Sunday, October 05, 2008
|
|
No Time to Go Wobbly
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
10:12 PM
|
The new Denver Post poll finds McCain and Obama tied at 44% in Colorado. Last month, Obama led by three points, 45% to 42%. The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon -- one of the firms that tends to get it right.
The press and the Democrats want everyone to believe this is a done deal, and Barack is the certain winner. If Republicans become dispirited, they figure, it'll be easier to win a race that everyone agrees is going to be close -- and they'll benefit from the "bandwagon effect," whereby people flock to go with a "winner."
But the truth is that a lot remains up in the air. Fully eight percent of Coloradans haven't made a decision yet -- and they're not alone. This last month is crucial, and as Margaret Thatcher famously said, this is no time to go wobbly.
|
|
|
Please, dear. Go take your Lithium, it will make you feel much better. And maybe an extra Ativan while you are at it. That's a good girl. |
|
Ah, the rightwing really knows how to spin the truth, dontcha now? Did Palin's position as Governor hold weight or not? Are you admitting that Palin had very little influence after all, which would lead us to question her meager experience?
OR, are you now saying that Palin's claim that she DID pass this bill is only a half lie because her influence only "might have" killed it?
Gosh, it's so confusing to follow the convoluted pathways the rightwing take in order to deny the undeniable. |
|
|
A lot can happen in a month. And as has been pointed out, the numbers & trends said that Gore would win and the numbers & trends said Kerry would win. We'll see in due course. Meanwhile, "don't go wobbly" is very sound advice. |
|
You are SHAMELESS in your accusations regarding ACORN. And wrong, of course. How very Palinesque.
In fact, the CRA was signed into law in 1977 -- over 20 years before the current crisis. The second problem with this theory is the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts. Most of the mortgage lending during the last boom came from -- mortgage lenders who aren't regulated by CRA. I explained this all in more detail here.
The CRA tried to force banks to keep from redlining neighborhoods to keep minorities out...something that I'm sure gets right wingers, like you Paul, up in arms. And the charge that ACORN was to personally benefit from the bailout? Lies.
Rep. Ellison:
"The president told the nation that the crisis is due to "the irresponsible actions of some jeopardizing the financial security of all." There are even lies circulating that blame minorities for the crisis through the Community Reinvestment Act. This is factually wrong -- and repugnantly bigoted. In fact, the root cause of the failures today is the ideological rigidity of the Bush administration, and its conservative friends in Congress and on Wall Street who oppose regulation, oversight and corporate accountability. For eight long years their mantra has been "regulation and oversight is bad" and "the free market is good."
|
|
I guess you just forgot to include the rest of the story.
"In an e-mail later, Gara clarified that he believed opposition from the Palin administration helped kill his bill, but was not solely responsible for its death."
What this says is that he was guessing as to why the bill failed.
|
|
"1. Obama used to work for ACORN, and actually had a real accomplishment there: he badgered banks into giving mortgages to subprime borrowers."
ACORN worked with CRA banks and thrifts, which issued less than 20% of subprime loans and have had a much lower default rate than the big lenders like IndyMac and Countrywide.
I don't believe that Obama actually had anything to do with mortgages while working with ACORN; he worked on voter registration.
"3. Fannie and Freddie caused the financial meltdown."
No one actually believes that. They contributed, but it would be more accurate to say that they were victims of it. They did allow themselves to be victimized.
"4. In the initial bailout package, Obama favored giving $20 billion to ACORN (eventually it was dropped)."
ACORN wasn't mentioned at all in the bill. There was a provision that would have allowed state and local governments to funnel a percentage of the profits from bailouts to a given set of organizations. ACORN could be a member of that set under certain circumstances. Republicans, who don't like the idea of state and local governments being in control of anything, protested the provision.
"In sum: Obama has blood on his hands regarding our $700 billion bailout, whether it's by ideology or by corruption or both."
No more than McCain did, in supporting the original bill and voting for the revised one.
