Thursday, September 18, 2008

Californians Prefer Marriage Equality

We've got our nuts here in our little suburban county, who'd be surprised to find out that California has them, too? The ones in that state managed to put an initiative on the November ballot to prohibit marriage between people of the same sex. But a recent poll is suggesting that the idea doesn't have a lot of support. There is an interesting twist to this article from a local paper out there, the Press-Enterprise.
A ballot initiative that would end same-sex marriage in California continues to face significant opposition among likely voters, a new poll indicates.

A Field Poll survey released today found that 38 percent of likely voters support Prop. 8. In July, 42 percent of those surveyed backed the measure.

Fifty-five percent of likely voters oppose Prop. 8, an increase from 51 percent who opposed it in July. The percentage of undecided voters remains at 7 percent.

The shifting numbers in today's poll seem to reflect, in part, the effects of changes made to the measure's ballot title and summary by Attorney General Jerry Brown earlier this summer.

Prop. 8's title initially was "Limit on Marriage." Its summary described the initiative as providing that only marriages between a man and a woman would be "valid or recognized in California."

Brown's office changed the title to "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." Officials said the wording better described what the initiative would do, although proponents alleged that the new description was biased and unsuccessfully tried to block it in court.

The wording change has increased opposition to the measure among voters who do not follow the issue closely, poll Director Mark DiCamillo said.

" 'Eliminates the right' -- those three words, no matter what you say after that, most people support preserving rights. Those words have a negative drag for those voters," he said. Field Poll: Opposition grows to initiative that would ban gay marriage

Yes, isn't that great? Americans do not like the idea of eliminating anybody's rights. I'll bet the nuts went crazy when that wording got changed.

Tell me, why should it be the government's job to tell people who they can and can't marry? And I'm scratching my head here, thinking about people who call themselves conservatives. They like small government, don't they? I mean, they've got to be loving the success we had running our financial institutions without regulation, letting the free market prove itself. The conservatives in power have stopped enforcing food-quality laws, environmental protection laws, they've learned to ignore scraps of paper like the Bill of Rights, Congressional subpoenas, and the Geneva Conventions -- but these very same people think it is necessary for the government to choose who somebody can marry. Can somebody explain that to me?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, isn't that great? Americans do not like the idea of eliminating anybody's rights."

Well, it's a biased way to word it and reflects Brown's desire to cater to the gay voter in his stronghold Bay Area.

You could rephrase virutally any proposition this way.

Say, the government passed a bill bringing back debtors' prison. What if citizens tried to overturn this? The government could name a ballot to overturn, "Eliminate the right of creditors to incarcerate their debtors."

Kind of slanted, huh?

Allowing this gives the governemnt power to eliminate ballots.

The title should be specified by those who collected the petition.

"Tell me, why should it be the government's job to tell people who they can and can't marry? And I'm scratching my head here,"

Because the government is the one issuing the license. When people say they want same sex marriage, what they mean is they want the government to endorse it.

You argument seems equally valid for incest, under-age, multiple, transpecies and virtually any other type of relationship. Should government simply endorse these things blindly?

Your arguments and your views are fallacious.

September 18, 2008 9:28 AM  
Blogger Patrick Meighan said...

"You argument seems equally valid for incest, under-age, multiple, transpecies and virtually any other type of relationship."

You forgot "interracial".

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

September 18, 2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read about a guy once in India who married a monkey. It didn't seem to hurt anything, and didn't start any monkey-love craze. Just because you can think of absurd and weird things that people would do if they had freedom, isn't an argument against freedom.

September 18, 2008 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You forgot "interracial"."

No, I didn't. Color of skin has no more bearing than height, weight, hair color, eye shade.

Gender, however, is relevant to the type of relationship.

"I read about a guy once in India who married a monkey. It didn't seem to hurt anything, and didn't start any monkey-love craze. Just because you can think of absurd and weird things that people would do if they had freedom, isn't an argument against freedom."

Rest of you TTFers agree?

September 18, 2008 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You argument seems equally valid for incest, under-age, multiple, transpecies and virtually any other type of relationship. Should government simply endorse these things blindly?

You really are an ignorant yutz, aren't you?

The reason the wording of the California referendum was changed was because between the time it was submitted and the time it was finalized, the California Supreme Court ruled that gays have the right to marry under the California Constitution. You may not like that decision, but it was made and it is done.

Thus, since there is, as we speak, a "right to marry" in California, the effect of the referendum would be to take away that right. Pretty clear, I think.

There is no "right" to any of the other things you attempt to link with gay marriage. So no, actually, your analogy pretty much sucks.

You don't appear to be a stupid person. You can put sentences together that make a certain degree of sense. But you spout regurgitated right-wing nonsense without any clue as to whether what you're saying actually applies or makes any sense in the situation under discussion.

In this day and age, it's really inexcusable not to at least try to get your facts right. Google is your friend.

September 18, 2008 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea..Bea...Bea, are you out there?

Turns out Obama's in some hot water.

He's received big-time contributions from some our favorite bankrupt friends. I knew you want to know since you so concerned and knowledgeable about the banking industry :

"Barack Obama largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

The federal takeover of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae may stabilize the economy and help the housing industry.

But some politicians could take a hit too, most particularly Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Individuals who list their employers as one of the two entities, plus political action committees formed by the government-sponsored firms that own or guarantee half the nation's mortgages, have donated $4.3 million to federal elected officials and their various campaign committees since 2005.

Obama is the recipient of the largest individual money, at $111,849, according to federal campaign finance reports compiled by Times researcher Maloy Moore."

That's sad.

We'll have to tell FOX news.

MSNBC will try to sweep this under the rug.

September 18, 2008 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's sad is that you only gave us part of the article, AH. We know that GOP types can only deal with paratial truths, but you take the cake.

Here is what you skipped over in the original LATimes blog article published on Sept. 8, which can be read in it's entirety here.

Between the fourth and fifth paragraphs you quoted without attribution, as usual was this line:

The money has gone to both Republicans and Democrats.

The rest of the LATimes blog article reported:

One reason Obama has raised the most from the entities is that he has out-raised all other candidates, $390 million so far and counting.

The mortgage money has not influenced Obama's stands, Ben Labolt, a campaign aide asserted.

The candidate has “consistently supported stepped-up regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure that instead of....

...rewarding speculators who relied on the government to reap massive profits, taxpayers and struggling homeowners are protected,
” Labolt said.

Republican nominee John McCain has taken $16,400 from Freddie and Fannie employees since 2005. But the groups have had an in with him. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is past president of the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group whose members included Freddie and Fannie. In that role, he defended them against increased regulation.

Democratic and Republican committees set up to fund congressional and Senate races are the biggest recipients. Freddie PAC, Fannie PAC and their employees have given $171,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and $123,000 to the Republican Senate committee since 2005.

Other major individual recipients include House Republican Leader John Boehner and his political action committee, $71,750; Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and his PAC, $62,500; and Senate leader Harry Reid and his PAC, $61,000.

Hillary Rodham Clinton took $56,100 and Christopher Dodd took $53,450.

Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, brought up the rear during the period reviewed, receiving just one donation from one Freddie employee of $500. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is Freddie- and Fannie-free, having never run for federal office.

-- Dan Morain

September 18, 2008 3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You seem to think every time someone posts an article, they need to follow an all or nothing policy.

The relevant point is al-Boma received more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other candidate- by a long, long shot.

al-Boma represents politics as usual and to make sure everyone knows that, he picked Joe Biden to be a heartbeat away from history.

That would be embarassing for the American people.

That's the headline for tomorrow.

September 18, 2008 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The the LATimes blog points out that Obama has recieved the most contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while McCain has received few. And yet the strange facts of this matter are that Fannie and Freddie have an in with McBush's Campaign Manager Rick Davis, who has defended both lenders from additional regulation; and in spite of the contributions received, Obama has long supported regulations to protect homeowners.

Tell us, Thornton, how many regulations on these two giants has McShame supported??

Uh, they've had 10 "tomorrows" since publishing this article. I think your assertion that That's the headline for tomorrow might be a little off. (eye roll)

September 18, 2008 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama took over 100K from this organization?

Hard to overlook that.

The American people will be outraged!

September 18, 2008 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read it again, Thornton. Employees of the two organizations willingly donated to Obama because he's the change America needs.

September 18, 2008 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah. They were willingly following the guy that was least likely to be on to them.

Anyway, republicans to the rescue:

"NEW YORK (Sept. 18) - Wall Street rallied in a stunning late-session turnaround Thursday, shooting higher and hurtling the Dow Jones industrials up 410 points following a report that the federal government may create an entity that will take over banks' bad debt.

A report that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is considering the formation of an entity like the Resolution Trust Corp. that was set up during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s left investors ebullient. Investors hoped a huge federal intervention could help financial institutions jettison bad mortgage debt and stop the drain on capital that has already taken down companies including Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc."

September 18, 2008 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a plan.

Wonder what President Barack Hussein al-Bama would have done.

September 18, 2008 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The government "might" set up an orgnization and the investors "hope." Now there's a real headline grabber!

But Thorny, the Clinton surplus was spent already so where's the money coming from to set up the RTC-like organization, from China like the rest of our government loans?

September 18, 2008 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The experts seem pretty impressed.

They're raging back into the stock markets.

More Republicans, in action. It's inspiring to see:

"President Bush seeks to reassure Americans that his administration is on top of what's emerging as the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

Eager to show that he feels people's pain, President Bush scuttled a political fundraising trip Thursday to tell the country his administration is working feverishly to calm turmoil in the financial markets.

Bush was supposed to spend the day in Alabama and Florida raising money for Republicans and talking energy policy. He canceled his trip and sent Vice President Dick Cheney to sub for him at the fundraisers to focus on the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression.

"The American people are concerned about the situation in our financial markets and our economy," Bush said. "And I share their concerns."

The tumult in financial markets and the disappearance of corporate giants have shaken people's faith in the economy. On Wall Street, the fear is that more significant financial companies will fall, causing a spillover effect within the United States and on world markets.

In brief formal remarks outside the Oval Office, Bush sought to show that the administration is moving swiftly and aggressively by taking "extraordinary measures."
The White House says the moves will help protect the broader economy and therefore everyday life. But the president used language that resonates with market analysts.

He promised that the "markets are adjusting" — a term suggesting the White House knows that a temporary correction is underway, not a sustained slide.

"The American people can be sure we will continue to act to strengthen and stabilize our financial markets and improve investor confidence," the president said.

Bush did not specify what those steps might be. White House press secretary Dana Perino said she could not comment on them, either. "That's something I'm not at liberty to talk about," she said.

The president planned to meet with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson later Thursday and stay in regular touch with other economic advisers."

September 18, 2008 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After only two years in charge of Congress, Democrats have already messed up the freakin' economy.

Thank goodness this happened while George W's still in town.


That was close.

The sheriff is taking charge.

September 18, 2008 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Anon- you must think it is funny calling Obama- "Al-Bama" but it just points out what an ignorant bigot you are. Not that we didn't know that about you already. Nice to know that your opposition doesn't just come from political issues but deep seated and long held bigotry.

September 18, 2008 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


you're a person who sees what she wants to see

and what you want to see is some pretty bad stuff

try buying some horror flicks

September 18, 2008 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Anon, Andrea nailed it, you've tipped your hand. I'd like to see any explanation you can come up with for that stupid fake-Arabic misspelling, besides you being a racist bigot.

September 18, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, now I feel bad. How could make fun of our dear leader, Barack Obama? The guy just needs to be on a pedestal.

From now on, I'm referring to him as Sir B.O.:

"ESPANOLA, N.M. (Sept. 18) - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama promised fresh ideas Thursday to calm America's financial meltdown and help struggling families avoid mortgage foreclosure, saying "this is not a time for fear, it's not a time for panic."

Obama also heaped criticism and sarcasm on Republican rival John McCain and mocked his promise to fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission if elected.

In response, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "When Barack Obama came to Washington, he chose to strengthen his ties to spiraling lenders like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and their jet-set CEOs, not make change. The American people cannot afford leadership that puts a higher premium on campaign contributions than protecting hardworking Americans."

September 18, 2008 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tonight, RealPolitics has dropped Sir B.O.'s electoral total from 207to 202.

The score now is Mac the Hero 216, Sir B.O. 202.

Here it comes
Here it comes

Here comes the September 26

at Ole Miss

don't miss it!

September 18, 2008 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you might think that's fun, making racist comments. It might be fun dragging queers behind your pickup truck, too, and painting swastikas on Jewish people's doors, that's a hoot too. And hoo boy, you'll really get a kick out of hanging nooses in black people's yards, they love that!

It's just making fun, man, everybody gets a big kick out of it.

September 18, 2008 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A key Alaska lawmaker said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses were stalling an abuse-of-power-investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, delays that could last beyond Election Day.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin initially promised full cooperation with the so-called “Troopergate” investigation and told Alaskans, “Hold me accountable.”

Before she was chosen to run on the Republican presidential ticket, Palin agreed that she and members of her staff would be be interviewed by Stephen Branchflower, appointed by the Legislature to lead the investigation.

But the Department of Law later declared that the Legislature had no authority to investigate and said it would not allow Palin and her staff to be interviewed. On Tuesday, Attorney General Talis Colberg, a Palin appointee, announced that state workers would not comply with any subpoenas. Colberg then left the state on vacation.

Wielechowski, a member of the Judiciary Committee that subpoenaed Palin’s husband and 12 members of her gubernatorial staff, accused Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign of interfering in the investigation.

“It appears that the McCain campaign is co-opting our Department of Law and basically calling the shots, and I think that’s pretty clear from some of the actions we’ve seen over the past couple of days,” Wielechowski said in an interview with NBC affiliate KTUU of Anchorage.

Palin's office said in a statement that the Department of Law, which represents the governor, “remains separate and will continue to remain separate from the presidential/vice presidential campaign.”

But Newsweek magazine reported this week that the McCain campaign had dispatched Edward O’Callaghan, a former federal prosecutor, to coordinate Palin’s legal strategy in the investigation. And Palin’s public comments on the probe have come not from her or her gubernatorial staff, but from O’Callaghan and Meghan Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign.

September 19, 2008 12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"making racist comments"

didn't make any, pal

September 19, 2008 12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, all of America is rooting for Sarah Palin, who as governor, tried her best to get a trooper fired who rode around in his car with an open bottle of beer, tasered a minor and threatened her father

September 19, 2008 12:49 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sybil said…

"I read about a guy once in India who married a monkey. It didn't seem to hurt anything, and didn't start any monkey-love craze. Just because you can think of absurd and weird things that people would do if they had freedom, isn't an argument against freedom."

"Rest of you TTFers agree?"

Absolutely. Assuming the monkey’s handwriting was legible.

September 19, 2008 1:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, all of America is NOT rooting for Palin. Feminists are appalled.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options,opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered.As she said herself of the Iraqi war, 'It was a task from God.'

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.
She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, 'Drill Drill Drill.' I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

--Eve Ensler

September 19, 2008 6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON - Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. Mr. McCain is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates “the Palin effect” was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.

The contest appears to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice presidential selections: Mr. Obama has the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll in mid-August...

September 19, 2008 6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"all of America is NOT rooting for Palin"

I was speaking specifically about the troopergate "scandal" that liberals think is so significant. It's actually a net plus for Palin.

Of course, you knew that. You're a liar.

Wow! Some ultra-feminist doesn't like Palin. Gee, I guess Palin should just wrap it up. She should never taken such a cavalier view of "endangered" polar bears.

Got any idea how many polar bears there are?

September 19, 2008 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama."


We'll see how it ends up.

Americans don't like the Democratic Congress.

In the final analysis, they want a check on a Democratic majority that appears is growing.

September 26 will be the beginning of a conversation about what they might do if they are unrestrained.

September 19, 2008 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While you were sleeping, investors around the world joined Wall Street in enthusiastic support for the Bush/McCain plan to clean up the mess the Democratic Congress has made of the mortgage industry.

