GatewayRedbirds.com

KyCardinalFan wrote:Any national security event makes people turn to the Republicans. A terrorist's video threatening the U.S., an attack on U.S. interests or - heaven forbid - an attack on the U.S. and opinion sways to the experience guy.

Look at the "Super Tracker" chart at the link Haltz posted. That dip toward McCain in early September was during the Georgia invasion and when people were reminded of 9/11/01. Then it skyrockets for Obama when McCain says the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

There may be some truth in that but I'd be surprised if it was as volatile as you suggest. First, I think the early September boost was more due to the RNC/Palin bounce than a threat to our security. And it's now worn off due to their inability to maintain the momentum, not us all forgetting about 9/11 or Georgia. Second, I'd be surprised if the polls turned dramatically if there were terrorist threats since many feel that the current regime is responsible for a lot of the hatred that is directed towards this country. Not saying it should be, just saying that a lot out there view this war on terror as a botched job by the Republicans.

I think some of the latest numbers suggest that since the first debate, people are now as likely to trust Obama to handle the war and international affairs as they are McCain.

KyCardinalFan wrote:

haltz wrote:On Countdown, Nate Silver estimated that Obama is 80% to win the election at this point.

Here's the clip as well as a longer piece with Dan Rather talking politics and baseball. Some interesting stuff there.

The clip froze up, so I didn't get to see it all, but Olbermann's bias is so strong that I take any information from him with unhealthy amounts of salt. I am cautiously optimistic.

It's not his information, it's Nate's projection.

I wouldn't be too optimistic that McCain pulls this out, but there's no sure thing at this point of course.

You'd be better off comparing those polls to where they were 2 and 4 weeks ago compared to where they are now. Different polls will yield diff. results, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac will sway wildly from each other, but the trend from where there were two weeks ago and one month ago will more often than not, run parallel.

so, is there any reason other than talking points/stereotypes that people turn to republicans when there's a major event like 9/11 or what happened in Georgia?

Their track record doesn't look so gleamy from where I sit.

haltz wrote:

KyCardinalFan wrote:

haltz wrote:On Countdown, Nate Silver estimated that Obama is 80% to win the election at this point.

Here's the clip as well as a longer piece with Dan Rather talking politics and baseball. Some interesting stuff there.

The clip froze up, so I didn't get to see it all, but Olbermann's bias is so strong that I take any information from him with unhealthy amounts of salt. I am cautiously optimistic.

It's not his information, it's Nate's projection.

I realize that, but Olbermann is only going to have people who most strongly present his view. He uses the polls that have the widest swings for Obama and jumps at every misstep of McCain.

I'm not saying it's not true or possible, just that 80% seems a little extreme.

clevername wrote:so, is there any reason other than talking points/stereotypes that people turn to republicans when there's a major event like 9/11 or what happened in Georgia?

Their track record doesn't look so gleamy from where I sit.

I would say it is more stereotype and reputation.

As I understand it, from analysis I heard over the summer, some people - especially vet/military - hold democrats responsible for a lot of the failures for the Vietnam war. I wish I could remember the context in which I was hearing this, but this analyst was saying some people may have a hard time turning a war over to Obama. (Of course, this was back when the fundamentals of the economy were sound and Iraq was still an issue.)

I'm not speaking from much working knowledge of this, though. It was a comment I was hearing on the fly and it just stuck with me that the distrust of Dems went back to Vietnam. I thought it went back to Bush and 9/11 and Reagan's "star wars" initiative. Perhaps some other posters could fill in context or of the culture of politics during that time.

Please click through this primer on tonight's VP debate. Do it. You will be happier if you do.

http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/01/deba ... 1_9211.php

clevername wrote:so, is there any reason other than talking points/stereotypes that people turn to republicans when there's a major event like 9/11 or what happened in Georgia?

Their track record doesn't look so gleamy from where I sit.

Nonsense. We're winning the war! This is like the 14th war in a row America has kicked ass.

KyCardinalFan wrote:
I realize that, but Olbermann is only going to have people who most strongly present his view. He uses the polls that have the widest swings for Obama and jumps at every misstep of McCain.

I'm not saying it's not true or possible, just that 80% seems a little extreme.

Olbermann is irrelevant. Nate Silver being on his show has little to do with anything related to the numbers he presented.

i just thought this was funny

http://www.hulu.com/watch/37124/the-dai ... s-p1-sr-i1

heyzeus wrote:Please click through this primer on tonight's VP debate. Do it. You will be happier if you do.

http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/01/deba ... 1_9211.php

that was good...it was like those baseball player IM's