Archive for Wednesday, August 6, 2008
New poll shows Obama losing support
August 6, 2008
Advertisement
Washington, D.C. — Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents, according to a new ATV/Zogby poll.
The Illinois Democrat has also lost some support among African-Americans and Hispanics, where his lead over Republican John McCain has shrunk, and among Catholics, where he's lost his lead.
The net result, pollster John Zogby found, is a race that's neck and neck, with McCain supported by 42 percent; Obama by 41 percent; Libertarian Bob Barr by 2 percent; and independent Ralph Nader by 2 percent. Another 13 percent supported other candidates or were undecided.
Zogby called the results a "notable turnaround" from a July survey he did that showed Obama leading by 46-36.
"McCain made significant gains at Obama's expense among some of what had been Obama's strongest demographic groups," Zogby said.
6 August 2008
at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bossa_Nova (Anonymous) says…
why do i not believe this poll?
6 August 2008
at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Because you haven't been paying attention, Bossa. The RCP average in the polls has had Obama's lead dropping for a while, down to less than 3% from the 6% it was a month earlier, with the tracking polls of likely voters tending to show McCain ahead.
6 August 2008
at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WilburM (Anonymous) says…
Well, most recent Gallup tracking has Obama up 4, and AP/Ispos (Mon.) has him up 6. And Zogby can be all over the place. Still, Real Clear Politics site does have average margin at 2.8%. In any of these match-ups, it's probably best to look at RCP, fivethirtyeight.com, and pollster.com to get a broader sense of where the race is. By and large, the most interesting element of the '08 presidential race is that Obama-McCain is close, while every other indicator shows Democrats winning substantial margins (Senate, House).
6 August 2008
at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
Obama recently voted for the wiretapping bill. McCain did not. That's just one reason why people are growing disenchanted with Obama.
6 August 2008
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WilburM (Anonymous) says…
Trying to pin any single issue (vote on wiretapping????) to a single poll is just foolish, unless the issue is huge and visible. Moreover, polls vary, but averages don't nearly as much. See, for example a coherent explanation of variation (or lack thereof) in Gallup tracking polls.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08…
6 August 2008
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Will the O'dude even be able to get nominated?
6 August 2008
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Bossa,
Here's why: A new poll today:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_l…
6 August 2008
at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
The novelty is wearing off.
6 August 2008
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
inatux (Anonymous) says…
Polls fluctuate a lot before any election, which is the only poll worth caring about.
6 August 2008
at 8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
janeyb (Anonymous) says…
Of course the Obama handlers jump in and state many of his supporters are the cell phone generation and aren't polled. I think he may max out at 46%. He better treat the Hillary supporters like royalty at the convention, he is fighting them right now, and he better choose his VP wisely, because McCain gets to announce VP last.
McCain challenging Barry to go to Iraq may have been a brilliant campaign move because it seems to have lost Obama support. Obama should not have snubbed the wounded soldiers. What were his handlers thinking??
6 August 2008
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
People are starting to find out who Obama really is and they don't like it. From his radical associations to people like Rev. Wright, to his pandering to a flock of Germans (who have impeccable taste in leaders). He clearly lacks the experience, and was dead wrong about the Surge in Iraq showing poor judgment.
It would be nice to know where Obama stands on the issues. It seems like every week brings a new flip-flop. The last two were his stances on his Energy policy. First he is against off-shore drilling, then he supports it. He was against using the Strategic Oil Reserves to reduce the price of gas, and his latest energy plan advocates such use. He is shifting so fast to appear moderate he is even confusing Dems. With all the hatred of Bush, this race is Obama's to lose. It appears he is getting his political advice from John Kerry, and Al Gore.
6 August 2008
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says:
Will the O'dude even be able to get nominated?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd vote for H. Clinton before I voted for the messiah.
6 August 2008
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
Hillary and Bill are dug in with their track spikes, are poised, and are waiting for the starter's gun. Hi-yo, Denver.
6 August 2008
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
Shock of all shocks, the corporate media has brought us, as predicted, to an exact tie. Lucky for them that means more ad revenue and more interest and reader/viewership in the horse race. The electoral vote total, of course, is the relevant measure of how the race is shaping up. I wonder why the corporate media does not report that.
