Obama, McCain in a dead heat going into final debate

[QUOTE="FragStains"]My point was simply that charging McCain with doing something that no one comprehends is much less effective than reporting the Obama has connections to a domestic terrorist (if we are being honest).septemberluc

Ok. McCain's campaign has come down to making people unsure about Barack Obama. That is his 'best' weapon. If McCain can get people to be wary of Barack Obama's connection, he is getting votes for himself.

Nobody is scared of who McCain is connected to. He's been a senator for 30 years. Obama is a new face and McCain is using that against him.

Basically, it would be pointless to attack McCain in the same way McCain is attack Obama. It just doesn't work. If Obama wants to waste his breath then he can...but to the majority of Americans the Keating 5 scandal accusation will sound approximately like this, "Wah wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah wah!

[QUOTE="septemberluc"][QUOTE="FragStains"]My point was simply that charging McCain with doing something that no one comprehends is much less effective than reporting the Obama has connections to a domestic terrorist (if we are being honest).FragStains

Ok. McCain's campaign has come down to making people unsure about Barack Obama. That is his 'best' weapon. If McCain can get people to be wary of Barack Obama's connection, he is getting votes for himself.

Nobody is scared of who McCain is connected to. He's been a senator for 30 years. Obama is a new face and McCain is using that against him.

Basically, it would be pointless to attack McCain in the same way McCain is attack Obama. It just doesn't work. If Obama wants to waste his breath then he can...but to the majority of Americans the Keating 5 scandal accusation will sound approximately like this, "Wah wah wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah. Wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah wah!

Judging by the polls, FRAG, "WAH wah wah" is how ayers was recieved as well. I just do not think many people are concerned about these things, which helps obama, admittedly.TBoogy

... i was being sarcastic.septemberluc

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Judging by the polls, FRAG, "WAH wah wah" is how ayers was recieved as well. I just do not think many people are concerned about these things, which helps obama, admittedly.FragStains

... i was being sarcastic.septemberluc

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

mysterylobster

Just some things for you to think about:

1.) There are MORE democrats than republicans in America. The principle issue is that the democrats never get out and vote in a way that reflects their numbers. So that 39% Democrats lean is a reflection of reality. if Democrats get out and vote, that margain reflects the real difference in party affiliation.

2.) Considering the numbers of new voters that were registered by Obama activists and thanks to the exciting Democratic Primary season, we're looking at newly registered voter counts being up hundreds of thousands in each state. Again, pushing Rasumssen to tip their polling scales just a bit.

3.) Please consider, he's NOT close to "sealing the deal":

Yes, Barack Obama is leading by an average of more than 7% points. that's above the margain of error. and he's been performing above the margain of error for some time now. and if you'll note, there isn't a single poll listed anymore that gives McCain any kind of advantage.

Next...

...those are the states that are leaning blue based on thousands of simulations conducted by FiveThirtyEight.com, with the second chart being the trend in their results based on certain variables. As you can see, if the map looks like that in the end as it's appearing, we'll have a LANDSLIDE Obama victory. Not a nail-biter. and as you can see, McCain has been moving towards irrelevance ever since mid September.

Finally...

his percentage chance of winning is now at ~96%?? :shock: that's insane. but it's merely a sign of the times. His popular vote spread is massive. The electoral college projection, embarassing.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

4.) Early voting in the swing states:

...    Poll    % Voted                  Non-Early
State  Date      Early   Early Voters   Likely Voters
====================================================
NM     10/13     10%     Obama +23%     Obama +6%
OH     10/13     12%     Obama +18%     Obama +4%
GA     10/12     18%     Obama +6%      McCain +11%
IA     10/9      14%     Obama +34%     Obama +10%
NC     10/6       5%     Obama +34%     McCain +5%

Nevertheless, Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004.FiveThirtyEight

Link

.

5.) And it's not only McCain in trouble, but the entire Republican party, as they prepare to lose fillabuster control. An epic defeat. All thanks to the Democratic primary and the active nature of the Obama campaign volunteers.

.

...so no, this isn't something he needs to "seal the deal." This is a debate he needs simply to remain relevant at this point. He's getting mud-stomped and Vegas money has Obama with a 90% chance of winning. As in, it's all but assured at this point.

and please, stop making me own you with these kinds of posts. It's not even fun anymore, bro. pray for you candidate. it's his only hope.

and someone approve of this ownage, please. thanks.

