And McCain not only enjoys a five-point edge in a two-way race against Obama, but also in a four-way contest including liberal independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, the poll reveals. In the four-way contest, McCain wins 44% support, Obama 39%, Barr 3% and Nader 2%.And this poll was taken from August 14-16, before the Saddleback Civil Forum which, it seems, will boost McCain. Obama needs a smashingly good convention week.
ADDED: A poll. Note: By pick Hillary, I mean Obama should pick Hillary for VP. Please take Obama's point of view.
To give you more room to opine, I'll make a second poll, and please do this from the point of view of the superdelegates who want their party to win.
Posts
94 comments:
And tapping Hillary for veep will be the smash.
I would love to believe this. But, it is a Zogby poll. Zogby has been so wrong on so many things. I do feel, however, that Obama's momentum may have been fatally wounded in the last month. The trip to Europe was a disaster. It emphasized everything people hate about Democrats; that they are elitist who suck up to the Europeans, don't put the country first and put down average Americans. Why do Democratic candidates insist on strutting around and playing to their worst instincts? Obama should be staying in the US and talking about how he was raised by his grandmother and grew up hard. Does anyone remember the "Man from Hope"? That worked out pretty well for the Democrats. No, send him over and let him tell 200,000 Germans that he is a citizen of the world. That will endear him to the country.
why do I think that Hillary and Bill are working the phones to the superdelegates? I would not be suprised if Hillary comes out of the convention as the nominee. Obama is toast. (oops--toast is brown--was that racist?)
My first thought was John's: Zogby gets it wrong so often, so who cares. But then again, while Zogby often gets it wrong, he almost invariably skews Democratic. So if he's wrong, it might be in the direction of understating McCain's lead.
Lastly, national polls are unsatisfying because they're irrelevant. I don't know what the theoretical maximum is, but I suspect Obama could thrash McCain 60-40 in the popular vote and still lose the election. Like Zogby, The Electoral Vote project skews a little Democratic, but it has the right idea: it puts together opinion polling data in each state to build a virtual electoral college, which is the only relevant metric for judging how the candidates are doing.
Meade, you gave me the idea for the poll I've added. Thanks.
And as an addenda to my comment above - I don't think it's by any means an unlikely scenario that Obama wins the popular vote and loses in the electoral college. Suppose the map stays basically as it did in 2004, with the exceptions of Michigan and Colorado, which each narrowly flip. That wins McCain the election. Is it unimaginable, however, that Obama's celebrity massively increases liberal turnout in the red states, losing states like Georgia by two points rather than the ten points Kerry lost them by? This would significantly boost Obama's numbers.
We have already seen after Saddleback that Obama's supporters take defeat as proof that the other side cheated. If McCain wins and Obama loses despite a popular vote majority - possibly a significant popular vote majority - are Obama supporters going to accept that result? If not, what will they do? And if so, will they start pushing to eliminate the electoral college before next time anyway?
The polls have been trending in favor of McCain for the past six weeks. This Zogby poll continues that trend.
The Zogby poll doesn't include the Saddleback debate, which seemed to help McCain with evangelical Christians.
The polls should show next week whether McCain gets a "Putin bounce" as a result of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
I don't see any of the prospective veeps adding much to the Obama ticket.
Looking at that electoral vote map, I have the feeling Obama is only going to win the dark blue ones. And I note that NY is now light blue. I think things look gloomy for Obama now.
Picking Hillary could well result in a smash, but that would be Michelle's hand connecting with O's face.
Maureen Dowd's column is about a Devil's Bargain between Hillary and McCain, with Jesse Jackson doing a cameo. Typical MoDo snark.
And this poll was taken from August 14-16, before the Saddleback Civil Forum which, it seems, will McCain.
I love it. We should have made this move to using candidates' names as verbs a long time ago.
HRC would be a better President than Obama, but I'm not sure she's a better candidate.
Under normal circumstances, being First Lady would exactly count as on the job training for the Presidency, but in her case, it was pretty clear she was in on the inside of the decision making from day one of her husband's tenure. In 1992 they campaigned on the idea they were "2 for the price of 1" (poor Al thought that meant him).
The problem with all that is she's still "Hillary". The Democrat's have really gotten used to Obama as their candidate, it's a narrative they want to tell. I've got the feeling now they'd rather lose with him than win with somebody else. And I don't think the public could switch their affections that fast, and Hillary isn't going to grab them.
I can't believe he would chose Hillary. Who in their right mind would want to be President and have the Clintons running around in the Whitehouse? I am really surprised that Obama is not trying to make nice with Hillary supporters by chosing a female VP. If I were McCain, I would chose an accomplished woman as my VP and see if I can cut into the Democratic gender gap.
And as an addenda to my comment above - I don't think it's by any means an unlikely scenario that Obama wins the popular vote and loses in the electoral college.
Maybe, but people aren't all that enthused about Obama anymore. Moreover, the Dems can't rely on Bush hatred anymore to drive their voters. The message is coming home that Obama is nothing new - he is merely an inexperienced politician. Moreover, the nice idea that we could elect a black president is spent because his nomination proves that.
McCain is winning on the economy now because the average voter sees the economy = gas prices = more oil drilling. The Democratic policy position on oil drilling has really destroyed any natural lead they had in this election.
