Year help: Why is Obama winning against Mccain on all of the polls? - Help.com

“and people don’t even know anything about him!”
Really? Because I think you’re w-r-o-n-g!

Has been in the U.S. Navy! And he acctually stands up, and puts his hand on his heart during the National Anthem and The Pledge of Alligence UNLIKE Obama!

These are not valid reasons to vote for someone.

“Why is Obama winning against Mccain on all of the polls?”

Simple answer, it’s based on how people vote. More people would be voting for Obama for him to be winning.

obama is winning because that’s what the american people want?

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
obama is winning because that’s what the american people want?

I don’t think any one can say it any plainer than that!

I thought it was just obvious though?

Who’s Obama? I am gonna vote for George W. Bush.

Obama is ahead in the polls because he has wedged a more effective campaign.

What I find more interesting is the fact that in a year when the Democrats should have swept the floor with the Republicans, that this race is so close that even today most polls show the candidates are with in the margin of error or very close to it, and that even now a week a way from election day its sill either mans game.

This I attribute to the fact that McCain is a very liberal republican; meaning that for most people he does not signify the party that was in power the last 8 years as much as the Obama campaign would like people to believe. Had the Republican base gotten one of their more prized sons as the RNC winner that person would be much much farther down in the polls today.

Also Clinton did not do Obama a service (despite what people are saying now) by making the primary so hard for him. By bringing up the issue of Obama’s inexperience which has hurt him a great deal in this election (it doesn’t help that Obama’s VP pick aggress with this Clinton talking point). And also Clinton floating the “Obama is a Muslim” redirect that so many still believe to this day has not helped. Clinton also introduced us to Bill Ayres, Reverend Write, and Tony Rezko. The Clinton/Obama primary was very bloody and the negativity toward Obama created by Clinton has hurt him. It should be kept in mind that McCain would have harped on all of these things if Clinton had not, but then the public would have had a lot less time to let the negative aspects of Obama sink in and he would be at a higher place then he is now.

Thirdly Obama could not hold on to his message/image that he was a different kind of politician; better, newer, nicer, someone to clean up Washington and ect. At the beginning this image propelled him enough to beat Clinton, but as Obama was forced to fight a heavy battle against Clinton and then McCain it tarnished the image he was trying to instill at the beginning of this election cycle. For more and more people he is no longer the rock star he was when he started this thing; people will still vote for him because they think he is the better choice, but of those who think he is the better choice he has come to be the lesser of two evils rather then a shining start he once was. This makes his support among independents weaker then he would like, and it is with this group of people a candidate will win or lose the election.

Lastly the Democrats hurt Obama’s chances of winning by taking majority of congress two years ago. Many people are well aware of the fact that in the last two years the Democrats could have taken steps to help a lot of the problems we face today, and as a result in a year where Democrats should have been the golden children most people view them as disfavorably as they do Republicans. Most of the support they new get is people showing their anger at the Republicans rather then support of Democrats. That is an unhealthy form of support because it is easily changeable.

In all most people are old enough to Remember that they voted the republicans in 8 years ago because they where very unhappy with the Democrats; and now they have discovered that the Republicans aren’t any better. People are now dissatisfied with politicians in general and that translates to a electorate who are not going to vote for a president just because he isn’t like the last guy. As a result Obama doesn’t have the bounce he should have theoretically and McCain isn’t hurt as much as he should be.

It’s going to be a close election; and I am sure many people are going to be unhappy on nov 5th. I would go as far as to say that we may even see the same thing we saw in 2000 where both parties dragged out the outcome longer then it needed to be.

obama has gone up in polls actually
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Votes are gonna be: 59% Obama, 41% Mccain.

eh obama is kinda in the lead as of now

Why So Steve? wrote:

Jerry wrote:
It’ll probably come down tothe Bradley Effect and McCain will win. Stupid racism.

