Fox gives McCain an 82% win over Obama in the latest debate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:00 pm

If the economy hadn't tanked, they'd likely be in a dead heat. It takes a total financial collapse for Americans to realize Republican policies are bankrupt *and* ignore the culture war. Fortunately the newest generation of voters were solidly Dem even before the financial crisis, and of course the oldest generation are in rapid attrition, so the future looks bright.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:46 am

Mulu wrote:the last few weeks show him to be an... ambitious and reckless grandstander concerned only with his own career.

Specifically? If this is a reference to negative ads, then:

OBAMA: "One hundred percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them — have been negative."

THE FACTS: The statement is mostly true when it comes to McCain's current commercial spots. But by saying McCain's ads "have been" 100 percent negative, Obama ventures into misleading territory. A recent study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that in the first week of October "nearly 100 percent" of McCain's ads were negative. The study also reported, however, that to date 73 percent of McCain's ads have been negative and that 61 percent of Obama's ads have been negative.

McCAIN: "Sen. Obama is spending unprecedented amounts of money in negative attack ads on me."

THE FACTS: Obama is spending unprecedented amounts of money on ads, period — negative or otherwise. Obama is outspending McCain and the Republican Party by more than 2-to-1 in presidential ads. At one point in August, 90 percent of the ads Obama was airing were against McCain. The study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project found that about 34 percent of Obama's ads are now negative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_ ... jb61Jh24cA

Frankly, I think you should be more concerned about Obama's flip on public financing. He's buying his way into the white house.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:27 am

ç i p h é r wrote: Frankly, I think you should be more concerned about Obama's flip on public financing. He's buying his way into the white house.

If he is, then it's with money given to him by the people of the US.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:37 am

ç i p h é r wrote:Frankly, I think you should be more concerned about Obama's flip on public financing. He's buying his way into the white house.

Frankly, i think people should be more concerned about the real issues affecting them, rather than how either campaign spends the money donated to them (unless it comes out that they went out and bought yachts or something with it all).

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:02 am

Mayhem wrote:
ç i p h é r wrote: Frankly, I think you should be more concerned about Obama's flip on public financing. He's buying his way into the white house.
If he is, then it's with money given to him by the people of the US.

How dare Obama take donations from Joe the Plummer & Suzie Housecoat. Republicans know the only fair way to buy the Whitehouse is with Lobbyist money & Corporate kickbacks.

Damn cheater, you just can't buy an election like you used to

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:44 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:
Mulu wrote:the last few weeks show him to be an... ambitious and reckless grandstander concerned only with his own career.
Specifically?

In truth I could easily just reference his entire campaign, but if you want specifics, in no particular order and off the top of my head:

- Hate rallies
- Choosing the obviously incompetent Sarah Palin as his running mate, something that intellectual conservatives are excoriating him over. ( “I only visit pro-american states..." ) My gods, what a ****. She actually calls anyone who doesn't agree with her a "hater." Yeah, that's bipartisanship.
- Hate rallies
- "Suspending" his campaign (which he didn't actually do).
- Hate rallies
- Pretending only he could save the bail out package, and then blaming the Democrats when it was his own party that rejected it.
- Hate rallies
- Not just "negative" advertising, but advertising that tries to demonize Obama as a terrorist. Negative advertising is "He's going to raise your taxes." Fine, whatever, standard stuff. Demonizing advertising is, "he pals around with terrorists." There's a big difference, one that Colin Powell noted in his endorsement, and many others have noted as well, including long time Republicans. It doesn't belong in our political discourse, not from the campaign itself that's for sure. McCain may not be able to control the fringe, but he sure as heck can control himself. Oh wait, I guess my point was that he *can't* control himself... he *is* reckless and short-sighted, and that is precisely why he is unfit to be the Commander in Chief.

ç i p h é r wrote:Frankly, I think you should be more concerned about Obama's flip on public financing. He's buying his way into the white house.

First off, he didn't flip. He said he would *negotiate* using public funds only. It was a very quick negotiation.

Second, as others have pointed out, there are few things more Democratic than getting campaign contributions from average US citizens rather than rich and powerful people who expect something in return. I suspect those US citizens expect something in return too: Competent governance. That's a good thing to want, and something McCain simply could not deliver on given all the special interests he would have to satisfy and his own hyper-Hawkish beliefs. McCain = War with Iran, 100% guaranteed. That alone should lose the election, but there are so many other reasons to vote against him, and so many reasons to vote for Obama, that I suspect we're looking at a landslide.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:45 pm

If Obama was white it would be a landslide but I think this election will end up a lot closer than it should be, purely because of his race.

Now that McCain is trying to brand Obama as a Socialist (aka Red Commie) it'll be curious to see just how ugly this will get before it's over. Pay no attention to them giving away $700 Billion in a massive socialist bailout and are talking of more socialist action by investing in banks

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:54 pm

The race does seem to be tightening in national polls, yet the electoral map continues to favor Obama more and more. He doesn't have to win a state by 10% to get it's electoral votes, he just has to win. At this point, according to the site I trust the most, states in which Obama has a 10% or greater lead totals 264 electoral votes, out of 270 necessary to win. For McCain, his total for states with a 10% or better lead is 137 electoral votes. Those are the states the candidates can basically "bank" this close to the election. Of the remainder, Obama obviously only needs 6 electoral votes to win, vs McCain's need for 133.... Even the GOP biased RealClearPolitics has Obama banking 249 vs McCain's 137, so a need to get 21 vs 133.

