The McCain Thread

Who will be McCain's runningmate?

  • Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachussets)

  • Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

  • Rudy Giuliani (former mayor New York)

  • Charlie Christ (current governor of Florida)

  • Fred Thompson (former US Senator of Tennessee)

  • Condaleeza Rice (Secretary of State)

  • Colin Powell (former Secretary of State)

  • JC Watts (former Republican chairman of Republican House)

  • Rob Portman (Director of Office of Management and Budget)

  • Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)

  • Bobby Jindal (Governor of Lousiana)

  • Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina)

  • Lindsey Graham (US Senator of South Carolina)

  • Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)

  • Kay Hutchinson (US Senator of Texas)

  • John Thune (US Senator of South Dakota)

  • Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)

  • Marsha Blackburn (US Tenessee Representative)

  • Joseph Lieberman (US Senator of Connecticut)

  • Sonny Perdue (Governor of Georgia)

  • George Allen (former US Senator of Virginia)

  • Matt Blunt (Governor of Missouri)

  • some other US Senator, congressman

  • some other Governor

  • some dark horse like Dick Cheney


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There may well be a jump for McCain in the coming weeks, but I dont know how much good it will do. The highlighted part especially surprised me. I had heard that Iraq vets are sending donations to Obama 8 to 1 over McCain.

It'd be great to see after that donation audit thing on Obama shows a lot of donations from 'overseas' and McCain tries to spin that into a bad thing when it is only just the American troops donating to him.
 
Jmanspice, not for the first and probably not for the last time you have expressed what I and many others are feeling more articulately than we could do. This campaign has seen the complete and utter unraveling of the myth of John McCain as an honorable and principled bipartisan Maverick for the whole country to see, and on the one hand I'm happy because I support Barack Obama, but on the other hand it's just plain sad and pathetic to see.

This is what I am hearing from some news reports.


30% of white democratic voters will not vote for a black man.

50% of the 18 million Hillary women will not vote for Obama.

The majority of military voters are in McCain's camp.

McCain does better among men than does Obama.


This being the case, how is it that Obama seems to be up in the polls? It would have to mean that most of those who are white but will never vote for the black man will not be truthful to pollsters. Most of the Hillary women are not being honest to pollsters.

I also don't have confidence in the polls because of the media. As the days get closer I believe a more precise poll will be evident as people start to think about higher taxes and national security. McCain's real numbers will begin to show.

What do you think in support or against this issue?

What news reports and polls are you looking at? Last night CNN reported only 6% of voters admitting they will not vote for Obama on the basis of his race. I'll grant you some people will not admit their racial prejudices to pollsters, but 30%? That's vastly above and beyond anything I have seen.
 
This is what I am hearing from some news reports.


30% of white democratic voters will not vote for a black man.

What?!? The poll you are referring to says that 30% of white democrats believe certain stereotypes about black people. Nowhere does that poll show that they will not vote for one, and it's dishonest of you to say so.

50% of the 18 million Hillary women will not vote for Obama.

Once again, I repeat, WHAT?!? Last I heard only 10% of Hillary supporters were supporting McCain. Given that over 50% of Hillary's supporters were women, this isn't mathematically possible.

The majority of military voters are in McCain's camp.

Okay, now I know you are just making up statistics. As Demogoblin already said those stationed in Iraq are donating to Obama 8 to 1. I'm not saying this isn't possible, I'm just saying I flat out don't believe you unless you provide a poll because the last two things you said were lies.

McCain does better among men than does Obama.

Actually, according to most recent polls Obama is actually doing better with men than McCain. And in the few polls where McCain leads amongst men it's pretty much a dead heat. If you are referring to white men, yes, you are right. But white men are not the only ones that vote.

This being the case, how is it that Obama seems to be up in the polls? It would have to mean that most of those who are white but will never vote for the black man will not be truthful to pollsters. Most of the Hillary women are not being honest to pollsters.

He's up in the polls because everything you just said is a blatant lie. What you speak of btw is the Bradley effect. Given that we haven't seen an example of the Bradley effect in well over a decade there is absolutely no proof it still exists. In fact, during the primaries there was what was called the reverse Bradley effect where Obama actually did BETTER than what was polled. Not to mention you are completely contradicting yourself here. You say that polls show all these various statistics, yet you also say that the reason why the polls don't show McCain leading is because women and white men are LYING to pollsters. Which is it? Either half of Hillary's female supporters and the majority of white men are telling people they are supporting McCain, or they are telling pollsters they are supporting Obama but secretly supporting Obama. It can't be both.

I also don't have confidence in the polls because of the media. As the days get closer I believe a more precise poll will be evident as people start to think about higher taxes and national security. McCain's real numbers will begin to show.

