Comments on: Proof that the Negative Attacks on Obama Are Working http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:11:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: JSobieski http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-670 JSobieski Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:17:58 +0000 #comment-670 <p>nt</p> nt

]]> By: JSobieski http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-669 JSobieski Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:15:26 +0000 #comment-669 <p>It appears that $250B of temporary equity investment in banks is going to have a benefit that far exceeds the $850B fiasco of a Paulson Plan.</p> <p>Pardon us for not supporting the "One and Only Plan that can save us from Certain Doom" because we wanted at least SOME discussion on alternatives.</p> <p>Increasing FDIC coverage Nixing the mark-to-market accounting rules Use of money in such a way as to maximize bang for the buck</p> <p>I want McCain to win just as much as you do. But blaming people like me for this is crazy. I can just as easily blame Republicans for wanting to quickly brush under the rug the largest line item in the 2008 budget.</p> <p>If my reluctance to just say "yes" to the Paulson Plan in response to everyone saying "it is either this or die" is such a problem, then you are in the wrong country.</p> It appears that $250B of temporary equity investment in banks is going to have a benefit that far exceeds the $850B fiasco of a Paulson Plan.

Pardon us for not supporting the “One and Only Plan that can save us from Certain Doom” because we wanted at least SOME discussion on alternatives.

Increasing FDIC coverage
Nixing the mark-to-market accounting rules
Use of money in such a way as to maximize bang for the buck

I want McCain to win just as much as you do. But blaming people like me for this is crazy. I can just as easily blame Republicans for wanting to quickly brush under the rug the largest line item in the 2008 budget.

If my reluctance to just say “yes” to the Paulson Plan in response to everyone saying “it is either this or die” is such a problem, then you are in the wrong country.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-668 PaRep Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:02:40 +0000 #comment-668 <p>.</p> .

]]> By: aaronbg http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-667 aaronbg Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:57:53 +0000 #comment-667 <p>also you forget about Operation Chaos.....and Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys starting offensive line....so no I don't trust a single poll....also as far as early voting goes there is still no "legal" accurate way to know who those votes are going to....you are assuming they are going to Obama based on some exit polling.....early voting votes are not actually counted for one candidate or another until election day....quit falling for all the crap the media is feeding you.</p> also you forget about Operation Chaos…..and Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys starting offensive line….so no I don’t trust a single poll….also as far as early voting goes there is still no “legal” accurate way to know who those votes are going to….you are assuming they are going to Obama based on some exit polling…..early voting votes are not actually counted for one candidate or another until election day….quit falling for all the crap the media is feeding you.

]]> By: birdmojo http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-666 birdmojo Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:57:50 +0000 #comment-666 <p>Kerry was an awful, awful campaigner.</p> <p>The Republicans were able to turn the 2004 election from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on Kerry.</p> <p>Kerry, being awful, lost the referendum.</p> <p>This election is three (maybe more) referendums (referendi?) all wrapped up together:</p> <ol> <li>A referendum on the Republican in the White House thing.</li> <li><ol> <li>A referendum on Barack Obama.</li> </ol></li> <li><ol> <li><ol> <li>A referendum on McCain as Maverick (and, to a lesser extent, Palin as regular person).</li> </ol></li> </ol></li> </ol> <p>If the election is "vote against tweedledee or vote against tweedledum", then, yeah, college students aren't going to show up in any great numbers. Voting against a guy is a stone cold drag, man.</p> <p>These referendums don't strike me as loaded in the Republicans' favor... like the referendum on Kerry was. (Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had Dean been nominated in 2004... I'm fairly confident that Gephardt would have, at least, taken Ohio... but I digress.)</p> Kerry was an awful, awful campaigner.

The Republicans were able to turn the 2004 election from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on Kerry.

Kerry, being awful, lost the referendum.

This election is three (maybe more) referendums (referendi?) all wrapped up together:

  1. A referendum on the Republican in the White House thing.
    1. A referendum on Barack Obama.
      1. A referendum on McCain as Maverick (and, to a lesser extent, Palin as regular person).

If the election is “vote against tweedledee or vote against tweedledum”, then, yeah, college students aren’t going to show up in any great numbers. Voting against a guy is a stone cold drag, man.

