ELECTION DAY 2008:........... Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America

Did you see Obama on O'Reilly tonight?




I can't seem to find the thread.

I think his plan for the economy is good. It just hurts the rich guy.
 
Why don't you post all the national polls? Those sample sizes are ridiculous though so these polls mean lil if anything come November.
[h2]RealClearPolitics Poll Averages[/h2]
[h3]General Election: McCain vs. Obama[/h3]http://
[table][tr][th=""]Poll[/th] [th=""]Date[/th] [th=""]Sample[/th] [th=""]McCain (R)[/th] [th=""]Obama (D)[/th] [th=""]Spread[/th] [/tr][tr][td]RCP Average[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/08[/td] [td]--[/td] [td]48.3[/td] [td]45.6[/td] [td]McCain +2.7[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Gallup Tracking[/td] [td]09/06 - 09/08[/td] [td]2737 RV[/td] [td]49[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +5[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rasmussen Tracking[/td] [td]09/06 - 09/08[/td] [td]3000 LV[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][tr][td]ABC News/Wash Post[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]LV[/td] [td]49[/td] [td]47[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][tr][td]CBS News[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]655 RV[/td] [td]46[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][tr][td]USA Today/Gallup[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]823 LV[/td] [td]54[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +10[/td] [/tr][tr][td]CNN[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]942 RV[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Hotline/FD Tracking[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]924 RV[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][/table]

More Polling Data | Chart | News



[table][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [td]
[/td] [/tr][/table]
 
Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Why don't you post all the national polls? Those sample sizes are ridiculous though so these polls mean lil if anything come November.
[h2]RealClearPolitics Poll Averages[/h2]
[h3]General Election: McCain vs. Obama[/h3]http://
[table][tr][th=""]Poll[/th] [th=""]Date[/th] [th=""]Sample[/th] [th=""]McCain (R)[/th] [th=""]Obama (D)[/th] [th=""]Spread[/th] [/tr][tr][td]RCP Average[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/08[/td] [td]--[/td] [td]48.3[/td] [td]45.6[/td] [td]McCain +2.7[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Gallup Tracking[/td] [td]09/06 - 09/08[/td] [td]2737 RV[/td] [td]49[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +5[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Rasmussen Tracking[/td] [td]09/06 - 09/08[/td] [td]3000 LV[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][tr][td]ABC News/Wash Post[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]LV[/td] [td]49[/td] [td]47[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][tr][td]CBS News[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]655 RV[/td] [td]46[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +2[/td] [/tr][tr][td]USA Today/Gallup[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]823 LV[/td] [td]54[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]McCain +10[/td] [/tr][tr][td]CNN[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]942 RV[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Hotline/FD Tracking[/td] [td]09/05 - 09/07[/td] [td]924 RV[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]44[/td] [td]Tie[/td] [/tr][/table]

More Polling Data | Chart | News
Click to expand...
You do know how polls work right? Polls always have small sample sizes. Not like you're going to poll 2 million people. Andeven at that, if you polled 2 million people, the results would hardly be any different.

I have posted all the polls, & I do post all of them in 1 group from time to time.... and my overall average in the title & on page 1 is the RCPaveage, so yeah.
 
Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Yes I know about sample size, population size, margin of error, etc.. I am an auditor FYI

This is the one website that I look at when I want a true projection based on national polls.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/" target=_blank>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Click to expand...
Yeah I post stuff from 538 in this thread. I go to that site every day haha.
Good site.
Click to expand...


booo.
at ur avy smhh.
indifferent.gif
 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986


Summary
We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's runningmate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasillalibrary. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question,but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registeredas a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported PatBuchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed toco-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism inAlaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism"doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet pointsabove, please read the Analysis.

Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are nottrue, and other rumors are misleading.

No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget inAlaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim onSept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:

O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor whatshe did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came intooffice. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is thisgoing to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?

Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children andtheir families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as"historic."

According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palinsigned legislation in March 2008 that wouldincrease public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs"students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-studentspending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more,giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.

Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from thecurrent $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.

Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairlylevel next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...

Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with specialneeds as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.

According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increasedevery year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to anapparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name,isn't the special needs budget. "I don't even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans toldFactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where wehave funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component,the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.

And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, outof the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schoolsbudget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.

Not a Book Burner
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla's librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumorcome complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no
books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that thelist is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn't support her. She was re-hired the next
day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It's true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla's librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time.But, as the /Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman/ (Wasilla's local paper) reported at the time, Palin
asked general questions about whatEmmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't bein the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library.Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny,
who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to MaryEllen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following heradministration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as "rhetorical," noting that her questions "were asked in the context of
professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., "Who doyou think you are?"), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible forus to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respondto an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no
book was ever banned from the library's shelves.