Of course you don't believe the polls. Obama is winning all of them. I find it hilarious that when Obama is leading in the polls McCain supporters say the pollsters are wrong, but the second McCain gains ground they cant shut up about it.

What do you think in support or against this issue?

I think you are lying either to us, or to yourself. I think that you need to provide sources before making such ridiculous claims. You have not made one single truthful post on this board, and to be quite honest it terrifies me that people actually believe the b.s. you have been spouting here the last few days.
 
Last edited:
This is what I am hearing from some news reports.


30% of white democratic voters will not vote for a black man.

50% of the 18 million Hillary women will not vote for Obama.

The majority of military voters are in McCain's camp.

McCain does better among men than does Obama.


This being the case, how is it that Obama seems to be up in the polls? It would have to mean that most of those who are white but will never vote for the black man will not be truthful to pollsters. Most of the Hillary women are not being honest to pollsters.

I also don't have confidence in the polls because of the media. As the days get closer I believe a more precise poll will be evident as people start to think about higher taxes and national security. McCain's real numbers will begin to show.

What do you think in support or against this issue?
This exposee sounds more like the 2008 version of "great white hope". It has nothing to do with the political reality. It is the "hopeful reality" McCain would need to win this election. ...But that the remaining Republican loyalists would actually hope there are enough dark forces on the other side, the likes of racists, sexists, and militarists, to see their candidate through to the presidency, should cause a man to stop and check himself.
 
So, McCain's going to appear on Letterman on Thursday night. I wonder if he'll wind up regretting it. Dave's been going off on McCain for a long time, now. Not a night goes by where he doesn't get a dig in on McCain ever since he stood him up for Katie Couric. I wonder if we're going to see some "gotcha journalism"?

jag
 
So, McCain's going to appear on Letterman on Thursday night. I wonder if he'll wind up regretting it. Dave's been going off on McCain for a long time, now. Not a night goes by where he doesn't get a dig in on McCain ever since he stood him up for Katie Couric. I wonder if we're going to see some "gotcha journalism"?

jag

I hope McCain explodes and shows his true angry self.
 
So, McCain's going to appear on Letterman on Thursday night. I wonder if he'll wind up regretting it. Dave's been going off on McCain for a long time, now. Not a night goes by where he doesn't get a dig in on McCain ever since he stood him up for Katie Couric. I wonder if we're going to see some "gotcha journalism"?

jag

I hope it is more "You suck and I am going to ruin you right now television" from Letterman.
 
Agreeing with everyone else, good post Jman. You, and the others are summing it up nicely. The only thing you guys haven't mentioned to my knowledge is that this isn't McCain's first time having trouble with racism. From my understanding he's fond of using the word, "gook", and only stopped because he felt heat from saying it.

It's sad tho, I was one of the ones that was happy about him defending Obama. I was actually going to cut the guy slack and then he does a 180. It's like he doesn't want ppl to get back on his good side. He can't be happy that his and Palin's rallies have stopped one fry short of KKK rallies. Yet he continues to defend it.

I think he knows he has to denounce it, but doesn't want to alienate them too. So he's playing both sides by asking them to stop politely, and then defending them and (like said above) making it seem like Obama is the one swinging by questioning them. He's really in a no win spot, but he could still win back respect by cutting the politics and condeming it.
 
I'am sorry my friends I've done my research by 6-10-2008. I edited my post.
 
This exposee sounds more like the 2008 version of "great white hope". It has nothing to do with the political reality. It is the "hopeful reality" McCain would need to win this election. ...But that the remaining Republican loyalists would actually hope there are enough dark forces on the other side, the likes of racists, sexists, and militarists, to see their candidate through to the presidency, should cause a man to stop and check himself.
I hate to say it, but this phenomenon exists, it's the infamous Bradley Effect. Look it up on Wikipedia

That said, I still think Obama will win. Albeit not as big of a margin as people think. Obama has this election because McCain basically pissed off a chunk of his fiscal conservative base (economic solution to current crisis + his economics sucks) who tends to vote Republican or 'no one', or independent. Some of the big two party swing voters have shifted to Obama, because of the economic situation as well.

Either ways, whoever wins we all lose :grin:
 
So, McCain's going to appear on Letterman on Thursday night. I wonder if he'll wind up regretting it. Dave's been going off on McCain for a long time, now. Not a night goes by where he doesn't get a dig in on McCain ever since he stood him up for Katie Couric. I wonder if we're going to see some "gotcha journalism"?

jag

Not likely.

I expect that, aside from some kidding on the Katie Couric thing, Dave will show McCain some proper hospitality.

If Dave were to really give McCain a hard time over this, other political leaders would be reluctant to show.
 