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

mysterylobster

There's the mysterylobster we all know and love, after a topic last night that made perfect sense he picks the only poll to his advantage. And throws in some of his on analysis on stats that help his lost cause. Let's all promise not to bring all these topics back up November 5th.

and someone approve of this ownage, please. thanks. Dreams-Visions

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

Dreams-Visions

Just some things for you to think about:

1.) There are MORE democrats than republicans in America. The principle issue is that the democrats never get out and vote in a way that reflects their numbers. So that 39% Democrats lean is a reflection of reality. if Democrats get out and vote, that margain reflects the real difference in party affiliation.

2.) Considering the numbers of new voters that were registered by Obama activists and thanks to the exciting Democratic Primary season, we're looking at newly registered voter counts being up hundreds of thousands in each state. Again, pushing Rasumssen to tip their polling scales just a bit.

3.) Please consider, he's NOT close to "sealing the deal":

Yes, Barack Obama is leading by an average of more than 7% points. that's above the margain of error. and he's been performing above the margain of error for some time now. and if you'll note, there isn't a single poll listed anymore that gives McCain any kind of advantage.

Next...

...those are the states that are leaning blue based on thousands of simulations conducted by FiveThirtyEight.com, with the second chart being the trend in their results based on certain variables. As you can see, if the map looks like that in the end as it's appearing, we'll have a LANDSLIDE Obama victory. Not a nail-biter. and as you can see, McCain has been moving towards irrelevance ever since mid September.

Finally...

his percentage chance of winning is now at ~96%?? :shock: that's insane. but it's merely a sign of the times. His popular vote spread is massive. The electoral college projection, embarassing.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

4.) Early voting in the swing states:

...    Poll    % Voted                  Non-Early
State  Date      Early   Early Voters   Likely Voters
====================================================
NM     10/13     10%     Obama +23%     Obama +6%
OH     10/13     12%     Obama +18%     Obama +4%
GA     10/12     18%     Obama +6%      McCain +11%
IA     10/9      14%     Obama +34%     Obama +10%
NC     10/6       5%     Obama +34%     McCain +5%

Nevertheless, Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004.FiveThirtyEight

Link

.

5.) And it's not only McCain in trouble, but the entire Republican party, as they prepare to lose fillabuster control. An epic defeat. All thanks to the Democratic primary and the active nature of the Obama campaign volunteers.

.

...so no, this isn't something he needs to "seal the deal." This is a debate he needs simply to remain relevant at this point. He's getting mud-stomped and Vegas money has Obama with a 90% chance of winning. As in, it's all but assured at this point.

and please, stop making me own you with these kinds of posts. It's not even fun anymore, bro. pray for you candidate. it's his only hope.

and someone approve of this ownage, please. thanks.

Ownage approved :D

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

Dreams-Visions

Just some things for you to think about:

1.) There are MORE democrats than republicans in America. The principle issue is that the democrats never get out and vote in a way that reflects their numbers. So that 39% Democrats lean is a reflection of reality. if Democrats get out and vote, that margain reflects the real difference in party affiliation.

It's not a reflection of reality if they're just assuming that Democrats will turn out in record numbers.

For an example of how big an effect this is having on polls, look at a recent Gallup poll:

Their "expanded" poll of likely voters, which takes into account their estimates of new groups that will go out and vote, shows Obama leading by an 8-point margin. However, when they use a "traditional" poll, using actual voting patterns from previous elections, Obama's lead shrinks to 3 points. Traditional polling is the only method that doesn't rely on pie in the sky estimates of voter turnout.

All this poll data you drag up is predicated on this flawed methodology.

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

mysterylobster

I agree completely, I think McCain has finally got the right message out there, focus on the economy, that he understands what is needed to win.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

mysterylobster

Just some things for you to think about:

1.) There are MORE democrats than republicans in America. The principle issue is that the democrats never get out and vote in a way that reflects their numbers. So that 39% Democrats lean is a reflection of reality. if Democrats get out and vote, that margain reflects the real difference in party affiliation.

It's not a reflection of reality if they're just assuming that Democrats will turn out in record numbers.

For an example of how big an effect this is having on polls, look at a recent Gallup poll:

Their "expanded" poll of likely voters, which takes into account their estimates of new groups that will go out and vote, shows Obama leading by an 8-point margin. However, when they use a "traditional" poll, using actual voting patterns from previous elections, Obama's lead shrinks to 3 points. Traditional polling is the only method that doesn't rely on pie in the sky estimates of voter turnout.

All this poll data you drag up is predicated on this flawed methodology.

Yeah.. republicans are better about getting to the polls. Of all of my friends who are first time voters, only 1 of the democrats that I know is actually going to vote, while me and 5 other friends who are republicans are going to vote. Most of my friends don't care about voting though.