They say that if Obama wins or loses the Presidency there will be civil war in the US. It’s hard to believe that a country so young and diverse is widely so unwilling to accept a well-educated and charismatic man as President due to his colour. “A negro as President! Well I never!”

Its hard to believe that so many people discredit others as racist simply because they do not share the same political out look on life. If Obama losses it will because more people do not agree with his polices then do.

While racisms is a part of this election, I am quite pleased as an American to see that it is such a small part to be insignificant. Most people are showing that the color of skin the candidate have is not important to them. In fact it has seemed as if McCain’s age is more of an issue to ignorant people then Obama’s black skin.

That is something to be proud of for this country; not something to be forgotten because people want to find an excuse as to why their candidate altimetry lost the election.

If you had asked me 4 years ago if the US could handle a black president; I would have had to truly answer that I was not sure. But to day it’s clear to see that such barriers have been broken.

Now let the best man win.

tell that to the “self proclaimed skinheads” that were busted plotting obama’s death as well as 100 other african americans

Da⌐11 wrote:
Its hard to believe that so many people discredit others as racist.

Why? Are you really surprised by this behavior?

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
tell that to the “self proclaimed skinheads” that were busted plotting obama’s death as well as 100 other african americans

Yea because we should categorize ourselves as a country based on two people out of 301,139,947 people in the us.

Anonymous wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
Its hard to believe that so many people discredit others as racist.

Why? Are you really surprised by this behavior?

Your right I shouldn’t be. But its still sad.

It’s almost as if people have a mind of their own and can think different things to you anon.

Why So Steve? wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
Its hard to believe that so many people discredit others as racist simply because they do not share the same political out look on life. If Obama losses it will because more people do not agree with his polices then do. While racisms is a part of this election, I am quite pleased as an American to see that it is such a small part to be insignificant. Most people are showing that the color of skin the candidate have is not important to them. In fact it has seemed as if McCain’s age is more of an issue to ignorant people then Obama’s black skin. That is something to be proud of for this country; not something to be forgotten because people want to find an excuse as to why their candidate altimetry lost the election. If you had asked me 4 years ago if the US could handle a black president; I would have had to truly answer that I was not sure. But to day it’s clear to see that such barriers have been broken. Now let the best man win.

I think what’s hard to believe is your astounding naivety. You are clearly one of few too many enlightened white Americans.

I disagree completely; it is more likely that you have an incorrect stereotype of an unenlightened white American in mind. A form of bigotry that you should work on to better yourself as a person.

Da⌐11 wrote:

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
tell that to the “self proclaimed skinheads” that were busted plotting obama’s death as well as 100 other african americans

Yea because we should categorize ourselves as a country based on two people out of 301,139,947 people in the us.

you are close minded if you think there aren’t many racist’s out there try looking at some of the mccain supporters

So, the original poster seems gone, since like “forever” . Do you think this was a legit post or a Troll trying to stir things up? Because things seem to be stiring.
And the original posted never replied to any one, so I’m thinking ….Troll posted the topic. I find it to be bad manners to talk politics or religion with “strangers”. Just a thought. mmmmmm Cookies………….

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
tell that to the “self proclaimed skinheads” that were busted plotting obama’s death as well as 100 other african americans

Yea because we should categorize ourselves as a country based on two people out of 301,139,947 people in the us.

you are close minded if you think there aren’t many racist’s out there try looking at some of the mccain supporters

There are most certainly racists in America of all colors and religions. There are however a much larger majority of people who have put such silliness aside over the last decades and things are only getting better with each new generation.

troll post

Winter.Rain wrote:
So, the original poster seems gone, since like “forever” . Do you think this was a legit post or a Troll trying to stir things up? Because things seem to be stiring.And the original posted never replied to any one, so I’m thinking ….Troll posted the topic. I find it to be bad manners to talk politics or religion with “strangers”. Just a thought. mmmmmm Cookies………….

