Obama pulls ahead again
 

WASHINGTON (Sept. 17) - Democrat Barack Obama has a 2-point lead in the U.S. presidential race on Republican John McCain, whose choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate helped shore up support for both candidates, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Obama leads McCain among likely voters by 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll's 3.1 percent margin of error. He gained ground in the last month among independent and women voters and on the question of who could best manage the faltering U.S. economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hmm could it be that the bloom is starting to fade off Mooseilini's rose?!:lol: These polls were taken just before the market started to slide precipitiously and gramps McCain's myopic mumblings about the economy being strong in the wake of it.

YEEESSSS!!! I am soooooo glad to hear this.:]

I am not a believer in polls at this time.

I think after the debates is a more telling time.

But, I certainly hope this trend continues.

I've said this before, and will continue to say this forever and ever until there is a change made:
Public opinion does not matter. Our votes do not count. It is the electoral college.
My english teacher who is probably the smartest person I have ever met in my entire life told me that in MA where I live, all of the votes go Dem. no matter what, and I'm sure that in TX all go Rep. no matter what.

Not that Obama fans shouldn't be happy the public likes him [I'm more of a Rep myself], but seriously, I don't know why they do this stuff to decive the American public that their votes count. Again-I am not voting ever...ever...ever...because of this stupid law.

Popular votes are counted, but why don't they count?

Electoral college is a joke. It gave us George W. Jackass. But it will never change, because to change the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to agree on the change. And those less populous states like Wyoming and Delaware will never give up their oversized share of electoral votes.

It would be funny to me if McCain won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Let them get screwed this time.

That would be freaking hilarious.

However, on the EC front, my AP US History teacher from a couple years back said that she wouldn't be surprised to see the electoral college leave during our lifetime. I think that would be great because it is dated and somewhat obsolete.

When I am reminded of the Electoral College, the following interview with Glenn Danzig comes to mind:

UR: "Given that you've always been independent and followed your own way, what do you think of the current state of affairs in our country?"

GD: "I see two retarded political parties in our country that don't represent the masses. The Democratic party has gone so far to the left that people just can't relate to it anymore and the Republican party is trying to go totally to the right. And I think that both parties are retarded. And it irritates me that there are only two parties vying for the presidency in this country. People don't realize that they're being played by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but more so by the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party does not want another party in there. They tried to discredit Ralph Nader this time, by saying you'd take a vote away from John Kerry. Who cares? There should be FIVE parties! People should have a real choice. If you're meant to win, you're meant to win -- no whining! When somebody wins, they win. If they don't, they don't. That's the way this country was set up; it's called a democracy! If George Bush would have lost, the Democratic Party would have been so happy that we had an Electoral College. When they win, they're happy, and as soon as they lost, they said, “Oh, we have to get rid of this Electoral College.” The bottom line is that both parties are in agreement about one thing: They don't want a third, a fourth, or a fifth party in there. They want it Democratic and Republican. Both sides are corrupt, both sides are pieces of ****. "

UR: "So do you think the Green Party or the Libertarian Party..."
GD: "I wish the Libertarian Party would get more play in the media but they don't. I think the Democratic Party has picked a lot of the wrong candidates, the kind that Middle America, or people who are more down the middle and more rational, can't side with. I think that's been the problem."

Very simple, and again, am I the only one here who ever studied anything beyond high school!? If you read the transcripts of the constitutional convention, they set up the electoral college because they did not want the more populous states like New York dictating the rest of us. They set it up so that each state would have a progressive, but still proportional representation in choosing the president. If they hadn't done that, the president would only cater to Florida, New York, California and very few other places. The rest of us would never be heard because we wouldn't have the population. Geez people, this is very basic stuff. Good God, I learned this in my first year of college. Does anyone pay any attention to anything?!

uh it's populous ...I believe I learned that in high school.:lol::lol::lol:

I updated my spelling, thanks. But you really should address the issue. Facts really are stubborn things, aren't they? :laugh:

And where was I even discussing the popular vote vs. the electoral college?:rolleyes:

What issue? That Obama is leading McCain in the polls? He started the thread. I believe that is the issue. I've yet to see you address it. No, you just swept in here to remind us how wrong and uneducated we are.

This is why America is not a true democracy. It is a republic.

I was talking to Chrislit18, not you. But then again, not being part of a conversation never stopped you before. :)

Yep, I was responding to the points being made about the electoral college, but it is typical to pretend history never happened, isn't it. I wasn't even talking to you. :laugh:

In a post where you directly quoted me ??:lol:Brother you are a wreck.

Uh no. I f you go back and look at my posting on the electorial college, I did not quote you. :shrug:

You quoted him.

Yes you did. Clean your glasses.

The thing I think you are missing here is that this is an open forum where people are free to discuss whatever is in any particular thread..Your reaction is as if someone is hacking into your own personal PMS and injecting their 2 cents worth there.

I quoted someone else, not you, unless you have two ID's.

Uh no, I responded to a post where someone said I responded to them and I hadn't until later. I didn't make a point out of it, they did.

You have repeatedly told me and gldstwmn that you were not addressing us so butt out ..that is what I am referring to .Sheesh why do I feel like Alice in Wonderland when I am trying to reason with this guy!:lol:

I do agree on the Alice in Wonderland part. :)

Well...
 

quit listening to TOSOTM so damn much, it has the Alice effect on many. ;)

Holy Frick this thread was funny you guys! Sorry... I hear the frustration, but damn... :laugh:

Oh... and Go Obama!

Cool ..so I guess that would make you the Jabberwocky?:laugh:

Honey, I am a highschooler. I took Adavanced Placement US History last year. [I am a junior right now, and yes sophomores can apparently take AP classees].

From what my teacher tought us is that popular vote does not effect the outcome whatsoever. The elecotral college may seem like a good idea, and maybe it is for the little states, but sitll NY, TX, CA, and all those biggins still get more votes than say RI or DE. Those 2 measly 'votes' those little guys get won't effect any election if say, CA and NY and all the big votes went the same way. No swing vote states. So in reality, the EC may or may not be the same as popular vote. I don't mean to start problems, it is just my own personal beleif if that my personal vote doesn't matter, then when I turn 18 in 2 years, why should I vote, or even registar to vote for that matter!?

and trust me, for a highschooler, I think I am pretty aware of our government system. as much as I want to be anyways. [and yeah, our gov is so great, were in another recession right now, and the stock market just had another huge crash. JOY!]

can't help it I'm in the small but vocal minority that thinks it's way underrated ..excuse now I'm going baccckkk to the other side of the mirrrrorr.:laugh:

I with ya man...
 

OSOTM is the only SN disc I play nowadays - Sounds fine to me.

Yes. You quoted BombaySapphire3. That is what I said.

No kidding. He's got a case of galloping Neocon TB- true believerism. He really believes this ****.

The "electorial" college?

The really odd thing is he didn't even know what a neo-con was until I posted a definition of one over on that original McCain/ Palin thread .:shrug:

Esp. when in application it has never worked - see huge deficits by Reagan and Bush I and W for good examples.

Not to mention he thought the R's were the ones that pushed to pass the 1964 Civil Rights bill and that the country had huge surpluses in the Great Depression. Any surpluses the govt. had (and it had one on 1929) quickly turned to deficits by 1931 and stayed there until well after WWII.

Moreover, he has suggested that going back to a situation where allowing the banks to fail so that only the strongest survive is a good thing. History demonstrates it is not, to wit (which all but mirrors todays depression) :

The Great Depression was not a sudden total collapse. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the northern summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the American economy was the motor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, like the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

. . . .

Debt

Debt is seen as one of the causes of the Great Depression.

Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Arthur Cecil Pigou and Irving Fisher: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture, and the latter for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged.

Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. (US) Banks which had financed this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets.

The debt became heavier, because prices and incomes fell by 20–50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By 1933, depositors had lost $140 billion in deposits.

Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending. Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Debt

On the original issue of the new poll all I have to say is that I have long said however close the media predicts this election to be, it will be a landslide for Obama. Just wait until the VP debates, Palin will repeat her five lines and Biden will chew her like moose jerky:laugh:.

And on the argument here, I have found that many high-schoolers are more prepared to vote (Even those who can't) than many college grads. Besides, anyone who sides with and actively supports a Republican just because they are a Republican has other problems... I would't have a problem supporting a Republican if they stopped being hypocrites and lived what they said.

Not to mention that I do not think the factors of the third party candidates are weighing in on these polls. Where do we see the questions actually asked?