WiiLoaded.com - Wii Forum and News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2008082...tico/12656

Adding Barr/Nader to the list didn't change the spread... still 5 point lead. Across the bar drops in every demographic (except african americans; Obama held strong at 90%). Is this because of McCain's ads (which attack his inexperience) or Obama's "adjustments" (he's made a lot of them)?

or is it because some people are easily lead/influanced by big words,

here's a big word. BUSH=McCain.

I swear, if McCain plans on going to war with more countries I'm gonna be pissed.

How do people even like this guy? He called his wife a **** didn't he? He also had an affair on his first wife after she was in a car accident. He hasn't voted in favor of parents or women in years, and if I hear POW one more time I'm kicking out a window.

Obama=Carter?  Kerry?  The Anti-Christ?  The comparisons are silly.  They are both Republicans, so yeah, they are going to align more frequently than Obama has.  Just because you don't like Bush (overlooking your reasoning for such) doesn't mean you should make such sweeping generalizations.  

/I'm not voting for either.
//Bush has made pretty good decisions since 05
///Except he keeps growing the federal gov't
////Demo's economic plan is a disaster
/////Obama will get shredded in the debates

who said i didn't like bush,

maybe i kinda like bush,

surley that b=m statment i made is purley down to the perspective of the person reading it,

if they don't like bush then they won't like mcCain, if they do like bush, then they would like mcCain.

all my statement says is that McCain would simply be more of the same, but it's to your perspective not from mine, if you liked bush.

b=m is just a simple more elegant way of saying what you want it to

Fair enough... that means I can compare anyone to anyone and it's up to them to figure out if they like the first person, in which case they should like the second, and vice versa. The mathematical equals sign infers that the two people are indeed the same, so the reader isn't allowed to question that statement. The only thing they are allowed to do is to figure out how they feel about the first person, in which case, the same feelings should be directed towards the second. Let's give this a shot, and leave it up to "perspective".

Hitler = Obama

/My whole point was that just because they are Republicans, and align often, does not mean McCain will be Bush's third term. Reagan != Bush (either one), for instance.

No kidding, we're going to have even more debt.

It's becasue his campaign paid an a$$load of money to run ads during the olympics. I mean 70 million people tuned in for Phelp's last gold metal race.

what makes you think obama will get shredded in the debates?

Not only that but even our presence in Iraq is straining us, and to conflict with anyone else would just be dumb.

What if Obama were to go to war with other countries? why do I doubt you'd be complaining then..

Why do I think you sound like an idiot? Of course I'd be complaining. War is war no matter who declares it. Go away.

He's refused to debate McCain after promising to take him on "anytime, anywhere" and he showed many weaknesses during earlier debates with democrats. Everyone has said that Obama is a great orator, but a weak debater. McCain, on the other hand, has quite a bit of experience, and is known to be good at it.

/I mostly dislike Obama because of the attitudes of his supporters
//Also, he's done nothing noteworthy in any position he's been in, other than write two books... about himself
///Some want to be president to do something... some want to be something.

The vast majority of the country supported the actions in Iraq.

/Obama going to war with countries is more likely than you think.
//He has already pledged his unwavering support for Israel.
///Of course, he could always "adjust" his position... again...

We all know Joker is a well admitted Republican.

One Zogby poll isn't the be all-end all.  Most other polls show Obama's lead closer, but still Obama in the lead.  For real information, look at pollster.com.

Politico's map takes the latest leads (even slight leads), in one poll, and attributes it to the winner.  Pollster.com uses linear regression models to predict trends and calculate averages (the most acurate method so far).  This puts Obama ahead of McCain, but neither candidate has enough to win.  (although, using the numbers in the toss-ups, Obama would win).

