"Abramowitz's calclations put McCain right about where Jimmy Carter was in 1980"

Compared to Carter.

OUCH! That's gotta sting!

Bradley effect?

And W shouldn't have won in 2000, 2004, Republicans shouldn't have won in 2004...

Don't count a war hero with a beautiful wife with loads of money out.

I remember a similar prediction four years ago. John Kerry was going to be the next President.

...that was before DIEBOLD decided the elections.

Sam,

So we CREDIT Diebold with the 2006 elections?

This is fine. Then there will be no excuses. A Dem pres and congress. When things get worse (and they will) everyone will know who to blame. This is part of the cycle, necessary to get this current batch of Repubs out of office.

I agree with Sawdust. If the Dems take control of the White House and Congress, their tax increases will tank our economy. Then, the Republicans will have been given a golden opportunity to rediscover their conservatism.

Don't count a war hero with a beautiful wife with loads of money out.

How is he a "war hero"? He crashed his plane, got captured, and was held for over 2 years. Doesn't sound very heroic at all.

Ness, he crashed not one, but several planes. And you forgot to add that he spilled the beans and was used as a propaganda tool of the enemy while being held. So he was a war hero. John "Songbird" McCain--a north Vietnamese war hero.

" If the Dems take control of the White House and Congress, their tax increases will tank our economy. "

Under Clinton, the stock market rose over 225% in 8 years.

Under Bush, the rise has been only 8.5% in 7.5 years.

History doesn't bear out your theory.

"I agree with Sawdust. If the Dems take control of the White House and Congress, their tax increases will tank our economy."

I think it is a bit late for that. Sooner or later someone is going to have to raise taxes and pay the bills. Last time it was done it had the exact opposite effect on the economy, seems that restoring confidence in the dollar has a positive effect on investors.
If you want the economy to do better then wages need to rise so that millions of workers have more money to spend. Concentrating the wealth into few hands does not create prosperity as we have found after 7 years of Voo Doo economics.

He's probably right... Obama should and probably will win this election... Unless someone has something on him that will wreck him come convention time (which might explain why Matt Drudge has so much love for him now), I don't see him losing.

Danforth,
The tech bubble that made the market so prosperous in the 90's...What happened to that bubble? When did all of the Corporate Accounting hijinks happen and what happened when they were found out?

Danni, it looks as if your theories will be tested. Time will tell. Like I said, with a Dem President and Congress we will know who to praise or blame, whichever the case may be.

Under Clinton, the stock market rose over 225% in 8 years.

----

So Clinton is responsible for the dot-com boom and bust?

So Clinton is responsible for the dot-com boom and bust?

Posted by Pirate

LOL... here comes a shocking answer... waaaaaaait for it

Or another way to put it...had Clinton not been President, would the dot-com bubble have happened?

"John "Songbird" McCain--a north Vietnamese war hero."

Stuff like this just helps McCain. Its such a douchy thing to say that people may vote for him as a backlash.

I won't be voting for him but this is just idiotic.

had Clinton not been President, would the dot-com bubble have happened?

Posted by Pirate

well obviously it wouldn't have. After seeing what a snivelling little girl Gore was in 2000, obviously if he and Clinton lost in 1992 Gore would have taken his invention and gone home to turn on every light in the house and cry about pollution...

No internet, no .com bubble...

"The tech bubble that made the market so prosperous in the 90's...What happened to that bubble?"

Like all bubbles, evened out over time.

"When did all of the Corporate Accounting hijinks happen and what happened when they were found out?"

You're not suggesting a handful of fraudulent companies are the difference between 225% and 9%, are you?

Under Clinton, the stock market rose over 225% in 8 years.

Under Bush, the rise has been only 8.5% in 7.5 years.

History doesn't bear out your theory.

Danforth, You are correct that this happened under Clinton, but Clinton had a repub congrsee for 6 of his 8 years.

Jan 93 Dow at 3435
Jan 95 Dow at 4157 Republicans take over congress
Jan 97 Dow at 6583
Jan 99 Dow at 9787
Jan 01 Dow at 9878 Repubs take White House
Jan 06 Dow at 12416 Dems take congress

IMHO I think we are better off if power is split. The less Washington does the better we do

Like all bubbles, evened out over time.