6 August 2008
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Jesus Christ was behind Pontius Pilate with 2 months to go.
6 August 2008
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Everyone is sobering up?
6 August 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
canyon_wren (Anonymous) says…
I originally thought I could NEVER vote for Hillary, but alongside the revealed Obama, she is beginning to look half-way decent. I still would bet money that at the last minute, the Dems will pull Saint Al (Gore) out of the mix to offer to the voters.
6 August 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
“Trying to pin any single issue (vote on wiretapping????) to a single poll is just foolish”
So you're okay with wiretapping? That's fine. When it comes to candidate support, however, some people may consider it a deal-breaker.
6 August 2008
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
scott…
“Shock of all shocks, the corporate media has brought us,
as predicted, to an exact tie.”
The polls are done by independent organizations. Another reason I think the media may not only care about a close race, and the possibel increase in viewership, is based on the facts. Even when Obama had a significant lead in the polls there was still a huge disparity in coverage between Obama and McCain. You would think they would cover McCain more their only goal is to keep the race close.
6 August 2008
at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Gee, wonder why. And I have not been able to confirm this or pin it down, but now the rumor circulating is that he legally can not even be president…..birth right/origin/nationality and moreso his mother's status at his birth……anyone else know? Obama is a smart and appealring guy, it's just too bad his politics and associations with radical leftists has ruined it–—the legality of his citizenship is intriguing, need to see what's up with that.
6 August 2008
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas (Anonymous) says…
Man, did anyone think after 2 months into the Dem primaries that this eventual race was going to be anything other than neck and neck? Something big and legitimate will have to come to light about one of the camps in order for that to change.
6 August 2008
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Wouldn't it be a shame if the likes of Jerry Wright, Spike Lee, Bill Ayers, Ahamadinejab, Hugo Chavez, Farrakhan, or Hamas leader Yousef Sarhan did not get the chance to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?
6 August 2008
at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Obama is in the pocket of the most corrupt forces on Capitol Hill:
“Given his decision not to accept public financing, Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his campaign for the general election and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.
An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.
The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to big-time political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James Torrey, a New York hedge fund investor; and Charles Rivkin, an animation studio head in Los Angeles…..”
and
“Obama has pledged not to accept donations from federally registered lobbyists or political action committees. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Obama at a time their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington……”
from the August 5,2008 NYT, in a piece written by Michael M Luo and Christoper Drew.
There are more nuggets of painful and distateful truth in that article, it is worth the read.
One of the changes Obama will make will be give the crooks on Wallstreet even more power. He uses hedge fund managers as his economic advisors. OMG.
6 August 2008
at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chet_larock (Anonymous) says…
“Obama recently voted for the wiretapping bill. McCain did not.”
McCain didn't for it or against it, he didn't vote on it at all.
***
“Obama should not have snubbed the wounded soldiers.”
This is wing-nut propaganda that has only gained traction among those who wish to look no further than wing-nut talking heads.
***
This “tightening” of the race is brought to you by the liberal MSM. It keeps sheeple tuned in.
6 August 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Tom:.
“And I have not been able to confirm this or pin it down, but now the rumor circulating is that he legally can not even be president”
I haven't heard this at all. Although I did hear it about McCain since he was born on a Naval air station in Panama.
6 August 2008
at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Tom
I don't think goat herders are allowed to sire future presidents of the United States.
Let me look into this further.
6 August 2008
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
XD40 (Anonymous) says…
Obambi (THE Obamessiah) is an empty suit. Here are his comments from yesterday:
“In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.
However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.”
Just another Liberal Fascist
6 August 2008
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kujayhawk (Anonymous) says…
I believe it. I've normally voted Republican and was considering voting for Obama this election until I started researching Obama's tax plan. This guy is starting to scare the crap out of me.
6 August 2008
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bondmen (Anonymous) says…
Young Barack Hussein Obama was tutored (pseudo fathered) by an admitted Marxist in Hawaii and the AP, which wrote a big story on this, didn't have respect enough for the truth to print it! They had full knowledge of this man's background yet refused to print it! Can't trust the AP, that's for sure.
The more we learn about Barack Hussein Obama's secret past the more we understand where he wants to take US! And the less we want to go there!
See: “AP Lies About Obama's Red Mentor”
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies…
6 August 2008
at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
just like any other celebrity - Paris - Britney - sooner or later people grow tired of them and realized that nObama's 'Change blah blah' phrase is as shallow as Paris' “that's hot'….
He's flip-flopping on everything thinking he'll gain votes on the other side of the aisle…. WRONG! and to make it even better, he's pissing off people on his own party. It's fantastic.
6 August 2008
at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Obama is going to have a hard time advocating large tax increasing during a recession. That is the genius of Bush's tax cuts; eventually a democrat will have to the bad guy. Bush has run up such a deficit from military spending if Obama does win he will not have any money for wasteful government programs. Bush: a political genius.
6 August 2008
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
What's amusing is the white liberals that are pimping Obama think that the country is full boobs that can't sense something is fishy about this guy.
In a way, I feel sorry for Obama and sad that white liberals continue to take advantage of people like Obama.
6 August 2008
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
canyon_wren (Anonymous) says…
barrypenders—I feel like you do. It is a sad situation. I never thought that Obama was sufficiently qualified to be considered, but most of his strongest supporters are not really reflective enough to recognize that. So much of what people think is just “hype” anyway, and he's been hyped to the max. If he doesn't get nominated/elected, he should thank his lucky stars.
6 August 2008
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
It will be interesting to see if he rebounds among certain demographic groups or slides.
His popularity rose soooo fast that many assumed it would eventually start falling some … how much will be the question.
I compare it for many guys being infatuated with a very good looking female ….. at first they are all gaga for them based upon first appearances only … then when they talk with them and learn more about them … sometimes that infatuation starts to fade a bit. The American people are in that getting to know phase and the infatuation is fading a bit …. time will tell how much it fades.
6 August 2008
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
“Even when Obama had a significant lead in the polls there was still a huge disparity in coverage between Obama and McCain.”
No, you've got to step back and observe the corporate media's methods. Obama was the favored candidate clearly during the primary run against Hillary. He sold paper, increased viewership, created something for the talking heads to talk about, as opposed to the slow inevitable march of Hillary to the nomination (which is what most people thought would happen.) Having secured the nomination the media needed to immediately pull back on the reins in order to create the desired competitive horserace. That is what we have been seeing during the last two weeks. From now through the election we will see the corporate media carefully calibrate their coverage to ensure both candidates have a plausible chance to win & finally some sort of media driven and hyped event will tip the scales at the last moment to McCain who will win an improbable victory. Sound familiar? It should, it is what your corporate and military/industrial complex masters have foisted upon you for the last two cycles.
In the end I am not sure it matters much. McCain is likely a moderate liberal anyway, so the end result from a policy perspective is not going to change much. McCain seems to change his position on every major issue every year or so, so I am not too frightened by his current, hard right persona. The only thing that scares me is one more kook in the vein of Thomas or Alito on the Supreme Court will set the country back significantly. McCain may or may not hold true to his promise to nominate an Alito like judge, but the majority Democrat Senate will never approve anything more extreme than a moderate Republican in the Kennedy/O'Connor mode.
6 August 2008
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Obama should not have snubbed the wounded soldiers. What were his handlers thinking??”
Uh, it didn't happen, JaneyB. Try and know what you're talking about before you weigh in.
6 August 2008
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
People can't possibly be taking this poll seriously.
I'd love to see the actual numbers, as I find it completely absurd that Obama is suddenly losing support in his strongest support bases.
I don't know if anyone has bothered to look up the more complete story (thanks LJWorld), but some of these numbers are absolutely nuts:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadC…
Obama lost 16 pts and McCain gained 20 among voters 18 to 29??????? That right there is enough for me to question the accuracy of the entire poll. What was it that boosted McCain among young voters? His trip to the grocery store? Or his visit to the bratwurst restaurant in Ohio?
What a joke.
6 August 2008
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
DP, your left-wing blog sites have painfully tried to twist it, but what happened in Germany happened. What he did in Germany underscores his unfitness for leading this country, especially in a time of war.
6 August 2008
at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
LS04, given the tax burden that young people will face very soon just having to take care of the baby-boomers, in light of Senator Obama's plans for greatly increased taxes of all kinds young people in this country with any desire to retain what they lawfully earn would be crazy to vote for him - and many are starting to realize it.
6 August 2008
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Oh no, sliding in the polls!!! That means Barack wins by just 6 percentage points, not 7.
Story I read today showed that Obama had a firm lead in the polls, and that voters give even stronger support in wanting to see Dems in Congress.
Obama for President and Democrats in Congress! Sweet.
6 August 2008
at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Scott:
“Having secured the nomination the media needed to immediately pull back on the reins in order to create the desired competitive horserace.”
Have you not read the numbers of the huge disparity in coverage?
“In the end I am not sure it matters much. McCain is likely a moderate liberal anyway, so the end result from a policy perspective is not going to change much.”
Unfortunately you might be right. Which is why I will not decide who I will vote for until the VPs are picked.
6 August 2008
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
for those who want to know how to properly assess Loggy's postings:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/aug…
and, above he posts a link to huffingtonpost, hahahahahahahaha. that's funny. only recently did she put measures on to stop her bloggers from gloating over injury and death to conservative leaders.
***
wren and barry you are right. and what's making it worse is barry h. obama's supporters, and liberal white apologists in the media putting it out very broadly that if someone opposes obama, they are certainly racist!
we've seen some of our own illustrious fellow posters here doing the same!
***
right on Janeb. obama's own words spoken in london indicate that *he did snub the wounded troops* when he learned he couldn't take *his campaign manager in the hospital with him!*
***
the numbers in this poll are entirely believable: obama has been opposed to increased drilling (over 70% of americans strongly favor that), then he flips but still insists that it won't help and we should all start checking tire pressure–you got your obama energy plan tire gage yet? he goes before a *foreign audience and disses his own country while behaving as if he's already president? americans also hate presumptuousness.
read this carefully: this poll is only the start. by the time of the convention, the demorats will be so desperate, they'd rather nominate Gary Condit (sp?) former congressman from the valley in california.
6 August 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
How about we ignore the numbers and talk about where we think Obama will lead this nation. It is hard to tell given his consistently inconsistent positions. Although it may not be impossible to know what Obamanation (abomination) will look like. Given his far left voting record; his opposition to the Second Amendment, his radical associations to people like Rev. Wright, his lack of meaningful experience, his lack of judgment on issues like the Surge in Iraq, and his insistence in injecting race into the Presidential election, we have several clues as to America's future as Obamanation.
6 August 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Obama didn't go, because he was not allowed to bring his entourage. I think that's what she's talking about.”
Except that's not at all the reason he didn't go. You can continue trying to push this Hannity talking point, but it's untrue - the Pentagon sez so, as does Chuck Hagel.
6 August 2008
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
XD40 (Anonymous) says…
From the Associated Press:
washington - Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.
With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.
He's overexposed. You might blame a sycophant media.
6 August 2008
at 11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“Except that's not at all the reason he didn't go.”
Do we have to prove this to you again Duplenty? We have had this discussion several times and it has been unequivocally shown that Obama planned to go, then the Pentagon clearly stated he could go but the press could not go; so he then decided to not visit the wounded troops.
6 August 2008
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Conservativeman is certainly a full-on Obamaniac today. I guess if several of my pseudo-conservative candidates got their butts whipped in last night's primary, I'd be ducking for cover, too…
6 August 2008
at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
I don't like that he intends to continue on with Bush's funding of faith orgainzations and that he's backing off his no drilling pledge. Neither of those things is going to make me vote for McCain, though.
6 August 2008
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“”I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead,” says a swimsuit-clad Hilton in the video, posted Tuesday on the Web site Funny or Die.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said: “Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.”“
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCand…
6 August 2008
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Screedposter:
“Maybe he had a medical emergency. Maybe a brain hemorrhage? Might explain why every position he's taken since then is the opposite of before.”
You would think a medical emergency would have been a greater reason for him to visit a hospital. Maybe the liberals can give us a better explanation of why he scheduled to visit the troops but then ditched the plan after he was told the press wasn't allowed but he could still go.
6 August 2008
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Ag:
“Conservativeman is certainly a full-on Obamaniac today.”
Who is “Conservativeman”?
6 August 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
“Obama didn't go, because he was not allowed to bring his entourage. I think that's what she's talking about.”
Except that's not at all the reason he didn't go. You can continue trying to push this Hannity talking point, but it's untrue - the Pentagon sez so, as does Chuck Hagel.”
Ok, end of that non-story. Let's discuss McCain's voting record on veteran's issues, which I think is a far, far greater indicator of one's regard for the troops.
First, he skipped the vote on this year's 21st Century GI bill. A move of political cowardice, he was not willing to come off the campaign trail to indicate his support with his vote. Voting yes or no on a billis what he is paid to do, of course, and he di not bother to do his job on that issue.
Second, the group Disabled American Veterans gave McCain a 20% (out of 100) rating for the most recent rating.
Third, the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Mccain a “D” in its most recent rating.
Fourth, the Vietnam Veterans of America note that since 2001 McCain has voted this the organization 9 times, against the organization's view 15 times and, again, failed to vote 8 times.
The fact so many veteran's groups rate him so poorly reveals the real reason McCain & the corporate media are focusing on a single visit and a supposed character falw of Obama, rather than on the real issue of McCain's shoddy treatment of veterans where it really counts.
6 August 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MartinPrince (Anonymous) says…
http://www.wecanbelievein.com/index.p…
6 August 2008
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
Two-thirds of Republicans and about half of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of Democrats, a significant number
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/a…
People are getting tired of him… Blah Blah Change Blah Raise Taxes Blah Pro Drilling Blah Against Drilling Blah blah
6 August 2008
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
max1 (Anonymous) says…
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDa…
August 5, 2008
Registered voters prefer Obama to McCain by 47% to 43%
August 4, 2008
Gallup Poll Daily tracking's latest update shows Barack Obama with a 3-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 43%.
August 3, 2008
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain remain statistically tied in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for July 31-Aug. 2, with Obama at 45% and McCain at 44% among registered voters.
August 2, 2008
Barack Obama and John McCain each receive 44% of the vote in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking presidential trial heat of nationwide registered voters.
6 August 2008
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blessed3x (Anonymous) says…
Maybe it's because people are tired of hearing about him every 30 seconds on the liberal media channels.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/a…
6 August 2008
at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Scott:
Since you obviously can't defend Obama you have to attack McCain. No surprise, you probably don't know enough about him to defend him. How about we make a deal? I will discuss one of your perceived issues with McCain, and we can also discuss one of Obama's.
First, the non-voting is an issue that both Obama and McCain have given they are running for President. (many politicians have this problem).
Second, McCain has consistently stated he is against wasting money on expensive military research that produces no results. This is the likely reason he is rated so low by these groups. He may oppose legislation that is very broad when he only has a disagreement with a particular issue.
Last, I don't think there is doubt in most people's mind the McCain would have visited the wounded troops with or without the media, given his 5 years as a POW for this country.
Now we can talk about one of Obama's problems. How about his opposition to the surge in Iraq? Who am I kidding you will want to keep the topic on McCain because talking about Obama will just show this guy lacks judgment and has no political core.
6 August 2008
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Yeah, max1 is back with his constant cutting and pasting articles (often off-topic), and inability to provide anything useful other than an inferred argument.
Actually I am beginning to believe that maybe max1 only has one hand which is the reason he can only cut and paste with his mouse, and can't type.
6 August 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
No, Satirical, the issue being discussed is support for the troops. Why didn't McCain demonstrate his support by voting on the GI bill. It is not a “non'issue” and it is clear for all to see. Your guy claims his support and regard for the troops is superior. The veterans groups and McCain's actions suggest otherwise.
And when are you guys going to quit using the “I was a POW” issue as a get out of jail free card. Enough of the poor, poor pitiful me bit. It has almost nothing to do with how he'd govern, whether he'd be competent. What policies he'd pursue, etc.
Veterans groups across the board rate McCain's performance as Senator as horrible (and that may be generous.) There is a reason for this. Of course, McCain wants to talk about non-issues and celebrities and the Messiah, it all takes people's eyes off of his shabby record.
6 August 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
Scott says:
“First, he skipped the vote on this year's 21st Century GI bill. A move of political cowardice, he was not willing to come off the campaign trail to indicate his support with his vote. Voting yes or no on a billis what he is paid to do, of course, and he di not bother to do his job on that issue”
“A move of political cowardice..”? Scotty, you're middle name isn't Hyperbole, is it?
Not a good idea to attempt to use 'skipping a vote' as an attack against McCain. Obama's abstention record is humongous and he's supposed to chair a Senate Committee yet he's been present for one session.
As far as not voting on the last GI Bill, McCain didn't want to back it because he has an alternative plan of his own. Granted, it's political manuevering, but it's NOT because he's dissing the troops and doesn't care about them, nor an act of 'political cowardice', which is just as dumb a line as “duh duh duh corporate propaganda arms and duh corrupt military industrial complex are propping up the election to sell papers”. Your last name wouldn't be Stone, would it?
6 August 2008
at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Scott:
“Why didn't McCain demonstrate his support by voting on the GI bill.”
From CNN….
(The proposed GI Bill) would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called “the backbone of all the services.”
“In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family,” McCain said at a Memorial Day event in Albuquerque.
“They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly.”
McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed.
“The office of president, which I am seeking, is a great honor indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities,” the presumptive GOP nominee said.
“I can only tell you, I intend to deserve the honor if I am fortunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.”
––––––––––––––––––––––––
Ok, if you claim you want to keep the topic on supporting the troops, how about you defend Obama's choice to schedule a visit to the wounded troops, then be told the press weren't allowed but he could still attend, and then deciding the trip wasn't important.
6 August 2008
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sdinges (Anonymous) says…
A note about citizenship: The child of any natural born citizen of the United States is always a citizen at birth (regardless of who or what the other parent is). Thus, whether McCain and Obama were born in Hawaii, Panama, or a spaceship orbiting Mars, since both have at least one parent who is a natural born citizen of the U.S., both were citizens at birth.
A naturalized citizen does not necessarily have the automatic right to pass on U.S. citizenship if the child is born off U.S. soil. Nevertheless, this is not an issue for either candidate.
The constitution does not require that you be born on U.S. soil, only that you are a citizen at birth.
And as a further note - Hawaii became a state two years before Obama was born there, so it's even further a moot point.
–
As for Obama losing support - it's predictable. It's hard to keep the shine and interest going for months on end. People get bored. The candidates start looking like the same old political candidates that voters have seen time and time again.
6 August 2008
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Sdinges:
I am not claiming you are wrong, but can you provide the law that states, “The child of any natural born citizen of the United States is always a citizen at birth”?
6 August 2008
at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Senator Barack Obama is a citizen of Kenya and became a citizen of Kenya under the Independence Constitution of Kenya in 1963. Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. He is also a U. S. Citizen.
“Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. He has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. On his senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality when discussing his father. Obama obviously knows, because his father told him, that he also held/holds Kenyan nationality.
6 August 2008
at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Perhaps the “liberals” are finally waking up from their wet dream tizzy and are realizing that Obama is just another shill of the private central bankers.
Did anyone catch Obama's call for everyone to serve the New World Order in his Berlin speech?
6 August 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
yyyyaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/…
6 August 2008
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
Are we there yet?
6 August 2008
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Looks like no one is willing to defend Obama. I hope the liberals have better ideas other than typical “tax and spend” solution to all of life's problems.
6 August 2008
at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sdinges (Anonymous) says…
Satirical: I probably can if I look. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to comb through the Immigration and Nationality Act. Though a term search for jus sanguinis might pop it up. I happen to know because I myself am a naturalized citizen, and it's good to know these things if you have kids.
If you're happy taking USCIS's word for it, here's a link:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usci…
Barrypenders isn't wrong either. Basically, if Kenya follows the same rules we do here, his father was just as entitled to pass on his citizenship at birth, by the same principle of jus sanguinis. Now, interesting point to you all - renouncing your citizenship isn't as easy as it sounds. It's not up to you. It's up to the country in question whether or not it accepts your renunciation. Furthermore, by law, the United States does not recognize your citizenship to another country. So while Kenya might consider Obama a citizen, the United States does not recognize his Kenyan citizenship in any way whatsoever.