Palin initially requested Emmons' resignation, along with those of Wasilla's other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requestsas a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin firedEmmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons' firing, but said she didn't feel she had Emmons' support. Thedecision caused "a stir" in the small town, according to a newspaperaccount at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, "city residents rallied to the
defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter."

As we've noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don't know if Emmons' resistance to Palin's questions about possiblecensorship had anything to do with Emmons' firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn't any evidencethat we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian's backing. Emmons continued toserve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that sheresigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken "from the official minutes of theWasilla Library Board"? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books,
none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simplecut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology
library Web page, which presents the list as "Books bannedat one time or another in the
United States."

Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party - which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state - despitemistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it washeld.

The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clarktold the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times andothers that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.

The director of Alaska's Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as aRepublican and hasn't changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin's husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention inWasilla at one time."

There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP's 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official toldABC News' Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin waselected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, "as a courtesy sinceshe was mayor." As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention,which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.

Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican SteveForbes.

The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attendedby about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sureshe's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.

Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesyto her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:

Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless oftheir party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on theirbutton when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article mayhave left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all thecandidates in Wasilla.

Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the stateleadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:

The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate SteveForbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairmanPete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.
No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationismalongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuablein our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged andblessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject - creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don'tbe afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of thecurriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made nopush to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It waswritten by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkennyare true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she'sa Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin "has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the CityLibrarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship."

We're still analyzing Kilkenny's claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.

Sources
 Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.

Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.

Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.

Hawkins, John. "This Is The Sarah Palin Bikini Shot You Are Looking For And, No, It's Not Real." Right Wing News, 2 Sept. 2008.

Godel, Addison. "elizabeth - american flag bikini rifle." Posted on flickr Web site, accessed 8 Sept. 2008.

Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.

Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.

Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.

The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.

Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.

Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. "Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention." ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.

Tapper, Jake. "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s." ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.

Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.

Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept.2008.

White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.
 
Biden so much better then Palin huh? Apparently the public doesn't think so.
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
pimp.gif
pimp.gif


More Americans would cast ballots for Republican Sarah Palin than for Democrat Joe Biden if they were able to vote for a vice president independent of theirpresidential choice, a US poll released Tuesday found.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll of 1,022 adults taken September 5-7 found that ifvoters were allowed to vote just for president in November, the result would be a statistical tie between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, at49 and 48 percent respectively. The poll's margin of error was three percent.

In a hypothetical separate vote just for vice president, Alaska Governor Palin beat Senator Bidenby 53 percent to 44 percent, the survey showed.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080909144001.2hr29td5&show_article=1http://www.breitbart.com/...r29td5&show_article=1


 
[font=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA]BBC POLL: WORLD WANTS OBAMA[/font]

First time in three months: McCain[Palin] gets more press coverage than Obama...

McCain's Surge: Drawing Record Crowds...

NYT: FAR FROM CERTAIN OBAMA WILL MEET AMBITIOUS FUNDRAISING TARGET...

$5 Million In 5 Hours: McCain In Obama's Chicago...

GALLUP: McCain opens 15-point lead among independents...

...Maintains 5-Point Head-to-Head Lead...

Leaps to 20-Point Lead in North Carolina...

Obama: McCain-Palin 'lying' about maverickclaims...

'These folks are shameless'...

Hillary stays clear of Sarah critique...

Biden: Palin would be 'backward step forwomen'...

Canada: 'An icon of fertility'...

Sliming Palin: False Internet claims and rumors fly...

WSJ: 'Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage'...
Student GOP leader resigns over Obamaremark...
More good news for the McCain camp

[table][tr][td]Florida[/td] [td]PPP (D)[/td] [td]McCain 50, Obama 45[/td] [td]McCain +5[/td] [/tr][/table][table][tr][td]Michigan[/td] [td]Strategic Vision (R)[/td] [td]Obama 45, McCain 44[/td] [td]Obama +1[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Wisconsin[/td] [td]Strategic Vision (R)[/td] [td]Obama 46, McCain 43[/td] [td]Obama +3[/td] [/tr][/table]



RALEIGH (WTVD) -- In an election for President of the United States in North CarolinaTuesday, September 09, Republican John McCain suddenly and breathtakingly surges to a 20-point win over Democrat Barack Obama, 58% to 38%, according to thislatest exclusive SurveyUSA election poll conducted for ABC11-WTVD.

In 3 previous SurveyUSA NCtracking polls, McCain had led by 8, 5, and 4points. Today: 20. McCain has gained ground in every demographic group. Among men, McCain led by 9 last month, 27 today. Among women, Obama led by 2 last month, trails by 12 today. McCain holds 9of 10 Republican voters; Obama holds 3 of 4 Democratic voters; independents, who were split last month, break today crisply for McCain, where, in the blink ofan eye, he is up by 25.

