OT: McCain Victory No Longer Unikely

[afx114]

The other unknown is the youth vote. We say this every election, but if the Dems can turn them out, they will win.

Also, how many of today’s pollsters poll cellphones? I don’t know anyone who uses a land-line anymore, except for my grandma.

[afx114]

[quote=partypup]blacks can support Obama SOLELY based on the color of his skin[/quote]

Where do you get off saying this? I’ll paraphrase from Chris Rock, he said something to the effect that if Flava Flav was running for president he would not vote for him simply because he’s black. Barack Obama is no Flava Flav.

Are you voting for John McCain simply because he’s white? If not, then your point is completely invalid. If you are, then God help us all.

[afx114]

[quote=partypup]blacks can support Obama SOLELY based on the color of his skin[/quote]

Where do you get off saying this? I’ll paraphrase from Chris Rock, he said something to the effect that if Flava Flav was running for president he would not vote for him simply because he’s black. Barack Obama is no Flava Flav.

Are you voting for John McCain simply because he’s white? If not, then your point is completely invalid. If you are, then God help us all.

[afx114]

[quote=partypup]blacks can support Obama SOLELY based on the color of his skin[/quote]

Where do you get off saying this? I’ll paraphrase from Chris Rock, he said something to the effect that if Flava Flav was running for president he would not vote for him simply because he’s black. Barack Obama is no Flava Flav.

Are you voting for John McCain simply because he’s white? If not, then your point is completely invalid. If you are, then God help us all.

[afx114]

[quote=partypup]blacks can support Obama SOLELY based on the color of his skin[/quote]

Where do you get off saying this? I’ll paraphrase from Chris Rock, he said something to the effect that if Flava Flav was running for president he would not vote for him simply because he’s black. Barack Obama is no Flava Flav.

Are you voting for John McCain simply because he’s white? If not, then your point is completely invalid. If you are, then God help us all.

[afx114]

[quote=partypup]blacks can support Obama SOLELY based on the color of his skin[/quote]

Where do you get off saying this? I’ll paraphrase from Chris Rock, he said something to the effect that if Flava Flav was running for president he would not vote for him simply because he’s black. Barack Obama is no Flava Flav.

Are you voting for John McCain simply because he’s white? If not, then your point is completely invalid. If you are, then God help us all.

[partypup]

[quote=esmith]
Now, Mason-Dixon poll is the only recent poll that shows Obama with less than 50% in CO or NV. That’s 14 points right there. More importantly, most polls also show more than 50% for Obama in PA. A win in PA would push Obama over 269 electoral candidates, even if each undecided voter in every one of the remaining 7 states decides to vote for McCain.

Will they? Just because they are white and undecided, does not mean that they are going to vote for McCain. There’s no good reason to think that they would vote anything other than 50:50 – if they show up at the polls at all.[/quote]

A PA win pretty much assures an Obama victory, I think. My theory (developed in all of 48 hours this weekend!) was that since the demographic of OH seems to largely mirror PA (Clinton won them both by nearly the same margins), and the fact that McCain made much progress in OH in the last few days was persuasive evidence that PA might fall the same way. It’s gonna be damn close, no matter which was PA goes. Count on that!

As for assuming that most undecideds will break for McCain: I am assuming this only because of their demographics: white, not so educated, leaning right. We know from our experience in the primaries that these voters fled Obama in droves and went to Hillary. If they have changed their values or their politics significantly in the past 7 months, then they may split evenly for both candidates. I kind of doubt that, though.

[partypup]

[quote=esmith]
Now, Mason-Dixon poll is the only recent poll that shows Obama with less than 50% in CO or NV. That’s 14 points right there. More importantly, most polls also show more than 50% for Obama in PA. A win in PA would push Obama over 269 electoral candidates, even if each undecided voter in every one of the remaining 7 states decides to vote for McCain.

Will they? Just because they are white and undecided, does not mean that they are going to vote for McCain. There’s no good reason to think that they would vote anything other than 50:50 – if they show up at the polls at all.[/quote]

A PA win pretty much assures an Obama victory, I think. My theory (developed in all of 48 hours this weekend!) was that since the demographic of OH seems to largely mirror PA (Clinton won them both by nearly the same margins), and the fact that McCain made much progress in OH in the last few days was persuasive evidence that PA might fall the same way. It’s gonna be damn close, no matter which was PA goes. Count on that!

As for assuming that most undecideds will break for McCain: I am assuming this only because of their demographics: white, not so educated, leaning right. We know from our experience in the primaries that these voters fled Obama in droves and went to Hillary. If they have changed their values or their politics significantly in the past 7 months, then they may split evenly for both candidates. I kind of doubt that, though.

[partypup]

[quote=esmith]
Now, Mason-Dixon poll is the only recent poll that shows Obama with less than 50% in CO or NV. That’s 14 points right there. More importantly, most polls also show more than 50% for Obama in PA. A win in PA would push Obama over 269 electoral candidates, even if each undecided voter in every one of the remaining 7 states decides to vote for McCain.

Will they? Just because they are white and undecided, does not mean that they are going to vote for McCain. There’s no good reason to think that they would vote anything other than 50:50 – if they show up at the polls at all.[/quote]

A PA win pretty much assures an Obama victory, I think. My theory (developed in all of 48 hours this weekend!) was that since the demographic of OH seems to largely mirror PA (Clinton won them both by nearly the same margins), and the fact that McCain made much progress in OH in the last few days was persuasive evidence that PA might fall the same way. It’s gonna be damn close, no matter which was PA goes. Count on that!