"///// Obama will get shredded in the debates"

W...T...F are you smoking?  I want some that can distort reality that much.  If ANYTHING, it's going to be the other way around,

McCain is not very intelligent (894/899), admitted he doesn't know much about the economy, doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunnis, and still things the Czeck is a country.  He also lacks charisma, doesn't think well on his feet, is soft spoken, has little presence, and often falls back to prepared sound bites, which never do well in debates.

Obama is a Harvard graduate, who is far more charasmatic, and has much more of a presidential presence.  


When talking about the almighty "Maverick's" experience, let's not forget that the founding fathers of this nation had no experience.  No ties, no corruption, and they were the best leaders we had, and created what we have today.

McCain did well at Sattleback, and his negative campaign has been working.  However, pre-convention polling is useless.  Right around this time last year, polls had Bush winning Calif., which Reps. never win.  Most close elections, the leader in aug/sept. usually ends up loosing the Nov election.

Obama could greatly be helped if he picks Hillary.  He also has the debates, which, IMHO, he will sweep.  (Experience doesn't win a debate, charisma does, Joker.)

Finally, there are the undecideds.  A good number are Hillary supporters, who, when all is said and done, will break for Barrack.  The lead the dems have in Congressional and Senate polls, as well as party identification polls indicate that undecideds, who normally break 2 to 1 republican, will go the other way this time, winning over the almost 15% absent from swing state polls, again, why current polls are irrelevant.

"He's refused to debate McCain after promising to take him on "anytime, anywhere" and he showed many weaknesses during earlier debates with democrats. Everyone has said that Obama is a great orator, but a weak debater. McCain, on the other hand, has quite a bit of experience, and is known to be good at it."

Are you a gold member at GOP.gov?  Because you're surely spewing what they spew.

Debates at this time are a waste, they both know it, McCain is just trying to be an exploiter.  McCain has NEVER been known to be a good debater, that's why he was doing so poorly during the early days of the republican primaries.  Obama was second only to clinton, doing very well in the debates, while Romney and Guiliani were running over McCain.

//Doing nothing is better than being corrupt and calling oneself a maverick while actually voting more and more with Bush as the years pass.

EDIT:  You know just as well as I that McCain has shifted views his fair share as well.

2nd EDIT: Obama likely backed away from the McCain debates because he had a lead. You play safe when that's the case. Now that his lead is closing, you may see things change.


I'll also note, I like both candidates. I like McCain, I just agree with Obama more (I am a registered Democrat), and McCain's ties with Bush scare me a little.

I'm in NJ anyhow, so my state will go Obama regardless.

I think there's a big -ed on the supported. Besides, regardless of how the country feels, I didn't like the decision to go to Iraq. I don't like the fact that we're still there, and I sure as hell wouldn't like to go anywhere else.

/I don't remember him stating he had any quarrels with anyone.
//Really?
///An adjustment I wouldn't mind.

I never said I like McCain; in fact, I pointed out that I'm not voting for either of them.  

Obama did not do well against McCain in the debate at that church recently.

Obama has shift far more views (some shifts are tolerated as we move closer to November) but it will hurt a candidate like Obama, who stands on principles (his big selling point), when he makes so many.

The founding fathers had done great things before founding our country, at least in some areas.  Please name just one noteworthy thing Obama has ever done with the amazing positions that he's attained.  The only place I can find that he's left his footprint is in his sprint to his next job.

Hilary probably will get the VP spot.  She has alot of support at the DNC.  Obama plans to make his announcement Friday afternoon... the place where "bad" news goes to die quickly.  No doubt this will hurt his "fresh" image a big with independents (not to mention his flailing left wing supporters), so I hope that's worth the cost of bringing in the Hilary group.