These referendums don’t strike me as loaded in the Republicans’ favor… like the referendum on Kerry was. (Sometimes I wonder what would have happened had Dean been nominated in 2004… I’m fairly confident that Gephardt would have, at least, taken Ohio… but I digress.)

]]> By: Ithk4myslf http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-665 Ithk4myslf Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:28:34 +0000 #comment-665 <p>are there ANY pollsters at all that you trust whatsoever who have done polling?</p> <p>any whatsoever, and then check their party ids, from 2004 to 2008.</p> <p>even if we don't agree with the amounts every pollster I have seen polling National numbers is showing increase. </p> are there ANY pollsters at all that you trust whatsoever who have done polling?

any whatsoever, and then check their party ids, from 2004 to 2008.

even if we don’t agree with the amounts every pollster I have seen polling National numbers is showing increase.

]]> By: Ithk4myslf http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-664 Ithk4myslf Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:25:23 +0000 #comment-664 <p>Huge democratic turnout in the primaries, basically every primary broke records</p> <p>in 2004, about 425,000 total voted early in GA, now they are already close to 500,000.</p> <p>Bush won early votes with 60% in 2000 and 2004, so far Obama is up.</p> <p>sure we can either ignore, it or we can honestly admit that so far factors ARE suggesting record turnout.</p> Huge democratic turnout in the primaries, basically every primary broke records

in 2004, about 425,000 total voted early in GA, now they are already close to 500,000.

Bush won early votes with 60% in 2000 and 2004, so far Obama is up.

sure we can either ignore, it or we can honestly admit that so far factors ARE suggesting record turnout.

]]> By: aaronbg http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-663 aaronbg Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:22:34 +0000 #comment-663 <p>Really what makes you think that this year will buck the historical trends in voter turnout?</p> <p>Do you really believe that all those college students are all of the sudden going to turnout this year?</p> <p>And if you do believe that what is the determining factor? What has changed? What makes this year different than all the previous presidential elections since the voting age changed to 18 instead of 21?</p> <p>By the way I think it is really cute how you ask your "questions"....seems like you have already made up your mind and are just trying to lead someone to the answer you want them to believe.</p> <p>Don't act like a moby and people will quit treating you as suspect.</p> Really what makes you think that this year will buck the historical trends in voter turnout?

Do you really believe that all those college students are all of the sudden going to turnout this year?

And if you do believe that what is the determining factor? What has changed? What makes this year different than all the previous presidential elections since the voting age changed to 18 instead of 21?

By the way I think it is really cute how you ask your “questions”….seems like you have already made up your mind and are just trying to lead someone to the answer you want them to believe.

Don’t act like a moby and people will quit treating you as suspect.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-662 PaRep Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:16:21 +0000 #comment-662 <p>Need to/Have to go</p> Need to/Have to go

]]> By: Ithk4myslf http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-661 Ithk4myslf Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:11:43 +0000 #comment-661 <p>turnout will be the 2000 and 2004 levels?</p> <p>or do we have to admit that turnout will be crazy this year?</p> turnout will be the 2000 and 2004 levels?

or do we have to admit that turnout will be crazy this year?

]]> By: aaronbg http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-660 aaronbg Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:05:30 +0000 #comment-660 <p>Someone pointed out the other day that another factor in the over weighting of Dems could be the fraudulent registrations in most of the swing states. If pollsters are using raw registration numbers then they are likely to be flawed due to the ACORN fraudulent registrations. This leads to improper weighting of Dem registrants. Obama's internals are probably slightly more accurate and that is why he hasn't shifted advertising dollars out of places that are "polling" safe for him. His campaign is in deep with ACORN and they are trying to use the pollsters and registration as propaganda tools.</p> <p>Something to think about.</p> Someone pointed out the other day that another factor in the over weighting of Dems could be the fraudulent registrations in most of the swing states. If pollsters are using raw registration numbers then they are likely to be flawed due to the ACORN fraudulent registrations. This leads to improper weighting of Dem registrants. Obama’s internals are probably slightly more accurate and that is why he hasn’t shifted advertising dollars out of places that are “polling” safe for him. His campaign is in deep with ACORN and they are trying to use the pollsters and registration as propaganda tools.

Something to think about.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-659 PaRep Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:49:59 +0000 #comment-659 <p>.</p> .