Now, we have the resurgence of international affairs with Russia, which are ultimately connected to..yes... the lack of our own oil drilling. It's a double whammy for Obama. He doesn't have the experience to deal with the situation and he represents the root of the problem - our ban on domestic drilling.
Maybe its because the celebrity status is wearing thin?
This reminds me of this comedian I heard talking about USAID for Africa back in the 80's
"Remember that song WE ARE THE WORLD. Yeah I thought it was a great song, the first two or three million times I heard it. Now its just pissing me off."
I think people are starting to see that the Messiah has no halo.
One other thing, if Obama wins the popular vote, I hope to God he wins the election. I don't want to put the country through another 2000. The nutroots will be crazy and alienated enough if Obama loses. They might become downright dangerous, rather than just harmless but derranged, if Obama were to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote.
Sal: your take is probably correct and as much as I would love to see a floor fight at the convention, I think you nailed it
If McCain wins and Obama loses despite a popular vote majority - possibly a significant popular vote majority - are Obama supporters going to accept that result? If not, what will they do?
He and Al Gore can form a club that's even more elite than the Past Presidents' Club... the 'Missed it by That Much' Club. They could also offer membership to Nastia Liukin [tied on bars, lost the gold] and Dara Torres.
I am really surprised that Obama is not trying to make nice with Hillary supporters by chosing a female VP.
I think choosing a female other than Hillary would irreparably damage his standing among Hillary supporters. Hillary was the first female candidate with any real shot at the title. For him to choose some other female over her would send a message that a female VP is fine, just not Hillary. Yeah, that would go over just great.
The super delegates cannot give the nomination to Hillary now. It would destroy the black base of the party. There is no way that the Democrats could win Pennsylvania, for example, without massive black turnout in Philadelphia. I suspect that Michigan would be off the table for Democrats as well.
I also don't think Hillary wants to be the VP pick. She wants Obama to lose and then pick up the party's standard for 2012. It plays into her hands, though, to play aong and drag this out so that her supporters are pissed off when she is not chosen.
Maybe so Hoosier.
He ought to choose some kind of centrist, but he will think he can fool the voters all the way to the voting booth, and he'll choose someone way out there on the left with him and then they will both do a centrist dance or two, thinking that ought to cinch it.
Yesterday in the WSJ there was a fascinating article on BO's smelly tax plans to hike taxes up to 40% for those who have more than 250 thousand a year. The article said that BO's tax plan was actually a kind of immensely expanded welfare.
The Republicans waited until he was locked into the position, and now they're going to open fire with everything they've got.
Hillary was right. She'd have had a better chance.
Obama may still win with the college crowd, but they rarely get to the actual polls since they are usually away from their voting districts in early November and studying hard for mid-terms.
Obama made some critical errors. First, he went to Europe, leaving the Clintons behind to maneuver his people into turning the convention over to them. How did going to Europe help him here? People cared less whether the Germans loved him. Only the pointy heads care about what Europe thinks anyway. Then he went to Hawaii. Leaving the Clintons behind to take over and dominate Hillary’s convention. Now he is in a very bad spot. He did not control his people and they gave Hillary the opening she needs to take the nomination on the floor of the convention. He fell into the trap. If he slips in any major polls or makes another error it will be Hillary Clinton as the nominee.
If Obama had been a more skilled politician, he would have done the right thing; totally ignore Bill and Hillary. He would have brushed them off as the losers they are. Instead, he tried to play nice, nice footsies with them. That is like trying to play with piranhas; they will eat you alive. It will be his political inexperience that does him in, not his lack of experience to lead.
The "We are the World" rant sounds like the late Sam Kinison. Very funny fellow, but not PC in the least.
I have read various dire scenarios about what would happen if Obama lost. Some of them border on threats. I have no idea how this will play out, but it's not going to be dull.
Will Obama's anti-mo continue? Will Hill make waves at the convention? Will Sullyboating become a real word? Tune in tomorrow folks...
I'm on the record I was a tepid Clinton supporter (out of a weak field from both parties I thought that she'd do the best job in the office) and I thought going for Obama now (instead of in 8 or 12 years) was a mistake along the lines of 1972.
That said, the democrats have made their choice and it's Obama for better or worse (if it's for worse I expect them to ditch Iowa and caucuses as bad ways of finding candidates but they're stuck now). Short of catastrophe and Obama withdrawing for whatever reason, choosing Clinton over him or putting her on the ticket as VP won't get my support.
In retrospect I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would roll over Grandpa Simpson's ass but too late for that now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html
This is very interesting. I know people who have long lost step siblings due to falandering fathers and it is always a awkward relationship. At the same time, you would have thought that Obama, a guy who is a millionaire, would have been somewhat moved by the fact that he had a step brother living on less than a $1 a month in a Nirobi slum. How could that not break your heart? How could Obama just leave him there. I am not saying that Obama has to adopt the guy as a brother or move him into his house. But, how do you not send him a few thousand and get him out of the slum?
Peter V. Bella wrote:
he tried to play nice, nice footsies with them. That is like trying to play with piranhas; they will eat you alive.
Someone needs a toothless fish pedicure.
Obama's problem with a Hillary choice as VP is that it could be viewed as an acknowledgement that he, himself, is not sufficient to carry the load. For all the talk about Bayh and Indiana, Kaine and Virginia, its not been since 1960 and LBJ that a VP pick has made any difference and its arguable that was only because LBJ knew how to get votes from dead bodies in South Texas.
