama. And his position is inescapably awkward – not much liked within his own party, forced to concentrate on keeping the Republican vote intact. Also, Mr Obama has the edge in campaign tactics. Handled right, as it most probably will be, this week’s foreign tour could prove a masterstroke in that regard.

    Yet look at the polls. A recent Gallup reading says that Mr Obama’s slender lead has narrowed; last week Rasmussen’s tracking poll called the race a tie. State-by-state polling, filtered through the electoral college arithmetic, gives Mr McCain a real shot at victory. All this despite the fact that the incumbent Republican president is deeply unpopular and the economy continues to tank.

    How does one make sense of this? The simple answer may get me ejected from the guild of political commentators, who have a lot of space to fill between now and November – but I report it nonetheless. It is that these early head-to-head polls and the vast enterprise of political analysis, nit-picking and minute speculation they support, are, to a first order of approximation, worthless. In short, you resolve the paradox by ignoring them.

    Note that if you do, science is on your side. Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not much better.) Instead, he has a simple “electoral barometer” that weighs together the approval rating of the incumbent president, the economy’s economic growth rate and whether the president’s party has controlled the White House for two terms (the “time for a change” factor). This laughably simple metric has correctly forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections.

    The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range between +100 and –100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1 percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had the biggest postwar negative reading (–66); Ronald Reagan beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.

    President George W. Bush’s net approval rating (favourable minus unfavourable) is currently –40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz’s formula gives the Republican candidate a score of –60, about as bad as it gets: second only to Mr Carter’s in the annals of doomed postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz to victory.

    Why has this barometer been so much more accurate than the wisdom of Gallup? That is hard to say – but as a factual matter, its superiority is indisputable. Even if you do not buy it, it ought to inform your reading of the polls. A wide winning margin, which is what the barometer predicts for Mr Obama, renders moot all the detailed electoral map analysis of swing states, solid states, toss-up states, states leaning one way or the other. All this wonderful stuff might matter if the margin in the national popular vote is thin. If it is wide, the toss-up states move together and that is that.

    The unsettling thing about this way of predicting the outcome, of course, is that it does not matter whether the Democratic candidate is Mr Obama or Hillary Clinton – or Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich, for that matter. The Republicans’ choice of Mr McCain was equally beside the point. On the merits, one candidate may be much better than another – a separate and endlessly interesting question. When it comes to predicting the result, the barometer says that as long as the incumbent is not running, it makes no difference.

    Are there special factors that could throw the calculation off? No doubt, and this year one above all cries out. Mr Obama would be the first black president, a possibility the barometer has not yet had to contemplate. Who knows what difference his colour will make, whether it will help him on balance or hurt him. History suggests neither; that the choice of candidates, their strengths and weaknesses and the way they fight their campaigns, matters less to the outcome than one might suppose and infinitely less than the political commentariat is honour-bound to maintain. History suggests Mr McCain is toast.
     
  3. Time for a change alright..

    Time for Canada to step up and start pulling its own dead weight :mad:
     
  4. Im so f***ing fed up with FOX.

    I used to watch it all the time.... but it seems lately i've been seeing things through a new set of eyes.... and FOX ..... still peddling the same old bullshit ... are they blind??? Dont they see that things are not the same as a few years ago???

    The public does not want another republican in the white house. They dont care... they just dont want hear it.

    No more "we must maintain the course in Iraq" bullshit..... we tried it, it didnt work.... lets move on. These arabs do not want to adopt a western way of life. They been at war with each other for over 4000 years... yet a dumb ass like Bush thinks he could of changed all that in a few months.

    No more putting people they dont like on the "Federal terrorist watchlist"....... or spiying on americans without a warrant in the name of terrorism....... all pure bullshit...

    Thomas Payne said "live me liberty or give me death"..... Stupid Bush doesnt understand that.

    this is what happens when you put a bible thumping idiot in the white house... they cant think straight...... they make it a war of religions ..... just like the arabs say......

