Obama, McCain in a dead heat going into final debate

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. The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="jim1029"]I had to post this:Jandurin

Um... look at the advertisement at the top. "McCain Palin: Invest in Victory" on the same site that gives him less then a 5% chance of winning.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]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. Vandalvideo

Alright, this is going nowhere. We're off topic anyway. I can't believe you support william ayers, but whatever.. the far left is rediculous. Agree do disagree.

Alright, this is going nowhere. We're off topic anyway. I can't believe you support william ayers, The_Mac_Daddy

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][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. The_Mac_Daddy

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?

Here you go MacDaddy, mark the date down, only time we have somewhat agreed in, well ever. I want Obama to explain the Ayers thing a bit better as well. But bear in mind, the person out of all who wanted this the most, and was the most ruthless, Hillary Clinton, never mentioned it. It was also vetted completely in his run for IL State Rep, and Senate, and all agreed there was nothing to it, but I am uncomfortable with him not saying a word about it now, maybe tonight. Now I don't think he's a damn sleeper terrorist, I think he has the countries best intentions at heart as does McCain.

You could only call it a dead heat if you don't understand the election process.

It does not matter who gets more votes, just what states they win. Every map I have seen projecting the states that each candidate will win have Obama completely destroying Mccain in electoral votes to the point where he almost DOUBLES Mccains number of electoral votes.

Not only that, but Obama has had the media on his side the whole time which is a big help, and Mccain has ran such a terrible campaign that he really ruined his chance at being pres. As far as I am concerned, he put the nail in his campaigns coffin when he chose Palin.

Instead of trying to win over independents, Mccain has spent the whole time trying to win over HIS OWN PARTY and that in itself shows how bad of a position he is in.

[QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][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. btaylor2404

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?

Here you go MacDaddy, mark the date down, only time we have somewhat agreed in, well ever. I want Obama to explain the Ayers thing a bit better as well. But bear in mind, the person out of all who wanted this the most, and was the most ruthless, Hillary Clinton, never mentioned it. It was also vetted completely in his run for IL State Rep, and Senate, and all agreed there was nothing to it, but I am uncomfortable with him not saying a word about it now, maybe tonight. Now I don't think he's a damn sleeper terrorist, I think he has the countries best intentions at heart as does McCain.

I have no doubt Obama has the best intentions. And of course he is not a terrorist. But you cannot associate yourself with people like that. ESPECIALLY when you are in politics.

[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

The correct response is to refute the facts as presented, not simply go after the source.

The correct response is to refute the facts as presented, not simply go after the source. mysterylobster

You could only call it a dead heat if you don't understand the election process.

It does not matter who gets more votes, just what states they win. Every map I have seen projecting the states that each candidate will win have Obama completely destroying Mccain in electoral votes to the point where he almost DOUBLES Mccains number of electoral votes.

Not only that, but Obama has had the media on his side the whole time which is a big help, and Mccain has ran such a terrible campaign that he really ruined his chance at being pres. As far as I am concerned, he put the nail in his campaigns coffin when he chose Palin.

Thechaninator

Those state-by-state polls are based on the same flawed polling data. Also, if the popular vote numbers are close, it favors McCain in the tally of electoral votes, the same as in 2000 and 2004.

Instead of trying to win over independents, Mccain has spent the whole time trying to win over HIS OWN PARTY and that in itself shows how bad of a position he is in.

Thechaninator

I seem to remember Obama having a hard time wrapping up his own party's nomination.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="jim1029"]I had to post this:jim1029

Um... look at the advertisement at the top. "McCain Palin: Invest in Victory" on the same site that gives him less then a 5% chance of winning.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]The correct response is to refute the facts as presented, not simply go after the source. Vandalvideo

I don't dispute that they helped children. But just because they tried to help kids doesn't mean they also didn't help out terrorist sympathizers.

[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.

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.

I don't dispute that they helped children. But just because they tried to help kids doesn't mean they also didn't help out terrorist sympathizers. mysterylobster

As much as you'd like to deny it, spin it or what have you, Obama has a sizable lead over McCain and it's shaping up that he'll win the election. Nothing you can say can change that.

And besides, if McCain starts bring up Obama's so-called "shady" past, he'll end up sinking himself even more. People are getting tired of all this pointless politlcal bickering and are looking for their president to discuss the issues.

i think you know that's VERY debatable. and were you going to adresses the other 4 points...or...is this what it looks like when you concede a point?Dreams-Visions

What's more debatable, past voting history or attempts to estimate future voter turnout?

Also, I conceded nothing. I said that the rest of his data fell under the flawed methodology explained above, and I don't think I need to respond to a poll on early voting numbers. Even his link says why you should take it with a grain of salt.

Also, I conceded nothing. I said that the rest of his data fell under the flawed methodology explained above, and I don't think I need to respond to a poll on early voting numbers. Even his link says why you should take it with a grain of salt. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Also, I conceded nothing. I said that the rest of his data fell under the flawed methodology explained above, and I don't think I need to respond to a poll on early voting numbers. Even his link says why you should take it with a grain of salt. Vandalvideo

It's not hard to see the flaws behind oversampling Democrats because of an ESTIMATED increase in voter turnout rather than an analysis of actual voting patterns.