I think some of his hard core supporters would see it as a sell out and he's not going to look nearly as strong a leader on a stage with Hillary and Bill.
As for Zogby- don't trust him.
As for national polls- limited usefulness in the "Swing State Era".
John:
If I were McCain, I would chose an accomplished woman as my VP and see if I can cut into the Democratic gender gap.
Hell, why not go for black and from Ohio while we're at it?
if Obama wins the popular vote, I hope to God he wins the election. I don't want to put the country through another 2000. The nutroots will be crazy and alienated enough if Obama loses. They might become downright dangerous, rather than just harmless but derranged, if Obama were to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote.
Doesn't this strike you as a little perverse? Worrying about hurting the feelings of an anti-American fringe faction and hoping they don't turn terrorist?
Appeasement, sir!
Looking at that electoral vote map, I have the feeling Obama is only going to win the dark blue ones
So you think Obama could even lose Wisconsin. How could that be possible?
Back and forth, back and forth. The poll may be accurate, but the voting public's as fickle as a teenager in a clothing store: In both cases, what matters is the moment of truth, not the leadup to it.
Sloanasaurus said...
"[Althouse said, 'Looking at that electoral vote map, I have the feeling Obama is only going to win the dark blue ones.'] So you think Obama could even lose Wisconsin. How could that be possible?"
Kerry won Wisconsin 49.7% over 49.32%. Gore won it 47.83% over 47.91%. To be sure, Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan won it by larger margins, but recent precedent suggests that Wisconsin could be won by less than 1%. That being so, is it unimaginable that McCain could win it by 49.7% over Obama's 49.6%?
And your son moves even closer to being drafted. Beautiful. I can't wait.
So Ann is cherry picking her polls, just as she cherry picks the polls on Bush's approval rating (the last post she had on that it was about how Bush is sooooo popular at 43% approval) and she cherry picks her economic numbers (Boom times!).
Rasmussen has Obama up by 3% today.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The race might have tightened a little, but this is really just noise. And you won't get a true sense of the race until after the conventions when people start paying attention.
In retrospect I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would roll over Grandpa Simpson's ass but too late for that now.
Yep. This has been a very interesting campaign season.
So Ann is cherry picking her polls, just as she cherry picks the polls on Bush's approval rating (the last post she had on that it was about how Bush is sooooo popular at 43% approval) and she cherry picks her economic numbers (Boom times!).
Not Ann! She is cruelly neutral and is leaning towards Obama! Of course when anyone raises the issue that McCain might have been caught in a rather clumsy lie about his POW experience, it is somehow the Obama campaign that is raising the issue.
I can't believe anyone actually believes Ann is going to vote for Obama.
It just amuses me to no end that she spends most of the time on her blog bashing Obama knowing that most of her commenters will pile on.
What I would like to see is the what people on this blog (especially Cedarford) think about the rumor that McCain is going to pick Lieberman.
Blogger integrity said...
"And your son moves even closer to being drafted. Beautiful. I can't wait."
1) The only people who've talked about reinstituting a draft are Democrats;
2) There's not even the slightest reason to think that McCain would institute one; and
3) The Selective Service System covers only males aged 18-25, and IIRC neither John nor Chris will be under 26 when McCain takes office.
Hmmmm.
@ John
"Obama should be staying in the US and talking about how he was raised by his grandmother and grew up hard."
1. It's rather difficult to ascribe "growing up hard" to a middle class kid in *Hawaii*. No offense but I grew up in New Hampshire. I didn't get 365 days of balmy weather with surfing and palm trees. I got 2' snowfalls, shoveling a 100' driveway every 3-5 days, mostly because of wind driven snowdrifts, and chopping wood for boiling the maple sap for maple sugar.
Seriously. Growing up "hard"? In Hawaii??
Yeah 'cause the pineapples are actually carnivorous until they get into the can! Really man.
2. His grandmother? His *racist* grandmother?
I'm sorry but once you've thrown someone under the bus isn't there some sort of rule that you cannot trot them out for every other occasion?
Simon said...
Blogger integrity said...
"And your son moves even closer to being drafted. Beautiful. I can't wait."
1) The only people who've talked about reinstituting a draft are Democrats;
2) There's not even the slightest reason to think that McCain would institute one; and
3) The Selective Service System covers only males aged 18-25, and IIRC neither John nor Chris will be under 26 when McCain takes office.
The delusion inherent in your 3 comments is astounding.
One can't be at perpetual war without a draft.
When you allow Georgia & co. into NATO you are going to end up at war with Russia. Where are the troops coming from?
War with Iran. Where are the troops coming from?
Continuing disaster in Afghanistan. Where are the troops coming from?
You actually believe that the government of the United States is going to be able to cull enough 18-25 year old males for these excursions?
You are delusional. Hopefully you are of age or have kids that will be drafted, and sooner rather than later.
Doesn't matter if Ann's son is drafted. McCain will make sure he is dishonorably discharged.
Obama needs a smashingly good convention week.
Why? The election is three months off. Has any candidate ridden the convention-boomlet-produced wave to victory?
For decades, conventions have been exercises in excruciating boredom. This Dem one will be a rare exception because the cigar-chewing backroom pols might screw Obama and replace him with HRC. At which point I grit my teeth and support McCain, under my lesser of two evils policy.