Yes, many people find it hard to talk politics with out becoming emotional over it. Its understandable because of how close politics touches our lives. I would however say I think more people should talk politics with strangers and the like – as an open dialog is the only way to effectively accomplish anything in life. What should be deemed bad manners is getting overly emotionally involved with your stand points to the point that you make the person you are talking to uncomfortable.

Why So Steve? wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
I disagree completely; it is more likely that you have an incorrect stereotype of an unenlightened white American in mind. A form of bigotry that you should work on to better yourself as a person.

Perhaps my opinion will change if Obama wins the Presidency. Otherwise I see no evidence that what you say is true.

Why would that be? is it not enough that it will be close enough that he “could” have won no matter who actually wins?

Absence of racisms doesn’t mean that we place a black person in the presidency just because he is black; absence of racism means that a black person, through his own efforts and abilities has as much of a chance to win the presidency as anyone else. And that clearly is the case here.

Good point.
I see it this way; Why place someone ,you will most likely never see again, in an emotionally charged opinionated conversation about yourself(personal opinions).
It creates a breeding ground of negativity. But I could be wrong.

Da⌐11 wrote:

Winter.Rain wrote:
So, the original poster seems gone, since like “forever” . Do you think this was a legit post or a Troll trying to stir things up? Because things seem to be stiring.And the original posted never replied to any one, so I’m thinking ….Troll posted the topic. I find it to be bad manners to talk politics or religion with “strangers”. Just a thought. mmmmmm Cookies………….

Yes, many people find it hard to talk politics with out becoming emotional over it. Its understandable because of how close politics touches our lives. I would however say I think more people should talk politics with strangers and the like – as an open dialog is the only way to effectively accomplish anything in life. What should be deemed bad manners is getting overly emotionally involved with your stand points to the point that you make the person you are talking to uncomfortable.

Winter.Rain wrote:
Good point.
I see it this way; Why place someone ,you will most likely never see again, in an emotionally charged opinionated conversation about yourself(personal opinions).
It creates a breeding ground of negativity. But I could be wrong.

Da⌐11 wrote:

Winter.Rain wrote:
So, the original poster seems gone, since like “forever” . Do you think this was a legit post or a Troll trying to stir things up? Because things seem to be stiring.And the original posted never replied to any one, so I’m thinking ….Troll posted the topic. I find it to be bad manners to talk politics or religion with “strangers”. Just a thought. mmmmmm Cookies………….

Yes, many people find it hard to talk politics with out becoming emotional over it. Its understandable because of how close politics touches our lives. I would however say I think more people should talk politics with strangers and the like – as an open dialog is the only way to effectively accomplish anything in life. What should be deemed bad manners is getting overly emotionally involved with your stand points to the point that you make the person you are talking to uncomfortable.

No, you are correct, it could breed negativity.

Oh I forgot, these conversations are less about what you like or prefer and more about convincing people to agree with your opinion. Isn’t that what a debate is?
You try to convice people to agree with your side?
Anywho, just random thoughts for food.

Take care…

he’s not a muslim
and your going to judge him on what his momma named him?
your are incredibly ignorant

I know you….. you’re a Troll. I saw you on the Troll King post or what not.

abcdddef wrote:
Its so sad that people dont learn their history and just vote based on popularity. This isnt high school for gods sake! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BARAK HUSSAIN OBAMA! just the name should scare you.first of all, hes not black! second, HES A MUSLIM! is that what you really want??? wake up! can you trust a muslim to be your next president????HELLO!!! All arab-muslim countries hate America and you are going to let him rule you?? how can you trust him? just watch this… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXv…

Have fun!

abcdddef wrote:
Its so sad that people dont learn their history and just vote based on popularity. This isnt high school for gods sake! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BARAK HUSSAIN OBAMA! just the name should scare you.first of all, hes not black! second, HES A MUSLIM! is that what you really want??? wake up! can you trust a muslim to be your next president????HELLO!!! All arab-muslim countries hate America and you are going to let him rule you?? how can you trust him? just watch this… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXv…

How pathetic. Racist pig. You look a fool, why are you even on here?

If you’re frightened by a name, you need help we cannot give.

abcdddef you’re right about one thing. Most of the world hates America. Though not because of any Muslims, but most recently due to a certain white Christian redneck (like yourself).

Why so Steve wrote:
I don’t dispute that; however you know as well as I do that whilst Obama is the superior candidate he is also the most radical choice. If McCain does win the Presidency then I think we can be quite sure that it is due to the very notion which you are disputing.

It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

Its widely known who the favorite is to be fair.

Jerry wrote:
It’ll probably come down tothe Bradley Effect and McCain will win. Stupid racism.

no it wont

Da⌐11 wrote:
It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

Yes, Obama will continue the tradition of taxation (as would McCain). This is what poor John McCain is now referring to as “socialism.” And apparently you’ve fallen for it.

well this is my first time voting
and i’m going for obama basically to try and throw mccain and palin out

Why So Steve? wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

The average American is in essence an undecided voter which incidentally leads them to vote generally based on popularity of the candidate, should they vote at all that is.

That’s neither hear nor there on the issue of racism, but I doe agree with you.

Even in that example I gave of socialistic views. most people don’t know what that really means or how it effects them. But they some how know its something to be scared of. So they will shy way from a candidate that shows even a little hint of such tendencies. It would still be an non-racial issue that forces them away form Obama.

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
well this is my first time votingand i’m going for obama basically to try and throw mccain and palin out

To throw them out of what?

Why So Steve? wrote:
The average American is in essence an undecided voter which incidentally leads them to vote generally based on popularity of the candidate, should they vote at all that is.

No they’re not. Most are raised into their ideals from a very young age.

of the ******* race to presidency OBVIOUSLY

Anonymous wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

Yes, Obama will continue the tradition of taxation (as would McCain). This is what poor John McCain is now referring to as “socialism.” And apparently you’ve fallen for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

Yes, Obama will continue the tradition of taxation (as would McCain). This is what poor John McCain is now referring to as “socialism.” And apparently you’ve fallen for it.

Where have I stated my opinion on the matter. I was only giving Why so Steve a non-racial reason people will not be voting for Obama. Whether it is a good reason or not is up for debate. but that would require a whole new thread.

DaNi♠HaTes♠You wrote:
of the ******* race to presidency OBVIOUSLY

I see.

awesome

Da⌐11 wrote:
Where have I stated my opinion on the matter.

Right here:

[quote Da⌐11Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently.[/quote]

Da⌐11 wrote:
Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently.

Thats the turth; not my opinion. It is now an issue Obama must deal with.

bullshit

Anonymous wrote:
********

Ok

YOU referred to them as socialistic, which means that YOU bought into the lie.

Why So Steve, what is your definition of “ideals”? Are your ideals the only ones that constitute as ideals and anyone who would disagree with you must their for have no ideals.

I find it surprising that someone who seems to take the issue of racism as seriously as you do allow yourself to have such bigoted viewpoints.

your English is bad

blah blah blah blah

Anonymous wrote:
YOU referred to them as socialistic, which means that YOU bought into the lie.

No that was the reason for the quotes around the world socialistic, to denote that I was using the word to describes the problem Obama was having doe to his recent comments. Not what I thought of them.

In modern English use, the use of quotes in this manner denotes that what is quoted should be taken lightly and not at face value.

Spin

Anonymous wrote:
your English is bad

Your reasoning skills and communication skills are bad; but to each his own.

Anonymous wrote:
Spin

ok

more spin

Anonymous wrote:
more spin

Exactly: so are you old enough to vote in this election or will you need to wait until the next one? I find the level of interesting among school agreed children in this election to be promising.

I see; I do not agree with you that Americans do not form ideals for reasons established through reason and logic.