Holding a high political office in another country is a good way to get your citizenship revoked, mind you. But again, that's up to Kenya, not Obama.
Naturally, since the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, there is nothing in our laws to prevent a dual citizen from becoming president.
6 August 2008
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Sdinges:
Not attempting to debate an irrelevant topic but your link only states, “jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents)”
It is plural “parents” not “parent”. This is the reason why I questioned your earlier statement that as long as one parent is a citizen, the child is a citizen.
6 August 2008
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
Jaywalker, Satirical:
All the distortion and misdirection in the world will not allow you to escape the fact that your guy refused to stand up and be counted in his opposition to the 21st Century GI bill. He simply refused to be counted & we all know why he did so. His actions were a display of political cowardice - that is my opinion and one that I am confident is shared by a majority.
Further, I suspect that most troops have a higher regard for those politicians that voted in favor of the new GI Bill and the benefits and rights it grants them, than those who voted against it, or who skipped the vote for anything other than legitimate reasons. As I said, I think we all know which camp McCain falls in to.
I further suspect that most troops care more about the substance of the new law than they do whether a politician came to visit them in a hospital. GI Bill benefits and rights will have a far greater impact on their life than will a visit of a few minutes.
Further, I suspect that Obama's vote in favor of the GI Bill did far more good for the average soldier, and for veterans as a group, than either McCain's skipped vote or any politician's visit to a veteran's hospital. Veteran's groups do not rank McCain so poorly, after all, for no good reason. He's one of their own. He's earned his horrible ratings.
Still further, if, as he claims, he was in favor of his own competing approach to the GI Bill, it is clear that he is not an effective legislator or persuader of his peers in the Senate. It is well-known that he is not well liked because of his temper and generally disagreeable personality. We do not need another President that cannot, or won't, work cooperatively with the Congress.
Finally, there is the shameful matter of george bush claiming, via the corporate media, that McCain had, in fact, supported and voted in favor of the GI Bill. McCain, to my knowledge, has never had the decency to correct the lie.
All of these facts and considerations would be far more than enough reason for most troops to support Obama and despise McCain. Fortunately, for McCain (not the troops) the corporate media and professional bloggers keep the issues focused on pressing matters such as tire guages, and celebrities, and whether Obama thinks he's the Messiah.
6 August 2008
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Scott:
What a surprise, you refuse to talk about Obama even when it is on topic. It is clear you are trying to hijack the discussion because you can't defend Obama's actions.
Spin it anyway you want it, but McCain didn't vote for one version of the GI plan because he had a better GI plan. Not voting for a bad GI plan doesn't mean you don't care about the troops, it means you care about the country.
And if your criteria for failure is not getting a bill passed, then any politician who has ever proposed legislation which has not been signed into law is by your words, “not an effective legislator or persuader of his peers in the Senate.” Hasn't Obama made several proposals, and did they all pass?
If you are going to continue to dodge an on-topic question about Obama because you want to keep the conversation on McCain then maybe you should come up with better arguments. I am willing to have a civil discussion about a signel topic or many, including the candidate's position on supporting the troops, but you seem to only want to talk about McCain, so maybe our discussion should cease unless you are willing to talk about both candidates on this issue including Obama not visiting the wounded troops.
6 August 2008
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
“His actions were a display of political cowardice - that is my opinion and one that I am confident is shared by a majority”
Then you're a fool.
“Further, I suspect that most troops have a higher regard for those politicians that voted in favor of the new GI Bill and the benefits and rights it grants them”
You 'suspect'? As if you have intimate knowledge of what drives our soldiers? Why, it was only a short while ago that you spouted that soldiers, particularly 'grunts' at Ft. Leavenworth, would have nothing meaningful enough to say that could teach you anything. And that you knew 'their' mindset because you had grown up near a base. It was a slyly derogatory ranting concerning people you asserted to know better than and were somehow above, yet now you want to come off as someone who, along with Obama, knows and admires the troops enough to vote on a bil