Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 81

Thread: Obama v. McCain

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    "Eroding values and morals" gets tossed around as a given, but I'd be interested in evidence. Which values and morals? And since when? The beginning of the Bush administration? Clinton? Nixon? Roosevelt? Washington? Constantine? It's at least arguable that circumstances in this realm are getting better, not worse.

    To be fair, one man's moral decline may be another person's gain: the right to vote, Social Security, Medicare, Brown v. Board of Education, the ability to marry who one pleases, ...

    Should one judge McCain on the basis of his membership in the Keating Five? However the two candidates have gotten to where they are, both are certainly now honorable men (and not a socialist to be found amongst them).

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    84

    Default

    What a great 4th of July! I am so proud to be an American and the values for which it stands. I am also proud that anyone in this country, no matter what color, creed, gender or station in life upon his birth, can succeed and achieve the American Dream. Now, I look at some of the eroding values and morals and wonder what happened?

    I'm sorry, but my eyes are playing tricks on me. There must be a statement in between "American Dream TM" and "eroding values and morals..." So, what happened? Can you let us in on the fun by at least describing some? Otherwise, tremendous reading. Thanks. Happy 4th to you as well.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Updates to the Obama v. McCain electoral college projections:

    rasmussenreports.com
    • 6/25: Obama 284, McCain 240, tied 14
    • 7/3: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18


    electoral-vote.com
    • 4/27: Obama 243, McCain 269, tied 26
    • 5/11: Obama 237, McCain 290, tied 11
    • 5/31: Obama 276, McCain 238, tied 25
    • 6/12: Obama 304, McCain 221, tied 13
    • 6/24: Obama 317, McCain 194, tied 27
    • 7/5: Obama 320, McCain 218, tied 0


    Here are the electoral-vote.com changes between 6/24 and 7/5:

    Favoring Obama
    • Alaska moves from moderate McCain to weak McCain
    • Connecticut moves from weak Obama to strong Obama
    • Georgia moves from strong McCain to moderate McCain
    • Indiana moves from moderate McCain to weak Obama
    • Michigan moves from weak Obama to moderate Obama
    • Montana moves from moderate McCain to moderate Obama
    • New Hampshire moves from moderate Obama to strong Obama
    • New Jersey moves from moderate Obama to strong Obama
    • New Mexico moves from weak Obama to moderate Obama
    • Texas moves from strong McCain to moderate McCain

    Favoring McCain
    • Colorado moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Louisiana moves from moderate McCain to strong McCain
    • Minnesota moves from strong Obama to moderate Obama
    • Missouri moves from weak Obama to moderate McCain
    • Oregon moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Pennsylvania moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Wisconsin moves from strong Obama to moderate Obama

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    John,

    I wonder, too.
    I wonder how much wider the gap between rich and poor will become due to tax cuts being awarded to the richest of the rich on the backs of everybody else who, naturally must foot the bill for these tax cuts.

    I wonder how much more difficult it is becoming to “achieve the American Dream” when this gap is widening to such a significant degree.
    I wonder where we’d be today if Gore had assumed office after the 2000 election. One of Gore’s main agendas was to invest in alternative sources of energy and get off of our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, we had 8 years under a president whose family’s wealth was built on oil and who, along with other members of his administration has continued to profit off of that dependence.

    I wonder how Gore would have responded to 9/11 and if he would have so swiftly dismissed all of the offers of help & support from virtually every country on the planet, the way that Bush did. The outpouring of sympathy, support and condolences for the United States from all corners of the globe was unprecedented, presenting Bush with an extremely rare opportunity to unite much of the world with a common cause, and he walked away from it.
    I wonder if we would have lost so many of our friends around the world if Bush hadn’t felt the need to express his macho side.

    I wonder if, with the aid of these former friends, we would have cornered bin Laden years ago and been able to put a huge dent in the spread of terrorism throughout the world, with the cooperation of so many nations whose help we refused.

    I wonder if the Taliban would be regrouping in Afghanistan as they are, and profiting off of the drug trade as they are, if Bush had finished what he’d started there before chasing after Sadam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

    I wonder if Gore would have been as quick to turn a multi-billion dollar surplus into one of the largest deficits in our history, as Bush did.