" For the first time, I am tasting real fear for this country."
Drama queen. |
|
Stop lying.
Look at electoral-vote.com. In 2004 on this date Bush was ahead of Kerry, in fact he was ahead everyday 30 days prior to the election. Republicans always claim polls aren't accurate when they're behind. Face a fact: you're losing, very very badly. Denying it makes you look delusional.
Oh, and Gore won the popular-vote in 2000. Forget that already? |
|
Palin is not just a liar, she is a PATHOLOGICAL liar:
"When I heard Sarah Palin say at the VP debate that she’d had the Alaska Permanent Fund divest from Sudan to protest the Sudanese government’s actions in Darfur, I assumed that she had, in fact, had the Alaska Permanent Fund divest from Sudan. On the one hand, it was a totally plausible story — a lot of publicly controlled funds have divested. And on the other hand, it would be bizarre to tell such a straightforward lie. And yet lie she did:
“The [Palin] administration killed our bill,” said Alaska state representative Les Gara, D-Anchorage. Gara and state Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, co-sponsored a resolution early this year to force the Alaska Permanent Fund – a $40 billion investment fund, a portion of whose dividends are distributed annually to state residents – to divest millions of dollars in holdings tied to the Sudanese government."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/palin_an d_sudan.php
Bizarre. |
|
|
I hope the trend moves across America. Thanks for the good news! |
|
McCain wins, if the following connections are revealed to the American public quickly (facts are a stubborn thing, so maybe the MSM will have no choice):
1. Obama used to work for ACORN, and actually had a real accomplishment there: he badgered banks into giving mortgages to subprime borrowers.
2. In the Senate, Obama quickly got into bed with Fannie and Freddie, taking their money and continuing to embrace social re-engineering.
3. Fannie and Freddie caused the financial meltdown.
4. In the initial bailout package, Obama favored giving $20 billion to ACORN (eventually it was dropped).
In sum: Obama has blood on his hands regarding our $700 billion bailout, whether it's by ideology or by corruption or both.
Another reason to vote McCain-Palin:
If Obama's elected, then appoints two liberal supreme court judges, guess what? We might as well move to Russia. Over there, all branches of government are controlled by one party, and the media parrots the party line (oh, and I forgot to mention the "fairness doctrine"). If Obama is elected, nothing will stop the liberal kamikaze mission. For the first time, I am tasting real fear for this country. |
|
|
I was looking at the wrong numbers, the 45%/42% of last month. Those figures, with a MoE of 4% (we don't know what it actually was) would have showed a 78% probability of OBAMA being ahead. With the current tie, Obama is down to a 50% chance of being ahead. |
|
"If you are 3 points behind and the margin of error is +-3, you could somewhere between even and 6 points down."
Wrong. Margin of error is a measure of the probability that results of a given magnitude are true. In this case, with a difference of 3% and an MoE of 4%, the probability is 78% that McCain is genuinely ahead, 22% that he's behind.
What were you saying about "public school?" |
|
|
Nice try, but your efforts are wasted with Republicans. We've been hearing slanted polling results for so long that we ignore them and keep working through the election. Just ask Presidents Gore and Kerry. |
|
PPP and Ras, two equally respected pollers (all with pollster error rates below 2, putting them in the top 10 per 538) show Obama +4 and +1 over the EXACT same time period (check out pollster.com or RCP).
Yet Carol focuses on the one poll out of the last three that show it tied...
I've said it before, you people are being done a disservice if you listen to Carol and Hugh, both of whom have been consistently and dramatically WRONG on everything they have said. |
|
You must have gone to public school recently in So Cal
They are not the same thing. If you are 3 points behind and the margin of error is +-3, you could somewhere between even and 6 points down. If you are even you can somewhere between +3 or -3. |
|
|
Going from trailing by 3% to a tie when the difference is withing the error of margin of both polls is usually referred to as "no change". |
|
|
|