"After a brutal week, stock markets around the world rally today as word spreads of a possible U.S. government plan to rescue banks from the mortgage debt meltdown. "It definitely gives investors a light at the end of the tunnel," says one analyst."

btw, poll out today shows men would prefer to watch a football game with McCain while women would prefer to watch one with Obama

September 19, 2008 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Support Marriage Equality in California.

Donate to NoOnProp8 here

September 19, 2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poll out today, taken just yesterday, shows Obama one point lead in the popular vote only lasted for one day before it disappeared. Race is now tied out 47 all.

I guess Obama's Lehman Brothers bounce only lasted until Americans figured out he hasn't a clue and we would have been up the creek if he had been President this week.

We'd have been up the creek, this week!

September 19, 2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a selective choice AH made from Real Clear Politics. Here's RealClearPolitic's summary of polls today.

In the Presidential race, Obama leads by 2-5 percentage points in 5 of the 9 polls cited. The other four polls are tied. McCain leads in none of them. The average of these results is a 2.1% Obama lead. Of course the only poll that matters will be conducted in November, but the trend is becoming clear.

Interestingly and in direct opposition to AH's claims, a Democratic Congress is supported by 3-20 percentage points in 8 of the 9 polls cited.

September 19, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As I said, I chose the only poll that included polling yesterday.

My point was the change that had taken place yesterday.

btw, there's a story in the Post about how Democrats hopes to greatly increase their majority have been greatly diminished

say what you will about Palin but one thing she has done is lock up the South for McCain

No Dem has won the Presidency in decades without making serious inroads in the South

now, McCain can focus on Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania while Barack needs to spend money buying ads everywhere

the key state was Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004

this year it's Michigan where: a Democratic governor is wildly unpopular; Obama skipped campaigning in the primary; Detroit's mayor, associated with Obama, is in the midst of a scandal; and a strong surge of volunteers for McCain among the conservatives Calvinists in western Michigan who love Sarah Palin

Obama's prospects really aren't very rosy

September 19, 2008 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that if you keep repeating a lie often enough, you'll actually start to believe it. Keep up the self-deception, AH.

September 19, 2008 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In both places where gay marriage is allowed in this country, Massachusetts and California, opposition to such unions has steadily eroded.

Why is that?


September 19, 2008 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's prospects really aren't very rosy

You're delusional. McCain is playing defense everywhere. There are at least 15 and arguably as many as 20 states where Bush won in 2004 in which McCain is having to spend money.

Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi, all are going to require some level of attention and more importantly money from the McCain campaign.

Obama doesn't have to win all of them by any stretch of the imagination. He just has to force McCain to spend time and money in some of these states.

By comparison, Obama is on defense in at most seven states: Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

IMO, I don't think Obama's at risk in more than 2-3 of the 7 above states. McCain has never actually led a poll for any sustained period in any of them.

McCain, on the other hand, trails badly in Iowa, has trailed consistently in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and the polls in Ohio, Florida and Virginia are pretty much dead even.

And I haven't even mentioned the enormous number of new voters, overwhelmingly Democrats, who are going to be voting for the first time in pretty much all of these swing states, and who are probably not being accounted for in the polling, because they don't qualify as "likely voters," not having voted before.

So you want to think things look great for McCain, go right ahead. Don't let the facts get in the way of a month and a half of warm and fuzzy feelings. But if I were you, I'd find something to distract you on November 4, because the reality is that McCain is poised for a complete meltdown at the polls.

September 19, 2008 11:21 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sybil said…

“The title should be specified by those who collected the petition.”

Absolutely, the title should say something like:

“Repeal gay marriage or you will die immediately.”


“Repeal gay marriage or you will die immediately, and there is no God.”

Or better yet…

“If you don’t repeal gay marriage on THIS BALLOT, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, you will burn in hell for all eternity!”

Yeah, the title should definitely be specified by those who collected the petitions.

September 19, 2008 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're delusional. McCain is playing defense everywhere. There are at least 15 and arguably as many as 20 states where Bush won in 2004 in which McCain is having to spend money."

This person's information is dated. The South, the Great Plains and non-coastal Western states except New Mexico and Colorado, are all locked up. All McCain really has to do is win Michigan and Obama's task becomes near impossible.

September 19, 2008 10:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home