American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[Daddy Rulz]

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[Daddy Rulz]

One possible scenario would be the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few days.

Like there isn't enough to fuggen worry about.

[Jackson]

This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.

In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.

Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.

In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.

This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than many think.

One possible scenario would be the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few days.

[El Alamo]

This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.

In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.

Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.

In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.

This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than some think.

[Daddy Rulz]

This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.

Something like "I'm not interested in some washed up radical from the 60's." sic (Isn't sic what you write when you have the content correct but perhaps the wording is wrong?

And then having your ads and mouthpiece do nothing but repeat that as a fucking mantra for a month. What a lack of balls that McAngryOldGuy has. Face to face in a debate he dismisses what is essentially the only plank in his platform.

Liberal bias in the media my ass, the only news program that even mentioned that was on the freaking comedy channel!

[BadMan]

This race is not over.

Keep hope alive my friend, keep hope alive.

Regards,

BM.

And meanwhile,

We men,

Touch the water,

Struggling and hoping,

We touch the sea.

Hoping.

And the waves tell the firm coast;

"Everything will be fulfilled".

[Hunt99]

This will one will most likely be very close indeed. When you factor in liberal based media plus liberal based polls, I'm guessing that Obama needs almost a double digit lead to pull it off. As voting day approachs, the voter base always starts leaning towards the more conservative candidate. Obama does very poorly in maybe the most important last minute voting metric. Keeping America safe. I'll be in BA during the election and look forward to a close one. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Polls are important only in discerning trends, and only then when methodology is consistent over time. There is no good social science to suggest that averaging all polls together gives a correct picture.

Many polls now adjust their "party weighting" on a monthly basis, and in this cycle the practice has generally been to ascribe larger and larger shares of the electorate to the Democrats. This would not be a problem to discern trends IF the party weighting by pollsters was not shifting on a regular basis. The problem with this is that we know for certain that party affiliation does not change dramatically in a month's time.

What I can say to you is this: Obama's polling numbers in this campaign season almost always were inflated against his actual results. Whether this is because of pollster bias or because of respondents not telling the truth is not clear.

For example, some of Obama's last polling results before the New Hampshire primary showed him up by as much as 13% the day before the election. He actually lost by -3%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...33304720080108

(This is Zogby, whose poll has of late been all over the place, going from Obama +2 to +13 and now back to +5).

The same thing happened before Pennsylvania. According to one pollster, he was leading by +3% the day before the primary. He lost by -9%.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_042108.pdf

This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.

[Toymann]

This will one will most likely be very close indeed. When you factor in liberal based media plus liberal based polls, I'm guessing that Obama needs almost a double digit lead to pull it off. As voting day approachs, the voter base always starts leaning towards the more conservative candidate. Obama does very poorly in maybe the most important last minute voting metric. Keeping America safe. I'll be in BA during the election and look forward to a close one. Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

[Daddy Rulz]

Will the Repub slate for this election be known as "McPain" when future generations study it?

[BadMan]

Here is the next installment. The average is 7.8%

- Battleground (Obama +3)

- Diageo (Obama +7)

- Gallup expanded (Obama +7)

- IDB (Obama +4)

- Newsweek (Obama +12)

- Rasmussen (Obama +7)

- Research 2000 (Obama +12)

- WaPo / ABC (Obama +9)

- Zogby (Obama +9)

Regards,

BM.

[Bacchus9]

One of the most interesting and informative white flags rising from Republicans as we start to see more of their backsides heading into an ignominius future. Here David Frum gives marching orders to the inhabitants of the Alamo.

"We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

McCain / Palin apparently is not only sucking the life out of their own campaign prospects but Republican senators and house reps as well.

Maybe it won't be necessary to send two time Bush voters to Guantanamo after all. 8 long years of a Democrat president and Congress would have them leaping off of tall buildings or locking themselves up in their bomb shelters. What a bonanza.

[Polvo]

Of course they're going to take away your 401k.

Now, mine is more like a 1K after the last few weeks!

Suerte!

Polvo

[Stormy]

Apparently the GOP has spent $150,000 at Neiman-Marcus and Saks for clothing for Sara Palin so she will not appear shabby and ordinary on the campaign trail. Her make-up person was paid $22,000 and her hair person $10,000 for the first two weeks of October. Might this money have been better spent on a course in political science at a good university so that she could be informed as to the duties of the Vice President? But then again, she has rallied the wing-nut base.

[Hunt99]

Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don't like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.

I don't care what party or who's doing the talking.

However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they're saying!

Of course they're going to take away your 401k - all the code words are already working. "Wealthy" "tax shelter" "fairness".

Coming soon will be proposals to abolish tax-favorable treatment of Roth IRAs.

Private wealth in private hands is antithetical to the economics theory that motivates Obama Democrats. Bill Clinton-style "triangulators" they ain't. They are redistribution of wealth Marxists.

As in Argentina, you will probably get some lip-service as to how the government is going to step in and "guarantee" (read: "expropriate") your private pension accounts against the dangers of the free market. Big Government to the rescue. If he wins, I think that before he leaves office Obama will try to increase spending as a percentage of GDP over 35%, up from 22 now. Taxes will probably rise by 50% over current levels.

Take a look at your paycheck, take out an extra 50% in taxes, and see how it will look after you "spread the wealth around" the way The Messiah wants.

[Punter 127]

The Dems did not control the House after the elections of 2002. The Dems has 210 eats, the Repubs 222 with 1 Indy. In the Senate in 2002 the Dems ended with 48 and the Repubs with 51. So when Jeffords moved over that still did not give them a majority-especially when considering Cheney was the tie breaker.

January 3, 2001 was the start of the 107th Congress, the Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between the two parties, until June 6, 2001, after that and until January 3, 2003 we had a Democratic majority Senate. That looks like a year and seven months to me.

Remember the new members elected in the November 2002 election didn’t take office until January 2003 which means they were part of the 108th congress.

If you still disagree with my dates please explain how Tom Daschle could have been Senate Majority Leader from June 6, 2001 until January 3, 2003, again that looks like a year and seven months?

When you consider Jeffords voting record I think a case could be made that the Republicans only controlled both houses about 50% of Bush’s terms.

Please check your dates.

The 107th congress was from January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003.

The 108th congress was from January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_U...tates_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_U...tates_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

I cannot imagine the Dems changing the 401k situation-that would be a death sentence for them and I would not vote for them if they did that-unless they substituted it for something that provided the same benefit to us 'average' working-class Americans.

I could be wrong but it would be political suicide and the Dems are sooo afraid of losing their majority (basically ball-less. That is the reason there should NEVER be total control of both branches by either party-all position I would like to see even one conservative agree upon when it applies to Repub leadership as well as Dems (again, something I have not seen)

I can’t imagine it either but you saw my post and it’s all over the internet, Google it.

Having control and having a super majority is two different things, and I will go on record and say super majorities are not good for the country, regardless of the party. I can only remember one time in my lifetime that a party had a super majority and that was the Carter years. You may remember other times, but you’re a lot older then me …lol.

Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don’t like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.

I don’t care what party or who’s doing the talking.

However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they’re saying!



Sorry to hear about your bad luck with our girl, but she has always been a bit of an elusive prey, but definitely one worthy of pursuit.