All this poll data you drag up is predicated on this flawed methodology. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]All this poll data you drag up is predicated on this flawed methodology. Vandalvideo

Has ACORN been combing through the obits again? I refuse to believe that their fraudulent bully tactics to get people to register will lead to these folks actually going out to vote.

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

mysterylobster

This reminds me of how I felt during the 2004 bush/Kerry rundown...Pleading to God that Kerry would somehow win...

Has ACORN been combing through the obits again? I refuse to believe that their fraudulent bully tactics to get people to register will lead to these folks actually going out to vote. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

Rasmussen currently has Obama leading 50% to McCain's 45%. Wait a second, though, don't go thinking this is a comfortable lead for Obama. If you look at the polls internals (as you should always do) you'll see "the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.3% Democratic, 33.0% Republican." There's no way that likely voter Democrats outnumber Republicans by 6 percentage points, so the poll has a heavy oversampling bias towards the Democratic candidate. That means that in the real world, the race is actually much closer.

John McCain needs to seal the deal at the last debate. He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. And he has got to point out the flaws in Obama's tax plan while offering a cohesive vision of his own. If he does this, then the presidency is his to lose.

tocklestein2005

This reminds me of how I felt during the 2004 bush/Kerry rundown...Pleading to God that Kerry would somehow win...

The comparison is apt. I think a lot of Democrats are going to be wondering "what happened?" on election night. Well, they can look back on my posts for some answers.

Well lets see what the electoral college does.SouL-Tak3R

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. NearTheEnd

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. NearTheEnd

Yes, but only because people hear it through a media filter. If McCain confronts Obama face-to-face (they'll be sitting at a table facing each other) on these issues before a national audience, I think people will see that a man who associates with anti-Americans is a bad person for the job of President.

[QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. mysterylobster

Yes, but only because people hear it through a media filter. If McCain confronts Obama face-to-face (they'll be sitting at a table facing each other) on these issues before a national audience, I think people will see that a man who associates with anti-Americans is a bad person for the job of President.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. Vandalvideo

Yes, but only because people hear it through a media filter. If McCain confronts Obama face-to-face (they'll be sitting at a table facing each other) on these issues before a national audience, I think people will see that a man who associates with anti-Americans is a bad person for the job of President.

When this evil professor has bombed government buildings as an enemy of the United States you can kinda sorta see how that would be bad.

When this evil professor has bombed government building as an enemy of the United States you can kinda sorta see how that would be bad. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

He must bring up shady characters from Obama's past, something voters can really understand. Vandalvideo

Yes, but only because people hear it through a media filter. If McCain confronts Obama face-to-face (they'll be sitting at a table facing each other) on these issues before a national audience, I think people will see that a man who associates with anti-Americans is a bad person for the job of President.

Are you kidding...

The man is a domestic terrorist who bombed several buildings including the Capitol and the Pentagon. The group he belonged to is responsible for the deaths of 7 people. I don't care what he does now. If you are a senator, and are aspiring to be the leader of the free world, you don't work with domestic terrorists. When you are in a high political position, why the hell would you work with somebody who has a very radical political agenda and carried it out in a violent way?

The man is a domestic terrorist who bombed several buildings including the Capitol and the Pentagon. The group he belonged to is responsible for the deaths of 7 people. I don't care what he does now. If you are a senator, and are aspiring to be the leader of the free world, you don't work with domestic terrorists. When you are in a high political position, why the hell would you work with somebody who has a very radical political agenda and carried it out in a violent way?The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]When this evil professor has bombed government building as an enemy of the United States you can kinda sorta see how that would be bad. Vandalvideo

The board they sat on decided to fund terrorist sympathisers who said the establishment of Israel was a "catastrophe."

Yeah, they sure were doing some fine work...for the children. Right,

board they sat on decided to fund terrorist sympathisers who said the establishment of Israel was a "catastrophe."Yeah, they sure were doing some fine work...for the children. Right, mysterylobster

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]The man is a domestic terrorist who bombed several buildings including the Capitol and the Pentagon. The group he belonged to is responsible for the deaths of 7 people. I don't care what he does now. If you are a senator, and are aspiring to be the leader of the free world, you don't work with domestic terrorists. When you are in a high political position, why the hell would you work with somebody who has a very radical political agenda and carried it out in a violent way?Vandalvideo

William Ayers claimed a few years ago that he is not sorry for what he did and wished he would have done more. And guilt by association is not stupid. It is very important in any job that you have. Professional athletes get in trouble all the time from guilt by association. Employers do not want their employees involved with any shady characters. If you were at a job interview, and you tell the guy interviewing you that you are friends with terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers, maybe some felons.. how do you think they would react? By associating with people like that, what kind of image is that?

