*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So Obama has basically set the median for "doing pretty well" as a household making $100,000 or more a year, and households that need to have their taxes raised has been set at $150,000 per year.

If you work hard and are successful, you must be punished.

As I said above, he's said that he's willing to work to make sure those between 150k and 250k don't see their taxes raised.It's kinda like him saying seniors who make below 50,000/year won't be taxed, and thinking it's unfair that those who make 50,001 will be taxed at a high rate. Odds are, it'll be graded, not with a sharp cutoff. So it's potentially the case that those between 150k and 250k will be increased on a sliding scale, up to the full tax increase as you approach 250k, but it's not like a cutoff between 149,999 and 150,000 will be in place.

I've got my fingers crossed that you're right. At this point, it's pretty obvious that he's going to be the next president, so I'm getting prepared for Obama's hammer to fall just in case you're wrong.

I'm just telling you what he's said. You can believe he's not going to follow through, but I think it's incorrect to state what you've stated as his total policy. Like I said, he's expressed interest in looking out for the people in your earnings range.

It just seems VERY disingenuous that his campaign co-chair immediately contradicts him. Obama on the microphone says one thing, but his afterward his campaign people go "what he really meant was....".I still find it weirdly comical that I'm lumped in with the rich.

Sorry for hijacking.

From another thread:

From the Snopes site:

The Tax Policy Center's estimate on how the average tax bill will change in 2009 under each candidate's proposal:

Income Level	McCain	ObamaOver $2.9M	-$269,364	+$701885$603K-$2.9M	-$45,361	+$115974$227K-$603K	-$7,871	+$12$161K-$227K	-$4,380	-$2,789$112-$161K	-$2,614	-$2,204$66K-$112K	-$1,009	-$1,290$38K-$66K	-$319	-$1,042$19K-$38K	-$113	-$892Below $19K	-$19	-$567

Shared prosperity...

 

[Statorama]

So Obama has basically set the median for "doing pretty well" as a household making $100,000 or more a year, and households that need to have their taxes raised has been set at $150,000 per year.If you work hard and are successful, you must be punished.

As I said above, he's said that he's willing to work to make sure those between 150k and 250k don't see their taxes raised.It's kinda like him saying seniors who make below 50,000/year won't be taxed, and thinking it's unfair that those who make 50,001 will be taxed at a high rate. Odds are, it'll be graded, not with a sharp cutoff. So it's potentially the case that those between 150k and 250k will be increased on a sliding scale, up to the full tax increase as you approach 250k, but it's not like a cutoff between 149,999 and 150,000 will be in place.

Didnt somebody post a chart in a thread somewhere showing that people making between something like 160k to 227K will see their taxes go up by like only $12 or something?

At this point it's all just talk, and that goes for both candidates. We all just need to do what we can to prepare for the worst and do the best we can to protect our families.Sorry to be selfish, but I'm more concerned about making my mortgage payment than worrying if Joe Bryant gets free healthcare or not.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So Obama has basically set the median for "doing pretty well" as a household making $100,000 or more a year, and households that need to have their taxes raised has been set at $150,000 per year.If you work hard and are successful, you must be punished.

As I said above, he's said that he's willing to work to make sure those between 150k and 250k don't see their taxes raised.It's kinda like him saying seniors who make below 50,000/year won't be taxed, and thinking it's unfair that those who make 50,001 will be taxed at a high rate. Odds are, it'll be graded, not with a sharp cutoff. So it's potentially the case that those between 150k and 250k will be increased on a sliding scale, up to the full tax increase as you approach 250k, but it's not like a cutoff between 149,999 and 150,000 will be in place.

Didnt somebody post a chart in a thread somewhere showing that people making between something like 160k to 227K will see their taxes go up by like only $12 or something?

At this point it's all just talk, and that goes for both candidates. We all just need to do what we can to prepare for the worst and do the best we can to protect our families.Sorry to be selfish, but I'm more concerned about making my mortgage payment than worrying if Joe Bryant gets free healthcare or not.

Based on the chart I posted above that somebody got from Snopes apparently, if you make around between 160-220, your taxes go down 2000.

 

[Statorama]

From another thread:

From the Snopes site:

The Tax Policy Center's estimate on how the average tax bill will change in 2009 under each candidate's proposal:

Income Level McCain ObamaOver $2.9M -$269,364 +$701885$603K-$2.9M -$45,361 +$115974$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789$112-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042$19K-$38K -$113 -$892Below $19K -$19 -$567Shared prosperity...

This still depends on whether you believe Obama's original statement or the statement afterward from his own campaign saying the candidate had miscalculated by $100,000.edit to add: a "miscalculation" of $100,000 may not mean much in the Michael Jordan household, but it means a heck of a lot in mine.

 

[The Z Machine]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

 

[whoknew]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

 

[The Z Machine]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

 

[whoknew]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

Sure there is.

 

[whoknew]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

Sure there is.

Am I reading the wrong polling?

 

[Orange Crush]

McCain Makes Significant Gains in Key Battleground States

Majority of Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin Favor Keeping Troops in Iraq, According to Quinnipiac-washingtonpost.com-Wall Street Journal Survey

By Chris Cillizza

washingtonpost.com staff writer

Thursday, July 24, 2008; 10:00 AM

Republican John McCain has quickly closed the gap between himself and Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in several key battleground states even as the Arizona senator struggles to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's trip to Europe and the Middle East this week.

McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota while the Illinois senator has a more comfortable double-digit edge in Wisconsin, according to polling conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal during the past week. Only in Colorado, however, does McCain hold a greater percentage of the vote share than Obama.

The economy is still the dominant concern of voters in each state. Nearly six in ten respondents in Michigan, a state crippled by the dire problems of the auto industry, cited the economy as the single most important issue in their decision this fall. The war in Iraq ranked second in terms of voter priorities but was named by less than one in five respondents in each state. Potential hot button issues such as terrorism and illegal immigration were cited by fewer than 10 percent of voters in ranking their top priorities.

The surveys are part of a four-month long effort to measure voter sentiment in key battleground states that could determine the outcome of the race. The path to the presidency runs through a handful of battleground states, as both Obama and McCain seek the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Thus, the four states surveyed in this project provide a snapshot of where things stand less than four months before Election Day.

The first in the series of polls, conducted in the four states in mid-June, showed Obama comfortably ahead of McCain in Wisconsin and Minnesota while the races in Michigan and Colorado were closer although Obama still held the lead. The latest polling, showing a much tighter race, was conducted July 14 to 22, during Obama's high-profile trip to the Middle East.

National polling suggests Obama retains a steady but statistically significant edge. In the most recent Washington Post/ABC News survey, Obama held a 50 percent to 42 margin over McCain; in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, released last night, Obama leads 47 percent to 41.

While both campaigns are heavily engaged on television in most of these states, it's not immediately clear from the data what accounted for McCain's rapid rise -- particularly in Minnesota and Colorado.

One possible reason is the campaign's focus over the last month on the war in Iraq and national security concerns more broadly. McCain's campaign has hammered home the idea that Obama was mistaken in his opposition to the surge of U.S. troops last year and is wrong now about his proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops.

Voters in all four states seem to agree. Asked whether they would prefer a "fixed date" for withdrawal or to "keep troops in Iraq until the situation is more stable," majorities in all four states preferred the latter option despite the fact that similar majorities in each state say that America was wrong to go to war in Iraq.

Those results suggest that while Obama's initial opposition to the war plays well with voters, his plan to remove troops from the country within 16 months of taking office as president is less well received. Obama's plan did, however, receive a major boost earlier this week when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government would like U.S Forces to be out of the country by 2010.

Other internal numbers in the battleground polls are less rosy for McCain. Nearly one-quarter of voters in each of the four states said McCain's age -- he will be 72 at the time of the election -- makes them less likely to vote for him. Numbers like that may put more pressure on McCain to pick someone considerably younger than him -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.) or Sen. John Thune (S.D.) -- as his vice presidential running mate.

The national political environment -- as reflected in these four statewide polls -- also seems to suggest major hurdles for McCain in the fall. President George W. Bush remains a decidedly unpopular figure to the general public with no more than 31 percent in any of the four states approving of the job he is doing. The numbers are even more daunting among self-identified independents who typically make up the swing vote in a presidential election. In Colorado, where independents have traditionally leaned toward Republicans, seven in ten unaffiliated voters expressed disapproval with the job Bush is doing. Those numbers are nearly identical in each of the other three states.

The polls also reveal widespread pessimism about the future of the country -- never a good sign for the candidate running under the party banner of the incumbent. In Minnesota, just one in five voters called themselves very or somewhat satisfied with "the way things are going in the nation today" while a whopping 77 percent pronounced themselves dissatisfied. The outlook was even worse in the other three states, with dissatisfied voters at 78 percent in Colorado, 81 percent in Wisconsin, and 84 percent in Michigan.

However, independents generally were far more evenly divided between Obama and McCain than in last month's Quinnipiac/washingtonpost.com/Wall Street Journal surveys.

A month ago, Obama led McCain among Independents by anywhere from 21 points (Minnesota) to eight points (Michigan). In the most recent set of data, McCain actually outperforms Obama by three points among independents in Michigan while losing that crucial voting bloc far more narrowly in Colorado (Obama +8), Minnesota (Obama +8) and Wisconsin (Obama +9).

Two of the states in the battleground surveys -- Minnesota and Colorado -- are also playing host to high profile Senate races. In each, the news is good for Republicans.

In Minnesota, Sen. Norm Coleman has built a 53 percent to 38 percent edge over entertainer Al Franken thanks in no small part to a series of gaffes by the former "Saturday Night Live" star. In Colorado, former Rep. Bob Schaffer ® has pulled into a dead heat with Rep. Mark Udall (D), an affirmation of Republicans' insistence that the contest will be among the closest in the country.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

Sure there is.

Am I reading the wrong polling?

If you're willing to rely on polling as evidence, then there absolutely is evidence that it won't be a close race.

 

[whoknew]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

Sure there is.

Am I reading the wrong polling?

If you're willing to rely on polling as evidence, then there absolutely is evidence that it won't be a close race.

I'm willing. Can you point me to that evidence?

 

[bigbottom]

Obama is going to roll to this win.

Ghost ride?

I think that Obama could ghost-ride a tank and still win."Make that turret bounce!"

Why do you think that?

Momentum + Charisma + Weak Opponent

Maybe. It may turn out that way. But there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race.

Sure there is.

Am I reading the wrong polling?

If you're willing to rely on polling as evidence, then there absolutely is evidence that it won't be a close race.

I'm willing. Can you point me to that evidence?

Analysis of current electoral map based on state by state polling.What this particular map does is take the current polling average for each state and give the state to the candidate in the lead. Of course, the polls are very close in a number of these states. But if we were to assume that the current polling average would accurately reflect the vote totals, Obama would win 322-216, which is pretty close to a landslide.

Of course, the polls could be wrong, and things will likely change between now and November. So I'm not suggesting that the evidence of a big Obama win is conclusive. But I also think it's wrong to suggest that "there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race." There is indeed evidence that it might not be close.

 

[whoknew]

Analysis of current electoral map based on state by state polling.

What this particular map does is take the current polling average for each state and give the state to the candidate in the lead. Of course, the polls are very close in a number of these states. But if we were to assume that the current polling average would accurately reflect the vote totals, Obama would win 322-216, which is pretty close to a landslide.

Of course, the polls could be wrong, and things will likely change between now and November. So I'm not suggesting that the evidence of a big Obama win is conclusive. But I also think it's wrong to suggest that "there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race." There is indeed evidence that it might not be close.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Sulla]

Analysis of current electoral map based on state by state polling.

What this particular map does is take the current polling average for each state and give the state to the candidate in the lead. Of course, the polls are very close in a number of these states. But if we were to assume that the current polling average would accurately reflect the vote totals, Obama would win 322-216, which is pretty close to a landslide.