The following was asked of 671 likely voters (more data on collection listed at the bottom):
  • If the election for President were today, would you vote for ... (choices rotated) Republican John McCain? Or, Democrat Barack Obama?

    58% McCain (R)
    38% Obama (D)
    2% Other
    2% Undecided
The Results of a SurveyUSA Election Poll
Geography Surveyed: North Carolina
Data Collected: 09/06/2008 - 09/08/2008

McCain is now in front among the educated and less educated, among the affluent and less affluent. He's polling at 64% in Coastal Carolina (up from 57%),at 60% in Charlotte (up from 53%), and at 54% in Raleigh / Greensboro (up from 44%). Pro-Life voters backed McCain 2:1 last month, 4:1 this month.

SurveyUSA interviewed 900 North Carolina adults 09/06/08 - 09/08/08. All interviews were completed after the Labor Day weekend, and after the conclusion of theRepublican NationalConvention. Of the 900 adults, 783 were registered to vote; of them, 671 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the 11/04/08 generalelection. North Carolina has 15 Electoral College votes. Incumbent Republican President George W. Bush carried the stateby 12 points in 2004 and by 13 points in 2000.
(Copyright [emoji]169[/emoji]2008 WTVD-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
 
Originally Posted by Toy Collector123

Uh, lol republicans thinking these polls mean something. The game plan for Obama is incredible.
Click to expand...
Yeah they mean nothing since they are favorable to McCain. I mean didn't you know Obama already won & in reality he is uplike 5% across the nation. He's going to win with at least 300+ electoral votes

Game plan huh?
What game plan is that?
 
Just to give people an idea of how most Republicans think about black people..................


"ALLENTOWN, Pa. - The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign afterposting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on theInternet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so largehe could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"
 
Obama can't afford to be too patient. The McCain campaign is doing a hell of a job of scaring people to their side, without really focusing on the issueswhatsoever. If he sits idle for too long, those swing voters who've been swayed by the RNC, and the actions surrounding it, will be lost. The Republicanparty has done a great job (not honorably) at painting Palin as a victim of the big bully "liberal media" and trying to steal Obama's message ofchange.

Biden can only do so much as the attack dog. Obama has to toughen up come debate time. He's obviously the better orator, but he's gotta go afterMcCain. Obama's core base is solidified, so leaning towards "conventional" politics, which is contradictory to his whole message, won'treally sway people away from him. At the same time, he can't be too tough. But still, he's gotta drill home the McCain insider/lobbyist factor. If heappears too soft, the election is lost. The Republicans are using the fear propaganda and it's working. Obama has got to stick to the issues and not allowthe Republicans to divert the direction from what's really important.
 
Joe Biden trying to lose the race
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif


Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) says that if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) becomes the first female vice president it will be a"backward step for women."

Asked by a local television reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin if electing Palin would be a step forward for women,Biden said, "well look, I think the issue is what does Sarah Palin think? What does she believe?"

"I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think," Biden added."And that's obviously a backward step for women."

So Sarah Palin is a step back for women. Nice Joe
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
Sure you're going to get a lot of women votes saying things likethat
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif



UPDATE: Republican National Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson has a response:

"The only person taking a step backward is Joe Biden, whose appalling and arrogant statements are better suitedfor the back rooms of his old boys club. Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential nominee is an historic opportunity to break thehighest glass ceiling." (for women)
 
^^^please...Biden is just stating the obvious, which any intelligent, clear-headed person should know. Palin is simply a pawn used by the Republicans to garnerfemale votes.
 
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) says that if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) becomes the first female vice president it will be a "backward step for women."


I mean he's right, if nothing else she is a horrible mother. Why give a person like that even more responsibility when they can't even keep their homeintact??
are there any black people in here supporting bush and palin?


No, and mostly because they (Bush, McCain, and Palin) don't support us.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by TBONE95860

Joe Biden trying to lose the race
roll.gif
roll.gif
roll.gif


Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) says that if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) becomes the first female vice president it will be a "backward step for women."

Asked by a local television reporter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin if electing Palin would be a step forward for women, Biden said, "well look, I think the issue is what does Sarah Palin think? What does she believe?"

"I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think," Biden added. "And that's obviously a backward step for women."

So Sarah Palin is a step back for women. Nice Joe
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
smh.gif
Sure you're going to get a lot of women votes saying things like that
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif



UPDATE: Republican National Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson has a response:

"The only person taking a step backward is Joe Biden, whose appalling and arrogant statements are better suited for the back rooms of his old boys club. Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential nominee is an historic opportunity to break the highest glass ceiling." (for women)
Click to expand...
It's getting to the point where I can't even take you serious anymore
laugh.gif


pimp.gif
pimp.gif
pimp.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom