That's just sophistry and you know it. What if I start my own three-man company with my friends and call myself president, and claim that I have more executive than the vice-president of General Motors? Technically, I'd be right.</p>
<p>And I'm sure you were fully behind Wesley Clark when he, a four-star general, claimed that the air grunt McCain had no executive military experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you would still have 0 executive experience in government. The president is not running a small or even a large company. McCain does have no executive Mil exp. Which is again why I said Palin has more than all 3.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sarah Palin - Stupidest VP decision ever?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently not. She has energized the Republican party. Pre-convention I thought McCain was dead in the water. Now I think they might have a chance. There is no way the Dems should be able to blow this election but they may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Check out youtube for her latest clueless moment. She basically said that the Govt was taking over Fannie Mae and freddie Mac b/c they were too big and expensive for taxpayers. They have been publicly traded companies for decades and they are going to be expensive now for taxpayers during this bailout."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well wiki has this to say:
[quote]
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a privately owned and run government sponsored enterprise (GSE) of the United States.
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) (NYSE: FRE), commonly known as Freddie Mac, is a privately-owned and run government sponsored enterprise (GSE) of the United States federal government.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was straight from wiki, they are privated owned, but are sponsored by the governement and a sort of hybrid. Looks like she knows more than you do. :) </p>
<p>I don't think you meant to say that the stupidest VP decision ever has energized the Republican party. W also energized the Republican party, and look where it got us.</p>
<p>From the perspective of the Republican party you have to win to matter. BTW, the quote had a question mark at the end so it wasn't a statement. The "apparently not" was the answer to the question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Apples and oranges. The issue is believing a crackpot who says something is God's will. Who's to say that the pope knows God's will? Whose interpretation is correct? No one has any special path, and we should believe no who says they do."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is your opinion. Obama even realized he needed to win religious voters. Many, if not most, ppl in this country actively want religion in politics. I am one, and i would not vote for a politician if they did not believe in GOD.</p>
<p>And before ppl respond with what I expect. The reason is bc in a republic (like how the national system works) individual citizens are to vote for ppl who represent them. I believe in GOD and HE is an integral part of my life everyday, so a person who also holds such a relationship would represent me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you would still have 0 executive experience in government.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dealing with Alaskan issues is not the same as even dealing with city issues (if the city is Chicago, L.A., New York, etc.). You're really stretching it. I scoffed at the prospect of someone like Rudy Giuliani becoming president, but New York is to Alaska what the U.S. is to the Bahamas.</p>
<p>Michigan and Pennsylvania, traditionally Blue states, are at risk. Clinton polled better than Obama in Michigan, the Democratic brand there is in shambles, with things like the Detroit mayor going to jail, and of course, those hockey moms in MI love Palin :)</p>
<p>Pennsylvania of course voted for Clinton and against Obama. Calling the small towners here that they are bitter so they cling to guns and religion doesn't help. </p>
<p>Wisconsin, neighboring Michigan, is also polling decent for McCain even before Palin...though this one's more of a long shot.</p>
<p>New Jersey, one of the best Clinton states..also unlikely, but more likely then Georgia going for Obama lol</p>
<p>Washington...had a poll with McCain behind by 4 points just recently</p>
<p>Obama is giving up dreams of red states turning blue and is even having to defend them. :D :D :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Pennsylvania of course voted for Clinton and against Obama. Calling the small towners here that they are bitter so they cling to guns and religion doesn't help."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really hope the McCain campaign continually plays that quote the week before the election.</p>
Dealing with Alaskan issues is not the same as even dealing with city issues (if the city is Chicago, L.A., New York, etc.). You're really stretching it. I scoffed at the prospect of someone like Rudy Giuliani becoming president, but New York is to Alaska what the U.S. is to the Bahamas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't matter, experience is experience. Having had governed anywhere is always going to prove more experience than never have doing such at all.</p>
<p>nbachris2788, why are you even wasting time responding to pugfug90? Half of his/her posts don't even make sense and cite sources, often questionable, that don't even support his/her arguments. In short, don't feed the troll . . .</p>
<p>
[quote]
nbachris2788, why are you even wasting time responding to pugfug90? Half of his/her posts don't even make sense and cite sources, often questionable, that don't even support his/her arguments. In short, don't feed the troll . . .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right. I will cease from now on.</p>
<p>On a more optimistic note, Gallup poll breakdowns show that McCain's national gains have been mostly from preaching to the choir. The south, and only the south, has been energized by the RNC and thus the short spike in support for McCain-Palin. While McCain does need his base to be energized, he cannot win with just them because Democrats have been outregistering Republicans by at least 11 million (and counting) this year. </p>
<p>^^^Actually you are quite wrong. A quick glance at the numbers shows McCain fluctuating with 46-56% with the south, prior to both conventions McCain was 51% in the south and is now 56%. A difference of 5%, but in the East he posted a boost of:3%, West:1%, and Midwest 2%. Meaning that he gained a net of 11% and 6% of that was from regions outside of the south. </p>
<p>Obama on the other hand lost support. North:-3%, West:+1%, South:-5%, Midwest:-2%. For a net loss of: 9%. These percentages seem small, but put them into context. Before the conventions, they were statistically tied with: 47 to about 45 McCain (tied bc polls have a 2% error). So that means that slight changes in percentages will decide the race. What it also reveals is that either McCain has gained Obama supporters, or he has gained independents (which represented about 9% of the electorate). So McCain has grown, and more importantly the reason his boost is significant is because of the political climate. Republicans should be getting their butts handed to them, the fact that McCain is such even generic convention bounce is bad news because he should be getting beat bad.
Also a more important indicator is not by region but by state. </p>
<p>Rasmussen Reports show: McCain winning Ohio by 7%, winning Viriginia by 2%, and losing Pennsylvania by 2%. From electoral map math, Obama will lose Ohio if he does not do some serious work. And McCain can win Pennsylvania (especially if energetic ppl point out Obama thinks they are bitter and cling to guns and religion). Those two wins will give McCain a total of about 41. If McCain loses Viriginia then that means Obama gets 13 votes to McCain's 41. Colorado goes to Obama in the poll by 3%, which nets him 6. Florida is literally tied 48-48 so it can go any way. But by the numbers:</p>
<p>Obama's Swing State Count: 19
McCain's Swing State Count: 41</p>
<p>That does not include Florida, so Florida could change things, with it's 27 votes. But with a Republican governor (Charlie Christ and the fact that Obama does not have a base built up there from the Primary, it makes it harder.)
This is a close race, so it will definitely be interesting.</p>
<p>^^^What that is ridiculous. These are established polling companies that adjust for party representation and other factors. Both Gallup and Rasmussen are very credible polling resources.</p>
<p>The downballot indicators have improved for Republicans as well; the generic congressional ballot, where Democrats have long held a considerable edge, is now at 48 percent Democrat, 45 percent Republican.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Heck, there's even one where a generic Republican beats a generic Democrat by 5!</p>
<p>Nancy Pelosi "save the planet" "no book sales", Harry Reid, no drill, yes drill, lowest approved Congress ever aren't helping the Democratic brand.</p>
<p>You don't have to be registered with any party to identify as one.</p>