    I wonder why some people bash the Democrats for their “tax & spend” policies, but don’t seem to notice or don’t seem to care about the “borrow & spend” policies of this administration and how much damage this is doing to us and future generations of Americans.
    I wonder why Republicans are perceived as proponents of smaller government, when the current administration has increased its size to historic levels.

    I wonder why McCain would be so supportive of Bush.
    I wonder if McCain would continue the same policies as Bush.
    I wonder why anyone would consider taking that risk.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    the gap between rich and poor
    John Flaherty nails it by hinging his post around the wealth gap. As I see it, a (and perhaps the) fundamental mission of government must be sustainability, including economic sustainability. I can't prove it (maybe others have), but a core belief of mine is that too wide a gap between the haves and have nots threatens our sustainability.

    History continues to show, in Winston Churchill's words, that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (House of Commons speech, Nov. 11, 1947) Democracies that embrace free markets arguably fare the best of all.

    Even free market democracies will fail, however, if they don't lay a foundation of sustainability. In addition to lasting economic success and its underpinnings in education, we need to protect our human rights, our health, our sovereignty, and our environment. Only government (and certainly not corporations when left solely to their own devices) has the capacity to deliver this protection, but it can't be just any government.

    The election this November is about choosing a government that's up to the task.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default What do I do now?

    Geesh, I thought being a Jewish, college-educated woman my vote was a lock for Obama. But what do I do about the cats?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Smile Hmm

    Cat's, that explains a great deal.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default The Income Gap?

    As a way of introduction, the “income gap” grew faster in the Clinton years according to US Census data: Wealthiest 5 % rose from 18.6 to 22.1 – an increase of 19%. During Bush’s administration the wealthiest 5% has grown from 22.1% to 22.3 % - a rise of LESS THAN 1%. So much for Bush favoring the wealthy.

    As I look around and see who has achieved wealth and who has not I am struck by how one’s decisions in life or lack of good decisions affect income. I have also known folks from disadvantaged backgrounds who became millionaires and others who graduated from good schools from well-to-do-families that can barely support themselves. It is up to the individual not government to pave your life's road. This is the difference in thinking between Conservatives and Liberals.

    You do have to work hard, make the right decisions and have a fire-in-the-belly to obtain the American Dream. But so much for my thoughts let’s look at facts:

    A November 13, 2007 Wall Street Journal article titled Movin’ On Up discusses some of the findings in a U.S. Income Mobility Study conducted by the Treasury Department

    The Treasury study had a sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. They tracked these tax filers over this 10-year period. What did they find? Nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile! America is the land of opportunity!

    Those in the 2nd lowest income quintile - about 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is an upward mobility my friends, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years. Wow!

    In ten years almost 60% of those who started out in the lowest income group in 1996 had made use of the opportunities afforded them in the United States to significantly improve their circumstances by 2005, with 25% of them having risen to the middle and upper-middle income quintiles, and with around 5% having completely reached the top of the income strata. So rather than a stagnant group of people trapped in poverty, as the liberals would like us to believe, we have clear evidence of a dynamic economic system which affords a myriad of opportunity for everyone to improve their lot in life if they so choose. If they so choose. Yes, if they so choose. It is up to the individual – not government to determine how far up the ladder you go.

    I’m reminded of a quote of Ronald Reagan, “Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”

    America is truly the land of opportunity for every American.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO View Post
    As a way of introduction, the “income gap” grew faster in the Clinton years according to US Census data: Wealthiest 5 % rose from 18.6 to 22.1 – an increase of 19%. During Bush’s administration the wealthiest 5% has grown from 22.1% to 22.3 % - a rise of LESS THAN 1%. So much for Bush favoring the wealthy.
    Without showing the full set of data, this narrow sliver doesn't mean much. How about the richest 1%? How about the bottom 50%? Bottom 20%? The key question is, are people gaining ground, particularly those at the lower end of the range.