EVENED OUT!!?!?!?!?!

Holy shit, what is your defintion of a burst?

...that was before DIEBOLD decided the elections.

Posted by SamBarber

Is that how Kennedy won in Chicago? I thought all along it was the Daily machine and dead people voting early and often.

EVENED OUT!!?!?!?!?!

Holy shit, what is your defintion of a burst?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-07-22 09:26 AM | Reply

No shit!

Dan,
The accounting scandals that happened along with the tech bubble (that everyone knew was simply based upon nothing more than "potential") were major contributors to that 225%.
What can you point to that was a bigger contributor?

John "Songbird" McCain--a north Vietnamese war hero.

Posted by __b__ at 2008-07-22 08:43 AM

Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials, the lefties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service. How nice.

"EVENED OUT!!?!?!?!?!"

Yes. Many of us predict the housing crises will "even out" as well, and will show, once averaged over time, sensible and historic increases. If something grows 10% a year, and grows 21% one year, then 0% over the next year, it's evened out. Same if it grows 50% and then drops back to a 21% overall gain.

And the shake-out made the true companies---the ones based on revenues, not eyeballs---giants: Google, Yahoo, Oracle, etc... A broad based investment strategy would've included a lot of their stock as well.

"ou are correct that this happened under Clinton, but Clinton had a repub congrsee for 6 of his 8 years."

For better or worse, Presidents get the nod. They were called Hoovervilles, not Congressvilles. It was The Reagan Revolution, not The Tip O'Neill Compromise.

"Jan 01 Dow at 9878 Repubs take White House"

Not true: On Jan 20th, 2001, the Dow stood at 10,587.59.

Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials, the lefties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service. How nice.

Posted by Republican4ever

You don't really want to go there, do you?

"The accounting scandals that happened along with the tech bubble (that everyone knew was simply based upon nothing more than "potential") were major contributors to that 225%."

If that's true, then the drop would have sent the dow plunging a lot further. Counting the "burst", it's still an increase of around 175%-200%. Even if you pin the post-9/11 low on Clinton (7500+/-), that's still about a 150% rise.

"What can you point to that was a bigger contributor?"

Falling deficits, and gridlock.

You don't really want to go there, do you?

Yeah, I do. Wadda you got? You cocksucker.

"Stuff like this just helps McCain. Its such a douchy thing to say that people may vote for him as a backlash.

I won't be voting for him but this is just idiotic."

I love it. We can't talk about McCain's actions while being held--but we can consider his time being held as a sign of his patriotism. And by the way--that nickname was give to him by other vietnam VETS.

Meanwhile, if anyone calls Obama a muslim, a communist, or some radical black anti-american activist---hey that's cool.

Does this type of information need to be brought up by Obama and his surrogates? Absolutely not. But if the blogosphere is going to talk about Obama being muslim or being anti-american, etc.--we can talk about McCain's actions while in captivity. The f-ing righties throw mud like this all the time and the one time i grab some, people cry foul. Every time anyone actually tries to discuss issues, everyone ignores it just continues to play in the mud. Make up your friggen minds, children.

Not true: On Jan 20th, 2001, the Dow stood at 10,587.59.

All of my quotes were the first business day in Jan, as of Jan 2 2001 the dow was at 9878

Sorry I wasn't more specific. and I do agree on the gridlock

I said it before, Lets have the corrination now for king ears and save a few bucks on the election costs.

We will become the socialist republic of mexico north and we will all be happy living on our government checks.

Meanwhile, if anyone calls Obama a muslim, a communist, or some radical black anti-american activist---hey that's cool.

Posted by __b__ at 2008-07-22 10:01 AM | Reply |

Really? Where the fuck do you find this place where such comments are accepted? The list of things you can't talk about in regards to Obama is longer than AmericanUnity's ear hair.
As far as making up minds, you can only control you. You're the one that grabbed the mud, accept the fall-out.

The list of things you can't talk about in regards to Obama is longer than AmericanUnity's ear hair.

I would have said pussy hair here, but the point is valid...

Diebold Election Systems is now Premier Election Systems. Their name simply became too much baggage, so they changed it.

