Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
It is.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter adonis
- Start date
Sweet J
Footballguy
My read on it: Although Doyle appeared to be over her head as "campaign manager," she got that job by being incredibly competent as Clinton's "chief of staff." She just ran into the Peter Principle (also referred to, I think, as the Dilbert Principle). That is, people get promoted out of their competence level.That being said, she was hired to be the VP's Chief of Staff -- her very expertise. Maybe it is a signal that Obama is moving away from Clinton. But maybe (kill me now) it is a signal that Obama will, indeed pick Clinton as his VP. And Doyle will once again be Clinton's COS. I dunno, though.Orange Crush said:
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
I'm kinda puzzled by it too. Why alienate her supporters even more than they are? Surely there's some logic in here that I'm missing.
adonis
Footballguy
flufhed
Footballguy
How can he possibly be leading in Florida, after all of those poor anygry disenfranchised voters??Seriously, the fact that he is even close in Florida at this point, after all that has gone on (not campaigning there, the Muslim rumors which probably scare the h### out of the old Jewish ladies, Farakhan/Wright flap, not a huge percentage are black, the flap about their votes not counting, and then only counting half as much, the fact that Hillary blew him away there, the fact that Florida has a GOP governor) is hugely surprising to me. I had written FL off, already, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. If Florida is in any way in play at THIS POINT in the general election, McCain is in real trouble.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Also, looking at the electoral math, McCain HAS to win both Florida and Ohio. There's only one possible scenario I can see where McCain wins without Florida that is at all within the realm of reality - he must win Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia. All of these are projected battleground states.If he does win Florida, there's about thirty different combinations of battleground state wins to get him to 270 EVs, and 25 of them include winning Ohio.
On the plus side for McCain, Obama doesn't have more than 50% of the poll votes in those Florida and Ohio votes yet.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
I think the number of her "core supporters" is dropping rapidly. I'm not sure it will be a significant number by the time we hit the end of July.
BuddyKnuckles
Footballguy
c'mon, what would the MSM have done if they couldnt raise a stink about FL and MI? I've been saying for months that NO ONE in Florida, outside of a few confused old jewish ladies (its ok i'm jewish)...but no one is/was upset about the Dem primary. It was all just a concocted story by the MSM and an effort by HRC to fan the flames and help her campaign. Oh, and Spidey...does that fit your 10-13 pt "bump"? Or, would you like to invent another reason why Obama is in trouble? Don't worry, i'll wait while you listen to Rush to see what to do next.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you believe that Quinnipac University polls are biased yet? They are giving Obama a 4 point lead in Florida. Rasmussen has McCain with a 10 point lead and Obama's own camp came out talking about ways to win the election without carrying Florida or Ohio. They have Ohio to Obama by 6%, which Rasmussen has to McCain by 1%. They give Obama a 12% lead in Pennsylvania, which is basically locked up, but Rasmussen says its a 2% Obama lead, in the margin of error. Can you explain the gaping polling numbers in this data any other way? There is a 14 point gap in Florida, 7% in Ohio, and 10% in Pennsylvania. These are the same geniuses that predicted a blowout by Al Gore the night before the election and a win by John Kerry a week out. There is liberal bias in many of these polling agencies and that has to be taken with a grain of salt.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Yes.It appears that the Rasmussen poll for Florida that you reference was for a May 19 survey, while the Quinnipiac poll is from June 9-16: Link. The Rasmussen poll for Ohio that you appear to be referencing was for a May 15 survey, while the Quinnipiac poll was from June 9-16: Link. And the Rasmussen poll for Pennsylvania that you appear to be referencing was for a May 21 survey, while the Quinipiac poll was taken from June 9-16: Link. In short, the Quinipiac polls are current, while the Rasmussen polls you appear to be citing are a month old.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
Interestingly, for the major battleground state polls that were actually conducted by Rasmussen in the month of June (Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Missouri), Rasmussen has Obama leading in every one. Link, Link, Link and Link.
Rasmussen's June polls also cover Iowa (Obama by 7 points), Minnesota (Obama by 13 points), New Jersey (Obama by 9 points), Oregon (Obama by 8 points) and Washington (Obama by 18 points). Rasmussen's June polls for Georgia, North Carolina and Texas have McCain with the edge (10, 2 and 13 points respectively).
So even if you dismiss all the other polls, and rely solely on Rasmussen's surveys, the numbers for June are looking fairly bleak for McCain.
Rasmussen's June polls also cover Iowa (Obama by 7 points), Minnesota (Obama by 13 points), New Jersey (Obama by 9 points), Oregon (Obama by 8 points) and Washington (Obama by 18 points). Rasmussen's June polls for Georgia, North Carolina and Texas have McCain with the edge (10, 2 and 13 points respectively).
