Presidential election may be up for grabs

[Redeye]

76% of US citizens in Israel voted for McCain.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

See Florida 2000 for voter suppression.  Purging 50 000 voter form the voting rolls for being convicted felons even though 25000 of them were not and then turning them away from the polling stations.

Actually, the story is much different. The Wikipedia writeup on the Florida elections states the following: "While the number of citizens on the potential felons on the list was 57,746, the Palm Beach Post found that a full 30% (20 of 67 counties) of the counties did not use the list. In their investigation, they found that the number actually removed was 19,398. Of that number, they could only prove that 108 were wrongfully removed because the citizen was incorrectly identified as a felon." For a more in-depth analysis go to this webpage:   http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm. Note that this webpage is hardly pro-Bush and that Bush voters, not just Gore supporters, also got caught up in the SNAFU.

This ACORN thing is being used as a talking point by the Rush Limbaugh types. The truth is far different.

True, Rush and the boys have been harping on the ACORN thing, but the reason is that where there's smoke, there is likely fire. If you don't believe me, just Google, " ACORN +voter + fraud" and see what you get. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is another analysis of why/how Barack Obama is most likely to win on Tuesday:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wobama01/BNStory/usElection2008

Obama victory would validate new era

JOHN IBBITSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
November 1, 2008 at 12:31 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Never mind the fact that he would be the first black president. Consider this: For most Americans, this would be the first time in their lives that they've been governed by a president who is a northern liberal. The last one was John F. Kennedy.

Almost every president since Franklin Roosevelt (including Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton) was raised in a small town. He's a city kid.

He would be the first president raised in a foreign land.

And while most Americans, including all presidents, have looked across the Atlantic to Europe for their ancestral home, he looks also to Africa, and his ocean is the Pacific.

If, as all polls and most analysts suggest, Barack Obama is elected Tuesday as the 44th president of the United States, his victory would acknowledge an ongoing reformation of the republic: the halting, inconstant but unmistakable breaking down of barriers; the political debut of a new generation; the transformation of whole regions of the nation.

And it would happen at a time of crisis. In three earlier crises, Americans elected great presidents. The journey ahead of us will reveal whether they are about to elect a fourth.

While Republican politicians speak of a “real America” anchored by small towns, this is an ever-more-urban nation. In 1999, which is the latest data available from the Census Bureau, 79 per cent of the population lived in cities.

This restless nation is constantly on the move. Between 2000 and 2007, the population of Arizona increased 23 per cent. North Carolina's increased 13 per cent. Georgia's population swelled by 17 per cent.

But New York's population grew less than 2 per cent. Pennsylvania, 1 per cent. Same with Michigan.

Knowledge workers flood the new technology corridors. Retirees migrate in search of heat and low taxes. Latinos, most of whom are actually legal, search for a grip on the next rung. And they bring their votes with them.

Politics lags reality because people need to settle in first. So it has taken a generation. But New Mexico is expected to go Democratic on Tuesday. So is Colorado. Virginia, the bedrock of the Confederacy, is expected to put Mr. Obama over the top in the electoral college. This will be the presidential election in which the New South reveals its emerging political complexity.

But it goes beyond simple demographics. Late 20th-century conservatism, as personified by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, served America well. A strong military married to an assertive foreign policy; ever-lower taxes accompanied by ever-less regulation; a celebration of faith and the family. They produced years of prosperity and peace. The only Democrat who prevailed, Bill Clinton, was a fiscal conservative from the South.

But the attacks of Sept. 11 unleashed a rightist frenzy that led to torture, immoral detention and Iraq. Supply-side economics went beyond all bounds of sense, sinking the federal government into debt and creating a financial panic. And the ugly intolerance of the religious right disgusted a new generation of evangelicals, who insist that a Christian life means more than opposing abortion and homosexuality.

And so a mixed-race Chicago pol emerged from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a message of re-regulation, tax hikes for the rich, huge increases in government spending and a multilateral foreign policy, and lo and behold, it sells.

We shouldn't underestimate the importance of events in this election. As historian and commentator Niall Ferguson observed in an interview, Mr. Obama and Republican challenger John McCain were tied in the polls through much of September, before the financial crisis struck.