I'am sorry my friends I've done my research by 6-10-2008. I edited my post.

And you honestly believe that those numbers haven't changed since you conducted your 'research' back in JUNE? :huh:

Wow...
 
Yeah... because McCain's actions deserve proper hospitality...


It's not about whether or not somebody deserves it.

If David were to really ride McCain over it, it would be years before any other political leader would chance going on.

It's about being practical.
 
I hate to say it, but this phenomenon exists, it's the infamous Bradley Effect. Look it up on Wikipedia

That said, I still think Obama will win. Albeit not as big of a margin as people think. Obama has this election because McCain basically pissed off a chunk of his fiscal conservative base (economic solution to current crisis + his economics sucks) who tends to vote Republican or 'no one', or independent. Some of the big two party swing voters have shifted to Obama, because of the economic situation as well.

Either ways, whoever wins we all lose :grin:
I am aware of the Bradley Effect, Doxie, but Obama has demonstrated he has nothing in common with the stereotypes of blacks which would deter white Democrats, nor does he fit the smoke-and-mirrors McCain's camp espouses to white Republicans.

When the time comes to fill the voting booths, the Bradley Effect simply will not appear.
 
It's not about whether or not somebody deserves it.

If David were to really ride McCain over it, it would be years before any other political leader would chance going on.

It's about being practical.

Dave has been tearing McCain six ways to Sunday nearly every night for the last two weeks. I think he's past caring whether he scares off other politicians. The lesson for any politico's paying attention to Letterman is "don't snub Dave and lie to him about the reasons only to pop up on another program doing interviews". THAT is what pissed Letterman off and that's why he's been throwing dirt on McCain's open grave.

jag
 
I'am sorry my friends I've done my research by 6-10-2008. I edited my post.

So you were citing polls from four months ago? Are you for real? How can you unknowingly post information that hasn't been valid since a week after the primary ended?
 
Biased media, huh? For which side?

The Washington Post maintains a webpage titled "Political Landscape 2008." This webpage has been updated recently enough to reflect Obama's 13.8% polling lead in Pennsylvania, a trend that uses polls released as recently as Wednesday. On this webpage, the Washington Post collects recent polling data, and then declares a state to either be a "battleground," or leaning toward one party or the other. Here are some of their polling averages and diagnoses:

Obama +13.8%: Battleground state (PA)
Obama +10.4%: Battleground state (NH)
Obama +10.0%: Battleground state (NJ)
Obama +9.5%: Battleground state (IA)
Obama +9.0%: Battleground state (OR)
Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MN)
Obama +8.2%: Battleground state (MI)
Obama +8.8%: Battleground state (WI)
Obama +7.3%: Battleground state (NM)
McCain +6.8%: Leaning Republican (GA)
Obama +5.1%: Battleground state (VA)
Obama +4.0%: Battleground state (CO)
McCain +3.8%: Leaning Republican (IN)
Obama +3.5%: Battleground state (OH)
Obama +3.1%: Battleground state (FL)
Obama +3.0%: Battleground state (NV)
McCain +2.2%: Leaning Republican (WV)


http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9018

Anyone notice something seriously wrong with the states that are battlegrounds, versus the states that are leaning Republican?
 
I'am sorry my friends I've done my research by 6-10-2008. I edited my post.

mccainjvfv74nc2to9.jpg
 
I am aware of the Bradley Effect, Doxie, but Obama has demonstrated he has nothing in common with the stereotypes of blacks which would deter white Democrats, nor does he fit the smoke-and-mirrors McCain's camp espouses to white Republicans.

When the time comes to fill the voting booths, the Bradley Effect simply will not appear.

My point is, even if the Bradley effect is accounted for, it won't make a statistical difference. At least not enough to cause Obama to lose.

That said, if Batman ran, Obama would totally lose :o

http://www.batmanforpresident.com !!! :brucebat:

BATMAN / IRONMAN 2008

batmanironmanqb7.jpg
 
((nods)) They seem to take "the bradley effect" into account before declaring a state for the democratic candidate.

:huh:

Obama will not experience the Bradley effect in states with significant African American populations, or states which are traditionally liberal. Which is why it doesn't make sense to call Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, or Michigan a "Battleground State" when Obama has double-digit leads there.
 
:huh:

Obama will not experience the Bradley effect in states with significant African American populations, or states which are traditionally liberal. Which is why it doesn't make sense to call Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, or Michigan a "Battleground State" when Obama has double-digit leads there.
I thought you were trying to make the point that, in answer to Thinkton's post, there is no need to fear some emotional bias will negatively impact Obama in November. The polling data is treated so conservatively, no phenomenon could swing the election.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"