    I voted for bush ...... little did i know he was going to be worse than that horny red neck Clinton.

    McCain has no chance of wining.... NONE.

    This is the one of the rare times in our history, when a senator with no clue or experience, whose belly button has not even healed yet.. can come along, be proclaimed as the second JFK, and win in a landslide...... all because the bush machine has screwed up this country so bad.

    I cant believe stupid mccain still wants to push the war issue..... what an idiot.

    As far as FOX ..... i dont watch them anymore.... especially the bloated, full of himself "moral crusader" (whose really a womanizer) .... piece of shit O'Rieley.

    We are in a sad state of affairs in this country.

    Being led by the FOX network... why?? Because apperantly thaere are plenty of you kool-aid drinkers out here and out there that believe in that mantra.

    Mostly the relitous right.... which brings back to my point..... any country who decides to be run by any extremists..... soon ends up losing its freedom.

    Dont believe me?????

    Heres an example..... for nearly 600 years, Rome was the super SUPER power on our planet.... they were pagans..... they didnt give a shit..... then they found religion ..... viola.... what are they now????

    In conclusion, i would like to say that mcCain will loose by a landslide.
     
  5. +1000

    There used to be intelligent 'politico' commentators like Buckley and Will who led the GOP faithful - not self-serving and blowhard idiots like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

    Bush has destroyed the GOP, with tricky Dick helping him from the dark corner.

    It's a sad day in America.

    Conservatives are supposed to stand for small government, the rights of people and property over government heavy-handedness, and fiscal responsibility.

    W has shredded that social contract the GOP had with Americans.

    Look at the mess we're in.
     
  6. Just out of curiosity, what do you watch now?
    MSNBC is even further to left than FOX to the right. CNN is better, but still to the left. There is no unbiased network, which is pathetic considering that should be their job - unbiased reporting.

    And then you have perma bull CNBC! Talk about doing the general public a disservice. Where they get economists that keep calling the bottom in the housing crisis, and growth in the 2nd half of 2008 (still) is way beyond me.

    BTW, this is not going to be a landslide in either direction. BO should be ahead by 20 points now, even against a dynamic republican. BO has some serious problems. Its gonna be a horse race (more like a tortoise race) to the finish.
     
  7. I think you're mistaken. But, then again, I don't put much stock in predictions, least of all my own. So I guess we'll just wait and see.
     
  8. not to toot my own horn but i follow politics.... my calls have been correct so far.... like the ones i made for the house and senate.

    as far as networks..... i think CNN is more leftist then MSNBC.... you have that one o'riely alter ego on msnbc but thats about it.

    Chris Mathews is a lefty.... but pretty fair in his commentary and questions.

    Its just ..i dont watch one over another because of politics.... its more like, i stop watching a network when it looses sense of reality.

    true CNN and MSNBC are masturbating to pics of Obama... but that is the reality we are in now....... all thanks to Bush/ Cheney.

    All i want / ask for in a candidate is one that adheres to our constitution.

    Thats all.

    I am a strong follower/believer in our constitution.
     
  9. Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Fox News during the primaries when they shut Ron Paul out. They can make time for out of touch neo-cons like Bill Kristol but not a legitimate conservative?

    O'Reilly is a guy I have never liked. I think it is unfair to lump him with Limbaugh who is enormously entertaining. O'Reilly is basically a self righteous jerk. The other political shows on Fox News however are pretty balanced, far more than anything on any of the networks or other cable channels. The other channels might have one conservative on a panel with three or four liberals. Chris Matthews usually doesn't go that far. MSNBC is really the cable version of Air America. They even have one of the Air America talkers on all the time as their "political consultant." No credibility whatsoever.

    If anyone needed reminding about how pervasive liberal bias is, the sight of all three major network anchors sucking up to Obama in Iraq should be enough. It certainly explains why they are losing viewers faster than newspapers are losing subscribers. Why not just get news directly from the Obama website or Daily Kos or Huffington? Then at least you avoid being annoyed by Katie.
     
    #10     Jul 22, 2008