But you can still see the name "Diebold" at many banks, their Night Deposit Devices and ATMs.

Does anyone think a Bank would purchase a hackable device?????????????? The point is, Diebold knows exactly how to build a tamper proof device. Their efforts to include back doors in their voting machines was partisan and deliberate. Their machines have been implemented in predominantly Republican Districts. Several countires in California has decertified them, and one Utah voting commissioner that tested the machines and published their failure was fired by the Republican Supervisors.

This is McCain's ace in the hole. Using computer modeling, another friendly district with a Republican Secretary of State will be targeted for a "slim victory" in an allegedly close race.

But, this will only work again if the Republicans can keep the race close. If its a blowout for Obama they won't even try it. It would be too easy to be caught.

I would have said pussy hair here, but the point is valid...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-07-22 10:14 AM | Reply

I was going to say Labia, but I got a dump for suggesting some poster I've never read before should be beat about the face and chest. Miraculously, my exact post was used against me a short time later by a leftwing loser and it's currently in the funny flags section.

Rcade must work at the NY Times Editorial Board.

Miraculously, my exact post was used against me a short time later by a leftwing loser and it's currently in the funny flags section.

Liar... there is no way there is bias in the way Right Wing and Left Wing posters are dumped... I refuse to believe it.

Thanks for that, Danforth I got a chuckle out your sucker comment...

101--transition to troll-dom isn't easy. Talking sense hasn't worked with these yahoos, so fueling the flames seems to be the next best option. Teach me sensei.

101--transition to troll-dom isn't easy. Talking sense hasn't worked with these yahoos, so fueling the flames seems to be the next best option. Teach me sensei.

Posted by __b__ at 2008-07-22 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag

It's easier than you think _b_. Your problem is you actually care. Once you realize that what is typed here (or anywhere on the net) doens't mean shit in regards to who you are or what you do, you'll be well on your way to troll-dom.
With your intelligence you'd make black belt quicker than anyone in the history of trolling.

Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials, the lefties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service. How nice.

Posted by Republican4ever

It's bad when the lefties start quoting Karl Rove and the Right, isn't it?

Once you realize that what is typed here (or anywhere on the net) doens't mean shit in regards to who you are or what you do, you'll be well on your way to troll-dom

Wow... this is the perfect summation of blogging.

On this prof btw:

"Using computer modeling, another friendly district with a Republican Secretary of State will be targeted for a "slim victory" in an allegedly close race."

That and we'll once again hear all about how exit polling is so inaccurate and we need to get rid of it, just like they got rid of VNS, another independent election verification tool. Of course exit polls have for many years been useful for providing evidence of tampered elections but not so much anymore.

Don't count a war hero with a beautiful wife with loads of money out.
POSTED BY KIRK

War hero? Maybe. Beautiful wife? Not even close.

I remember a similar prediction four years ago. John Kerry was going to be the next President.
POSTED BY REPUBLICAN4EVER

Got a link for a prediction of Kerry winning in an electoral landslide?

Yeah, I do. Wadda you got? You cocksucker.

Posted by LeeAtwater

Well, since the right is are the ones who invented the idea of degrading a war hero (Kerry, Cleland) I'd say you guys have no room to talk.

----------

Once you realize that what is typed here (or anywhere on the net) doens't mean shit in regards to who you are or what you do,

Posted by 101Chairborne

Maybe for someone with no class, but I stand behind every word that comes out of my mouth or my fingers. It's called integrity. You know the old saying....
Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.
Author: H. Jackson Browne

Well, since the right is are the ones who

Posted by TFDNihilist

Me fail English, that's unpossible.

Is that how Kennedy won in Chicago? I thought all along it was the Daily machine and dead people voting early and often.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-07-22 09:26 AM

Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes. He didn't need Illinois to win the election.

Maybe for someone with no class, but I stand behind every word that comes out of my mouth or my fingers. It's called integrity.

Be a little more full of yourself...

"Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes. He didn't need Illinois to win the election."

And there were some Nixon shenanigans going on in Hawaii and a few other states as well.

Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials, the lefties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service. How nice.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2008-07-22 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

FF for R4eva. Hilarious!

