GatewayRedbirds.com

Arthur Dent wrote:I don't think polls this early are particularly meaningful.

Don't you think California, Kansas and the likes are meaningful though?

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:I don't think polls this early are particularly meaningful.

Don't you think California, Kansas and the likes are meaningful though?

What do you mean?

Popeye_Card wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:I don't understand how Gore justifies his own energy use, which has actually increased since he did An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not opposed to his message, but it seems to me that he beats this drum hardest when he's not in office.

Well he tries to by paying premiums on his electicity bill to purchase from renewable sources. But to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of paying money to get out of your obligations to conserve.

Yeah, that's kinda weak. You're still using the energy, and supposed to be setting an example.

At the end there, they talk about installing solar panels, etc. which is good. But yeah, pretty weak.

I really don't know what Gore did about the environment while he was in office. I'd do some research into it, but I think it would be pretty hard to find anything objective, and I don't want to wade through the BS it would take to find it.

But he had 8 years in a pretty powerful seat.

I think a smarter move for him would have been to have someone like DiCaprio or some famous actor/athlete/activist to be the face of An Inconvenient Truth. A large part of America probably rejected or ignored the movie just because it was an Al Gore joint.

Arthur Dent wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:I don't think polls this early are particularly meaningful.

Don't you think California, Kansas and the likes are meaningful though?

What do you mean?

States that are solidly blue and red and show the candidates up by 10+ points.

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:

GatewaySnayke wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:I don't think polls this early are particularly meaningful.

Don't you think California, Kansas and the likes are meaningful though?

What do you mean?

States that are solidly blue and red and show the candidates up by 10+ points.

Situation normal?

So they are meaningful.

I'm not saying that the polls are PECOTA, but they are important to where the candidates will sink their money in. North Carolina being close shows that McCain is going to have to allocate more resources to a state that was otherwise safe. If there are red states that are showing Obama running hard (Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa), it means McCain is going to have less money to spend in big swing states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania or he's going to leave it up to fate and just hope that he prevails.

ghostrunner wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/po ... 6poll.html

The last two surprise me a bit. White people feel the same about McCain as they do about Obama. I'm surprised to see blacks that strongly against McCain. I wonder how the questions were phrased. Is it favorable as a person, or as president?

Also, only 297 black people were surveyed. Doesn't seem like a great sample.

297 is 17% of the total--guess they were trying match the general population numbers???

The right wing are losing their heads over Obama Quest. FOX News is getting more sensational, Rush Limbaugh says Obama hates the country, Sean Hannity has more vitriol than ever before and Ben Stein and Glenn Beck are drawing comparisons between Obama and Hilter. I mean, IT'S SO OBVIOUS that the media is in it for Obama! After all, they have been SLAUGHTERING McCain over the Anbar Awakening and "first major conflict since 2001" gaffes!

Oh wait, no they haven't.

But at least they are ripping McCain for going across the border to Canada and overseas to speak in London -- you know, things McCain says he wouldn't do until he's president. He's just not that kind of guy!

Oh wait, no they haven't.

Let's see, both Hitler and Obama made speeches to huge audiences in Berlin. So I guess they are similar.

Hitler's speeches were about the German people being superior to all around them, and how they need to display that might. Obama was basically talking about the same things, right?

GatewaySnayke wrote: Ben Stein and Glenn Beck are drawing comparisons between Obama and Hilter.

I'm skeptical about this. Stein's a pretty reasonable guy.