It's not hard to see the flaws behind oversampling Democrats because of an ESTIMATED increase in voter turnout rather than an analysis of actual voting patterns. mysterylobster

It's not hard to see the flaws behind oversampling Democrats because of an ESTIMATED increase in voter turnout rather than an analysis of actual voting patterns.

mysterylobster

No election is identical to the one previous to it. But if you want to analyze "actual voting patterns" to get a sense of what turnout in 2008 might look like, you could take a look at early voting. As an example, to date, 40% more early votes have been cast in Georgia than were cast in the entirety of 2004 (with still multiple weeks to go). In addition, polling has shown that early voters everywhere are going big for Obama. Isolated, sure, but if it's not indicative of at least the possibility of increased turnout over 2004 (as well as the idea that McCain has even more ground to make up than is immediately apparent), I don't know what is.

[QUOTE="Thechaninator"]

You could only call it a dead heat if you don't understand the election process.

It does not matter who gets more votes, just what states they win. Every map I have seen projecting the states that each candidate will win have Obama completely destroying Mccain in electoral votes to the point where he almost DOUBLES Mccains number of electoral votes.

Not only that, but Obama has had the media on his side the whole time which is a big help, and Mccain has ran such a terrible campaign that he really ruined his chance at being pres. As far as I am concerned, he put the nail in his campaigns coffin when he chose Palin.

mysterylobster

Those state-by-state polls are based on the same flawed polling data. Also, if the popular vote numbers are close, it favors McCain in the tally of electoral votes, the same as in 2000 and 2004.

Instead of trying to win over independents, Mccain has spent the whole time trying to win over HIS OWN PARTY and that in itself shows how bad of a position he is in.

Thechaninator

I seem to remember Obama having a hard time wrapping up his own party's nomination.

You obviously need to look up the electoral vote predictions. I don't think I have seen a candidate predicted to have such a blowout. I don't see Mccain having such a sweep over the south like Bush did because he is going against a much better candidate and a much more popular candidate.

If you don't believe the polls (granted even I believe that in the end we still need to wait and see what actually happens) just go look at other polls. The vast majority of them show Obama leading. The debates have really helped Obama as Mccain has come out looking bad through his "grumpy old man attacks" and through his inability to blow away Obama in any debate, even when people had predicted Obama wouldn't stand a chance in the foreign policy debate. The VP debate helped specifically after Biden destroyed Palin (granted she surprised me by not looking like a COMPLETE moron) and Obama saw a nice jump in his lead.

As for Obama taking forever to get the nom, he had quite a worthy opponent and the dems were split for the longest time. However, since he got the nom it seems to me that Obama was quick to unite the dems once more (with the exception of a few idiotic middle-aged women who started the Hillary supporters for Mccain movement) and since then he has had an easier time drawing in the independants such as myself.

Mccain may have got a quick nom but there was alot of worry about his ability to unite the repubs and thus is why we got his VP pick of Sarah Palin. She is the definition of a neo-conservative and nothing more. He picked her thinking it might unite his party and attract women voters. The pick really backfired on him though seeing as he hasn't been able to shape her into a strong speaker/debater as she is, quite frankly, a moron.

i totally agree. Bush lost in the polls but ended up winning the election. if he can do it so can McCain.

yeah i agree there too. Obama has a ton of skeletons in the closet that need to be dragged out. like Bill Ayers, Acorn and most of all, Tony Resko. the man that Obama did an under the table deal with.

i totally agree. Bush lost in the polls but ended up winning the election. if he can do it so can McCain.

yeah i agree there too. Obama has a ton of skeletons in the closet that need to be dragged out. like Bill Ayers, Acorn and most of all, Tony Resko. the man that Obama did an under the table deal with.

HUGE_Flavor

All of that stuff is already out there and Obama still leads in polls...

Dead heat? I wouldn't call Obama being up by 7 on RealClear a dead heat.supercubedude64

Yea, but if you really..... really..... really belive, Ralph Nader is in a dead heat with both candidates.

i totally agree. Bush lost in the polls but ended up winning the election. if he can do it so can McCain.

HUGE_Flavor

I don't know where that myth came from, but it's still a myth. Bush never trailed once in October of 2004. The polls got the election pretty much bang on - the day before the election they had Bush +2, and the final result was Bush +2.5.

I can't falt a person for who they know. No matter what they have done in their past. Ayers is someone Obama served on two boards with. Like the other guy was saying you can't fault people for what others have done. I know some shady as people that I would never say is my friend but that doesn't make me bad for the job.

I don't know of anyone that doesn't know of someone that has done something bad in their past to any degree. It doesn't make them any less for it.

Now if we are then holding Obama to higher standards then I don't think we should have heard any of that elietist crap. Also, if Obama is accountable for knowing Ayers then McCain is accountable for being a second Bush. He voted a huge percentage for anything Bush was in favor of. So why doesn't he have to explain why he voted along with someone a vast majority of people thinks suck.

To behonest I think Bush is a bit of a domestic terrorist myself. What kind of person sends Americans to die over false proof. What kind of President doesn't care about a town after if flooded and should have received federal aid right away. He would never take his time for a town in Florida. I am just tired of the same **** Fix the economy, help the middle class, make health care easier, and stop helping the rich get richer. But then again I have never seen a poor politian. People care too much about BS than what really matters.

On topic: I doubt they are in a dead heat.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

It's not hard to see the flaws behind oversampling Democrats because of an ESTIMATED increase in voter turnout rather than an analysis of actual voting patterns.

GabuEx

No election is identical to the one previous to it. But if you want to analyze "actual voting patterns" to get a sense of what turnout in 2008 might look like, you could take a look at early voting. As an example, to date, 40% more early votes have been cast in Georgia than were cast in the entirety of 2004 (with still multiple weeks to go). In addition, polling has shown that early voters everywhere are going big for Obama. Isolated, sure, but if it's not indicative of at least the possibility of increased turnout over 2004 (as well as the idea that McCain has even more ground to make up than is immediately apparent), I don't know what is.

Recent history has shown that if one group gets fired up to vote, it's usually balanced out by an equal and opposite reaction from another. That's what happened in 2004. Everyone predicted a big turnout of young voters, and they did come out in record numbers, but turnout across the board was also up making their impact less than pollsters expected.

Also, early voting is being pushed much harder this election than the last, so I wouldn't go by this. In Illinois, there's even an ad campaign running right now telling people to vote early.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][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. The_Mac_Daddy

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?

Here you go MacDaddy, mark the date down, only time we have somewhat agreed in, well ever. I want Obama to explain the Ayers thing a bit better as well. But bear in mind, the person out of all who wanted this the most, and was the most ruthless, Hillary Clinton, never mentioned it. It was also vetted completely in his run for IL State Rep, and Senate, and all agreed there was nothing to it, but I am uncomfortable with him not saying a word about it now, maybe tonight. Now I don't think he's a damn sleeper terrorist, I think he has the countries best intentions at heart as does McCain.

I have no doubt Obama has the best intentions. And of course he is not a terrorist. But you cannot associate yourself with people like that. ESPECIALLY when you are in politics.

McCain has some skeletons in his closet on past associates/people he bumped into as well. Obabma just hasn't gone after them. Charles Keating alone, costing taxpayers 3.4 billion dollars. Well, Obmama may have said something about that, but there are others.

he needs to get on obama about acorn and the terrorist bill ayers since nbc and the other mainstream media won't because it would make him look bad.shoeman12

Yeah because knowing someone makes you an Anti-American terrorist...

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

It's not hard to see the flaws behind oversampling Democrats because of an ESTIMATED increase in voter turnout rather than an analysis of actual voting patterns.

GabuEx

No election is identical to the one previous to it. But if you want to analyze "actual voting patterns" to get a sense of what turnout in 2008 might look like, you could take a look at early voting. As an example, to date, 40% more early votes have been cast in Georgia than were cast in the entirety of 2004 (with still multiple weeks to go). In addition, polling has shown that early voters everywhere are going big for Obama. Isolated, sure, but if it's not indicative of at least the possibility of increased turnout over 2004 (as well as the idea that McCain has even more ground to make up than is immediately apparent), I don't know what is.

There is massive voter fraud in 14 states, how do you half those early voters weren't the same person voting 20 times? This election is a fraud.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]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

Alright, this is going nowhere. We're off topic anyway. I can't believe you support william ayers, but whatever.. the far left is rediculous. Agree do disagree.

Heck bud.. I cant believe you support American mobs that chant death and very deep rooted insults. I have watched some of the videos of muslims killing a 17 year old girl with rocks and cement blocks. I remember how they screamed, they yelled, and chanted. With such glee mind you.

Those rallies where McCain was too much of a coward to say anything was just him thinking that america all thinks that way. Well, we dont, and this is why he has lost alot of republicans. People dont want to be associated with those animals. People that sound like hate filled muslims throwing rocks at teenage girls because of hate and contempt, based on some radical views that to them makes it okay.

I found it disgusting that he didnt say "STOP IT" when he heard all of the slander. Even if it wasnt where he could hear. Moment he did review and hear he should have stepped up. His fault that he felt he could ride on a wave of hate and its too late now.

So when you get frustrated why some people dont see your view on why obama is a issue with character due to association, look at those videos of the republican rallies and realize that your associated too. No matter HOW much you want to say you dont.. your party is gonna have to try and live this down for a long long time. Good luck.

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

Mission accomplished.

McCain didn't go after Obama's tax plan as much as I would have liked, but he put forth a solid plan of his own, and I believe he sold it to the American people. And God bless him, he went right after Obama on the issue of his relationship with Ayers and ACORN. These are things the American people should know about, and it was obvious Obama wasn't telling all.

I said that if he did these things it would be his race to lose, and I stand by that. After tonight, I have confidence in McCain's ability to win and keep Obama out of the White House. Yes, he's lost ground in recent weeks, but McCain's been in worse holes and came out the victor. Tonight we saw another example of why McCain can never be counted out.

I heard he just had a heart attack!?Wolf-avatar

lol, that might happen someday ;)