Be a little more full of yourself...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

If you count someone who actually means the words he writes as full of himself, then so be it. I never put up anything here I wouldn't say to your face.

"Under Clinton, the stock market rose over 225% in 8 years."

Gee, I imagine you assume the boon in computers and the internet had nothing to do with the stock rise. Hmmmmmmmmm. Did you happen to check to see how the stocks did without this little inconvenient fact? Or are you assuming that Mister Clinton was responsible for the electronics and internet boon the 'world' experienced. No need to answer that. Al Gore already claimed to invent the internet. Mr Gates, move over and let Mr Clinton share in some of your ingenuity.

Under Clinton, the stock market rose over 225% in 8 years.

Under Bush, the rise has been only 8.5% in 7.5 years.

History doesn't bear out your theory.

Posted by Danforth

But, history will put an asterisk next to Bush's 8.5% and say "9/11". Name one historian that willt deny that 9/11 affected the economy incredibly.

"Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials"

Posted by Republican4ever"

Did these guys have military credentials?

J. Adams
Jefferson
J.Q. Adams
VanBuren
Fillmore
Taft
Wilson
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
FDR
Clinton

You don't really want to go there, do you?

Yeah, I do. Wadda you got? You cocksucker.

Posted by LeeAtwater at 2008-07-22 09:51 AM

Since their boy Bush doesn't have any military credentials, the Righties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service.

Oh yeah.

Let's see, in 1960, JFK received 303 electoral votes and RMN received 219.

The election was stolen by the Democrats. Illinois with 27 electoral votes, had voters so dedicated to the Democratic cause that they repeatedly rose from the grave to cast their votes, and Texas with 24 electoral votes, had some rural counties the population was so enthusisatic for the Democrat candidate that they must have voted multiple times, since the votes cast exceeded the entire population of the counties. Now with such dedicated supporters, how could the Democratic Party lose?

Some quick arithemetic. There were 27 (Illinois) + 24 (Texas) electoral votes stolen by the Democrats. The total of 51 electoral votes that went to Kennedy should have gone to Nixon.

JFK had 303 electoral votes cast for him. 303 - 51 = 252. This, 252, is the number of electoral votes that JFK won.

RMN had 219 electoral votes cast for him. 219 + 51 = 270. This, 270, is the number of electoral votes that RMN won.

Harry Byrd had 15 electoral votes cast for him.

The total of electoral votes cast was 537. The 270 electoral votes to which Nixon was entitled were a majority of the votes cast in the electoral college, and but for the criminality and skullduggery of the crooked Democrats, Nixon would have taken office in 1961. And JFK would probably have lived a longer life.

The Democrats, true traditionalists, stealing elections the old-fashioned way, stuffing ballot boxes.

"Since their boy Bush doesn't have any military credentials, the Righties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service."

Posted by PDAGUY9 at 2008-07-22 01:01 PM

And how so? Kerry's service was praised by our side. However, when he was caught embellishing the truth, Kerry was called on it.

I wish Nixon had won in 1960--except we would most likely have had nuclear war over the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy would have been great in 68, followed by Bobby in 76. Think how our country would have been changed.

Nixon lied in every campaign he ever had, and was pure scum of the earth. He painted each political opponent as a communist or communist sympathizer, and sat at the left hand of McCarthy during his communist witch hunts.

Isn't it amazing how these rightnut idiots drone on and on about how tax increases from the Dems will kill the economy when they're sitting right in the middle of a murdered economy courtesy Bush and his incompetent yes-men and cronies? Not really, mindless bleating is all they've got.

That and military service although somehow Georgie's slip-sliding into the Champagne Unit of the Texas Air National Guard always conveniently slip-slides away from their thinking processes(if they can be dignified as such).

Oh dear rightie tighties!

When will you learn that it is NOT all about the MILITARY. The military does not run this country brother nor should it.

The civilians run THIS country.

So you say that you HAVE to have SOME military experience to be President and make those quick decisions and respond to those trouble spots around the world properly and effectively using our Military to support and strengthen our National Security and Foreign Policies?

You really believe that to be true?

I can prove you wrong.

George W. Bush

Kerry's service was praised by our side.

Posted by Republican4ever

Excuse me?!?!?!