So even if you dismiss all the other polls, and rely solely on Rasmussen's surveys, the numbers for June are looking fairly bleak for McCain.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
Exactly. By the time we hit the convention her supporters by and large will be Obama supporters. In the end they are Democrats.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
bigbottom said:
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Obama camp thinks they can take both of those states. Based on the primary alone in GA, I agree. The turnout was amazing. Clinton staying in so long allowing the democrats to get a head start on voter registration in all 50 states is going to be huge in these swing states IMO.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Taking NC and Georgia would be shocking. And it would mean of course that McCain pretty much got landslided.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
The interesting thing is besides for the Quinn polls which actually have Obama's support among blacks north of 90%, most every other poll has it in the 60-80% range...so even so a lot of these Rasmussen polls show a relatively tight race, I don't know how close they are in reality. Similar thing to the polling in these states in the primaries.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Huckabee: Demonizing Obama is a ‘fatal mistake’
Posted: 12:00 PM ET
(CNN) – Former GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee called Barack Obama's candidacy "a landmark achievement" Tuesday, and warned fellow Republicans not to demonize Obama.
"Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barack Obama," Huckabee told reporters in Tokyo, according to a report by Agence France-Presse.
Huckabee praised the country for getting "to a point where we did not see his color but we truly saw his charisma, his message and what he brought to the campaign trail."
"When people are really hurting — and they are right now — they're not looking at a person's race," he added.
Huckabee said he hopes John McCain beats Obama, but that Republicans should focus on policy differences, not race.
Huckabee suggested questions about whether he might join McCain on the ticket were premature. "You can't accept an invitation to the prom until the football captain asks you. So I'm not going to go out and buy the outfit just yet," said Huckabee, according to AFP.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...stake%e2%80%99/
Posted: 12:00 PM ET
(CNN) – Former GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee called Barack Obama's candidacy "a landmark achievement" Tuesday, and warned fellow Republicans not to demonize Obama.
"Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barack Obama," Huckabee told reporters in Tokyo, according to a report by Agence France-Presse.
Huckabee praised the country for getting "to a point where we did not see his color but we truly saw his charisma, his message and what he brought to the campaign trail."
"When people are really hurting — and they are right now — they're not looking at a person's race," he added.
Huckabee said he hopes John McCain beats Obama, but that Republicans should focus on policy differences, not race.
Huckabee suggested questions about whether he might join McCain on the ticket were premature. "You can't accept an invitation to the prom until the football captain asks you. So I'm not going to go out and buy the outfit just yet," said Huckabee, according to AFP.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...stake%e2%80%99/
adonis
Footballguy
Deep breaths...it's june, the general election has just begun.Plenty can happen to turn the tide. A bad debate, an off-the-cuff remark, reminders of Rev Wright on stage, the list goes on. What we can tell from this is that Obama has gone into the general election running, and appears to be in a good position to compete with McCain in enough states to give him a fair shot at the presidency.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Yeah this is just so much fun with numbers right now. But I am betting the McCain camp isn't to happy.
Again - it won't even be close.
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
Joe says we can't be overconfident.
videoguy505
Footballguy
IIRC, Obama's up by about the same amount Kerry was up in June 04, Gore was up in June 00, and Dole was up in June 96.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I just spit soda.
commisholio
Come out with your pants down!
I could maybe give you Kerry and Gore, but I don't believe Dole ever polled ahead of Clinton.
Radio Free Homer
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Nice ad.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I give it about a 7.
Radio Free Homer
Footballguy
Really? I go 9.3...the only higher rankings for me involve boobies and/or cheerleaders.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Political ads that go to 9 make me want to stand up and salute.Then again, I already know a bit about Obama (I've already stood up and "saluted" him, if you know what I mean) so maybe it will have more impact in the red/battleground states.
Radio Free Homer
Footballguy
Gopher State
Footballguy
Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama chose winning over his word.
The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too.
No more.
The chance to financially swamp John McCain -- and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage -- proved too great an allure.
Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants.
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in announcing that despite his previous commitment, he would rely only on private donations because "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken."
And with that, the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician -- one who means what he says and says what he means -- while undercutting his call for "a new kind of politics."
McCain, for his part, painted the issue as a character test, saying: "This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's about keeping your word."
Not that the Arizona senator has much room to talk. He, too, has cast himself as a reformer who tells it like it is but his words and actions sometimes conflict with that identity.
Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest.
Voters are craving change from typical Washington ways and each candidate is claiming he offers a new brand of politics that transcends poisonous partisanship. Yet, each candidate, in what he says versus what he does, also is undermining his own promises not to become the politics of usual.
McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase. He also long advocated an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Then, while in the GOP primary, he emphasized securing the borders first; he says he listened to the public outcry and a defeated Senate bill.
The Republican also rails against special interests, yet he has faced criticism for having former lobbyists at his campaign's helm. And, just this week, McCain assailed Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal.
"McCain's a four-star flip-flopper," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic operative who worked for John Edwards in the primary. "The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the John McCain of 2008."
True or not, Republicans were quick to pound Obama over his money announcement.
"'Change We Can Believe In' has been thrown overboard for 'Political Expediency I Can Win With,'" said Todd Harris, a Republican analyst and aide to former presidential candidate Fred Thompson in the primary. "Every time Obama's change rhetoric meets his actual change record it evaporates in a cloud of hypocrisy."
Last year, as Obama competed against fundraising behemoth Hillary Rodham Clinton and before his fundraising prowess was evident, Obama proposed that both major party general election nominees agree to stay in the public financing system.
In a November 2007 questionnaire, Obama answered "yes" when asked: "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" He added: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Then, Obama raised enormous sums -- and he started backing away from that position.
McCain, however, had indicated he would go along with the proposal and, since clinching the GOP nomination, has been trying to hold Obama to his commitment. Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't," McCain complained Thursday, and then told reporters in Minnesota, "We will take public financing."
Obama made his announcement as McCain was in the Democrat's hometown of Chicago -- where McCain had come to raise money.
Obama's decision also came one day before the candidates were required to report their May fundraising totals.
The move could be the death-knell for the post-Watergate federal financing system designed to lessen the large donors' influence and reduce corruption.
It certainly will give Obama an extraordinary advantage over McCain and Republicans who have struggled to match Democratic fundraising this election cycle. Within hours, Obama showed his financial might by rolling out a 60-second television ad in 18 states, including several that have been reliable GOP strongholds.
Obama made the money announcement in a video message to supporters -- and sought to empower them to give more.
"You've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford," Obama said in an appeal seeking donations from $25 to $2,300 and beyond.
"Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama said -- ignoring the fact that the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns.
Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama -- and running commercials against McCain.
So much for being a straight shooter.
_____
disappointed that Obama didn't stick to his word or this one, maybe he use some of this money to visit Iraq and support our troops.
By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama chose winning over his word.
The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too.
No more.
The chance to financially swamp John McCain -- and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage -- proved too great an allure.
Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants.
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in announcing that despite his previous commitment, he would rely only on private donations because "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken."
And with that, the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician -- one who means what he says and says what he means -- while undercutting his call for "a new kind of politics."
McCain, for his part, painted the issue as a character test, saying: "This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's about keeping your word."
Not that the Arizona senator has much room to talk. He, too, has cast himself as a reformer who tells it like it is but his words and actions sometimes conflict with that identity.
Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest.
Voters are craving change from typical Washington ways and each candidate is claiming he offers a new brand of politics that transcends poisonous partisanship. Yet, each candidate, in what he says versus what he does, also is undermining his own promises not to become the politics of usual.
McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase. He also long advocated an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Then, while in the GOP primary, he emphasized securing the borders first; he says he listened to the public outcry and a defeated Senate bill.
The Republican also rails against special interests, yet he has faced criticism for having former lobbyists at his campaign's helm. And, just this week, McCain assailed Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal.
"McCain's a four-star flip-flopper," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic operative who worked for John Edwards in the primary. "The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the John McCain of 2008."
True or not, Republicans were quick to pound Obama over his money announcement.
"'Change We Can Believe In' has been thrown overboard for 'Political Expediency I Can Win With,'" said Todd Harris, a Republican analyst and aide to former presidential candidate Fred Thompson in the primary. "Every time Obama's change rhetoric meets his actual change record it evaporates in a cloud of hypocrisy."
Last year, as Obama competed against fundraising behemoth Hillary Rodham Clinton and before his fundraising prowess was evident, Obama proposed that both major party general election nominees agree to stay in the public financing system.
In a November 2007 questionnaire, Obama answered "yes" when asked: "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" He added: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Then, Obama raised enormous sums -- and he started backing away from that position.
McCain, however, had indicated he would go along with the proposal and, since clinching the GOP nomination, has been trying to hold Obama to his commitment. Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't," McCain complained Thursday, and then told reporters in Minnesota, "We will take public financing."
Obama made his announcement as McCain was in the Democrat's hometown of Chicago -- where McCain had come to raise money.
Obama's decision also came one day before the candidates were required to report their May fundraising totals.
The move could be the death-knell for the post-Watergate federal financing system designed to lessen the large donors' influence and reduce corruption.