I would agree that a large portion pick their president through popularity and not through the use of their ideals or reason and logic. I would further attribute this trait to all humans in general not just Americans.

I would also say that I get your point about my comments, but you know as well as I do that gun control, patriotism and pro-war sentiment are all things associated with the Republican party. They are also things held (generally) in high esteem by members of the Southern states.

Anti-gun control; patriotism and pro-war sentiment I would agree are platform points of the republican party.

I would question your idea about the homogenize nature Southern States; like most places in the US Southern States are diverse places with many different and often conflicting ideals amongst people. It just so happens that in Southern States the majority of the people agree with the same sentiments the republican parties does, and so when it comes time to vote the republican party comes out ahead there. It not by a land slide.

Equally in the north east and west cost the majority of people agree with the sentiments of the Democratic party; but there are people here who would regard Anti-gun control; patriotism and pro-war good ideals.

The US is a much more diverse place then our popular entertainment media portrays; often times our popular entertainment media magnifies the silly and crazy aspects of a culter for entrainment value.

I would also disagree with your underling point that Anti-gun control; patriotism and pro-war sentiment are not come to through reasons established through reason and logic. These issues are complex and one could easily make an argument through reason and logic why they are ideal.

When you discount viewpoints different then your own you cause your self to not fully understand them. It is good practice to always assume a differing view point is legitimate and force your self to find legitimate reasons to disagree with them.

Here’s my reason. Obama is promising change, and so far, he’s an honest guy. His views are new, fresh, and a breath of fresh air from the stale republican side of life. I think MOST (not all) Americans are sick of the way our country’s being run, and John McCain just doesn’t have any new, original ideas. Personally, if Bush had not been elected a second time, (stupid move on our part), then John McCain might just be winning now. Also, McCain’s age has a LOT to do with it, and also picking Sarah Palin, who is like 70 times more inexperienced than Obama apparently is, as his running mate. This is just my view on this though.

Da⌐11 wrote:
It is not clear that Obama is the superior candidate: he may be the superior candidate in your opinion based on your own ideals in life. But those ideals and opinions do not translate to all Americans. To many people for legitimate reason he is not the superior candidate and so they will not vote for him. Even now he is coming under pressure doe to “socialistic” comments he has made recently. This is having an effect on his momentum and could be the thing that losses the election for him. This issue has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the average Americans views on a more socialist viewpoint on government. In the past the US did not embrace such ideals and for a candidate to have stronger ties to these types of ideals then the average American does it questions his superiority as a candidate but for a legitimate non-racial reason.

You are one of the most intelligent people on this website, I don’t mean that as an insult against anyone else, but I just have to say you are extremely bright!

*Bellatrix* wrote:
Here’s my reason. Obama is promising change, and so far, he’s an honest guy. His views are new, fresh, and a breath of fresh air from the stale republican side of life. I think MOST (not all) Americans are sick of the way our country’s being run, and John McCain just doesn’t have any new, original ideas. Personally, if Bush had not been elected a second time, (stupid move on our part), then John McCain might just be winning now. Also, McCain’s age has a LOT to do with it, and also picking Sarah Palin, who is like 70 times more inexperienced than Obama apparently is, as his running mate. This is just my view on this though.

Obama is not an honest guy, sorry that’s just not true. He has a history of dishonesty that people should look at before they decide. One such example is his campaign finance promise that he broke.

Another example would be that he said that he would have voted for a bill in Illinois that gave medical rights to babies born alive after a failed abortion if the bill had been written in the same language as the federal bill, but in fact the bill he voted against was written in the same language as the federal bill because he himself had helped to write it, but then he voted against it. His campaign even admitted that he lied about the issue.

Those are just two examples, but there are a host of other lies, so honest…no way.

I also think that you are wrong about Sarah Palin…. seriously look at how long Obama has been in the Senate compared to the two years he’s been running for the White House and he doesn’t have a large record, his actual record is razor thin. Look for yourself.