---------

Name one historian that willt deny that 9/11 affected the economy incredibly.
Posted by Republican4ever"

So you're saying the things that happened on Bushes watch affect the economy during his presidency. Makes sense to me. Maybe he should have done more to prevent a major attack, instead of what he did do, which was nothing.

and everybody knows professors are always right that is why they are teaching our children and not out there making money and saving the world!!!

Maybe he should have done more to prevent a major attack, instead of what he did do, which was nothing.

Posted by TFDNihilist

He did do something too. He encouraged the attack. It's called a false flag operation. All of our past wars (satrting with WW1) were started this way.

We will become the socialist republic of mexico north and we will all be happy living on our government checks.

Sorry, but if that is indeed our fate, it is Republicans who put us there. Who closed the factories and moved our industry overseas? Who dumped millions of workers into unemployment and welfare to make a quick buck? Which President has left our border wide open for 8 years, importing cheap labor so that the CEOs don't have to pay a decent wage?
Where do you think the kids of poor illegals (who are American citizens) go except on the welfare rolls?

If you want to avoid that fate, bring the industry back here and give the people jobs instead of government checks. People need money to live. I'd rather they work for their pay.
Aparently Republicans don't because to employ the masses we need the industry they keep exporting. Through their own greed, your CEO heroes are creating your feared Socialist Republic of Mexico North, one closed factory at a time.

It's a paycheck or a welfare check. Industry or outsourcing. Democracy or socialism. Pick one.

Dead man walking.

"But, history will put an asterisk next to Bush's 8.5% and say "9/11"."

No asterisk is big enough to elevate 8.5% anywhere near 225%.

"Kerry's service was praised by our side."

Posted by Republican4ever

Obama's gray hair.

I've noticed lately in the last few months that Obama's hair is now flecked with much more gray than before. I think it's a positive.

Obama had to overcome the perception he lacked experience and his looking much younger than all the other candidates doesn't help any. I think the touch of gray (probably stress from the entire campaign) now adds a touch of gravitas and gives an air of seniority to his appearance which was missing before.

People still are hesitant to elect someone they perceive as too inexperienced -- a "new kid on the block" -- and his young appearance didn't help any. Don't forget Obama has to appeal to more than the college-age crowd (the majority of whom don't vote anyway). The press likes to yap about how "new, hip, and young" Obama is but it can also can be a vote-killer with a majority of voters. Voters over 40 want their President to at least "look" experienced enough to be able to hit the ground running in January 2009. Obama needs to "gray it up" and keep it that way through November.

Buffalo Bob,
You are obviously not a student of American Political History or you wouldn't be saying such silly things about Nixon's closeness to Joseph McCarty!
You can't get too much closer to McCarthy than the Kennedys did since he was porking two of JFK and RFK's sisters!
And I quote "McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy's daughters, Patricia and Eunice, and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy's first child, Kathleen Kennedy. Joseph Kennedy had a national network of contacts and became a vocal supporter, building McCarthy's popularity among Catholics and making sizable contributions to McCarthy's campaigns.
Unlike many Democrats, John F. Kennedy, who served in the Senate with McCarthy from 1953 until the latter's death in 1957, never attacked McCarthy. Asked once by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. why he avoided criticism of McCarthy, Kennedy said, "Hell, half my voters in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero."

Nixon only WISHES he was as close to McCarthy as the Kennedys were! If he was, he would have won in 1960.

Nice try are rewriting history but it just won't work since people are not as dumb as they were back then, though they are still dumb enough to believe in NOBama's fairy tales.

I bet the Russians wished they had some of that magic Kool Aide that the NOBama worshippers are drinking. We would all be saluting the Red Flag right now if they did (and still might since NOBama is about a Communist as any person who ever ran for President of the USA).

No asterisk is big enough to elevate 8.5% anywhere near 225%

----

The tech bubble would have happened regardless of who was President at the time.

"You are obviously not a student of American Political History or you wouldn't be saying such silly things ......"

"I bet the Russians wished they had some of that magic Kool Aide that the NOBama worshippers are drinking. We would all be saluting the Red Flag right now if they did (and still might since NOBama is about a Communist as any person who ever ran for President of the USA)."

