<p>also, what does mccain have for independent voters that will cause them to change their opinions?</p>
<p>With three of the debates down and just one left, I cannot imagine there will be a major swing in the next 3-4 weeks. Unless McCain can alter the nature of the presidential race, I am pretty sure Obama wins. I have said all along, McCain's connection to the least popular President in recent memory, the sluggish (now downright disastrous) Economy and his extreme old age (by US president standards) made this an impossible hill to climb. Admittedly, McCain is still in it, but I really cannot imagine him winning...not at this late stage of the game.</p>
<p>Yeah - McCain's the last person one should ever count out before the final bell, but I think last night made it clear he has nothing left to offer. It may have been his last stand.</p>
<p>The only thing that might swing things back to him is something horrific, like sudden war. But, Obama's come out ahead even with Russia's invasion of Georgia. I'm not sure even a terrorist attack would change the course. I think Obama has convinced most people that he is far more clear and even passionate about facing terrorism head on in the most logical and efficient way. </p>
<p>In last night's debate, McCain was talking about how we "can" build alternative energies because we're the American people yadda yadda. Republicans have given that type of pep rally lip service for years, yet never done anything about it. Obama got up there and gave his very clear plan for how he would use the levers of government to help transition to alternatives.</p>
<p>Obama's been clear and consistent from the beginning, while McCain has switched from anti-drilling to pro-drilling and on every other issue. He just never trusted himself to be himself. Instead, he pandered to the far right.</p>
<p>I hate to say this, but I think McCain's sole chance is for some racist nutjob to assassinate Obama. If McCain/Palin get in the White House in this fashion, there needs to be an armed revolution in America. That was what the 2nd Amendment was for.</p>
<p>Who cares about polls? It is the election that is important. But if you think polls prove anything, don't bother to vote. Anyway, a swing of just 3% in three weeks is easily possible. As Mark Twain once said, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” (Wasn't Steve Jobs recently proclaimed to be dead?) P.S. Dewey Defeats Truman (Chicago Tribune 11/3/1948) More bogus headlines: List</a> of erroneous newspaper headlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Literary</a> Digest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>**Jim Cramer, Democrat, Hillary-lover, placed the blame on our financial nightmare squarely on the Democrats for failing to Rein in Freddie/Fannie, absolutely did not blame Bush on the Colbert Report.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton, ain't going after Bush or McCain, placed the blame on Democrats, frolicking in Fannie/Freddie money, for failing to side with him and Republicans on reining them in during the 90s.**
Sebastian</a> Mallaby: Deregulation didn't cause financial mess | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Viewpoints
Did</a> Deregulation Cause the Credit Crisis? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
It's a shame that the catalyst, as McCain said last night, Freddie/Fannie, are the Democrat's fault, whom Freddie/Fannie called the Congressional Black Caucus, "their family".</p>
<p>If America is going to put both accelerator pads on the Democrats, the party that caused this, I hope they at least know the truth.</p>
<p>As to the polls, well I hope America knows the truth about Obama's extensive relationship with Ayers, the fact that he bought a discounted lot next to his slumlord convicted friend, his ties and complacency to the people that didn't but could've prevented this. If they would look at McCain's record, his principle, his support of issues that would benefit America but tarnish his polling numbers (anti-ethanol, anti-throw a bunch of free stuff at veterans)</p>
<p>If only they knew...</p>
<p>Why didn't the a Republican dominated Congress since sometime in the mids 90s try to stop Clinton from doing this or achieving it during the course of the Bush administration?</p>
<p>I mean the most conservative President in US history was able to screw everything up, how come he didn't have a hand in on this one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares about polls? It is the election that is important. But if you think polls prove anything, don't bother to vote. Anyway, a swing of just 3% in three weeks is easily possible. As Mark Twain once said, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” (Wasn't Steve Jobs recently proclaimed to be dead?) P.S. Dewey Defeats Truman (Chicago Tribune 11/3/1948)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They stopped polling Truman vs. Dewey in the final stages of the election because they thought Dewey would win in a landslide, so it's not an apt comparison. If Obama carries a double-digit lead into the final week of the election, he should win unless the Republicans steal the election (again?). </p>
<p>You're right in that polls don't matter until that final lever is pulled, but if 90% of the polls in the country show Obama with a widening lead, you can kind of safely assume some things.</p>
<p>I was just looking at graph showing the Obama/McCain ratings. I certainly do believe that there could be a turn around.</p>
<p>I also found out something very interesting. Friends of us are very much Obama supporters. They had special tickets to the convention, housed needed things for the campaign, etc, etc. I was just looking up something regarding the Dad's business, when it came up that he has made hefty contributions to MCCAIN!! All a matter of public record, it seems. I was flabbergastered. Who people end up pulling that lever for is very private and may be a surprise. I am wondering if the internet is skewing some results as well. MIL lives in an area where few people are computer savvy. I don't know who is going for whom. THere are some borderline states that have a large population in that category.</p>
<p>Chris Cuomo, ABC News: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?</p>
<pre><code>Bill Clinton: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit.** I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.**
</code></pre>
<p>Face the facts buddy.</p>
<pre><code>BRIT HUME, HOST: In the recent spate of government bailouts, buyouts and rescues, the federal takeovers of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arguably the biggest of them all. And those two firms are also arguably the biggest reason for the credit crisis in the first place. So the question arises -- how did this come to be? Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ANGLE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There is one nagging question behind all the debate over how to get out of this mess.
CHRIS DODD (D-CT), SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE CHMN: American taxpayers are angry and they demand to know how we arrived at this moment.
ELIZABETH DOLE (R), NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR: My constituents, and indeed taxpayers across the nation are asking how we arrived at this crisis. It is infuriating.
ANGLE: But Senator Dole and others think they know the answer, and it's something the Senate tried to fix three years ago but was thwarted.
DOLE: To the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was made possible by weak oversight and little accountability.
MEL MARTINEZ (R), FLORIDA SENATOR: A lot of what we're dealing with today has its origins in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
ANGLE: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.
PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.
ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.
WALLISON: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.
ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.
WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad -- these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.
ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANGLE: Which turned out to be exactly right, but because Democrats blocked it, those new regulations never got consideration by the full Senate and died. So that's how we got into this mess, and how we missed a chance to avoid it. Getting out of it now, of course, will be a lot more difficult -- Brit.
HUME: Oh, boy. Thanks, Jim.
</code></pre>
<p>McCain</a>, Palin outdraw Obama in Green Bay, Wis. :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama</p>
<p>September 23, 2008</p>
<p>McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago </p>
<p>It ain't over 'til it's over.</p>
<p>pug's just angry because McCain's going to lose.</p>
<p>Face the facts, buddy.</p>
<p>At least with football around, pugfug looks like William F. Buckley.</p>