While he acknowledges the demographic shift under way, Mr. Ferguson emphasizes the importance of “an economic shock propelling a charismatic candidate into power.” Had banks not started to fail, we could be contemplating the election of a president McCain.

Yet that may unfairly diminish both Mr. Obama and the people who seem set on electing him. Barack Obama has emerged as a political force of nature. He has overcome the stigma of race in a society that still harbours racist resentments. (And is any society any different? How white is your government?) He has persuaded voters to brush aside a worryingly thin résumé, questionable associates and regrettable decisions – admit it, Mr. Obama, the surge in Iraq worked – by the sheer force of his oratory and personality.

Mr. Obama's campaign has re-enfranchised African Americans who never dreamed one of their own could win the White House. It has convinced Latinos to submerge racial suspicions toward African Americans and join them in common cause. It has brought Gen Xers and Millennials onto the streets, not to protest, but to register new voters for Mr. Obama.

Those who don't matter – because don't you know that middle-aged white males pick the government? – now matter. They could decide the election.

In 1860, Americans who opposed slavery banded together to elect a backwoods lawyer who vowed to stand up to the secessionists. In 1932, they chose an aristocratic New York governor who could walk only with braces to lead them out of the Depression. And in 1980, they asked a perpetually optimistic former B-movie actor to reverse a decade of failure, defeat and decline.

Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan all seemed like improbable choices to critics at the time. Yet they are among the greatest of the presidents.

The next president will also face testing times. A recession is almost certainly under way, and it will almost certainly be long and deep. The federal government has exposed itself to daunting risk, partly nationalizing a substantial portion of the economy in an effort to prevent collapse. Iran is threatening and unstable, so is North Korea, and Russia would very much like to be feared again.

“The next U.S. president will inherit a more difficult set of international challenges than any predecessor since World War II,” the diplomat Richard Holbrooke wrote in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

How we would view Mr. Obama's presidency through the prism of hindsight is unknowable. But we can say this much.

America has once again embarrassed those skeptics who believe it is a failing giant.

“The rise of Barack Obama testifies to the extraordinary resilience of American society,” Walter Russell Meade said in an interview. Mr. Meade is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World.

“One of the chief elements of Anglo-American culture has been this ability to reach out and bring in new talent and expand its notion of who the ‘we' is,” he said.

“That process is still incredibly healthy.”

He also notes that “neither candidate is running as a candidate of the past.” But then, that seldom happens here. America has never surrendered to nostalgia. This is a forward-looking people, who once again appear determined to confound those who believe this will be some other nation's century.

President Barack Hussein Obama. Who would have thought?

I agree with both Ferguson and Meade:

• The credit crisis served Obama’s campaign well and did serious damage to McCain. For whatever reasons many, many Americans decided that Obama “got it” and McCain did not – maybe it was akin to the same “empathy” thing that hurt Harper’s campaign up here in Canada at the same time; and

• Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House. 

 

[GAP]

I agree with both Ferguson and Meade:

•  The credit crisis served Obama’s campaign well and did serious damage to McCain. For whatever reasons many, many Americans decided that Obama “got it” and McCain did not – maybe it was akin to the same “empathy” thing that hurt Harper’s campaign up here in Canada at the same time; and

•  Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House. 

On the first point, I think you absolutely correct. The economic crash had a tremendous effect on the both the Canadian and US voter. They have/are opting for a comfort level, even if it is only perceived....

The second point is going to change our US neighbours....they will end up being served, in large parts, like the Canadian government treats it's citizens....mild socialism, the government will provide....

This is going to create a real backlash against Obama. He, his color, his collective friends and powers are going to be held up as examples of what not to do and somebody(S) is going to try to change it....it could get messy...

 

[Chortle]

The polls have been slanted for awhile trying to reduce republican turnout.On election night the networks will try to call some states too early as they did in 2004 when their exit polls were so off.As to the Orthodox vote being over sampled here is an explanation.