With the election just two weeks away, it's going to take more than a trend reversal to change the outcome, it's going to take a complete upset. Anything is possible, but the money is on the horse that's a full lap ahead.

Brokenbone · Post by **Brokenbone** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:02 pm

Just re: Fox, my Dad's 61, Canadian, but pretty right wing. Loves CNN, Fox, all those silly "how do we fill 24-hours-with-news?" format type channels.

It's only in the last few weeks that he realized "wow, Fox is kind of biased", going bananas over any opportunity they could get to either (a) trash Democrats / Liberals or (b) praise Republican / Conservatives. All with their "fair and balanced" motto, which apparently sounds better when shouted and the speaker's jumping up and down.

Anyhow, it was funny... welcome to 5 yrs ago, when everyone else knew that, Dad. Still, it disturbed him that there's obviously a lot of people out there who take that channel for gospel, heh. Oh well!

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:30 pm

I think I need your dad to talk to my dad, though at least I finally got my aunt to come back to reality. She now pretends she never believed Fox News.

Brokenbone · Post by **Brokenbone** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:38 pm

He brought up his disbelief in the context of having sent some pro-Obama email as a joke to his sister, who is the trophy wife of a big business Republican dude in the Midwest.

It meant he got all kinds of wacko nutjob forwards where theres like, photoshops of Obama hugging Osama and whatnot, claiming he's helping train terrorists or other completely ludicrous stuff. Yeah, secretly between campaign stops he's flying over there and shooting off rifles with jihadists. Somehow it all got him on the topic of Fox News, which might've somehow been quoted or praised somehow in the nutjob forwards. Silly stuff. Unfortunately, taken for truth by a certain wacko segment.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:55 am

MorbidKate wrote:If Obama was white it would be a landslide but I think this election will end up a lot closer than it should be, purely because of his race.

Another untoward remark from a so called progressive.

Now that McCain is trying to brand Obama as a Socialist (aka Red Commie) it'll be curious to see just how ugly this will get before it's over.

Let me help you with your slurs. That's pinko commie.

Oh well. There seems to be no middle in this country anymore nor any sense of moderation within the majority. When people are unrelenting in their support for a candidate who claims will restore fairness to a system that has become exceedingly unfair but then delivers historic levels of inequity in campaign fund raising, we're officially headed toward the same kind of excesses we witnessed the last few years but under a different brand.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:52 am

ç i p h é r wrote: Oh well. There seems to be no middle in this country anymore nor any sense of moderation within the majority. When people are unrelenting in their support for a candidate who claims will restore fairness to a system that has become exceedingly unfair but then delivers historic levels of inequity in campaign fund raising, we're officially headed toward the same kind of excesses we witnessed the last few years but under a different brand.

That doesn't seem like a very good comparison. In the race for president, there is a winner and a loser, but that doesn't mean we have to run our country like there has to be winners and losers even though we know that is how it will turn out.

Also, in terms of campaign funding, you need to look at the nature of the inequality. The republican candidate is relying on public funds. The democratic candidate is relying on a very broad base of mostly small donations. Sure one is getting more than the other, but which one is more participatory?

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:03 am

ç i p h é r wrote:Another untoward remark from a so called progressive.

Lulz. Even the well respected David Gergen has stated race is costing Obama about 6 points. Are you seriously trying to say race isn't an issue in this election? The GOP has been trying since day 1.

Let me help you with your slurs. That's pinko commie.

Have you seen the latest stickers being handed out at McCain events today? They say "Obama for Change" and display both a Hammer & Sickle as well as a Muslim Crescent. Sweet stuff. Damn socialist bastard should have let the banks fail instead of doing what was needed to keep millions of Americans employed and in their homes. Let the market decide their fate

When people are unrelenting in their support for a candidate who claims will restore fairness to a system that has become exceedingly unfair but then delivers historic levels of inequity in campaign fund raising

You mean average American citizens (Not big oil and other corporate titans) are donating en masse to help a black guy get elected as President of the United States? Actually, I'd say that's the most positive thing that's happened to your country's social fabric since MLK.

Kate

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:01 am

fluff wrote:Sure one is getting more than the other, but which one is more participatory?

But that's largely self fulfilling. The more you advertise, the more support you'll generate. And it's not the source of the contributions that's the problem, but rather the amount that his campaign is spending. It does not resonate with his message of fairness. You make justifications because it happens to benefit your candidate in this election, but this is a precedent that will go far beyond Obama and McCain. Money should not decide elections. Issues should.

Kate, your comments don't even square. You can't have a nation of racists donating record amounts to a black candidate.

You also seem to lack any facts about the sources of contributions to both campaigns. I'll make it easy for you and link the charts:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourc ... cycle=2008

Contributions from PACs are statistically insignificant to both candidates. They account for 0.7% of all contributions made to McCain.

But whatever. I'm sure you could care less about the facts. Nobody seems to be concerned with that anymore.