Obama made some critical errors. First, he went to Europe, leaving the Clintons behind to maneuver his people into turning the convention over to them. How did going to Europe help him here?
Doing the tour of Middle East hotspots shut McCain up on the lack of foreign policy expertise issue. Stopping in Europe on the way back showed that he'll be able to work with our historic allies.
Obama's been able to outmaneuver and outthink the Clintons up to now. By praising McSame, Bill acts like an elderly lion with a toothache instead of some born-again nonpartisan -- maybe he relates to Grandpa Simpson being supplanted by a younger stud.
Yesterday in the WSJ
Obama's already lost the readers of the WSJ editorial pages.
And the online markets (which are better than polls) are barely budging. Although Hillary's chances of becoming President have moved from 4% to 6% today.
I just don't see how the super delegates can change their mind NOW and throw the nomination to Hillary without destroying the internal cohesion of their party. Furthermore it would make their party look completely incompetent, which would fatally (for them) distract from the theme of Republican incompetence that they're hoping to ride to crushing victory. For weal or for woe, they're stuck with Obama.
No offense but I grew up in New Hampshire.
Interesting that memo thinks growing up a fatherless (and later motherless) child is not hard, but experiencing two months of winter a year is. Skiing, sledding, tobogganing, ice skating -- what Hawaiian-born kid wouldn't trade his surfboard for that? Especially to live on an estate large enough to sport a hundred foot driveway, instead of a cramped condo. Just because memo resented having to do chores doesn't mean Obama would have.
His grandmother? His *racist* grandmother?
Dude the whole point of that story was that even the nicest, nonracist people could have racially motivated fears.
ery interesting. I've always thought that Obama was a 38% candidate. The media is probably giving him 8-10%.
The campaign responses to issues that come up are frankly horrible. They have committed PR hall of shame contenders at a rate of one per week.
What is really interesting is that all the fiascos are in response to something. Some from McCain, some from trying to correct/establish an identity issue.
And they invariably miss the important detail. Presidential event in Germany, but too busy to go to the hospital. Warm context, be human. My wife if the person I look up to. Groan. Arrogant and hubris, act humble. Above my pay grade.
Don't they have anyone who actually is from outside their very small echo chamber on their campaign? Or worse, they do, but Obama doesn't listen and just wings it.
The deal at the convention will be quite simple. Fire your campaign staff or we give it to Hillary.
Derek
Hmmmm.
@ fls
1. "Interesting that memo thinks growing up a fatherless (and later motherless) child is not hard, but experiencing two months of winter a year is."
Uhhh. **New Hampshire**.
Two months is what we had for spring/summer. Plus I'll point out that a lot of kids grow up without fathers and a lot of kids are raised by grandparents.
2. "Skiing, sledding, tobogganing, ice skating -- what Hawaiian-born kid wouldn't trade his surfboard for that?"
That's because you didn't live there. When you live there snow = work.
3. "Especially to live on an estate large enough to sport a hundred foot driveway, instead of a cramped condo."
I dreamed of living in a condo.
No cutting endless acres of lawns. No working on local farms. No being loaned out for handyman work to the neighbors.
4. "Just because memo resented having to do chores doesn't mean Obama would have."
Uhhh yeah. And you've never had to muck out the stalls for a dozen horses and cut a couple cords of wood.
5. "Dude the whole point of that story was that even the nicest, nonracist people could have racially motivated fears."
Dude the vignette he recounted, plus his justification of his continued association with Rev. Wright, clearly establishes his grandmother as a racist.
Shall I quote:
Obama: I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
-----------
His grandmother? His *racist* grandmother?
Dude the whole point of that story was that even the nicest, nonracist people could have racially motivated fears.
downtownlad said...
Doesn't matter if Ann's son is drafted. McCain will make sure he is dishonorably discharged.
Man, your identity nonsense is really getting old. If you were sincere, you would do something about it. But, all you do is rant.
As to polls, the only poll that really counts for anything is the one on election day; after the last vote is counted. The rest is all nonsense.
Hey, integrity -
If we were fighting wars, we'd be done and the guys who fought "over there" would be juniors in college by now.
We are nation building while conducting police actions. Because we are rich enough to afford to be nice.
A real shooting war, with the United States on one side, and anyone else in the world, would last exactly as long as it took for us to move the material to fight on our terms into theater.
A war - a real, old fashioned kill 'em until you run out of "them" - hasn't happened since 1945.
The Russians are truly "dogs who chase cars and don't have a clue what they will do when they catch them".
Yep. We're rich enough to afford the blood and treasure to (for now)not have to annihilate Islam. We think we are, at least.
But if Russia thinks that their thirty year old technology means shit outside of media bloviating and Leftist bedwetting... not so much. If it came to a tactical shooting war we could eviscerate them when and where we chose. It is what our military was designed to do - and the Russians, for all their bluster, gave up that fight in 1990.
Even the french and Germans recognise that this is a thug problem, and not one of empire.
Sorry for the off topic, but the Georgia issue will be an issue exactly as long as our media and Left give the bear what it wants.
On topic: I wonder how many Dems got asked and said "no" to Barry's VP search? That will be a good story all by itself.
Just like how many prominent Dems sit out the convention.
