GatewayRedbirds.com

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

Fear of the Democrats controlling everything is probably the biggest reason among independents. Split ticket voting has been pretty common for the last 50 years or so.

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

4th quarter, Alabama 24 Bemidji State 20. Beavers ball, 1st and 10 on their own 20 with 1:05 left and no timeouts. Not likely they pull it out, but how in the heck did the Beavers take the Crimson Tide to the end on their own field?

That's what this race is like to me.

Bad officiating I guess.

I would say that 30% of the people are true blue, 30% are true red, and the other 40% are purple. It's that 40% that decide the election.

ghostrunner wrote:

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

Fear of the Democrats controlling everything is probably the biggest reason among independents. Split ticket voting has been pretty common for the last 50 years or so.

Though in the past, I've personally voted with splitting the branches of govt in mind , that is not the prevailing thinking I'm hearing. i wish that was the logic used, Ghost, but I don't think its been prevalant in presidential elections, because usually there is some coattail effect. If there is a split-the-branches vote mentality, this occurs at the mid-term election.

I'm pretty sure GWB and Clinton both had this occur under them.

I can't find the applicable stats to back your or my thinking up, and I'm not sure its even possible -the way people vote for reps and senators is much different than presidential.

this link goes into the history of party control over the branches. sort of interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... f_congress

Freed Roger wrote:

jim wrote: I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

McPalin's campaign seems to have done everything wrong, compared to Obama's being efficient, well-financed and cool-headed. McCain seems out of touch, and has severely compromised the values that I admired in him in the first place. McPalin's campaign is based on fear-mongering and capitalizing on ignorance. Obama's based on generalities -yes. But positive messages that appeal to peoples' better side and the logical conclusion that what we've had the last 8 years doesn't work and is not sustainable.

Yes it appears close. I have more than a suspicion as to why its close at all. There is a preconceived notion in this country that wealthy older white males are the only ones suitable for being the president. There is 230+ years of history to back this up. OK maybe a few were not wealthy, but other than that...

No, I'm not saying this is the only reason this election is this close, nor is it the only reason people are voting for McCain. But its the main reason.

Should McCain happen to win this election, the message sent will be clear. Oh I believe a woman or minority can still become president within a decade or so, but it will have to be someone with an ideology that panders to the extreme right - such as Palin or like an Alan Keyes.

I'm sorry but that's a complete and utter cop out..

If Obama loses the only message that will be sent is that people didn't buy what he was selling...sure there will be people that don't vote for Obama because he's black, and there will be people who don't vote for McCain because he's white, or old, or because he's got a woman running mate..

But neither one of those factors is going to significantly affect this race, and its attitudes like that that continue to set the country back..

Let's not start the excuse train before it's over, Obama is going to win, but if the hail mary is complete and McCain does win, like I said, it's NOT going to be because Obama is black...sorry....not true

Freed Roger wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

Fear of the Democrats controlling everything is probably the biggest reason among independents. Split ticket voting has been pretty common for the last 50 years or so.

Though in the past, I've personally voted with splitting the branches of govt in mind , that is not the prevailing thinking I'm hearing. i wish that was the logic used, Ghost, but I don't think its been prevalant in presidential elections, because usually there is some coattail effect. If there is a split-the-branches vote mentality, this occurs at the mid-term election.

I'm pretty sure GWB and Clinton both had this occur under them.

I can't find the applicable stats to back your or my thinking up, and I'm not sure its even possible -the way people vote for reps and senators is much different than presidential.

this link goes into the history of party control over the branches. sort of interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... f_congress

The coattail effect is very real--presidential victory for one party bleeds over and draws in more Congressional winners. I don't think you can turn it around and say that mid-term elections ending up lower for the incumbent-president's party is due to any splitting of the branches mentality. It's because there coattail effect isn't there--mid-term elections are "more true" than presidential election years, if you will.

Clinton lost the House for the first time in forever in 94, but that was a major paradigm shift as the Republican party decided to absorb a lot of Perot's ideology and turn it into the "Contract for America." In 2006, Republican turnout was very low, so Dems took over.

Also, I'm going to go on the record here and say that I believe McCain is going to (a) win Pennsylvania and (b) be the 44th President of the United States.

Is it what I personally want to happen? No. But I think it will happen.

BenNX74205 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

Fear of the Democrats controlling everything is probably the biggest reason among independents. Split ticket voting has been pretty common for the last 50 years or so.

Though in the past, I've personally voted with splitting the branches of govt in mind , that is not the prevailing thinking I'm hearing. i wish that was the logic used, Ghost, but I don't think its been prevalant in presidential elections, because usually there is some coattail effect. If there is a split-the-branches vote mentality, this occurs at the mid-term election.

I'm pretty sure GWB and Clinton both had this occur under them.

I can't find the applicable stats to back your or my thinking up, and I'm not sure its even possible -the way people vote for reps and senators is much different than presidential.

this link goes into the history of party control over the branches. sort of interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... f_congress

The coattail effect is very real--presidential victory for one party bleeds over and draws in more Congressional winners. I don't think you can turn it around and say that mid-term elections ending up lower for the incumbent-president's party is due to any splitting of the branches mentality. It's because there coattail effect isn't there--mid-term elections are "more true" than presidential election years, if you will.

Clinton lost the House for the first time in forever in 94, but that was a major paradigm shift as the Republican party decided to absorb a lot of Perot's ideology and turn it into the "Contract for America." In 2006, Republican turnout was very low, so Dems took over.

Also, I'm going to go on the record here and say that I believe McCain is going to (a) win Pennsylvania and (b) be the 44th President of the United States.

Is it what I personally want to happen? No. But I think it will happen.

Holy cow you have to explain why you think this....that's like predicting the Rams are going to win the Super Bowl this year

Would GRB implode if McCain were to win Tuesday?

ThatGuy wrote:Would GRB implode if McCain were to win Tuesday?

Not as bad as if no one wins on Tuesday.

ThatGuy wrote:Would GRB implode if McCain were to win Tuesday?

GRB would be the least of our worries if that happens.

JG1982 wrote:

BenNX74205 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

jim wrote:I know all polls tighten toward the end. Why? Is it the polling or some sociological thing going on?

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

Fear of the Democrats controlling everything is probably the biggest reason among independents. Split ticket voting has been pretty common for the last 50 years or so.

Though in the past, I've personally voted with splitting the branches of govt in mind , that is not the prevailing thinking I'm hearing. i wish that was the logic used, Ghost, but I don't think its been prevalant in presidential elections, because usually there is some coattail effect. If there is a split-the-branches vote mentality, this occurs at the mid-term election.

I'm pretty sure GWB and Clinton both had this occur under them.

I can't find the applicable stats to back your or my thinking up, and I'm not sure its even possible -the way people vote for reps and senators is much different than presidential.

this link goes into the history of party control over the branches. sort of interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... f_congress

The coattail effect is very real--presidential victory for one party bleeds over and draws in more Congressional winners. I don't think you can turn it around and say that mid-term elections ending up lower for the incumbent-president's party is due to any splitting of the branches mentality. It's because there coattail effect isn't there--mid-term elections are "more true" than presidential election years, if you will.

Clinton lost the House for the first time in forever in 94, but that was a major paradigm shift as the Republican party decided to absorb a lot of Perot's ideology and turn it into the "Contract for America." In 2006, Republican turnout was very low, so Dems took over.

Also, I'm going to go on the record here and say that I believe McCain is going to (a) win Pennsylvania and (b) be the 44th President of the United States.

Is it what I personally want to happen? No. But I think it will happen.

Holy cow you have to explain why you think this....that's like predicting the Rams are going to win the Super Bowl this year

I think the polls are going to end up way off when all is said and done. Democrats have won the presidency with more than 50% of the popular vote three times in the 1900s: FDR in 1932; LBJ in 1964; and Carter in 1976 (and he did it with 50.1%). Think about what was going on around those elections. I think the upper limit for Obama is 48%.

Pennsylvania: Gore won PA by 3.5% (205k votes). Kerry won PA by 2.5% (140k votes). Obama isn't reaching as much as Kerry did, and McCain is reaching more than W. A lot of PA is veterans. Kerry was a vet. McCain is....well, we've heard enough about it. But it's something that resonates in PA. McCain is pouring a lot of money into PA. His campaign is making a lot of visits to PA. Either McCain is going for a last-chance roll of the dice, or the polls are wrong and PA is close. Considering it was close in 2000, and even closer in 2004, I'm going to say it's not just a "hail mary." I think a lot of Clinton democrats will vote McCain in Pennsylvania, and when all of this is combined with the aforementioned recent closeness of the elections.

Pennsylvania is the swing state this election. Forget what polling says: Obama needs every Kerry state plus 14 votes to win. If he loses PA, he needs 34. That's sweeping all the other states that are in play.

I don't think things are completely as they seem, here. McCain is working in New Hampshire and Maine. Obama is increasing his spending in those states as well. Both candidates don't increase spending in the same states a week before the election because those states are all sewn up--they do it because it's close. If you can fathom that MAINE is up for grabs, then anything is possible. I mean seriously, if Obama doesn't have Maine locked up a week before the election, he's in big trouble.

Yeah, it sounds absolutely crazy, because all the polls say Obama is going to roll to victory. But history says democrats don't sweep into office like projections are showing (unless they are Jed Bartlet/Martin Sheen). This election is going to be close, and it's going to hinge on Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

I could end up being completely wrong, obviously. But why is McCain in "true blue" states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania? Last grasp? Campaign run by idiots? Or is the race close, the way it's been close the last 8 years? I'm going with close.