Where the heck did Trey go??????????????

McCain had a post convention bounce that has helped him overtake Obama according to the latest Gallup polls.

MSNBC dropped Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as election coverage. They were replaced by David Gregory.

Completely agree.

I've been interested in the TV ads I've being seeing. I've yet to see a McCain ad that tells me why I should vote for McCain -- they're all about why I shouldn't vote for Obama. Granted, I'm used to that in GOP campaigns, and I know that's how it's too often done (on both sides), but I can't muster any respect for McCain for doing it.

C'mon -- tell us why we should vote for you, not why we shouldn't vote for the other guy. The Obama ads I'm seeing are doing that; McCain should be able to make his own case, too.

Well said.

Im still around, its just I am really busy on the weekends with work and usually dont get the luxury to sustain mutli-hour conversations about politics. Plus 'Hannah' had me a little tied up, although I was slightly disappointed that she didnt produce a little more rain, God knows the western part of our state has really needed it in recent months.

Anyway, you know I am loving the new Poll releases :D and I dont really see it as a convention bounce either. If they both gained 5-7 points, then they would cancel and Obama should still be on top, or at least tied. I think, like some previous poster said, that people are starting to look past Obamas razzle-dazzle and are now looking for the substance to back it up with.

I do agree that unless something ridiculous happens, it should be a close race, obviously with the Republicans pulling it out in the end.

I posted this in the thread on the subject; I think it's a good move if MSNBC is trying to move towards a hard news outlook on the election. Olbermann is essentially a liberal Rush, and while that has a place on network TV, he's not a newsman. Gregory is a very good political reporter who 99% does a good job over covering the issues.

LOL. That's good spin, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were really what's going on, we would be seeing bigger drops in Obama's numbers, not just McCain's going up and a statistical dead-heat. (At least, depending on the poll. I tend to look mainly at Rasmussen and CNN's "poll of polls." In both, it's a statistical deadheat.) There may be some truth to it, but I think for the most part it falls more into the category of partisan saying-it-makes-it-so-speak.

I think that the main factor behind the poll numbers is that the McCain campaign has been Palinized. When he first chose her, I said (in the other thread) that I didn't think it was a smart choice. I'm having to rethink that, and even admit that I was wrong. (Feel free to QFP. ;))

While personally I still think that, from the standpoint of picking someone actually qualified for the job, Palin is a terrible choice, it is becoming clear that strategically she is a great choice. She has energized both the GOP base and, just as importantly, the McCain campaign. She has given the campaign some much-needed focus and new life. She seems to given McCain himself new energy. It's been interesting this week that it's clear people are coming out in droves to McCain campaign events to see Palin, not McCain.

I think that the main thing behind the poll numbers right now is that, thanks to Sarah Palin, lots of people who were lukewarm about supporting McCain or were on the fence are now finding a reason to be excited about the McCain campaign.

The real question though is what will happen state-by-state. These polls are all, so far as I know, polling opinions nationally, which would tend to indicate how the popular vote will go nationally. But as we all know, presidents aren't elected by a popular national vote. The issue will be where the Obama and McCain supporters are. The analysis I have seen is all over the map, so to speak, on that, but most of it seems to indicate that McCain has a harder job ahead of him than Obama.

And, I don't think it's broken down by those who will actually go to the polls. The low voting turnout will make a difference as well, one way or the other.

Plus, as been noted elsewhere at GC, polls still just call landlines. They're missing the growing number of people (mostly younger people I would guess), who have ditched landlines in favor of cellphones alone.

Telephone polling is also typically done on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Typically, people in the 18-34 demo, (which estimates suggest make up a large part of new voter registstration), even those with landlines, are not as likely to be home to be polled.

This is becoming less of an issue, as far as I know (and this is only through reading industry mags and articles), although it's being replaced with a new problem - more and more polling is happening online, through "banks" of volunteer phone numbers including cell phones, or using on-site polling.

This simply replaces one form of selection bias with another, but since we really can't determine exactly what effect that bias will have, it's safe to take all polls with a grain of salt this early.

I guess my point is that if the polling is done via landline alone, I think it's fairly safe to say Obama's numbers are slightly underreported (even accounting for the fact that a huge number of the college kids on his side simply won't show up). Other polling, however, is just going to miss period, and completely ignore the error bars because they're making assumptions from 1983.

The two major political polling companies are not exactly known for being thorough or scientifically sound - they are, however, known for charging an assload for information, taking large payments from political committees, and firing out new polls as fast as possible.

It seems to me that McCain has a much more complicated sale to make: we'll change just enough that we'll get the economy out of this slump and make American better and certainly won't just be like Bush, but we won't change as much as Obama. It's hard to run as the more conservative candidate when you have to work hard not to communicate "we'll give you more of the same" because the current situation is wildly unpopular.

In contrast, if you're running as a member of the more liberal party, you can sell optimism and change. You simply have to identify problems and suggest solutions that may or may not work, with no need to address the past; it just seems like an easier and more attractive message to get out there. I do think the Obama could have been a lot more negative than he has been, but avoiding going negative is part of his campaign, right?