I think that Obama survives the convention... but only because there won't be enough SUPER delegates on deck, who if they had been there to vote for Hillary, would overcome Obama's slim lead in the popular vote.
Integrity - here's a few hints on why no draft.
1. Military absolutely does NOT want it.
2. Drawdown in Iraq equals more troops to Afghanistan.
3. More drawdowns in Iraq to be announced from that "unsuccessful" surge.
4. Georgia is NOT actually in NATO. They would like to be.
5. War with Iran? When did that happen? Of course since it will be fought via air and naval assets it really won't require more manpower.
Sure McCain could win Wisconsin but do you really think that he could win WI, OR, NY, NJ, PA, NH, and MN (to name just a few)? If I had a feeling that McCain was going to win by garnering 400+ electoral votes, I would head over to Intrade and take the better than 10 to 1 odds on the >380. Then I would hedge that by buying some of the state specifics.
Assuming he means better at predicting election results, I disagree with DTL that online markets are better than polls, but they are a good way to make money if you have a feeling that you are right about. {DTL, I think there will come a day when online markets will be a better predictor than polls (and I suppose you are right even now if you meant they are better than any one poll) but I doubt there is enough of a data set established yet to demonstrate that those markets are better predictors. Regards.)
I'm sure both candidates will get a convention bounce. The question is: does the convention bounce have legs? And I think the answer is that it rarely does (have legs, that is).
Far more important than bounce is momentum. Since McCain is incapable of generating much in the way of excitement the latest polls must be indicating that Obama is losing momentum.
integrity said...
"The delusion inherent in your 3 comments is astounding."
We aren't going to be in "perpetual war" in the sense of a perpetual shooting war.
"When you allow Georgia & co. into NATO you are going to end up at war with Russia."
I think it would be a catastrophic result for us to allow Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, precisely because it threatens to drag us into a war with Russia. If you think that the biggest problem with going to war against Russia is the threat of a draft, I think you'll find delusion a little closer to home.
"War with Iran. Where are the troops coming from?"
We aren't going to war with Iran, and even if we do, we won't be occupying it.
The Russians are truly "dogs who chase cars and don't have a clue what they will do when they catch them".
Putin hasn't lost a war yet, while George Bush has lost 2 and helped two other countries lose theirs (Lebanon and Georgia). In 6 days Putin destroyed a 6 yr US-led military buildup meant to bring it up to NATO standards. And McCain is sending Lieberman to the region to do.....what again?
God help us.
Bob said...
Integrity - here's a few hints on why no draft.
1. Military absolutely does NOT want it.
2. Drawdown in Iraq equals more troops to Afghanistan.
3. More drawdowns in Iraq to be announced from that "unsuccessful" surge.
4. Georgia is NOT actually in NATO. They would like to be.
5. War with Iran? When did that happen? Of course since it will be fought via air and naval assets it really won't require more manpower.
One by one.
1. The military has no say in a draft if their political leaders put them in situations in which military personnel are needed.
2. Do you really believe that a drawdown in Iraq is viable long-term? I suppose you think that there will be no bloodbath in Iraq when they are no longer being babysat at gunpoint and paid by us not to kill each other.
3. Same as response from #2 above.
4. I said WHEN you allow, which your guy is pushing for and I assume will happen at some point.
5. McCain is a warmonger who will provoke anyone and anything that can help him politically. War with Iran will take place under McCain, and it will require more than just air and naval assets.
As anyone can see this draft issue really is at the heart of everything going on in this country politically. As soon as the people are forced to be engaged via their kid's asses being on the line, your right-wing garbage ends. Everyone here knows it, and I can't wait for it to happen.
Hmmmm.
@ garage mahal
1. "Putin hasn't lost a war yet, while George Bush has lost 2 and helped two other countries lose theirs (Lebanon and Georgia)."
This is the *first* war Putin has fought. And done so against a nation that doesn't even have enough tanks for a tank regiment.
And what 2 "wars" has Bush lost? Lebanon? You mean the war that we didn't have any troops in? No aircraft? No presence whatsoever?
As for Georgia you must be joking. This war isn't over by a long shot. Taking isn't the same as holding. And the Russian Army is very badly trained and has even worse leadership. Precisely the last kind of troops you'd want in a long term occupation.
In 6 months the Russian troops will have so badly abused the so-called "Russian citizens" in northern Georgia that they'll herald the returning Georgian forces as liberators.
Here's an example of how bad Russian soldiers are. In fighting in Chechnya the Russian Army destroyed Grozny and about 50,000 civilians. Mostly by bombing entire neighborhoods flat.
2. "In 6 days Putin destroyed a 6 yr US-led military buildup meant to bring it up to NATO standards."
Complete and utter craptacular bullshit. You obviously have no idea what it is you're talking about.
The USA has/had approximately 125 trainers in Georgia helping train Georgian infantry in the proper light infantry urban warfare techniques necessary for success and survival in Iraq. They weren't there to "military buildup meant to bring it up to NATO standards" or any other such nonsense.
They were there to train up Georgians to the standards required for Iraq combat operations.
Really. Next time simply open your sphincter and let loose. It'll be more relevant than this nonsense.
3. "And McCain is sending Lieberman to the region to do.....what again?"
And what? Is there a point to this?
I stand by my view of Althouse's "cruel neutrality". :p
But I'll also say -- as much as I enjoy this latest -- that I trust Zogby as much as I trust a dartboard's predictive powers.