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]board they sat on decided to fund terrorist sympathisers who said the establishment of Israel was a "catastrophe."Yeah, they sure were doing some fine work...for the children. Right, Vandalvideo

If he really hated what they did, he would not sit on a board with him and call him a friend. How can you be a friend of someone like that? Oh, it's for the children, so it's ok. There are plenty of ways to help children without associating with unrepenting terrorists. The "oh it's for the children" line is just a scapegoat for his lack of judgement.

William Ayers claimed a few years ago that he is not sorry for what he did and wished he would have done more. And guilt by association is not stupid. It is very important in any job that you have. Professional athletes get in trouble all the time from guilt by association. Employers do not want their employees involved with any shady characters. If you were at a job interview, and you tell the guy interviewing you that you are friends with terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers, maybe some felons.. how do you think they would react? By associating with people like that, what kind of image is that? The_Mac_Daddy

I had to post this:

If he really hated what they did, he would not sit on a board with him and call him a friend. How can you be a friend of someone like that? Oh, it's for the children, so it's ok. There are plenty of ways to help children without associating with unrepenting terrorists. The "oh it's for the children" line is just a scapegoat for his lack of judgement. The_Mac_Daddy

Oh, and I can MAYBE understand if he was friends with the guy first.. then one day the guy blows up some buildings and now the guy is sorry for it. I can MAYBE understand that because the friendship was before the wrong doing. But he befriended the guy AFTER he knew about what he did. The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]William Ayers claimed a few years ago that he is not sorry for what he did and wished he would have done more. And guilt by association is not stupid. It is very important in any job that you have. Professional athletes get in trouble all the time from guilt by association. Employers do not want their employees involved with any shady characters. If you were at a job interview, and you tell the guy interviewing you that you are friends with terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers, maybe some felons.. how do you think they would react? By associating with people like that, what kind of image is that? Vandalvideo

The fact that he is helping the poor and helping children is not the point at all. Al Capone did stuff like that. Killer in the ghetto give children money for doing good in school. That hardly makes up for the fact that they are still killers. Or that william ayers bombed buildings and was part of a group responsible for the deaths of 7 people.

The fact that he is helping the poor and helping children is not the point at all. Al Capone did stuff like that. Killer in the ghetto give children money for doing good in school. That hardly makes up for the fact that they are still killers. Or that william ayers bombed buildings and was part of a group responsible for the deaths of 7 people. The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]Oh, and I can MAYBE understand if he was friends with the guy first.. then one day the guy blows up some buildings and now the guy is sorry for it. I can MAYBE understand that because the friendship was before the wrong doing. But he befriended the guy AFTER he knew about what he did. Vandalvideo

If the guy is not even sorry for being a terrorist, then how the **** can Obama support that man?

I had to post this:jim1029

If the guy is not even sorry for being a terrorist, then how the **** can Obama support that man?The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]The fact that he is helping the poor and helping children is not the point at all. Al Capone did stuff like that. Killer in the ghetto give children money for doing good in school. That hardly makes up for the fact that they are still killers. Or that william ayers bombed buildings and was part of a group responsible for the deaths of 7 people. Vandalvideo

The helping the children part is not the point. You can help children without working with terrorists to do so. There is a difference betweeen political differences and differences such as, I support America and am running for president, while he bombed buildings and tried to kill people and is responsible for the deaths of 7 people.

You cannot forgive the guy who is not sorry for what he did. I forgive people who are truly repentant.

So if Osama bin Laden turns around and says I give up guys, I'm going to start helping children now.. I'm not sorry for what I did or anything, I'm glad I bombed America, but I'm going to teach now. We should just send guys over to Pakistan to help him with his mission of being a teacher?

The helping the children part is not the point. You can help children without working with terrorists to do so. There is a difference betweeen political differences and differences such as, I support America and am running for president, while he bombed buildings and tried to kill people and is responsible for the deaths of 7 peopleYou cannot forgive the guy who is not sorry for what he did. I forgive people who are truly repentant. The_Mac_Daddy

So if Osama bin Laden turns around and says I give up guys, I'm going to start helping children now.. I'm not sorry for what I did or anything, I'm glad I bombed America, but I'm going to teach now. We should just send guys over to Pakistan to help him with his mission of being a teacher?The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]If the guy is not even sorry for being a terrorist, then how the **** can Obama support that man?Vandalvideo

Wow. You are completely disregarding the part that makes it wrong. If he was just a guy who helped his community and did good, then of course there would be nothing wrong. But you leave out the part where he is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who bombed the pentagon and capitol building while his group is responsible for killing 7 people.