Of course, the polls could be wrong, and things will likely change between now and November. So I'm not suggesting that the evidence of a big Obama win is conclusive. But I also think it's wrong to suggest that "there sure isn't any evidence yet that this will be anything but a very close race." There is indeed evidence that it might not be close.

Based on today's polls, www.fivethirtyeight.com shows it 292 Obama, 246 McCain. Not as lopsided but still not close.

 

[Orange Crush]

I love how polls can be all over the place based on different polling companies, different sample sizes, different ways of asking the questions, different weights they place on the data, etc., etc. Just crazy.

For example, I was really perplexed by that WaPo article I linked to above showing a very close race in Minnesota. I mean, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican in 40 years. Of course, Franken's ineptitude could be causing Obama some problems in the state. Add in the Republican National Convention taking place there, and the possibility of Pawlenty joining the ticket and I could see Minnesota becoming tighter. And in doing some quick research, it looks like a Quinipiac poll that came out two days ago affirms the WaPo/WSJ poll, showing a tight race with Obama 46, McCain 44 (+2).

However, a Rasmussen poll released just a day before shows Obama 52, McCain 39 (+13).

I'm assuming there really wasn't an 11% swing towards McCain in one day. I don't recall any news stories about Obama insulting people who live in cold climates and predominantly are Nordic stock. Maybe this actually happened and someone has a link?

 

[Orange Crush]

Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.

 

[Orange Crush]

I just read that Florida got rid of its ban on ex-felons voting last year. I wonder how much that's been advertised, and how many people are taking advantage of it. There was quite a bit of controversy back in 2000 about the names being purged from the Florida voting lists. It will be interesting to see how much of an effect on the voter turnout that will have.

There are only two states in the country with complete bans on ex-felon voting -- Virginia and Kentucky. There are roughly a dozen other states that put significant hurdles for ex-felons getting their voting rights restored (including almost all the states in the deep South).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I haven't seen this posted yet, but it's kind of interesting.

Most political polling is skewed toward land-based telephone lines since they are more likely than cell phones to be listed in the phone book. But a growing number of young people are using cell phones exclusively. Young people are also more likely to vote for Obama.

Recent polls show landline users preferring Obama to McCain by 46% to 41%.

People who exclusively use cell phones prefer Obama to McCain by 63% to 31%. (link)

 

[timschochet]

Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.

This is the sort of realistic discussion that I like. I agree it looks good for Obama. But Florida is problematic for him: you've got the Cubans who are traditionally GOP, you've got the military there who love McCain, and perhaps the decisive factor are the Jews: how many of them will defect to McCain because they perceive Obama to be weak on Israel? I think this is absolutely a crucial question. Ohio also is filled with blue-collar "Reagan" Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary, and we just don't know how they're going to go.

 

[timschochet]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

 

[bigbottom]

Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.

This is the sort of realistic discussion that I like. I agree it looks good for Obama. But Florida is problematic for him: you've got the Cubans who are traditionally GOP, you've got the military there who love McCain, and perhaps the decisive factor are the Jews: how many of them will defect to McCain because they perceive Obama to be weak on Israel? I think this is absolutely a crucial question. Ohio also is filled with blue-collar "Reagan" Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary, and we just don't know how they're going to go.

I don't think there's any way Obama takes Florida, and I agree Ohio is way too close to call. But if Ohio or Virginia does swing to Obama, McCain is in a HEAP of trouble. That's why I think Pawlenty is likely the VP pick, because McCain needs to do everything he can to pick off Minnesota in case he loses Ohio or Virginia.Now if McCain takes both Ohio and Virginia, Obama still wins if he takes the western states of NV, CO and NM.

It's also crucial that McCain keeps Indiana. He'll be in a hole if that state goes blue, which is all the more likely if Obama gives Bayh the VP nod.

 

[Sulla]

This is the sort of realistic discussion that I like. I agree it looks good for Obama. But Florida is problematic for him: you've got the Cubans who are traditionally GOP, you've got the military there who love McCain, and perhaps the decisive factor are the Jews: how many of them will defect to McCain because they perceive Obama to be weak on Israel? I think this is absolutely a crucial question. Ohio also is filled with blue-collar "Reagan" Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary, and we just don't know how they're going to go.