I'm sorry if there are any grammatical errors in this post but I just got off of a night shift and wanted to catch up before I turn in... I've deleted and rewritten it a few times already. I don't post a lot period and because I'm not American  I wasn't going to post in here but I do enjoy reading this thread and wanted to put in my two cents.

I've voted both left and right in Canadian elections, I don't have strong ties to either side and look at both platforms before making a choice each time. I guess if I was American I would have been in the undecided category for quite a while but I have been following this election  a lot and I find the reaction of many republicans both here and other places to be a bit dismaying.

I'm not saying that there is no bias in the main stream media and maybe some or even most of the polls are slanted but when even karl Rove is predicting an Obama win maybe McCain supporters should prepare for a disappointing Tuesday. Even if the polls are slanted just looking at the crowds who show up at the two candidates rallies there appears to be a big discrepancy between the average looking, to me, McCain audience compared to the sea of people who show up to listen to Obama.  

http://www.rove.com/election

For better or worse I think Republicans will be disappointed on Tuesday but the GOP has to be blind if they don't see why, it's one thing when the right is getting slamed on CNN but now even FOX News people are taking shots at McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiJSJkS48c

For weeks now the GOP has been trying to scare people out of voting for Obama rather than making them want to vote for McCain, as E.R. Campbell posted so well while I was typing this:

• Electing Obama, assuming it happens, will be a “leap of faith” that illustrates the essentially optimistic nature of our American neighbours. They, about half of them, anyway, have decided that he is not scary enough, that he is the “way of the future” and they appear ready to put aside vague misgivings and put him in the White House.  

My prediction:

This sort of thing may have swayed enough undecided voters in past elections but I think it is the wrong way to go this time. Anything could happen before Tuesday but I believe that McCain has failed to adapt to a much slicker Obama campaign and when it's all said and done he'll only have himself to blame.

Sorry about the wall of text.

 

[Rifleman62]

Have you ever noticed that when any of the candidates, from both parties, are speaking, the candidate is facing the TV camera. The crowd in the background is all you see. And do not think that those people are not selected to be the backdrop for the TV audience.

Seldom do you get crowd estimates unless it is one of orchestrated Obama rallies preceded with entertainers etc.  FOX News stated 7000 people were out to hear Palin in Ohio yesterday. Biden had 500 in the same state.

About the Center for Media and Public Affairs
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of news and entertainment media. CMPA's goal is to provide an empirical basis for ongoing debates over media coverage and impact through well-documented, timely, and readable studies.

October 14, 2008

Obama Leads the Media Race As Well
Study Finds McCain, Palin Get More Negative Press on TV News

Barack Obama has widened his lead over John McCain in the race for good press, and Sarah Palin's press has turned sharply negative on network news shows, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that network news coverage is more substantive than in other recent presidential campaigns.
These results are the latest update from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 585 election news stories that aired from August 23 through September 30 (12 hours 57 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from August 23 to September 30. We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns and their surrogates.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Obamamania: Since the party conventions kicked off the final phase of the presidential campaign, comments about Senator Barack Obama on the network evening news shows have been 65% positive, compared to only 36% positive comments about Senator John McCain.

Souring on Sarah: Despite a brief flurry of good press during the GOP convention, comments about Governor Sarah Palin have been only 42% positive. (There have been too few evaluations of Senator Joe Biden for meaningful analysis.)

Back to the Future: This represents a return to Obama's favorable media image during the primary season, when his coverage was 62% positive on the broadcast networks. By contrast, McCain's coverage during the primaries was only 34% positive, almost the same as his general election coverage.

The Fox Difference: On Fox News Channel, by contrast, Obama's press has been only 28% positive during the general election, even worse than the 38% positive evaluations of McCain. Palin's coverage has been 49% positive on Fox, slightly higher on than on the three networks.