Do you really think your partisan blabbering portrays you as a student of American Political History?

"The tech bubble would have happened regardless of who was President at the time."

Using that logic, no President would ever get any credit or blame. You're also ignoring the other stimuli: falling deficits, increased productivity, and congressional gridlock, among others. And again, none of that explains 9% vs 225%. Even if you remove the tech bubble.

Since their boy Obama doesn't have any military credentials, the lefties find it necessary to denigrate his opponents' military service. How nice.

Posted by Republican4ever

OH yes he does. He was a comunity organizer.

Using that logic, no President would ever get any credit or blame

----

As well they shouldn't.

"As well they shouldn't."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
hahahahahaha!

Great joke!

Ok, so is Clinton responsible for the tech bubble?

"Ok, so is Clinton responsible for the tech bubble?"

No, but if you believe the Dow difference between Bush's 9% and Clinton's 225% was the tech bubble, you're an idiot.

Let's take the Nasdaq, maybe a better barometer of the tech bubble: 697 at WJC's inauguration, and if you take the bottom of the tech drop in April 01, it's about 1720. It rebounded over 2000 for months after that, but sticking with the lower number, it's still a gain of over 145%.

For Bush, if we give generously give him the 1720 of the April '01 low as a starting point, the Nasdaq in his 7.5 years has gained 563 points, or 33%, which prorates to 35.2% over 8 years.

If we do wire to wire, (1/20/01 was 2770.38) it's:

Clinton 297%
Bush (-17.5%)

I won't prorate.

Clinton 297%

----

And you're saying that 297% is all because of Clinton?

"And you're saying that 297% is all because of Clinton?"

OF COURSE NOT. But your suggestion Presidents get neither credit nor blame is ludicrous on it's face. Even being generous---giving Clinton the bottom of the tech bubble as I did---it's still 145% to 35%. Hello?!?!?

How much wider a disparity would there have to be before you acknowledge it?

Presidents get more credit and blame than they should.

There are so many other factors that come into play. Any President would have high numbers in the 90s.

Pirate: maybe so. But the fact is --

America under Clinton: successful and respected (at least by people smart enough not to give a flying crap about the bjs and marriage issues of other folk -- meaning most of the world).

America under Bush: Disaster followed by disaster, followed by ineptitude, all of it chased by a hard to swallow shot of "we're just making sure the rich get fatter, and fuck the rest of y'all that fell for our bullshit, comic book patriotism."

Mr Obama would be the first black president, a possibility the barometer has not yet had to contemplate. Who knows what difference his colour will make, whether it will help him on balance or hurt him.

The 600lb gorilla.

The senile, cancerous, entrenched washington politician will win, because he's white. And that's all there is to it.

I actually think it's even worse for Obama being mixed-race. That's something that racists hate even more than pure blood.

"...mindless bleating is all they've got."
Bush and Repubs gave us the largest tax increase in the history of the US. it's called deficit spending, a tax our kids will wind up paying. aren't you tired of the "borrow and spend" republicans? we are very close to "owing our souls" to China (our biggest lender)

Thank you for our debt dear right wing idiots!

"Douchy"

Best term to describe many antics here.

Shit. I came to this thread thinking I'd see numbers about what McCain has for breakfast with his eggs and whether he butters it or not.

FF GOAT

Goatman-
You know that's a lie. What did Obama have for breakfast?! Anyone know???!!!!

"I remember a similar prediction four years ago. John Kerry was going to be the next President.
Posted by Republican4ever at 2008-07-22 08:10 AM"

May've been "similar," but it wasn't Abramovitz's. He predicted the Kerry-Bush result accurately.

I would be only be suprised if Obama did not clear 350 electoral votes. The nation is done with this type of conservatism the same way it was done with Great Society liberalisim in 1980. Obama will win with a mandate. As soon the party of Lincoln can rid themsleves of the zealots, bigotsm xenophobes and racists that control then party, the better they will be and the better the nation will be as well.

too many typoes, lets try again...

I would only be suprised if Obama did not clear 350 electoral votes. The nation is done with this type of conservatism the same way it was done with Great Society liberalisim in 1980. Obama will win with a mandate. As soon as the party of Lincoln can rid themsleves of the zealots, bigots, xenophobes and racists that control the party, the better they will be and the better the nation will be as well.