Still, if I'm an Obama fan, I'm worried this week. (I'm not, so I'm serene. Things are going exactly as I thought they would. (Well, as I thought since August 1st, when I saw how the celeb ad hit home.))
All's well, dear friends. All's well.
They might become downright dangerous, rather than just harmless but derranged, if Obama were to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote.
Should this happen, and I think it might, I plan to avoid any visitation of urban areas with large minority populations, lest they think I am a typical white person bigot and take out their frustrations on me. Having lived in the Bay Area during the Watts Riots time, I have had some experience in this area. It isn't far fetched to think that there could be some very very angry people out there.
No joking.
Can Hillary as VP restore Obama in the polls? Interesting dilemma for Senator Obama. Most people seem to think he wins with her.
Curious too that he has a stop scheduled for Springfield, IL this Saturday.
Is Obama daring enough to intro HRC there in the Land of Lincoln?
I doubt it.
Why argue with "Integrity"'s idiotic position on the draft? We didn't need the draft to face down the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s, we won't need one for the much inferior (in relative terms) Russians. "Integrity"'s points are ludicrous on that front alone.
Integrity said...
"As soon as the people are forced to be engaged via their kid's asses being on the line, your right-wing garbage ends."
Indeed - that's exactly why the left is so desperate to push the myth that there will be a draft. If people believed that McCain would initiate one, you capture the votes of kids of a certain age and their parents. Of course, it's a lie, and McCain has no intention of doings so, but lies, distortions and manipulation have been the stock-in-trade of lefty agitprop for many years. It's the only way you can get traction.
Integrity:
When you suggest someone with draft-age offspring is a potential victim of the draft, you are showing you are a mean-spirited SOB and have no integrity. You think you are clever and bright but you are just an average asswipe who we will ignore.
John wrote:
"The nutroots will be crazy and alienated enough if Obama loses. They might become downright dangerous, rather than just harmless but derranged, if Obama were to lose the electoral vote while winning the popular vote."
John, for theoretic and moral reasons the nutroots have disarmed themselves, and they are wholly untrained. They've been aborting their replacement troops for years. My guess is they'll speak truth to power on some street corners, in real big angry voices. Possibly even with megaphones. Widespread outbreaks of savage tut-tuttery, as someone said. Because they would like to be thought downright dangerous, they will mistake the lack of reaction to their indignant rants as cowing the rest of the populace. And they'll wilt again, as always.
The window of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center has a sign:
Bring our troops home, where they belong.
I very much doubt the people who wrote and posted the sign have thought much about what it would mean.
I always wondered who these people are who get polled.
None of my friends or myself have ever gotten polled.
None of us has land phone lines.
I want to be polled-and not in the sexual way-not right now at least-maybe latter.
I am suspicious of polls.
But big black or other multicutural, exotic Poles I like.
Simon said...
Integrity said...
"As soon as the people are forced to be engaged via their kid's asses being on the line, your right-wing garbage ends."
Indeed - that's exactly why the left is so desperate to push the myth that there will be a draft. If people believed that McCain would initiate one, you capture the votes of kids of a certain age and their parents. Of course, it's a lie, and McCain has no intention of doings so, but lies, distortions and manipulation have been the stock-in-trade of lefty agitprop for many years. It's the only way you can get traction.
AJ Lynch said...
Integrity:
When you suggest someone with draft-age offspring is a potential victim of the draft, you are showing you are a mean-spirited SOB and have no integrity. You think you are clever and bright but you are just an average asswipe who we will ignore.
I have no problem being ignored by anyone here.
Please do.
Having any logic or reason within this right-wing nutjob echo chamber obviously throws many of the lunatics here into a tailspin, but greatly enhances this blog for the casual reader who witnesses and shudders at the mindless right-wing conformity that is on display here every single day without one iota of blowback.
It was wrong and completely reprehensible to send the military into Iraq without a draft. People who believe in what they are doing are not afraid of a draft, nor are thay afraid of getting their fellow citizens engaged in what they claim is the right thing to do.
You are petrified because you are wrong.
The problem is that our combat troops -- especially the Guard and Reserves -- are worn out. From ABC News: In a typical unit headed to Iraq, 60 percent are on their second, third or fourth deployment, lasting about a year each, says U.S. Army Col. Carl Castro, who directs a medical research program at Fort Detrick, Md.
More time in Iraq means heavier exposure to violence, which leads more soldiers to develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, Castro told the psychology meeting. By their third tour to Iraq, more than a quarter of soldiers show signs of mental problems, such as PTSD, and it's about 1 out of 3 for those exposed to heavy combat, according to a U.S. Army Surgeon General report in March on more than 2,000 soldiers.
Persuading more Americans to volunteer would be one solution. The draft would be another possible solution. A third possibility would be to rotate the 80% of the Regular Army who have other MOSs into Combat Arms -- a sort of internal draft.
Memomachine
Are you watching a different conflict than the rest of us? Did you not see the Georgians literally running from their tanks? Who do you think supplied Georgia with funding and military assistance? Tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, mortars, and unmanned aircraft. Putin just smashed it to pieces in surprisingly short order to anyone remotely paying attention. Do you think Georgia has been boasting of meeting NATO standards without the U.S. and Israels support? Shevardnadze and Netanyahu signed their first their military agreement in 1999. The buildup has been going for years.