Examples:
Obama Positive: [As a community organizer] Obama worked to open a jobs center. He also helped residents fight to rid their housing projects of asbestos. [People] in this community say Barack Obama's work here inspires them to this day. -- Kevin Tibbles, NBC, 10/2

His message of change is something that I, for one, am looking for...-- voter, CBS, 9/28

Obama Negative: While Obama denounces cozy Washington relationships triggering financial chaos, he was one of the top Senate recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... -- Major Garret, FOX, 9/17

McCain Negative: In this week's advertising, McCain went relentlessly negative, in some cases resorting to falsehood. -- Wyatt Andrews, CBS, 9/12

When deregulation was the wave in Washington, he surfed that wave. Now it's not and the populist inside John McCain is out. -- George Will, ABC, 9/17

Palin Negative: But you were for it [the bridge from nowhere], before you were against it. You were solidly for it... until Congress pulled the plug. -- Charles Gibson, ABC, 9/12

Substance Beats Horse Race Substantive coverage of policy issues and the candidates' records has outpaced horse race coverage of their poll standings and campaign strategies by 36% to 31% of all stories on the broadcast networks, for only the second time since 1988. On Fox, however, only 31% of the coverage was substantive, and 44% dealt with the horse race.

CMPA is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which is affiliated with George Mason University. It has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. For previous CMPA findings on the 2008 elections: http://cmpa.com/studies_election_08.htm

JUST LIKE CANADA, EH!

 

[muskrat89]

Now, it comes out that supposedly, Obama's aunt is in the country illegally, living in the projects in south Boston.

A couple of things pop into my mind - first, this will fizzle and go away with little media coverage. The fact that Joe the Plumber didn't have a plumber's license will have garnered more attention.

Obama wants to redistribute my wealth to folks in need; he didn't see fit to spread his around apparently.

 

[vonGarvin]

Meaning what, exactly?

Meaning that 25% voted for others.  I guess...

 

[Drag]

Actually, the story is much different. The Wikipedia writeup on the Florida elections states the following: "While the number of citizens on the potential felons on the list was 57,746, the Palm Beach Post found that a full 30% (20 of 67 counties) of the counties did not use the list. In their investigation, they found that the number actually removed was 19,398. Of that number, they could only prove that 108 were wrongfully removed because the citizen was incorrectly identified as a felon." For a more in-depth analysis go to this webpage:   http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm. Note that this webpage is hardly pro-Bush and that Bush voters, not just Gore supporters, also got caught up in the SNAFU.

True, Rush and the boys have been harping on the ACORN thing, but the reason is that where there's smoke, there is likely fire. If you don't believe me, just Google, " ACORN +voter + fraud" and see what you get. 

While on Wikipeida I typed in Voter Suppression.... It is a very interesting read.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list

 

[Drag]

And which poll would that be? Please specify, because I have not seen any polls that would indicate such a trend. And face it, it would have been front page in every newspaper in the U.S. The reality is that there are dozens of polls out there making predictions that are quite literally all over the map. For example:

"...the Associated Press/Gfk poll which says Obama will win by one, or the Pew Research poll which says Obama will win by fourteen?"

"...the Battleground poll which says Obama will win by three, or the CBS/NYT poll which says Obama will win by thirteen?"

As you can see, even among reputable firms there is quite a discrepancy. To get an understanding on why the polls are are all over the map I would recommend the following website Stolen Thunder (the source of the above quotes). Anyone interested in what is happening in U.S. polls should take a look at it. I can't recommend it enough. What the blogger (DJ Drummond)is saying is that the polls in this election are screwed because of corrupt data. To get a good handle on what he is saying, go back to about mid-Oct and read forward.

Actually, the internals of most polls show cross over support of anywhere from 10-20 percent for both candidates...  Hence it is not news...  Here is one http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx  My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.

 

[Kirkhill]

..... My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.

False syllogism. 

That presupposes that all Republican voters have the same information that T6 and non-Obama Republicans have.

I don't believe that to be necessarily the case.

Given that much of the data that T6 and those of us on this site are discussing are available primarily, if not exclusively, through the NON-Traditional means of the Internet, and given that Republicans are conservative and thus more likely to be satisfied with Traditional sources then it seems that it is likely that a large number of Republicans may not be aware of the information that T6 uses to bolster his arguments.  They may indeed by operating from a state of "ignorance" (and I use that clinically, not pejoratively).