]]> By: Swamp_Yankee http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-658 Swamp_Yankee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:47:43 +0000 #comment-658 <p>Also, I hope people realize that Gallup changed its polling method in 2008. The ygive two numbers now the traditional and the new method.</p> <p>the new method is predicated on more people coming out to vote than normal. It is completely presumptuous. This is the number politico and the meida uses.</p> <p>Under the 2000 and 2004 model, McCain is down 3. People need ot get a grip and fight.</p> Also, I hope people realize that Gallup changed its polling method in 2008. The ygive two numbers now the traditional and the new method.

the new method is predicated on more people coming out to vote than normal. It is completely presumptuous. This is the number politico and the meida uses.

Under the 2000 and 2004 model, McCain is down 3. People need ot get a grip and fight.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-657 PaRep Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:38:58 +0000 #comment-657 <p>Is it really tightening our are they making it tight, So they can expand it again after Obama "WINS" the debate tonnight</p> Is it really tightening our are they making it tight, So they can expand it again after Obama “WINS” the debate tonnight

]]> By: Swamp_Yankee http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-656 Swamp_Yankee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:11:56 +0000 #comment-656 <p>Now we know why there are so many trolls worried about Ayers and Wright and why the NY Times is cooking polls</p> Now we know why there are so many trolls worried about Ayers and Wright and why the NY Times is cooking polls

]]> By: Swamp_Yankee http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-655 Swamp_Yankee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:11:29 +0000 #comment-655 <p>No we know why there are so many trolls worried about Ayers and Wright and why the NY Times is cooking polls</p> No we know why there are so many trolls worried about Ayers and Wright and why the NY Times is cooking polls

]]> By: Rod_Patrick http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-654 Rod_Patrick Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:57:56 +0000 #comment-654 <p>Hah! CBS/NYT is slipping.</p> <p>It should have been 110 point lead for Obama. The padded 72 points represent the combined ACORN effect and OBAMEDIA effect.</p> Hah! CBS/NYT is slipping.

It should have been 110 point lead for Obama. The padded 72 points represent the combined ACORN effect and OBAMEDIA effect.

]]> By: SeanH90050 http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-653 SeanH90050 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:34:17 +0000 #comment-653 <p>But some of the polls I mentioned I was dredging for info show the Democrats have about a 9% advantage in party id in the 12 battleground state polls combined versus their split in 2004 (I don't remember the actual numbers). The states that have the highest movement towards Democrats are NC, VA and PA, which were all over 10%. Lowest were WI and MN at 2-3%. In some of the states there were significant shifts towards the Dems at the expense of Indys. In others, it was minor with, like the national polls, the GOPers disappearance causing most of the difference.</p> <p>I'll post some more info on it later this week when i have more polls to play with after the debate.</p> But some of the polls I mentioned I was dredging for info show the Democrats have about a 9% advantage in party id in the 12 battleground state polls combined versus their split in 2004 (I don’t remember the actual numbers). The states that have the highest movement towards Democrats are NC, VA and PA, which were all over 10%. Lowest were WI and MN at 2-3%. In some of the states there were significant shifts towards the Dems at the expense of Indys. In others, it was minor with, like the national polls, the GOPers disappearance causing most of the difference.

I’ll post some more info on it later this week when i have more polls to play with after the debate.

]]> By: dld1717 http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-652 dld1717 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:10:48 +0000 #comment-652 <p>I am more concerned at these state polls showing Obama ahead</p> <p>I mean NC, IN, and even VA by now should not be competitive. FL and MO looked locked up for us and now they aren't</p> <p>I am still very nervous but tom. night will really tell us if McCain can still win. Honestly, tom night is really the last chance for McCain</p> I am more concerned at these state polls showing Obama ahead

I mean NC, IN, and even VA by now should not be competitive. FL and MO looked locked up for us and now they aren’t

I am still very nervous but tom. night will really tell us if McCain can still win. Honestly, tom night is really the last chance for McCain

]]> By: Swamp_Yankee http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2008/10/14/proof-that-the-negative-attacks-on-obama-are/#comment-651 Swamp_Yankee Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:52:01 +0000 #comment-651 <p>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2105611/posts</p> <p>Maybe they do this just to keep the troops motivated.</p> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2105611/posts

Maybe they do this just to keep the troops motivated.

]]>