Palin on the other hand as a Governor has done more with her time in office and has a very good and extensive record.

But here’s the big difference she’s not running for the Presidency….she’s running for Vice President.

McCain has the experiance and the judgement America needs…and he doesn’t want to raise taxes during difficult economic times. He is also willing to work with Democrats, Republicans and Independants….and that is a NEW IDEA….to many in Washington only work along Party lines…and that has to be stopped.

Giving the Dems power of the House, Senate and White House would be a truly scary thing for our Country and the only way to stop that is to vote McCain who brings everyone to the table.

Country First is more than just a slogan…it’s McCain’s history.

So many posts, like this one, over the past few weeks, has made me finally write this http://help.com/post/212225-democrats…

country first- obama

Why is Obama winning against Mccain on all of the polls?

This no doubt has a lot to do with it …

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/2…

artical wrote:
(CNN) — You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word. Watch Campbell Brown on Obama’s campaign financing »

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It’s funny though, those attacks never really materialized.iReport.com: Your chance to ask Obama a question

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama’s own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama’s financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, “a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue — who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now.”

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign’s final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

and this too …

artical wrote:
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama’s accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama’s finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

“They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in,” said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. “I think they’ve made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn’t outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront.”

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their “extensive back-end review” has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation’s war chest. “I’m pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you’d find we’re doing very well,” said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. “I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud.”

The Obama team’s disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama’s FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor’s name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama’s campaign replied in an e-mail: “Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…

for the above artical

What strikes me is that all the various polls are so all over the map. Most of them seem so different then the others. It also strikes me that the polls were wrong in 2000 and 2004. Another thing that I am noticing is that Obama hasn’t really been gaining, though that’s what is being reported. He has pretty much just held steading with a slight drop here and there. Me, I’m no expert, but I think the polls aren’t showing an accurate accout of where the race stands, especially in Ohio. My husband was just there last week and he saw a sea of McCain-Palin signs, I’ve also heard that from others in Ohio, they are boggled by the polls showing Obama in the lead there when throughout the State there’s more support of McCain.

Why is Obama winning against Mccain on all of the polls?

Nearly three-quarters — 73 percent — of MSNBC’s reports on McCain were deemed negative, compared to 57 percent in the media overall. Just 14 percent of the channel’s Obama stories were negative, compared to 29 percent in the rest of the media. [b]In the week of Sept. 8, when McCain was enjoying a post-convention bounce, MSNBC’s negative stories on the Republican nominee outweighed positive stories by more than 7 to 1.[/b]

At Fox, 40 percent of the coverage of Obama was negative, while 40 percent of the McCain coverage was negative.

http://journalism.org/files/u29/1lead…

That says a lot Da, I was just told on another post that there wasn’t any pro-Obama media coverage, which of course I know isn’t true.

Fizz wrote:
What strikes me is that all the various polls are so all over the map. Most of them seem so different then the others. It also strikes me that the polls were wrong in 2000 and 2004. Another thing that I am noticing is that Obama hasn’t really been gaining, though that’s what is being reported. He has pretty much just held steading with a slight drop here and there. Me, I’m no expert, but I think the polls aren’t showing an accurate accout of where the race stands, especially in Ohio. My husband was just there last week and he saw a sea of McCain-Palin signs, I’ve also heard that from others in Ohio, they are boggled by the polls showing Obama in the lead there when throughout the State there’s more support of McCain.

There is a significant problem with polls (and this is not relevant to this presidential election, but all elections in general).

Pollsters do not have any good way of predicting those people who will in fact vote on the 4th. They try to predict by asking a question “how likely are you to vote in the election” before asking their other questions, but that’s not very accurate, because people can answer all different ways for all different reasons.

This is why different polls don’t match each other, and why on election day the real results don’t match the polls.

You also have a problem we pollster bias, questioner bias, and question receiver bias.