Conversely that tendency may be offset partially those Republicans that, just as in the case of the Democrats who also have their conservative members,  vote out of Tradition and are not bothered by information (positive, negative or the lack of it).

So while both parties have  Those That Will Not Hear,  the Republicans may have more of  Those That Cannot Hear.

 

[Drag]

I do not really by that argument.  Much of the stuff on the internet falls squarely into the tin foil hat category.  Obama's birth certificate, supposed financial support of his distaint cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya, the purported Michelle Obama tapes.  People that buy this stuff are the real cool aid drinkers out there.  Stuff like this comes out of the alternate sources of information you refer too.

 

[tomahawk6]

Obama if elected would be the most liberal politician to ever be elected. How he governs will determine if he would be in the Clinton mold or in the Hugo Chavez  mold.

 

[Drag]

I do agree with you on that.  Obama would be the most ideologically liberal POTUS ever.  Jimmy Carter maybe, Hugo Chavez no way

 

[Kirkhill]

I do not really by that argument.  Much of the stuff on the internet falls squarely into the tin foil hat category.  Obama's birth certificate, supposed financial support of his distaint cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya, the purported Michelle Obama tapes.  People that buy this stuff are the real cool aid drinkers out there.  Stuff like this comes out of the alternate sources of information you refer too.

Drag, it doesn't really matter if you believe this "stuff" or not.  It doesn't even really matter if the stuff is true.  Just as it doesn't really matter if Obama is the Second Coming.  What matters is how many people believe each story.  Or in the excessively common idiom, how many have drunk your KoolAidTM.

Personally, it is supporters like THIS, that give me more cause to be concerned about Obama than the Pfleger/Wright/Ayers/Khalidi mates that he pals around with, and the he actively sought out so as not to appear overly bourgeois.   

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Source.

A couple of observations:

Although Obama is a politician, in the absence of evidence to the contrary perhaps we can take his words at face value.  My only problem?  Which words.

Also KoolAidTM comes in many colours including Blue, as well as Red.

Cheers.

 

[tomahawk6]

This post crashed the redtstae servers last night.Its from a former Hillary/Obama staffer.

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/anonymous_14/2008/oct/30/what-you-were-never-intended-to-know-in-this/

What you were never intended to know in this election
A Hillary staffer comes clean

Posted by: Anonymous_14

Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 04:52PM CDT

30 Comments

After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.

1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.


3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.


4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.

As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.


I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.

 

[Rifleman62]

tomahawk6, this could be misinformation planted by the Republicans. At this stage of the game, I think so. I do agree with this though because I want to. I also think Michelle Obama is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[GAP]

Whether it is misinformation or not, there sure is some grains of truth in each of the arguments, enough that it can't be dismissed outright. Granted, most of what she said compares with what I felt throughout the campaign but couldn't put a finger on .....

 

[Old Sweat]

If it is black propaganda, it is well done as it takes a snippet of verifiable information in each case  and expands on it. It also sounds believable, even if it pushes the edge of credibility.

As well, it appears with two days of campaigning left. That is enough time for wavering voters to digest it, but perhaps not enough time for the Obama campaign to react. (Remember the Bush drunk driving conviction that emerged just before the 04 election. It broke a bit early and the GOP was able to nullify it.)

What leads me to suspect the authenticity of it is the description of the writer. How many Obama campaign staffers fill this self-identified profile including the bit about being detailed to frequent right wing blog sites? Not very many I venture. It would be like an anonymous Army.ca member posting slurs about our mods on another web site , and indentifying himself as a 68-year-old retired artilley lieutenant colonel in Eastern Ontario. It wouldn't take very long to track me down and propel me off the ramp strapped to an anvil.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Actually, the internals of most polls show cross over support of anywhere from 10-20 percent for both candidates...  Hence it is not news...  Here is one http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx  My point in bringing that is is that Obama cannot be as radical T6 claims and still attract Republican  voters.

I disagree, 10 - 20 % crossover between either candidate would be big time news. Also, I think you missed my point in that the polls are screwed! The data they are using is corrupt that they can't be trusted. Again, here is the link to the website that I had provided in my original post. Read it and you might start looking at the polls in a different light.