Obama closing in on McCain in Arizona ?

Denis Irwin · 27-10-2008 9:03pm #1

Interesting to see Real Clear Politics have moved Arizona(McCain's home state) from strong McCain into leaning McCain. Although McCain is leading by 5 it's got to be worrying for him that he's not in a commanding position in his own state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2008/electoral_count.html

Biggins · 27-10-2008 9:08pm

According to other supposed percentages, McCain is over all only 5 points behind Obama.
Given a 3 to 4% of margin error, I personally hope the percentages are wrong and Obama has a bigger gap.

..but then I'm an Obama fan!

todolist · 27-10-2008 9:13pm

Senator McCain will win his home state unlike Al Gore who lost his home state and subsequently the election.If you were to believe the pools then McCain has no hope.I think the liberal media are puffing up Obama by inflating his poll numbers.Then again I'm a McCain/Palin supporter.

Denis Irwin · 27-10-2008 9:19pm

todolist wrote: »

Senator McCain will win his home state unlike Al Gore who lost his home state and subsequently the election.If you were to believe the pools then McCain has no hope.I think the liberal media are puffing up Obama by inflating his poll numbers.Then again I'm a McCain/Palin supporter.

So how would that explain why Fox have Obama leading by at least 5 points like the ''liberal media'' .:rolleyes:

Biggins · 27-10-2008 9:22pm

todolist wrote: »

Senator McCain will win his home state unlike Al Gore who lost his home state and subsequently the election.If you were to believe the pools then McCain has no hope.I think the liberal media are puffing up Obama by inflating his poll numbers.Then again I'm a McCain/Palin supporter.

Thats ok, we forgive you and there has to be more than one out there.

I would be surprised if he lost his home state. I am also amazed however that even in his home state his numbers are so low. It must be disheartening for him.
I hope he loses but not so much that he loses face along with the election.
Both men have (at the end of the day) their countries interest at heart, and that can't be taken away from either of them.

Biggins · 27-10-2008 9:24pm

Denis Irwin wrote: »

So how would that explain why Fox have Obama leading by at least 5 points like the ''liberal media'' .:rolleyes:

O' dear, Fox news. :rolleyes:
They are a Republican organisation unto themselves ..and thats well known among media and political circles.

todolist · 27-10-2008 9:26pm

Denis Irwin wrote: »

So how would that explain why Fox have Obama leading by at least 5 points like the ''liberal media'' .:rolleyes:

Fox have to pander to the liberals occasionaly in an effort to seem balanced.I don't believe most of the nonsense and poll numbers on Obama.Rality check;this guy is only 24 months in the Senate,He has vauge wishy washy policies.No legislative experience.How could America be handed over to a man like that.The liberal media have given him a free ride.No tough questions whatsoever.

Denis Irwin · 27-10-2008 9:32pm

todolist wrote: »

Fox have to pander to the liberals occasionaly in an effort to seem balanced.I don't believe most of the nonsense and poll numbers on Obama.Rality check;this guy is only 24 months in the Senate,He has vauge wishy washy policies.No legislative experience.How could America be handed over to a man like that.The liberal media have given him a free ride.No tough questions whatsoever.

Thanks I needed a goog laugh.

Biggins · 27-10-2008 9:35pm

todolist wrote: »

Fox have to pander to the liberals occasionaly in an effort to seem balanced.I don't believe most of the nonsense and poll numbers on Obama.Rality check;this guy is only 24 months in the Senate,He has vauge wishy washy policies.No legislative experience.How could America be handed over to a man like that.The liberal media have given him a free ride.No tough questions whatsoever.

As a part of American History, there have been a number of previous American presidents that have had only months of prior experience of any kind.

Obama (for what its worth) seems to be able to take on board advice and the knowledge of others before coming to a good decision. He is not an immediate reactionary. He weights options up when he can within time allowed.

Who ever wins, that person will be well staffed by long term very knowledgeable advisers.
Where previous presidents have gone wrong (Bush Senior/Junior) is in not listening to them and taking on-board their many, many years in one specific field. Instead, going a head with their specific personal agenda (requested by private profit making outside influences?).

todolist · 27-10-2008 9:37pm

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Thanks I needed a goog laugh.

One chanell in America is conservative,Fox News.Why do you have a problem with that when every other channel is liberal leaning.You want all the media to be liberal is seems.Can you bear an alternative opinion without being smug and condescending?

bnt · 27-10-2008 10:16pm

When did "liberal" become an insult? The word "Liberty" is in the Constitution, and on every dime in American pockets. :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to Arizona: the Washington Independent is reporting on a poll that has Obama marginally ahead in the state, here.

Biggins · 27-10-2008 11:14pm

...besides the fact that it was liberal's that wrote the American Constitution.
Image that!
I agree, when did it become a bad slur?

ironingbored · 27-10-2008 11:16pm

Biggins wrote: »

I hope he loses but not so much that he loses face along with the election.
Both men have (at the end of the day) their countries interest at heart, and that can't be taken away from either of them.

By choosing Mrs. Palin John McCain has shown he couldn't give a rat's arse about his country's well-being to be brutally honest.

Biggins · 27-10-2008 11:19pm

ironingbored wrote: »

By choosing Mrs. Palin John McCain has shown he couldn't give a rat's arse about his country's well-being to be brutally honest.