Here's the thing I never seem to understand from Republicans...

They constantly scream that Democrats are going to raise taxes - which, as history tends to show, it somewhat true.

They also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Yet no one from this party can seem to do some basic accounting.

If you run a small business, and your outgo is more than your income, at some point don't you have to either cut spending or make more sales?

Republicans seem intent to keep going with increased spending and less sales. They claim that the lowers sales (taxes) will induce more investment into the ecomony.

But 8 years of this, and are we better off? At some point, someone has to be fiscally responsible.

PDA-
In your example, if my business wants to increase sales, how do you think we'd do so? I'd suggest one way is to lower the price of the goods to encourage more purchasing. I'd make a bit less profit per widget but my volume would increase so that my net income would rise.

This is the same rule of thumb in dealing with taxation. High taxes are a disincentive for investment and movement of wealth.

You're on target with the other side - spending. Neither party has seemingly been willing to reduce spending. That's been a major reason why Reps got whipped in 2006 and will probably get hammered again in 2008.

Buffalo_Bob
you talk bout nixon and mccarthy--but ignore kennedy who was also a loud red basher on the commitee-check it out----also jfk and rmn both had similar records on civil rights----but as president jfk jus talked bout it---nixon actualy did somthin bout it -sba, affirmative action, title 12 enforcement
jasman

At some point, someone has to be fiscally responsible.

Both parties spend more than brought in.

When a party states they will, and actually does, payoff the National Debt, I'll believe the Congress is trying to stablize the country.

It'll never happen, though. The Bankers (Federal Reserve) will never allow the US gov't to payoff the debt.

Manipulation of the currency. The US should never have buckled to the bankers.

My question for Democrats is who do you intend to run against McCain after Barry is found to be ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen?

He has been asked to produce a birth certificate and when his campaign did it was shown to be a photoshoped fake.

Do you think Hillary will be back in the picture?

Freddy - where did you read that his birth certificate was a photoshopped fake?

High taxes are a disincentive for investment and movement of wealth.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-07-23 09:53 AM

But that's the problem. Taxes have been lowered across the board for the last 8 years - but especially for the top 1%.

Yet they haven't "moved" this wealth. It's been hoarded and stashed away. So if the super wealthy are not willing to invest this money, what's the alternative?

"Freddy - where did you read that his birth certificate was a photoshopped fake?"

Posted by PDAGUY

There were pictures of a document posted from his web site and the website that was set up to halt rumors about him. But the so called birth certificate was an obvious fake. For one thing it showed no fold marks and real birth certificates are always mailed in an envelope, never sent electronically.

So the question is why is the Obama campaign not presenting his real birth certificate.

Was he really born in hawaii?

Can he prove it?

If not he may not be able to run for president and you guys get Hillary back.

Enjoy the show!

"For one thing it showed no fold marks and real birth certificates are always mailed in an envelope, never sent electronically."

Bull. A few years back I needed to get a copy of my birth certificate from the State of Wyoming. It came mailed flat and smooth in an 8 1/2 x 11 envelope. You can also get it FAXed to you.

If poor old backward Wyo can manage an unfolded version of a birth certificate, I bet Hawaii can too.

There were pictures of a document posted from his web site and the website that was set up to halt rumors about him. But the so called birth certificate was an obvious fake. For one thing it showed no fold marks and real birth certificates are always mailed in an envelope, never sent electronically.

Posted by FreddyK

Yeah, but where did you read this Freddy? Washington Post? NYT? Wall Street Journal?

I'm sure if what you're saying is true, then some credible source would have picked up on it. In fact, it would have been the story of the year!

But, I don't find this story anywhere but a couple of right wing blogs. So what's the point of you posting about it?

"My question for Democrats is who do you intend to run against McCain after Barry is found to be ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen?"

hey dummy, he wasn't unnaturally born, go back to your dumb shit school! by the way the original stupid story was that he wasn't a "naturalized" citizen, then they found out what that meant. why don't you stop making righties look stupid!