Condi Rice huffed and puffed while Sarkozy flew to Russia and brokered a cease fire in one day. And to you that's strength I'm guessing. Is there an alternate news source from which conservatives are getting their military information from that I'm not aware of?
Hahaha, you Democrats still miss the point of the primary. It was to be a coronation, but Iowa got in the way. As soon as weakness was exposed in the old but still powerful Clintonistas (East Coast and South), the new Dean-Obama-Pelosi wing (Left Coast, West Coast and Chicago) started thinking about taking control and replacing the old machine.
As usual, they became so excited they forgot that they really wanted to beat the Republicans. These people are children politically.
Think how many of these children the Clinton's made angry enough to lose their minds and focus. I can't even imagine what terrible injustices we haven't heard about. And they reacted like children. Progressive indeed, nuance indeed.
Now Hillary is going to punish them, as a parent punishes a spoiled child. Do you really think she would be Bambi's VP? She wants to win in a few more years. No one of substance is going down with Bambi.
You funny Democrats now suffer from buyer's remorse, and should be crawling back to Hillary from now until the election. The rest of you, the children, she's just going to exterminate.
My point is- Hillary would have picked Mr. Perfect as VP in a heartbeat, but Bambi and his posse have themselves in a corner, and aren't mature enough to do the reverse. What is worse, not asking or being rejected? Rove, you magnificent bastard.
People will be studying this for years. You Democrats must be very proud.
I think it would be a catastrophic result for us to allow Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, precisely because it threatens to drag us into a war with Russia.
Simon, yes but that threat existed since the birth of NATO. Despite their ties to Russia, Ukraine and Georgia are independent nations and I think their desire to join NATO speaks more to which direction they wish to see their nation’s progress rather than remain under the influence of a growing fascist state. Now if this increases the threat of war, well that argument is just as valid as it was when NATO was formed. Otherwise we simply tell those former Soviet states that while it would be nice to have you in the club, we don’t want to piss off your ex-husband and get our ass kicked.
That said, I would offer the position that it would be catastrophic in the sense that if war broke out, the US would be the one with its John Thomas in the meat grinder and perhaps the Brits who are probably the only other NATO member that can project any meaningful military force. I think unless the Russians were advancing into the Fulda Gap, and even then, there would be a collective shitting of Euro pants if they actually were expected to fight a foe that was armed with more than an AK-47 and a RPG. Finally, any belief that NATO exists as some kind of military counterweight is delusional. Outside of Britain and France, there are no substantial military forces in Europe that are suited to anything beyond internal control or peacekeeping.
Condi Rice huffed and puffed while Sarkozy flew to Russia and brokered a cease fire in one day.
After which the Russians continued advancing into Georgia shooting the place up and taking POWs. Yep that Sarkozy did a helluva job.
Of course I am still waiting for the mass demonstrations over the illegal, brutal and warmongering Putinhitler.
Are those crickets I hear?
Recreate '68!
Is it getting drafty in here, or is it just me?
Of course I am still waiting for the mass demonstrations over the illegal, brutal and warmongering Putinhitler.
As Bush was yakking it up at the Olympics with Putin in a communist country. As conservatives scream drill Drill DRILL! off our beaches to sell directly back to China and Russia as China sells us 10 year notes to occupy a country in a pointless trillion dollar misadventure. Like I said, God help us.
Is it getting drafty in here, or is it just me?
It's just you.
As Bush was yakking it up, blah blah blah blah....
Was that a condemnation of Russian aggression or just more Bush-hating nonsense?
It isn't far fetched to think that there could be some very very angry people out there [should Obama win the popular vote and lose the electoral college vote].
If Obama wins there will be celebratory rioting in which some blacks and some whites may very well be killed.
If Obama loses, no matter how, there will be deadly rioting. Many whites and some blacks will be killed. Not only that but the attacks on whites will continue sporadically long after election day.
Whites who must venture out immediately after the election will be at extreme risk.
Those who ignore the obvious in order to feel good about themselves will risk paying the ultimate price for their foolishness.
yet another winning topic for the dems: elect Obama and avoid a draft--jesus people--can the dems be this stupid? apparently yes judging from some of the comments on this thread.
There will be no draft no matter who is elected--the country doesnt want one and the military doesnt want one.
God--what a bunch of dipshits
Roger J, check my link at 1:50. McCain appears to disagree with you. I'm sure it's spinnable, though. The questioner was rambling and so there's plenty of other things in the question McCain "doesn't disagree" with, but still not good for him.
If you wanna talk dumb fantasies, check out ricpic and DBQ upthread: Race riots? Even if Obama wins? Now that's crazy talk.
"Meade, you gave me the idea for the poll I've added. Thanks."
You're very welcome.
What a team we make, huh. It's like synchronized synchronical synergistic synergism or something. I know, I know - I was a fool to turn down your generous marriage proposal with the promise of rainbows every day and university faculty-grade health insurance - a regret I'll probably carry to my lonely grave.
What can I say but que sera sera...
Wow. Synchronicity.
The Left will allow the ascension of Obama because IF THEY DON'T, the cities will burn!!!
Same damned reason they'll not confront the thug Putin. 'Cause he might break shit, and knock over stuff.
Just look at yourselves. You are pathetic.
What happened to the Democrat party?