It certainly will give Obama an extraordinary advantage over McCain and Republicans who have struggled to match Democratic fundraising this election cycle. Within hours, Obama showed his financial might by rolling out a 60-second television ad in 18 states, including several that have been reliable GOP strongholds.
Obama made the money announcement in a video message to supporters -- and sought to empower them to give more.
"You've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford," Obama said in an appeal seeking donations from $25 to $2,300 and beyond.
"Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama said -- ignoring the fact that the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns.
Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama -- and running commercials against McCain.
So much for being a straight shooter.
_____
disappointed that Obama didn't stick to his word or this one, maybe he use some of this money to visit Iraq and support our troops.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Relieved that the wicked witch is dead. Everything else is gravy.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Looks like a cross behind him.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yes it does.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
...says the mega flip-flopper.If what McCain says is true... then McCain should be disqualified.
bigbottom
Footballguy
McCain opted in when it benefitted him. Then he opted out when it didn't benefit him. Now that it benefits him to have both of them opt in, he wants to opt in again. But if Obama doesn't opt in, then he won't opt in.
adonis
Footballguy
June 22nd, Rasmussen Tracking - Obama 49, McCain 42 - Obama +7
June 21st, Newsweek - Obama 51, McCain 367 - Obama +15
Obama: Favorable unfavorable, Newsweek: Favorable 62, Unfavorable 26 - Obama Favorable +36
McCain: Favorable unfavorable, Newsweek: Favorable 49, Unfavorable 37 - McCain Favorable +12
General Election: McCain vs Obama , Gallup, Obama 46, McCain 44 - Obama +2
California: McCain vs Obama, Survey USA, Obama 53, McCain 41, Obama +12
Washington: McCain vs Obama, Survey USA, Obama 55, McCain 40, Obama +15
General Election: McCain vs Obama, USA Today/Gallup, Obama 50, McCain 44, Obama +6
Interesting numbers.
June 21st, Newsweek - Obama 51, McCain 367 - Obama +15
Obama: Favorable unfavorable, Newsweek: Favorable 62, Unfavorable 26 - Obama Favorable +36
McCain: Favorable unfavorable, Newsweek: Favorable 49, Unfavorable 37 - McCain Favorable +12
General Election: McCain vs Obama , Gallup, Obama 46, McCain 44 - Obama +2
California: McCain vs Obama, Survey USA, Obama 53, McCain 41, Obama +12
Washington: McCain vs Obama, Survey USA, Obama 55, McCain 40, Obama +15
General Election: McCain vs Obama, USA Today/Gallup, Obama 50, McCain 44, Obama +6
Interesting numbers.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
As stated in another thread: It will be very interesting if McCain starts raising a great deal of money.
shining path
:prettyplease:
Four crosses. But they're not glowing luminously like Huck's so it's unlikely God approves.
BuddyKnuckles
Footballguy
no doubt. Just hope everyone realizes this race is going to get MUCH closer as November draws nearer.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Hopefully this is just election-year politics. I'm sure Obama's smarter than this. One positive thing that I can definitely see coming out of an Obama administration is a sensible energy policy. I hope he doesn't get hung up on crap like this.
adonis
Footballguy
You don't think there's any benefit to taking trading off futures markets? Cut down on much of the speculation?I'll admit that I don't know much about that aspect of it, but i've heard many people suggest that oil not be traded on the futures market anymore. Thoughts?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I am in no way an expert on crude oil markets. That said:1. Commodities markets generally work pretty well, including their respective futures markets. We know that the demand for oil is up significantly thanks to development in formerly third-world countries like China and India. Considering that the supply of oil is fairly inelastic in the short run and controlled by a cartel in the longer run, it's not surprising at all that oil prices have gone up. I know that some people who know more about this industry than I do think that speculation has played a role in driving up prices, but my sense is that those folks are the minority. There are good fundamental reasons for rising oil prices, and it would be a bad thing to tamper with markets if they're pricing this good efficiently (or close to it).
2. Let's say for the sake of argument that high oil prices really are due mainly to speculators. So what? If you think that global warming is a big deal, or if you're an energy independence hawk, or whatever, you should be happy about high oil prices since they're now pushing people toward more efficient vehicles and spurring demands for the development of alternative energy. Obama can't say this because public sentiment, but I'm guessing he recognizes that high oil prices are a good thing given his concerns about the environment and alternative energy. His advisors almost certainly think that way.
It's not internally consistent to talk about how we need to ween ourselves off oil and then turn around in the next breath and complain about high oil and gasoline prices. We all understand why politicians are forced to do this sort of thing, but I would be willing to be that neither McCain nor Obama would really follow through on the populist "Let's get gas prices down" stuff that they're saying now. I think each is serious about the environmental part and unserious about the oil-is-too-expensive part.
Similar threads