The problem with this article is that it doesn't apply to John McCain. If this was Dick Cheney running for President, then Obamas lead would be larger (double digits) and this election would be over. As hard as the left tries, McCain is not a 3rd term of Bush. It is this type of self-deception which could cost them the election. It is one thing to lie about the other guy, it is part of politics. The danger is when you begin to believe your own lies.

"Jan 01 Dow at 9878 Repubs take White House"

Incorrect. This average was from March of 2001

"hey dummy, he wasn't unnaturally born, go back to your dumb shit school! by the way the original stupid story was that he wasn't a "naturalized" citizen, then they found out what that meant. why don't you stop making righties look stupid!"

Posted by onna

I'm not a rightie, I'm a middlie. I just don't vote for foreigners for president. It's a constitutional thing!

And yes Obama was unnaturally born. His mother wasn't married to his father, his father was still married to a woman in Kenya and he was born who knows where, probably out of the US. Sounds pretty unnatural.

If everyone would take a minute to put some real thought to any of this instead of snapping at the other side, the Country would be much better off. If a majority of people believe our Government is failing us, why keep electing politicians?

It is a sad state of affairs when an entire country is fence-fighting with itself.

Divided we will fall. Remember, we are (historically) a young country. If after only 232 years, we are this bitter toward each other, how can we make it to 300 without someone overtaking our land? Oh yeah, our land is being overtaken right now by our neighbors from the south. No one ever said violence is needed to take land...especially if they are welcomed in by signs written in language they can read, businesses accepting currency from their homeland and a ton of benefits upon arrival.

where Jimmy Carter was in 1980. And we all know what happened to him, don't we.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 07:36 AM | 109 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

and some of us who are 'more seasoned' also remember what jimmy carter did to the military and the economy and everything else to the country as well before 1980.........
AND

...that was before DIEBOLD decided the elections.

Posted by SamBarber at 2008-07-22 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sam,

So we CREDIT Diebold with the 2006 elections?

ITS OFFICIAL..........the liberal fucks have now overtaken us with our clinton references.
will you EVER get over the fact that the constitution of the USA worked in 2000 and it worked in 2004 and YES it even worked in 2006....so if I can see that.......WHY CANT YOU?????????

this blaming 2000 and 2004 is such a PATHETIC argument

"the constitution of the USA worked in 2000 and it worked in 2004"

No, it failed. Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a Scalia court, swift-boating, hanging chads, disenfranchisements, Democratic majorities... I'd say the constitution failed badly twice. herm

No, it failed. Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, a Scalia court, swift-boating, hanging chads, disenfranchisements, Democratic majorities... I'd say the constitution failed badly twice. herm

Posted by herm

Don't forget the disenfranchisement of troops overseas, the media calling Florida before the polls were closed and those so called "intellectual democrats" in Palm Beach who could not read a ballot correctly!

Lame, loser, whiner.... I could write a book about you HERMIE. Too bad no one wants to read a tradgedy anymore.

the dummy says "And yes Obama was unnaturally born. His mother wasn't married to his father, his father was still married to a woman in Kenya and he was born who knows where, probably out of the US. Sounds pretty unnatural.

doesn't matter what his father's status was, his mother was an Amercan and he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This has been verified and only Dumb Shit right wingers fall for this garbage, how stupid you and they are!

if you don't like his politics, fine, attack that, don't like his liberal views, fine, attack that, but spreading stupid dumb stories like this one is sign of a complete idiot! same vein as McCain's black baby story!

Poll Finds 72 Percent of Americans Say McCain Would be Good Commander-in-Chief

tradgedy = tragedy

I refuse to believe that a majority of real Americans will vote for a muslim coon. I understand the blacks that support dems for their welfare and crack checks but most of these will be in a drug stupor and will not vote anyway.

I doubt anyone would vote for a raccoon, much less a Muslim raccoon. That is, unless two Republicans were running -- then the write-in woodland creature vote might really take off.

"I refuse to believe that a majority of real Americans will vote for a muslim coon. I understand the blacks that support dems for their welfare and crack checks but most of these will be in a drug stupor and will not vote anyway".

Posted by A Republican voter at 2008-07-23 08:15 PM

Well, that's that!

Let's all go home!

Lies, damned lies, and statistics-- - Mark Twain