I mean, besides being hijacked by a bunch of nihilistic tie-dyed anarchist vegans who were left without adult supervision after the KGB went tits up? Just when did you all decide that everything was America's fault, and that surrender, with abject apology, was the go - to strategy when confronted by any two - bit punk barfed up by history's assembly line?
Jesus. Your boy Obama should have stayed in Chicago where voting "present" meets the standard for statesmanship. He's so far out of his depth just trying to get by Hillary that he will most definitely be out of his pay grade when it comes time to deal with just about anybody else.
Good day to you all.
TmjUtah said...
What happened to the Democrat party?...
Just when did you all decide that everything was America's fault, and that surrender, with abject apology, was the go - to strategy when confronted by any two - bit punk barfed up by history's assembly line?
That was decided when what the French thought of us was more important than what we thought of ourselves. They always fret and worry about what the French think and how the French will treat us. The French love surrender with abject apology.
Did the French flip flop on all that when they chose Sarkozy? He kind of likes us, I thought.
Trevor--good catch--didnt know that was Mccains position--nonetheless a draft isnt going to happen no matter who wins the white house. while i am a old soldier who enlisted when there was a draft and still applaud the concept we are too far down the road for such a policy Still voting for mccain and against obama
As Bush was yakking it up at the Olympics with Putin in a communist country. As conservatives scream drill Drill DRILL! off our beaches to sell directly back to China and Russia as China sells us 10 year notes to occupy a country in a pointless trillion dollar misadventure. Like I said, God help us.
That was some response garage. Had absolutely nothing to do with my comment but then again, breathless ranting is what I've come to expect from you since Bambi trashed your girl in the primaries. Bet that still stings everytime you see him up there don't it?
Hey, did you ever stop and think that maybe we're selling China 10 year notes to pay for welfare for deadbeats and illegals, pork like a new namesake highway for former KKK member Robert Byrd (D) WV and other sundry wealth redistribution projects.
I really don't expect a cogent answer garage, but miracles do happen sometimes.
If you wanna talk dumb fantasies, check out ricpic and DBQ upthread: Race riots? Even if Obama wins? Now that's crazy talk.
You mean like No Justice No Peace?
Day 5 of the Obama refusal to release the Annenberg records.
New chant: Jesse, give back his balls!!!
Hoosier Daddy said...
If you wanna talk dumb fantasies, check out ricpic and DBQ upthread: Race riots? Even if Obama wins? Now that's crazy talk.
You mean like No Justice No Peace?
No justice, just us!
I think things look gloomy for Obama now.
As I was emailing a fellow commenter last night, McCain doesn't need regional help. Obama desperately does, and I'm not sure Biden will help there.
I went to watch Tropical Thunder just now (it was great), and when I came out of the cinemas to the carpark, I saw to my amazement three McCain bumperstickers, almost in a row.
I've never seen that before. Not that Obama is so ubiquitous in SoFla, but one can feel the momentum all on McCain's side since Berlin.
Like Jack Germond used to say, pre-election polls mean nothing, especially Zogby's but there's SOMETHING going on.
Cheers,
Victoria
Did the French flip flop on all that when they chose Sarkozy? He kind of likes us, I thought.
Sarkozy is cool. But everybody in France hates him.
"Sarkozy is cool. But everybody in France hates him."
There's this other guy... not france, he's a president, too - seems everybody hates the air he breathes, too.
I heard he made it possible for over thirty million people to vote for their own government, first time ever. Staved off a recession, fought a couple wars.
Fought with concrete blocks on his feet - no back up at all, and while the other side actively operated against the national interest again and again in pursuit of short term political gain, even his own party paid more attention to getting trotters in the trough than leading anywhere.
Damn. Who was that guy?
I heard he made it possible for over thirty million people to vote for their own government, first time ever.
And all it cost was a Trillion Dollars. What is that, $33 million per Iraqi? Was that really the best way to spend One Trillion Dollars? By the way, why didn't we help North Koreans oust the dictator who starved them? Perhaps because Bush and Cheney were Texas oilmen, and not Texas kimchi men?
fls: And all it cost was a Trillion Dollars. What is that, $33 million per Iraqi? Was that really the best way to spend One Trillion Dollars?
Oh I don't know, you tell me - whats your own life worth? More than or less than $33 million?
fls,
Wasn't $1 trillion about about what 9/11 cost us?
Maybe it's because Kim lives in the middle of all his gulags in compliance with the armistice of 1953.
Maybe it isn't in our national interest to precipitate a military conflict that without question would begin with the destruction of the capital of South Korea?
Maybe because all of the Nork's neighbors have been seated as equal partners in the diplomatic process aimed at preventing Kim from obtaining a working nuke, and the consensus action so far is that talk-talk is better than bomb-bomb.
Maybe Bush, who was the president that changed the deployed U.S. forces from a sacrificial tripwire into a robust and eminently effecive and survivable maneuver force, feels that he's demonstrated to the Nork's that we won't even have to reinforce but for air to crush any move he makes.
Other than those things, I dunno. I just post here.
Was that really the best way to spend One Trillion Dollars?
Good point. You know I ask the same question each time I see successive generations of welfare recipients, tenants of public housing and an shitty public school system. And that cost a lot more than a trillion dollars too.
By comparison, Iraq is a bargain.
Post a Comment