As for assuming that most undecideds will break for McCain: I am assuming this only because of their demographics: white, not so educated, leaning right. We know from our experience in the primaries that these voters fled Obama in droves and went to Hillary. If they have changed their values or their politics significantly in the past 7 months, then they may split evenly for both candidates. I kind of doubt that, though.

[partypup]

[quote=esmith]
Now, Mason-Dixon poll is the only recent poll that shows Obama with less than 50% in CO or NV. That’s 14 points right there. More importantly, most polls also show more than 50% for Obama in PA. A win in PA would push Obama over 269 electoral candidates, even if each undecided voter in every one of the remaining 7 states decides to vote for McCain.

Will they? Just because they are white and undecided, does not mean that they are going to vote for McCain. There’s no good reason to think that they would vote anything other than 50:50 – if they show up at the polls at all.[/quote]

A PA win pretty much assures an Obama victory, I think. My theory (developed in all of 48 hours this weekend!) was that since the demographic of OH seems to largely mirror PA (Clinton won them both by nearly the same margins), and the fact that McCain made much progress in OH in the last few days was persuasive evidence that PA might fall the same way. It’s gonna be damn close, no matter which was PA goes. Count on that!

As for assuming that most undecideds will break for McCain: I am assuming this only because of their demographics: white, not so educated, leaning right. We know from our experience in the primaries that these voters fled Obama in droves and went to Hillary. If they have changed their values or their politics significantly in the past 7 months, then they may split evenly for both candidates. I kind of doubt that, though.

[partypup]

[quote=esmith]
Now, Mason-Dixon poll is the only recent poll that shows Obama with less than 50% in CO or NV. That’s 14 points right there. More importantly, most polls also show more than 50% for Obama in PA. A win in PA would push Obama over 269 electoral candidates, even if each undecided voter in every one of the remaining 7 states decides to vote for McCain.

Will they? Just because they are white and undecided, does not mean that they are going to vote for McCain. There’s no good reason to think that they would vote anything other than 50:50 – if they show up at the polls at all.[/quote]

A PA win pretty much assures an Obama victory, I think. My theory (developed in all of 48 hours this weekend!) was that since the demographic of OH seems to largely mirror PA (Clinton won them both by nearly the same margins), and the fact that McCain made much progress in OH in the last few days was persuasive evidence that PA might fall the same way. It’s gonna be damn close, no matter which was PA goes. Count on that!

As for assuming that most undecideds will break for McCain: I am assuming this only because of their demographics: white, not so educated, leaning right. We know from our experience in the primaries that these voters fled Obama in droves and went to Hillary. If they have changed their values or their politics significantly in the past 7 months, then they may split evenly for both candidates. I kind of doubt that, though.

[partypup]

[quote=arraya]also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

Nazis were fascists and there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism

Fascism is inverted socialism with a cast system. Actually, the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the last 8 years are astounding.

Also, Roman “Fasces” is on the wall behind the Speaker’s Podium
US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol

The “Fasces” was a symbol of imperial power in ancient Rome.
A bundle of sticks bound together, it represented the “many bound together as one.”

“Fasces” is the root where the term “fascism” comes from

Or the best description is:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism,
since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini

[/quote]

This is “fasc”inating, Arraya 😉

I actually was not aware of the Roman roots of the term. Thanks for sharing.

[partypup]

[quote=arraya]also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

Nazis were fascists and there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism

Fascism is inverted socialism with a cast system. Actually, the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the last 8 years are astounding.

Also, Roman “Fasces” is on the wall behind the Speaker’s Podium
US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol

The “Fasces” was a symbol of imperial power in ancient Rome.
A bundle of sticks bound together, it represented the “many bound together as one.”

“Fasces” is the root where the term “fascism” comes from

Or the best description is:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism,
since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini

[/quote]

This is “fasc”inating, Arraya 😉

I actually was not aware of the Roman roots of the term. Thanks for sharing.

[partypup]

[quote=arraya]also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

Nazis were fascists and there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism

Fascism is inverted socialism with a cast system. Actually, the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the last 8 years are astounding.

Also, Roman “Fasces” is on the wall behind the Speaker’s Podium
US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol

The “Fasces” was a symbol of imperial power in ancient Rome.
A bundle of sticks bound together, it represented the “many bound together as one.”

“Fasces” is the root where the term “fascism” comes from

Or the best description is:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism,
since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini

[/quote]

This is “fasc”inating, Arraya 😉

I actually was not aware of the Roman roots of the term. Thanks for sharing.

[partypup]

[quote=arraya]also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

Nazis were fascists and there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism

Fascism is inverted socialism with a cast system. Actually, the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the last 8 years are astounding.

Also, Roman “Fasces” is on the wall behind the Speaker’s Podium
US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol

The “Fasces” was a symbol of imperial power in ancient Rome.
A bundle of sticks bound together, it represented the “many bound together as one.”

“Fasces” is the root where the term “fascism” comes from

Or the best description is:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism,
since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini

[/quote]

This is “fasc”inating, Arraya 😉

I actually was not aware of the Roman roots of the term. Thanks for sharing.

[Author]

Posts