I'd also like to point out that Obama has been blasting negative publicity lately (and I *think* he was actually the first to do so, just not on the same scale as McCain)

Again, let me plainly point out that I'm not a registered republican, though I would have aligned with them years ago.  I do align with them on economic issues, but with Democrats on social issues.  I'm from Mississippi, our votes will go to McCain anyway, but I'm voting for a third party.  Not that I really like the Libertarian candidate (where is Ron Paul when you need him), but because I want to further their cause as a whole (perhaps we can have their candidate in the debates next election?)  However, I really dislike the attitudes all of the Obamaniacs have about their candidate.  Honestly, do you really get the feeling that Obama is in it to make the world a better place?  Every position he's ever held, he's done nothing with.  Obama has a huge ego and charisma... is that all it takes to lead our country now?

If you noted my one statement... the country supported the decision at the time... they don't like it now, but that doesn't mean the decisions being made now are the wrong ones. You'll be hard pressed to find a lot of bad decisions coming from the Bush camp since 05.

True. I agree, and sometimes I really just wanna take Obama and shake him, wondering why he does some of the stuff he does. Still, shifting views or not, I prefer his views to McCain's.

This is true, but many of them still did not have much governmental experience. Washington was a general.

While we're on the subject, while I admire what McCain did in Vietnam, I do not think it makes him fit to lead, and I despise when McCain supporters boast that as a reason to vote for him.

Also, there's information circulating that his carelessness and immaturity caused the deaths of some of his fellow naval officers back when he was in the military.

Really? This whole Obama VP thing is really starting to be unpredictable, something that goes against what "No drama Obama" says he's all about.

I really want to see Hillary, and although you seem to think she'd be a bad move (she DOES have baggage, and her and Bill go against his message of change).

I see her positively for these reasons:
-She can unify the still remaining ~25% of her supporters who remain undecided (who most likely will not vote/go independant/write in her name)
-She can help deliver one of three states Missouri, Florida, Arkansas. If she delivers one of the first two, it would be enough to secure an Obama victory.

Overall, I think the bombshell of them uniting would actually be positive press, and would help Obama. Right in front of the convention too. Remember, the candidate with the first convention always recieves the bigger boost.

That said, odds aren't exactly in her favor. The Clinton camp doesn't seem prepared to have her as a VP. Her name isn't out there, and his apperance on saturday seemed to be for Bayh, but that's looking less and less likely. (God, I hope it's not Biden). Still, I can't help but feel these appearances with these other "hopefuls" were simply to deter attention from the fact that he's going with Hillary. IMO, it would seem stupid for him not to go with her. I personally think she'd give him a strong advantage over McCain in November.

Not quite. I'm somewhat on the recieving ends of campaign commercials, as most of my programming is essentially from Philadelphia, located in the state of Pennsylvania, considered by some to be a swing state (I don't see it going red). I see Obama's commercials as almost universally positive, while I've seen McCain's face showing up at the end of more negative than positive ads. Only recently has Obama fired back (face it, a little negativity is needed). Overall, I think Obama has been running a more honorable campaign in this department.

Bob Barr, eh? He's actually quite popular down in the Mississippi/Georgia/Alabama area, but his numbers are quickly diving. Still, I do like to see 3rd parties get more votes. (I wish there WAS a strong 3rd party, although, I can't see 3 political parties co-exist like some nations in Europe).

ALL the Obamamaniacs? I'm not that big of a maniac. I strongly support Barack Obama because he's a change from what the Republicans do. I strongly disapprove of Bush, and McCain's strikingly close voting record to Bush, combined with their number of public appearances really scare me about what McCain may be: Bush's 3rd term.

I get the feeling that Obama is in it to make America better again. He's certainly in it more for the people. In the senate, he's never taken a dime from a corporate lobbyist, and that shows how he's in it for the people, not the corporations like George Bush or John McCain are.

Something to keep in mind is age. Reagan was starting to show signs of his Alzheimers when he was in office. I'd hate to see a president who's not physically fit to do the job.

Confidence and Charisma on a clean slate. I like that, he will have experienced advisors to help him along, and he has state and US senate experience (just not a whole lot). Experienced, old, white men have not delivered in the last 8 years, so change with someone new can be a good thing.