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

This is one of the best posts on here in weeks, and I agree completely.

this sums up my feelings also. ive always been independent. i have not been overly impressed with either party for a number of years. i usually vote democratic because that is what i was used to. i have liked mccain because he seemed a bit middle of the road. even if he did not agree with a more liberal stance on certain issues, he seemed willing to consider the possibilities.

right now, with him not saying much--like you say, taking the low road, i am not excited.

for me, i think it may come down to the debates. either way, when its all said and done this will be a very unforgettable election season.

I definitely wish he would adjust his campaigning. I think the election is so close, and the Palin choice hasn't come back to bite him yet, so he would want to put the good things on the table.

I'm hoping it changes soon; he's not in any danger of losing my vote, but, I can see where you and other voters are coming from.

I don't see him taking the low road, but there's still time for more message.

He's busy focusing on silly ads. Obama supported a bill to protect children from preditors. The McCain camp ran an ad titled "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners." I don't ever remember John McCain taking the low road. This is rediculous! Whether or not you agree that "inappropropriate touching" should be taught in schools, you have to admit that the ad is missleading. You assume Obama want to pass out condoms to 5 year olds. The ads are getting dirty. The rest of the election season should be interesting!

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx

And its not just the ads... I stated before that McCain scares me. I use to really like McCain but I feel he has realized that he needs to change in order to get POTUS. He has switched on issues, which is not uncommon, but the switches have rather bad timing that suggest they are to boost poll number. He has voted against his own legislation. He picked a gimmick for VP... someone who could be a great Repub. nom. in the future, but far too early for her. There are some great picks, far more experience, far more electable and far more sustainable. He is playing the election, which you can says is politics, and sure, you got to get into office in order to do what you want as POTUS, but I just feel that he has passed the Repub. primaries, and he can go back to his maverick TRUE self now, because he is generally a well liked guy who has great ideas, etc. I need to see that McCain, and maybe this die hard liberal will vote for him. Well, actually, its too late now, I care FARRR to much about social issues to have Palin CLOSE to the oval office.

McCain has shown very little support for vets
 

**Ahem....relocated...hehehe**

Some of us had this discussion a few months ago about McCain being a POW and a vet. Some of you didn't like the idea that I was put offish about his status being more concerned about what he did in office as opposed to what he did during the war. Fine...cool. BUT...like I said, you served your country years ago...what are you doing NOW.

Just did a lil digging and what I find is bothersome. For someone that has the status and position to do something for those that has been in some of the same situations as he is/was....he looks like he doesn't show any love for fellow vets.

the link shows in numerous cases, he has voted against bills that in many cases could probably help a lot of vets and even voted FOR a bill that would outsouce jobs from Walter P Reed Medical Center.

Here is the link: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_vets.cfm

Status doesn't mean everything....

Thanks - this thread is available for people to go on their partisan attacks of the other candidates.. No need to start hijacking other threads.

KSigKid is my name, unofficial moderating is my game.

maybe you should apply for the job.

I'm so glad McCain & Obama put their crap aside today and will not be showing their negative ads on TV.

Yes, but wouldn't it be better if they just stopped showing their negative ads all together? I think that would be a much honorable way to pay homage to the victims of 9/11

I wish. Frankly, I'd be so much happier right now if I didn't have to endure their ads everytime I watch TV or listen to the radio. Still, I understand why they are playing them but I don't have to like them. Other than the news, I DVR most of my shows and then forward through the commercials.


One last note, I really thought that neither candidate was going to speak at any of the events today but I saw John McCain speaking at one of them (not sure if Obama spoke).

Okie dokie, why don't we get down to the nitty gritty of all these election discussions:

POST 3-5 Ideas why we should vote for one candidate, and 3-5 why we shouldn't vote for the other (McCain or Obama only please, third party complicates things). Keep them concise and clear. This will make views clear and will harness effective debate. You can't comment on someone else's list until you post your own... GO!

^^^ Since this thread is supposed to be about "discuss[ing] anything & everything about this upcoming election," not just pro- and con- debates, I think you need to start a new thread if you want that kind of back-and-forth discussion. (Not that any new thread will stick to your proposed rules after a few pages. So really, why bother?)

And if you're going to do that, I think it's a mistake to exclude minor party candidates.

Exactly, since, for a number of posters, they are only supporting a third party candidate.

A more effective way to do it would be, in the new thread, just to post 5 reasons to vote for your candidate of choice.

For those still struggling to decide between the two main candidates:

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Match...age?id=5542139

Thanks for the link - I came out with McCain, but that's not a surprise.

So did I. That wasn't supposed to happen.

It's my belief in states' rights and a strong defense that does it to me every time.

Haha - doomed to failure on political matchmaking sites...

I came out Obama. No surprise there. :)

I came out with Obama, but to be fair, I thought it was really easy to tell who said which statement, so it wasn't hard to pick the Obama ones. :o

For those inclined to find this interesting, set your recording device of choice or tune in, Bill Clinton will be on The Daily Show tomorrow night.

Bumping as a reminder...

Awww. I miss Bill. :(