Poll: Obama drops 12 points, McCain now leads but within MoE

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

I can't speak for her, but the signature is probably there because it winds you up. Which may be the same reason she and won't tell you who she is voting for....it appears to work.

Wound up? I'll show wound up...

[no name 1]

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

Look at Dev's siggie...you'll see just one of many positive things I've said about Hillary. As I recall, I said one time that I didn't think I could vote for her if she were the nominee, but I have also said just the oppposite at other times. One time I really didn't want Obama to select Hillary for VP, but I've since changed my view on that.

All I'm saying is...Dev and metta could be a little more honest about their bitterness over Hillary's defeat rather than making it out as if Obama as the nominee is so repulsive that they'd rather see 4 more years of Bush era policies than vote Democrat this time around.

When I voted for Nader in 2000 - there were several factors that I considered. For one, I thought Gore would win. Two - we just came off of 8 years of the Clinton era and after all the scandals as well the sensationization of the scandals, I was worn out and wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that it had lost it's way. I had also registered with the Green Party and Nader was our nominee. Different circumstances and even still, had somebody asked me who is the better of the two main choices, Gore or Bush, I would have been honest and said 'Gore.'

You voted for Nader, how on earth can you f*&%ing lecture me or metta?

You are disgrace to the Dem party for not accepting Gore, whom, ironically you now praise to the high heavens. How dare you not vote on the party line? I only wish I knew you then to call you on your obvious BS.

Your hypocrisy is blinding me.

Um..I was a registered Green Party member and had been a member since 1997. I think I explained my reasoning pretty well. In any case, I wasn't going around pretending Gore would be worse than Bush in the White House....which is essentially what you two are doing with this election.

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

[no name 1]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

And you insulting any non-Obama follower *is* funny?

Every election equally matters to me. And never have I regretted a choice I made.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[metta 0]

I wonder if McCain could shift his ads to more positive ones instead of pandering to the lie-to-viewers tendency of negative campaigning.

Why would he? Negative ads work.

Remember, the GOP destroyed Kerry with negative ads in August, they destroyed Gore in August too. Neither of them fought back with the ferocity required.

Yeah why tell the truth... such a nasty concept.

Destruction is the name of their game I guess.

The name of the game is winning.

If you don't win, no one cares how you played the game.

Fact of life.

...if that's the case, then Obama better choose Hillary for VP. The Clintons know how to play that game.

Oh, no. I only hope the One doesn't pick Hillary as veep. And if he offers, that she declines.

Oye...you still aren't over her losing in the Primaries, are you? The choice is pretty clear between McCain and Obama for any rationally minded Democrat. To even suggest that McCain would better represent your views is pure bitterness.

Oh, Steve, who sounds bitter now?

I am well over this Hillary vs Obama issue and have infact ceased spending much time over it. I have made my decision based on my own world view, life experience etc.

I gave due diligence to making my decision and am happy with it. You should be happy with yours.

Why fret over other peoples' decisions of which you have no control over.

You just do your level best and the rest, you'll just have to accept what ever the majority goes for until the next cycle of elections come around. I will then vote again for whoever I think is best for the country and keep on trying again and again. That's all one can do in a democracy.

Because supporting McCain now when you were supporting Hillary in Primaries doesn't make logical sense. Hillary's political ideology as well as her campaign promises are much more in line with Obama than McCain. The only twisted logic you might be having is that by voting for McCain, you're hoping that in 4 years, Hillary can run again...but that's a long shot...and you're willing to squander our country's future under 4 more years of Bush-like policies. That's taken one for the country.

Ahh, times they are a'changin Steve.

I have evolved into a post-partisan voter in the same way, Barack is being presented as a post-partisan candidate. If he can say raise Reagan's legacy (I remeber him saying that environmentally conscious means being too cold in the winter and too hot in the Summer ) over and above that of Clinton's why can I not reach out to the other side and vote for McCain.

Watching the Saddleback forum, I saw McCain very sure about where he stands on issues-many I disagree with- compared to Mr. O who confessed that making tough decisions/choices is above his pay grade. You can write as beautiful a party platform as one could wish for but without one who knows how to push it at that paygrade, it is just that. A platform.

Edited August 21, 2008 by metta

[HAL 9000 96]

Steven, dude.... let it go

No offense but you're not my parent.

I think he was using humor the first time around to lighten the loafer up a bit.

Steve, with all due respect you yourself said that you would not vote for Hillary of she was the candidate and the shoe was on the other foot. People should vote their conscience, and that doesn't always go along party lines and sometimes includes a third party candidate. You yourself stated you voted for Nader in 2000, so apparently that's not always a bad thing.

I also think later on he voiced another opinion but I could be wrong. People evolve and so does political thought.

Steve - metta's post on campaigning for Barack in Berlin was comedy gold

Though I don't think I can get you to admit that.

I found it funny. Yet not surprising.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation. Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation. Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

Yep...and for whatever reasons, they keep describing the campaign in context of the candidate rather than the ideas or policy differences. It sure makes for more interesting narrative, but man, under the current circumstances...our economy, our energy crises, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, there's just too many more important things to be focused on then whether or not someone doesn't 'like' a candidate on a personal level.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ahh, times they are a'changin Steve.

I have evolved into a post-partisan voter in the same way, Barack is being presented as a post-partisan candidate. If he can say raise Reagan's legacy (I remeber him saying that environmentally conscious means being too cold in the winter and too hot in the Summer ) over and above that of Clinton's why can I not reach out to the other side and vote for McCain.

Watching the Saddleback forum, I saw McCain very sure about where he stands on issues-many I disagree with- compared to Mr. O who confessed that making tough decisions/choices is above his pay grade. You can write as beautiful a party platform as one could wish for but without one who knows how to push it at that paygrade, it is just that. A platform.

Let me ask you, hypothetically. Of the following Democrats who were running during the Primaries, which one of them would you have definitely NOT supported even if they were the Party's nominee right now?

Richardson?

Biden?

Dodd?

Gravel?

Kucinech?

Edwards?

[metta 0]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation. Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation.

One critical issue that you may have missed in your observation Mav, is the issue of "leadership quality"

Regardless of which party the POTUS belongs to, he will have a coterie of brilliant advisors around him offering different approaches to a particular issue or crisis. But it is the POTUS who will have to make the tough calls and decide which option out of many will be pursued.

So whether a candidate is prepared to make tough decisions or not is a very CRITICAL ISSUE.

Now, for all these past months of the presidential primaries, and all the debates and reports and punditry that took place, it took a preacher to come up with a very simple way to bring out the "essence" of each candidate by employing four simple, identical questions to both candidates.

If you are honest to yourself, you will agree with me that Obama came off as a potential presidential advisor who can articulate very well, I might add, various aspects of an issue but by his own admission, not yet ready to make the tough calls nor did he display what his core beliefs were. MaCain on the other hand, left no doubt in the audience's mind that agree or disagree with his views, he knew what he believes in and how he would make his decisions.

And talking about personal focus, Obama was focusing very much on his own personal issues when he proffered his wife, grandmother as his most trusted advisors. Perhaps that will be helpful if he were thinking about which summer camp he should be sending his kids to. McCain on the other hand was thinking very much in the preidential/national context by pointing to Petraeus and John Lewis etc. responding to the same question.

Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

You are right on the money on this Mav. This explains why 98% of African Americans voted for Obama in the primaries.

Edited August 21, 2008 by metta

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

You are right on the money on this Mav. This explains why 98% of African Americans voted for Obama in the primaries.

Wow...

[metta 0]

Ahh, times they are a'changin Steve.

I have evolved into a post-partisan voter in the same way, Barack is being presented as a post-partisan candidate. If he can say raise Reagan's legacy (I remeber him saying that environmentally conscious means being too cold in the winter and too hot in the Summer ) over and above that of Clinton's why can I not reach out to the other side and vote for McCain.