I don't question his loyalty, I DO question his judgement capabilities.
He chose a person for their effect they might have in regards JUST to voting, not according as to if they were even up to the job or/and had a good history and background.

Black Swan · 28-10-2008 12:01am

todolist wrote: »

I think the liberal media are puffing up Obama by inflating his poll numbers.

How does this explain McCain's overall average lead in the polls (as high as +14) from 13 September 2008 to 20 September 2008?

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Biggins · 28-10-2008 12:10am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How does this explain McCain's overall average lead in the polls (as high as +14) from 13 September 2008 to 20 September 2008?

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Same as Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/US-Election-Map

Someone is telling it as it is.

oscarBravo · 28-10-2008 12:14am

todolist wrote: »

The liberal media have given him a free ride.No tough questions whatsoever.

Such as...?

28-10-2008 12:18am

Biggins wrote: »

Same as Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/US-Election-Map

Someone is telling it as it is.

Perhaps because Sky use realclearpolitics data??

Biggins · 28-10-2008 12:26am

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps because Sky use realclearpolitics data??

Indeed, very possible or they are both using a similar source.

28-10-2008 12:27am

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed, very possible or they are both using a similar source.

It is stated pretty clearly that they are using the same data.

Biggins · 28-10-2008 12:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

It is stated pretty clearly that they are using the same data.

They must have some sound reassurance then that the figures they are quoting are as accurate as you can get under system that is somewhat open to political influence (to spin their side of things).

Put it this way, I'd take their word (not 100%) more so than before I'd take the word of a politics party rep quoting the same figures.

SteveS · 28-10-2008 1:50am

Biggins wrote: »

...besides the fact that it was liberal's that wrote the American Constitution.
Image that!
I agree, when did it become a bad slur?

I am not suggesting that liberalism be a slur, but the liberal of the 18th century is not the same as a liberal today.

Trojan · 28-10-2008 2:14am

todolist wrote: »

Fox have to pander to the liberals occasionaly in an effort to seem balanced.

The liberal media have given him a free ride.No tough questions whatsoever.

I guess this is Fox News pandering to the evil liberal elite when the Fox News presenter says Obama's been thoroughly questioned:

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21260888/economy_vs_trust.htm?pageid=23177&seek=33.539

(About 2-3 mins into video)

(My new resolution is to only use Fox News clips to refute the sillyness we hear from the Republicans)

Biggins · 28-10-2008 2:23am

SteveS wrote: »

I am not suggesting that liberalism be a slur, but the liberal of the 18th century is not the same as a liberal today.

Meaning of "Liberal"

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

The times may have changed but the concept behind the word is still the same.
Open to ideas, values of the day and willing to hear the other side.
Be it 300 years ago or today, being a liberal is still something to take pride in.
The founding fathers of America did.
Has the meaning of "Liberal" changed unknown to us in the last few years?

SteveS · 28-10-2008 3:20am

I wouldn't apply all of your definitions to the framers of the Constitution. A classical liberal emphasized laissez-faire economic policies, strong private property rights, and limited government, among other things. These aren't exactly liberal platforms (in the US).

I never suggested that being a liberal shouldn't be a source of pride, but it is just not historically accurate to say that a modern liberal and 18th century liberal share a great deal in common.

Trojan · 28-10-2008 3:41am

I thought it was the opposite of strict, and everything else came after that

I see a liberal as someone opposed to Orwellian Big Brother attitude, which we see in the UK, and more recently in GWB's USA.

molloyjh · 28-10-2008 2:30pm

todolist wrote: »

No tough questions whatsoever.

Yes, because Bill O'Rielly is a pussy-cat who refrains from asking thetough questions.....

The definition of a tough question is in the question, not the answer. The thing about Obama is that he has (in sofar as I've seen) been able to handle most question thrown at him. That doesn't mean the questions weren't hard. That's not to say the answers were always 100% accurate or agreeable either, but he does have the charisma and personality to be able to appear Presidential in the face of the tough questions.

Hobbes · 28-10-2008 2:49pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How does this explain McCain's overall average lead in the polls (as high as +14) from 13 September 2008 to 20 September 2008?

Every main poll site I have seen puts Obama in a far lead.

5-38 actually puts Obama at 96.7% chance to win with 0.25% chance of a draw.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I think the only thing that can turn Obamas count around is.
- Divine intervention.
- Voter Apathy.
- Voter suppression.

Otacon · 28-10-2008 2:58pm

Hobbes wrote: »

Every main poll site I have seen puts Obama in a far lead.

5-38 actually puts Obama at 96.7% chance to win with 0.25% chance of a draw.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I think the only thing that can turn Obamas count around is.
- Divine intervention.
- Voter Apathy.
- Voter suppression.

I think BL was referring to McCain's early lead in the race, not the state of the race now.

Hobbes · 28-10-2008 4:08pm

Otacon wrote: »

I think BL was referring to McCain's early lead in the race, not the state of the race now.

Oh right. Yea August was a good month for McCain IIRC.

todolist · 29-10-2008 2:46pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How does this explain McCain's overall average lead in the polls (as high as +14) from 13 September 2008 to 20 September 2008?

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Sarah Palin boosted the McCain numbers.

Obama closing in on McCain in Arizona ?

Comments