    Given the disastrous economy that's coincided with the Bush presidency, it *may* simply be that the wealth of the wealthy is waiting on the launching pad for a huge lift-off. I don't know, I'm not an economist, I'm just suggesting that there's more to the story here.

    The stock market, housing, gasoline prices, I just don't see a "jumping up and down with joy" economic moment here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO View Post
    As I look around and see who has achieved wealth and who has not I am struck by how one’s decisions in life or lack of good decisions affect income. I have also known folks from disadvantaged backgrounds who became millionaires and others who graduated from good schools from well-to-do-families that can barely support themselves. It is up to the individual not government to pave your life's road. This is the difference in thinking between Conservatives and Liberals.
    This is a ludicrous suggestion. Yes, there may be some liberals somewhere who believe this, but I'm liberal, and I'm all for personal responsibility. Plus, on the left-right spectrum about what government funds, we're not talking about diametrical opposition, we're talking about shades on a continuum. John, are you for Social Security? Medicare and Medicaid? The military? If I'm not mistaken, the government chips in a few bucks for each of these programs.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO View Post
    A November 13, 2007 Wall Street Journal article titled Movin’ On Up discusses some of the findings in a U.S. Income Mobility Study conducted by the Treasury Department

    The Treasury study had a sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. They tracked these tax filers over this 10-year period. What did they find? Nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile! America is the land of opportunity!

    Those in the 2nd lowest income quintile - about 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is an upward mobility my friends, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years. Wow!
    Maybe my math is faulty here, but don't the numbers moving up in quintiles equal the numbers moving down? And isn't this something of a red herring relative to improvements or declines in standard of living?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Updates to the Obama v. McCain electoral college projections:

    rasmussenreports.com
    • 6/25: Obama 284, McCain 240, tied 14
    • 7/3: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18
    • 7/11: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18 [no change]


    electoral-vote.com
    • 4/27: Obama 243, McCain 269, tied 26
    • 5/11: Obama 237, McCain 290, tied 11
    • 5/31: Obama 276, McCain 238, tied 25
    • 6/12: Obama 304, McCain 221, tied 13
    • 6/24: Obama 317, McCain 194, tied 27
    • 7/5: Obama 320, McCain 218, tied 0
    • 7/16: Obama 320, McCain 204, tied 14


    A chart from electoral-vote.com going back a bit farther, and showing the 2004 Bush-Kerry contest, is here.

    Here are the electoral-vote.com changes between 7/5 and 7/16:

    Favoring Obama
    • Iowa moves from moderate Obama to strong Obama
    • Minnesota moves from moderate Obama to strong Obama
    • Missouri moves from moderate McCain to neutral
    • North Dakota moves from moderate McCain to neutral
    • South Dakota moves from strong McCain to weak McCain

    Favoring McCain
    • North Carolina moves from weak McCain to moderate McCain
    • Washington moves from strong Obama to moderate Obama

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Updates to the Obama v. McCain electoral college projections:

    rasmussenreports.com
    • 6/25: Obama 284, McCain 240, tied 14
    • 7/3: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18
    • 7/11: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18 [no change]
    • 7/22: Obama 273, McCain 227, tied 38 [Ohio shifted from Obama to tied]


    electoral-vote.com
    • 4/27: Obama 243, McCain 269, tied 26
    • 5/11: Obama 237, McCain 290, tied 11
    • 5/31: Obama 276, McCain 238, tied 25
    • 6/12: Obama 304, McCain 221, tied 13
    • 6/24: Obama 317, McCain 194, tied 27
    • 7/5: Obama 320, McCain 218, tied 0
    • 7/16: Obama 320, McCain 204, tied 14
    • 7/24: Obama 292, McCain 192, tied 54


    A chart from electoral-vote.com going back a bit farther, and showing the 2004 Bush-Kerry contest, is here.