Watching the Saddleback forum, I saw McCain very sure about where he stands on issues-many I disagree with- compared to Mr. O who confessed that making tough decisions/choices is above his pay grade. You can write as beautiful a party platform as one could wish for but without one who knows how to push it at that paygrade, it is just that. A platform.

Let me ask you, hypothetically. Of the following Democrats who were running during the Primaries, which one of them would you have definitely NOT supported even if they were the Party's nominee right now?

Richardson?

Biden?

Dodd?

Gravel?

Kucinech?

Edwards?

All of the above except Dodd and Biden.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation. Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

Yep...and for whatever reasons, they keep describing the campaign in context of the candidate rather than the ideas or policy differences. It sure makes for more interesting narrative, but man, under the current circumstances...our economy, our energy crises, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, there's just too many more important things to be focused on then whether or not someone doesn't 'like' a candidate on a personal level.

What are those things? I suppose its different strokes for different folks.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, Gore didn't 'win' the WH. So you were wrong to assume he would. Was your vote a throwaway then, Steven? Or one to be praised since you voted ON PARTY LINES??? Bravo for you.

I've only been a registered Dem for a year Steven. I've always left it undecided because I didn't like feeling 'tied' to a party, altho I 99% voted Dem. Shocking, I know.

Sure, I had regret over it, but again, different times...different circumstances...not the least of which this time around we're coming out of 8 years of Bush era policies and one candidate has made it clear he wants to continue much of those policies...like Bush economic policies. There is so much as stake with this election, it's not even funny.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation. Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

Its best to not assume the party line is necessarily against what could be a vote in favor of improving the nation- or at least choosing a politician out of the issues instead of spite. What we see is a crass generalization of what a party represents versus what THIS particular election could represent for the nation.

One critical issue that you may have missed in your observation Mav, is the issue of "leadership quality"

Regardless of which party the POTUS belongs to, he will have a coterie of brilliant advisors around him offering different approaches to a particular issue or crisis. But it is the POTUS who will have to make the tough calls and decide which option out of many will be pursued.

So whether a candidate is prepared to make tough decisions or not is a very CRITICAL ISSUE.

Now, for all these past months of the presidential primaries, and all the debates and reports and punditry that took place, it took a preacher to come up with a very simple way to bring out the "essence" of each candidate by employing four simple, identical questions to both candidates.

If you are honest to yourself, you will agree with me that Obama came off as a potential presidential advisor who can articulate very well, I might add, various aspects of an issue but by his own admission, not yet ready to make the tough calls nor did he display what his core beliefs were. MaCain on the other hand, left no doubt in the audience's mind that agree or disagree with his views, he knew what he believes in and how he would make his decisions.

And talking about personal focus, Obama was focusing very much on his own personal issues when he proffered his wife, grandmother as his most trusted advisors. Perhaps that will be helpful if he were thinking about which summer camp he should be sending his kids to. McCain on the other hand was thinking very much in the preidential/national context by pointing to Petraeus and John Lewis etc. responding to the same question.

Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

You are right on the money on this Mav. This explains why 98% of African Americans voted for Obama in the primaries.

Interesting. How come I haven't read any scathing assessments of the Bush administration coming from your account as of yet? I'm sure you can point us to such information- given you value the issue of quality of leadership over the long run... but your assessment of African American votes quite precludes any validity to be taken serious to be honest.

Its not wether you don't like McCain's potential to handle certain issues... its wether you believe he'll uphold your values given that's where people usually base themselves to vote instead of basing themselves on the negativity we all see quite readily in op eds, internet forums, and by virtue of spite.

Some folks just don't want to see further than what they got rolling around their emotional states of mind... and its perfectly their right to be that way.

You are right on the money on this Mav. This explains why 98% of African Americans voted for Obama in the primaries.

Wow...

No kidding.