Correction: old school Cubans are (were?) traditionally GOP. Newer arrivals, as well as Cuban-Americans and other Hispanic minorities in South Florida are moving away from the GOP.

To illustrate, both Diaz-Balart brothers -- Lincoln and Mario -- are facing serious challenges for their Congressional seats (FL-21 and FL-25) from popular Dem candidates for the first time in years. The GOP used to be so dominant here these guys actually ran unopposed in a couple of elections.

The RNC is so concerned about losing these seats they're going to send funds and help to both campaigns.

Florida is problematic for McCain and an opportunity for Obama.

 

[the moops]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

 

[bigbottom]

This is the sort of realistic discussion that I like. I agree it looks good for Obama. But Florida is problematic for him: you've got the Cubans who are traditionally GOP, you've got the military there who love McCain, and perhaps the decisive factor are the Jews: how many of them will defect to McCain because they perceive Obama to be weak on Israel? I think this is absolutely a crucial question. Ohio also is filled with blue-collar "Reagan" Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary, and we just don't know how they're going to go.

Correction: old school Cubans are (were?) traditionally GOP. Newer arrivals, as well as Cuban-Americans and other Hispanic minorities in South Florida are moving away from the GOP.

To illustrate, both Diaz-Balart brothers -- Lincoln and Mario -- are facing serious challenges for their Congressional seats (FL-21 and FL-25) from popular Dem candidates for the first time in years. The GOP used to be so dominant here these guys actually ran unopposed in a couple of elections.

The RNC is so concerned about losing these seats they're going to send funds and help to both campaigns.

Florida is problematic for McCain and an opportunity for Obama.

Holy crap. I didn't realize that Obama had made major gains in Florida. Rasmussen, which had McCain up by 7 points at the end of June now has Obama up by 2 points.

 

[timschochet]

If McCain loses Florida, he's toast, right? I can't see how he wins the Presidency without Florida.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

 

[timschochet]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

 

[commisholio]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

That poll (believe it's a Q-poll, no?) is an outlier - no other poll of Minnesota that I've seen has been within 8 points.

 

[Orange Crush]

If McCain loses Florida, he's toast, right? I can't see how he wins the Presidency without Florida.

If McCain loses Florida, the only way McCain holds on is if he keeps every other swing state that went red in 2004 and picks up Michigan. He could afford to lose historically blue Minnesota, but even a loss of 4-vote New Hampshire would put the election into a 269-269 tie and the tiebreaking House of Representatives is solidly Democrat. So McCain would win without Florida only if he wins MI, MO, OH, VA, NC, CO, NM, NH, MT, ND, and IN.What do you think the odds of that are if he loses Florida, .... 1 in a 1000?

 

[Sulla]

If McCain loses Florida, he's toast, right? I can't see how he wins the Presidency without Florida.

If McCain loses Florida, the only way McCain holds on is if he keeps every other swing state that went red in 2004 and picks up Michigan. He could afford to lose historically blue Minnesota, but even a loss of 4-vote New Hampshire would put the election into a 269-269 tie and the tiebreaking House of Representatives is solidly Democrat. So McCain would win without Florida only if he wins MI, MO, OH, VA, NC, CO, NM, NH, MT, ND, and IN.What do you think the odds of that are if he loses Florida, .... 1 in a 1000?

More like 1 in a million. Florida will probably go red if the economy down here gets better between now and November. However, things are rather bad down here now - if it worsens or even stays the same, Obama has an opportunity to steal FL.

 

[adonis]

Sorry to be selfish, but I'm more concerned about making my mortgage payment than worrying if Joe Bryant gets free healthcare or not.

So is Obama.Well, not you particularly, because I doubt he knows you, but he's not interested in giving JB free healthcare, and he's more interested in giving people help on mortgages who need it than McCain.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

 

[adonis]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

He means besides all of the reasons that allow you to be sure, how can you be sure?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

He means besides all of the reasons that allow you to be sure, how can you be sure?

Well other than the fact that I know the MN political landscape pretty well, I've really got nothing to go on.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

He means besides all of the reasons that allow you to be sure, how can you be sure?

Well other than the fact that I know the MN political landscape pretty well, I've really got nothing to go on.

Figures

One thing I can say for certain: my mother will be voting for anyone other than Obama (due to the scandalous Rev. Wright fiasco). She's a Perot voter, so keep that in mind.

 

[Orange Crush]

Minnesota does have a very strong independent streak. I mean, they elected a former pro wrestler independent as Governor.

The Republicans have targeted Minnesota. The current governor is a Republican who is strongly being considered for Veep. One of their two U.S. Senators is a Republican who is looking like he'll be handily re-elected. And the Republicans will be having their national convention there.

If there's one blue state that is going to turn red, the Repubs think Minnesota is it.

Yet it's hard to believe that any state that elected and then re-elected Paul Wellstone could ever go red.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

If there's one blue state that is going to turn red, the Repubs think Minnesota is it.

And they are dead dead wrong here.

 

[skol asylum]

I love how polls can be all over the place based on different polling companies, different sample sizes, different ways of asking the questions, different weights they place on the data, etc., etc. Just crazy.

For example, I was really perplexed by that WaPo article I linked to above showing a very close race in Minnesota. I mean, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican in 40 years. Of course, Franken's ineptitude could be causing Obama some problems in the state. Add in the Republican National Convention taking place there, and the possibility of Pawlenty joining the ticket and I could see Minnesota becoming tighter. And in doing some quick research, it looks like a Quinipiac poll that came out two days ago affirms the WaPo/WSJ poll, showing a tight race with Obama 46, McCain 44 (+2).

However, a Rasmussen poll released just a day before shows Obama 52, McCain 39 (+13).

I'm assuming there really wasn't an 11% swing towards McCain in one day. I don't recall any news stories about Obama insulting people who live in cold climates and predominantly are Nordic stock. Maybe this actually happened and someone has a link?

In my Minnesota native opinion there's no way McCain takes the state.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

He means besides all of the reasons that allow you to be sure, how can you be sure?

Well other than the fact that I know the MN political landscape pretty well, I've really got nothing to go on.

Figures

One thing I can say for certain: my mother will be voting for anyone other than Obama (due to the scandalous Rev. Wright fiasco). She's a Perot voter, so keep that in mind.

Start hiding her money.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Also In both Michigan and Minnesota, Obama now has a tiny lead. In Minnesota, he led in June 54-37, now he leads 46-44. This is highly problematic. Does he need to have Hillary to win these traditional states after all?

No way Obama does not win Minnesota. Those 10 electorates are in the bag.

Yup. I'd bet everything I own on it.

Why are you guys so positive about this? I'm not trying to argue, because I don't know enough about this state, but if the polling is that close, how can you be sure?

Well, I lived there for 22 years. That's for starters.

He means besides all of the reasons that allow you to be sure, how can you be sure?

Well other than the fact that I know the MN political landscape pretty well, I've really got nothing to go on.

Figures

One thing I can say for certain: my mother will be voting for anyone other than Obama (due to the scandalous Rev. Wright fiasco). She's a Perot voter, so keep that in mind.

Start hiding her money.

That bad?She's really quite irrational and unpredictable on politics. I think she may come around on Obama, but a few months ago she was practically fuming about the Wright thing. Just... weird.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

She's really quite irrational and unpredictable on politics.

Sounds like she'd fit right in here.

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12059.html

Obama veep team floats Republican name

By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 7/25/08 6:41 PM EST

Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a former member of President Bush's first-term cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.

Barack Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a member of President Bush's first-term Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.

The search committee, now led by Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, raised Veneman's name — among others — in discussions with members of Congress, two Democrats familiar with the conversations said.

The mention of Veneman's name surprised Democratic lawmakers. The low-profile Republican was close to food and agriculture industries but clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists during her tenure, which lasted from 2001 to 2004.

But Veneman, 59, has a biography that could be suited to Obama's unifying message. A Republican raised on a California peach farm, she rose to become the nation’s first female agriculture secretary. In 2002 she was diagnosed with breast cancer, which was treated successfully. Today she serves as executive director of the United Nations children's agency, UNICEF.

The selection of a Republican could bolster Obama's unifying message, a Capitol Hill Democrat familiar with the discussion said.

"You select a strong independent woman who appeals to Republicans and independents, and so that's hard to beat," the Hill source said, explaining the logic of the possible choice. "Choosing someone like [Veneman] doesn't hurt you with the Democrats. It just doesn't hurt you. But it helps you with Independents and Republicans."

Veneman's is one of about a dozen names suggested by vetters in a round of meetings with members of the House and Senate within the last few weeks. Veneman's name, unlike the others, has not been previously reported.

Choosing Veneman would be a way to "show that he can get things done without all the partisanship," the Democrat familiar with the discussions said. "Her appeal would be nonideological. It would be, 'I'm just here to get the work done.' She's not a hot-button conservative."

Other Republicans mentioned as potential Obama running mates include Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who accompanied him to Iraq, and retired Marine Gen. James Jones.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to comment on any aspect of the vice presidential selection process.

UNICEF spokeswoman Kate Donovan declined to comment on the news that Veneman's name had been mentioned as a prospective running mate to Obama. She said Veneman is traveling in Africa and could not be reached.

Though Veneman's biography and Republican affiliation make her a plausible, if surprising, candidate to be Obama's running mate, the mention of her name was met with incredulity on Capitol Hill.

"Are you serious?" one lawmaker asked vetters when Veneman's name came up, a second source familiar with the conversations said.

The surprise stems from the fact that, while Veneman was seen as an experienced leader for her department, she often clashed with Democrats on a central battle front of the Bush years: regulation. Venemen was criticized by some Democrats and environmentalists, and praised by agriculture and food interests, for lightly regulating the industries and for encouraging trade and biotechnology during her tenure.

When she resigned, the American Meat Institute praised her "vision and commitment."

She also clashed with Democrats — including then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who is now an Obama confidant — over subsidies for small farmers, which they sought to expand.

In the best-known incident of her tenure, she led the administration's response to cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, known as mad cow disease. The epidemic was contained, but the relatively light U.S. testing regime has led to continuing barriers for American beef exports.

At UNICEF, Veneman has traveled widely, focusing on extending children's health services in the developing world.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12059.html

Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a former member of President Bush's first-term cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.

zero chance

 

[Sulla]

Democrat Barack Obama said he is convening a meeting on the economy tomorrow that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett as he pivots to the U.S. economy after a nine-day trip abroad.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview last night aboard his presidential campaign plane returning to Chicago from London.

The meeting in Washington will also include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Anna Burger, secretary- treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Rubin advised New York Senator Hillary Clinton during her primary campaign against Obama. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., plans to phone in to the meeting, Axelrod said.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, said he wants to ``really work through in detail some of the immediate steps that may need to be taken both between now and the end of the year and after inauguration'' to strengthen the housing and financial markets and to talk more about long-term economic strategies.

Obama Convening Economic Summit tomorrow

First Obama acts as he were the President during his trip overseas, and now he's convening a meeting to discuss short- and long-term economic measures? Is he that confident, or is this just hubris? And how does he propose to execute the "immediate steps that may need to be taken [both] between now and the end of the year..."?

 

[Orange Crush]

Democrat Barack Obama said he is convening a meeting on the economy tomorrow that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett as he pivots to the U.S. economy after a nine-day trip abroad.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview last night aboard his presidential campaign plane returning to Chicago from London.

The meeting in Washington will also include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Anna Burger, secretary- treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Rubin advised New York Senator Hillary Clinton during her primary campaign against Obama. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., plans to phone in to the meeting, Axelrod said.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, said he wants to ``really work through in detail some of the immediate steps that may need to be taken both between now and the end of the year and after inauguration'' to strengthen the housing and financial markets and to talk more about long-term economic strategies.

Obama Convening Economic Summit tomorrow

First Obama acts as he were the President during his trip overseas, and now he's convening a meeting to discuss short- and long-term economic measures? Is he that confident, or is this just hubris? And how does he propose to execute the "immediate steps that may need to be taken [both] between now and the end of the year..."?

Probably the most important things the American people demand of their president is that he "acts presidential." Thus the immediate implosion of Howard Dean's campaign 4 years ago following his scream.As to the how does he get his steps taken immediately ... don't you think the entire Congressional Democrats will get behind whatever Obama wants right now to help get him elected?

 

[Sulla]

Democrat Barack Obama said he is convening a meeting on the economy tomorrow that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett as he pivots to the U.S. economy after a nine-day trip abroad.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview last night aboard his presidential campaign plane returning to Chicago from London.

The meeting in Washington will also include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Anna Burger, secretary- treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Rubin advised New York Senator Hillary Clinton during her primary campaign against Obama. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., plans to phone in to the meeting, Axelrod said.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, said he wants to ``really work through in detail some of the immediate steps that may need to be taken both between now and the end of the year and after inauguration'' to strengthen the housing and financial markets and to talk more about long-term economic strategies.

Obama Convening Economic Summit tomorrow

First Obama acts as he were the President during his trip overseas, and now he's convening a meeting to discuss short- and long-term economic measures? Is he that confident, or is this just hubris? And how does he propose to execute the "immediate steps that may need to be taken [both] between now and the end of the year..."?

Probably the most important things the American people demand of their president is that he "acts presidential." Thus the immediate implosion of Howard Dean's campaign 4 years ago following his scream.As to the how does he get his steps taken immediately ... don't you think the entire Congressional Democrats will get behind whatever Obama wants right now to help get him elected?

With an obstructionist GOP minority eager to prevent his election? And Bush ready to veto anything that might help the Dems? I think Obama's overdoing the "presidential" act. Don't get me wrong: he's doing an excellent job at appearing presidential. But given he isn't the President yet, isn't this a little premature? Thus my hubris comment.

Actually, a better description would be "unprecedented". I don't recall when was the last time a non-incumbent Presidential candidate acted as Presidential as Obama has in the last 2 weeks. Or rather, that has gotten the same level of press.

 

[timschochet]

Democrat Barack Obama said he is convening a meeting on the economy tomorrow that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett as he pivots to the U.S. economy after a nine-day trip abroad.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview last night aboard his presidential campaign plane returning to Chicago from London.

The meeting in Washington will also include former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Anna Burger, secretary- treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Rubin advised New York Senator Hillary Clinton during her primary campaign against Obama. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., plans to phone in to the meeting, Axelrod said.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, said he wants to ``really work through in detail some of the immediate steps that may need to be taken both between now and the end of the year and after inauguration'' to strengthen the housing and financial markets and to talk more about long-term economic strategies.

Obama Convening Economic Summit tomorrow

First Obama acts as he were the President during his trip overseas, and now he's convening a meeting to discuss short- and long-term economic measures? Is he that confident, or is this just hubris? And how does he propose to execute the "immediate steps that may need to be taken [both] between now and the end of the year..."?

Probably the most important things the American people demand of their president is that he "acts presidential." Thus the immediate implosion of Howard Dean's campaign 4 years ago following his scream.As to the how does he get his steps taken immediately ... don't you think the entire Congressional Democrats will get behind whatever Obama wants right now to help get him elected?

I think this response is just hilarious. Is it possible to be critical of Obama in any way? I have yet to read a post on this forum that express concern or takes issue with something that Obama says or has done, no matter how mild the criticism, that is not immediately responded to by an Obama supporter. In over 30 years of paying attention to political issues, I have never seen anything like this. The man is simply not allowed to be wrong about anything he has said or done. He is the only perfect human being currently living.

 

[Sulla]

I think this response is just hilarious. Is it possible to be critical of Obama in any way? I have yet to read a post on this forum that express concern or takes issue with something that Obama says or has done, no matter how mild the criticism, that is not immediately responded to by an Obama supporter. In over 30 years of paying attention to political issues, I have never seen anything like this. The man is simply not allowed to be wrong about anything he has said or done. He is the only perfect human being currently living.

Not that it is any of my business, but: You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really need to chill out, dude. Peace and have a good night. Sulla