    Here are the electoral-vote.com changes between 7/16 and 7/24:

    Favoring Obama
    • Colorado moves from weak Obama to moderate Obama
    • Florida moves from moderate McCain to neutral
    • Nevada moves from weak McCain to weak Obama
    • North Carolina moves from moderate McCain to weak McCain
    • Oregon moves from weak Obama to moderate Obama
    • Washington moves from moderate Obama to strong Obama

    Favoring McCain
    • Alaska moves from weak McCain to moderate McCain
    • Arkansas moves from moderate McCain to strong McCain
    • New Hampshire moves from strong Obama to weak Obama
    • Ohio moves from weak Obama to moderate McCain
    • Virginia moves from weak Obama to neutral


    --------------------
    Note: The electoral-vote.com mapping algorithm results in a map that may not appear to agree with the most recent poll. This happens because the site averages all recent polls within a week, and because margin of error varies by poll. I infer from recent poll data that my "strong," "moderate," "weak," and "tied" characterization map to the following poll results.

    • Strong: margin greater than 10%
    • Moderate: margin between 5-10%
    • Weak: margin between 2-5%
    • Tied: margin between 0-1%
    Last edited by Jeff Dieffenbach; 07-25-2008 at 08:31 AM. Reason: Elaboration on margins

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default Electoral Vote projection, update 8/4

    Updates to the Obama v. McCain electoral college projections:

    rasmussenreports.com
    • 6/25: Obama 284, McCain 240, tied 14
    • 7/3: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18
    • 7/11: Obama 293, McCain 227, tied 18 [no change]
    • 7/22: Obama 273, McCain 227, tied 38 [Ohio shifted from Obama to tied] (no updated since last post)


    electoral-vote.com
    • 4/27: Obama 243, McCain 269, tied 26
    • 5/11: Obama 237, McCain 290, tied 11
    • 5/31: Obama 276, McCain 238, tied 25
    • 6/12: Obama 304, McCain 221, tied 13
    • 6/24: Obama 317, McCain 194, tied 27
    • 7/5: Obama 320, McCain 218, tied 0
    • 7/16: Obama 320, McCain 204, tied 14
    • 7/24: Obama 292, McCain 192, tied 54
    • 8/4: Obama 316, McCain 209, tied 13


    My chart of the electoral-vote.com trend is attached. Time is plotted on the x-axis. The y-axis shows total electoral votes (538). The horizontal dotted line shows the 270 needed to win. If blue shows above the dotted line, Obama is leading. If red shows below the dotted line, McCain is leading. States that are tied are indicated by yellow. Darker blue or red represents stronger support.

    A chart from electoral-vote.com going back a bit farther, and showing the 2004 Bush-Kerry contest, is here.

    Here are the electoral-vote.com changes between 7/24 and 8/4:

    Favoring Obama
    • Florida moves from neutral weak Obama
    • Ohio moves from moderate McCain to weak McCain
    • Pennsylvania moves from weak Obama to moderate Obama

    Favoring McCain
    • Colorado moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Iowa moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Michigan moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Minnesota moves from moderate Obama to weak Obama
    • Mississippi moves from moderate McCain to strong McCain
    • Missouri moves from neutral to moderate McCain
    • Montana moves from moderate Obama to weak McCain
    • North Dakota moves from neutral to weak McCain
    • South Carolina moves from moderate McCain to strong McCain


    --------------------
    Note: The electoral-vote.com mapping algorithm results in a map that may not appear to agree with the most recent poll. This happens because the site averages all recent polls within a week, and because margin of error varies by poll. I infer from recent poll data that my "strong," "moderate," "weak," and "tied" characterization map to the following poll results.

    • Strong: margin greater than 10%
    • Moderate: margin between 5-10%
    • Weak: margin between 2-5%
    • Tied: margin between 0-1%
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Jeff Dieffenbach; 08-04-2008 at 06:53 AM. Reason: Added attachment

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default McCain surging at just the right time

    Saturday, August 16, 2008

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 43% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included:
    Obama 46% and McCain 45%

    The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows:
    Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes.
    When leaners are included:
    Obama 273, McCain 227.

    As more folks discover that Obama stands for Socialism and he has no discernable experience they are flocking to McCain. Previous Democrats had better leads than Obama does now.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO View Post
    Obama stands for Socialism
    I suspect that serious conservatives would be underwhelmed by the lack of sophistication in this curious (and demonstrably false) assertion.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •