California in Play for McCain?

[Jaltus]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807388,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Evidently the State Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage might very well make California a hot spot for the upcoming election. The Republicans are looking to get an amendment to the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal, a law which had passed with 61% of the vote in 2000. This could very well get more conservatives to the polls. With Obama supporting unions (allegedly, I am not sure what he actually stands for in this case), voters may well come out against him for that.

I am not sure if Cal will really be in play, but this forces Obama to spend money and time in a place he should not have to. I think it makes the race for the White House much more interesting.

[Lightknight]

Cal hasn't always been opposed to republicans, so maybe. It also happens to have cities that are VERY liberal and high population ones too. But I live in Florida, so what do I know?

[Jaltus]

The issue usually is voter turnout in conservative districts. There are more conservative areas than non, it just happens that the big cities (other than San Diego and Sacramento) are all liberal.

[shadowmaster]

I live in Florida, so what do I know?

:thumb:

[Timothy Leary]

The issue usually is voter turnout in conservative districts. There are more conservative areas than non, it just happens that the big cities (other than San Diego and Sacramento) are all liberal.
I wouldn't consider Sacramento conservative.

[Ryokan]

I doubt its really in play, or that Obama will really fight for it. Look for the fight to stay around the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, axis with Virginia and Florida as outliers.

[Bill the Cat]

California evangelicals will not turn out for McCain if he keeps turning down endorsements of every major evangelical pastor this side of heresy... :ahem:

Seriously, he's not making many friends in the rod Parsley/John Hagee ministries for sure.

[Yankee_Doodle]

California evangelicals will not turn out for McCain if he keeps turning down endorsements of every major evangelical pastor this side of heresy... :ahem:

Seriously, he's not making many friends in the rod Parsley/John Hagee ministries for sure.

I don't know about Parsley (he always seemed okay when I've watched him) but Hague ..... the guy seems too much like a bigot even if he isn't one (not to mention a little wacky from the mainstream Christian perspective ..... if there is such thing anymore). I think Hague's supporters will stick with McCain (I couldn't imagine them either staying home or voting for Obama).

[Ryokan]

California evangelicals will not turn out for McCain if he keeps turning down endorsements of every major evangelical pastor this side of heresy... :ahem:

Seriously, he's not making many friends in the rod Parsley/John Hagee ministries for sure.

If they turn out, it will be for a gay marriage ammendment and to they will vote McCain only incidentally. But, frankly, I think the gay marriage fight is over, and the evangelicals are losing it.

[Yankee_Doodle]

If they turn out, it will be for a gay marriage ammendment and to they will vote McCain only incidentally. But, frankly, I think the gay marriage fight is over, and the evangelicals are losing it.

agreed, I don't see a gay marriage amendment on the horizon .... in any case 32 states would never ratify it. However, there is the Defense of Marriage Act, which is an important protection for states who might otherwise be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed by another state (under full faith and credit). I think this is enough to rile up the evangelical base. Moreover, a conservative Supreme Court would not recognize gay marriage as a fundamental right under due process (or invalidate state bans on the practice under equal protection).

I doubt republicans or democrats really want these issues decided by an immutable amendment (then they would actually have to discuss real issues .... go figure). Things like this don't typically become the focus of the amendment process until all substantial opposition to it evaporates (not gonna happen in the foreseeable future).


AW

[Ryokan]

agreed, I don't see a gay marriage amendment on the horizon .... in any case 32 states would never ratify it. However, there is the Defense of Marriage Act, which is an important protection for states who might otherwise be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed by another state (under full faith and credit). I think this is enough to rile up the evangelical base. Moreover, a conservative Supreme Court would not recognize gay marriage as a fundamental right under due process (or invalidate state bans on the practice under equal protection).

I doubt republicans or democrats really want these issues decided by an immutable amendment (then they would actually have to discuss real issues .... go figure). Things like this don't typically become the focus of the amendment process until all substantial opposition to it evaporates (not gonna happen in the foreseeable future).


AW
California's supreme court offered the out of calling everything a civil union conventional and gay marriage. I am guessing that is what happens. The Republicans, especially though, don't want to lose this drum to beat.

[shadowmaster]

yawn

[Yankee_Doodle]

California's supreme court offered the out of calling everything a civil union conventional and gay marriage. I am guessing that is what happens. The Republicans, especially though, don't want to lose this drum to beat.

You're right this does tend to be a stronger issue for Republicans (since most democrats also oppose gay marriage -- though a substantial number of democrats support the measure & only a small fraction of republicans support the idea of gay marriage so it's a safer bet for republicans).

I do think Americans are just getting sick of these hot button issues and feel manipulated by them (who can blame us?). If given a choice between Bob and Mike living together in marital bliss or the Arabians suddenly cutting off our oil supply and lunging us into an economic dark age ..... I think it's safe to say Americans would choose the former.

Who will lead us toward energy independence in a reasonable period of time? Who will divorce us from reliance on Sheiks and Sultans and that part of the world in general? Who can reform our entitlement programs, education system, health care industry, and ensure we remain a prosperous nation and retain all the freedoms that our founding fathers fought so hard and risked so much for? Who will lead us toward real harmony with each other? Who can lead the world toward respecting human rights and dignity, prosperity, and end all the hate and bloodshed? These are the paramount questions Americans are thinking about (much more than Bob and Mike anyways).



AW

[Amazing Rando]

McCain doesn't have a prayer in the election. All Obama has to do is conflate McCain with Bush (who is currently the most unpopular president in history) and it's a done deal.

[Ryokan]

McCain doesn't have a prayer in the election. All Obama has to do is conflate McCain with Bush (who is currently the most unpopular president in history) and it's a done deal.
I agree that had the primary battle ended in March, or if McCain wasn't already a national figure, Obama would have Bushed McCain into oblivion. At this point, and I have heard otherwise from any serious analysts, McCain has had time to solidify and define himself in the publics mind, and it is going to be a long, drug out battle that favors Obama but is no sure bet.

[shadowmaster]

read my sig

[Yankee_Doodle]

McCain doesn't have a prayer in the election. All Obama has to do is conflate McCain with Bush (who is currently the most unpopular president in history) and it's a done deal.

I disagree .... but do agree that should be the case (because of how unpopular Bush and the republicans are). However, to spite this McCain still runs about even nationally (it bounces around from week to week) and leads in most of the battle ground states (like Ohio and Florida).

So to spite the consensus that its the democrats to lose, McCain is well within reach of winning this election & frankly the voters are tired of repetitive slogans (so if all Obama has is the Bush comparison it will get tired fast --- since McCain is well known for his maverick positions).


AW

[Ryokan]

I agree that had the primary battle ended in March, or if McCain wasn't already a national figure, Obama would have Bushed McCain into oblivion. At this point, and I have heard otherwise from any serious analysts, McCain has had time to solidify and define himself in the publics mind, and it is going to be a long, drug out battle that favors Obama but is no sure bet.

Have not heard. Typo city. I have not hear.

[Jaltus]

McCain doesn't have a prayer in the election. All Obama has to do is conflate McCain with Bush (who is currently the most unpopular president in history) and it's a done deal.

Bush is not the most unpopular President in history. Good grief, stop parroting the media. The most unpopular President in history was Andrew Johnson, we just did not have polls then to check things like that. I get really sick of the "Clinton was the most popular ever" (false) and "Bush is the least popular ever" (false) claims.

[Amazing Rando]

Bush is not the most unpopular President in history. Good grief, stop parroting the media. The most unpopular President in history was Andrew Johnson, we just did not have polls then to check things like that. I get really sick of the "Clinton was the most popular ever" (false) and "Bush is the least popular ever" (false) claims.

Andrew Johnson was totally set up by the Congress. They passed a special law about deposing cabinet members without congressional approval just to see him break it so they could file impeachment charges.

[shadowmaster]

Bush is not the most unpopular President in history. Good grief, stop parroting the media. The most unpopular President in history was Andrew Johnson, we just did not have polls then to check things like that. I get really sick of the "Clinton was the most popular ever" (false) and "Bush is the least popular ever" (false) claims.


PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 28%, the lowest of his administration. Bush's approval is lower than that of any president since World War II, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (who had a low point of 28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered ratings in the low- to mid-20% range in the last years of their administrations.

According to Gallup at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/106426/Bush-Job-Approval-28-Lowest-Administration.aspx

[decoski]

You're right this does tend to be a stronger issue for Republicans (since most democrats also oppose gay marriage -- though a substantial number of democrats support the measure & only a small fraction of republicans support the idea of gay marriage so it's a safer bet for republicans).

I do think Americans are just getting sick of these hot button issues and feel manipulated by them (who can blame us?). If given a choice between Bob and Mike living together in marital bliss or the Arabians suddenly cutting off our oil supply and lunging us into an economic dark age ..... I think it's safe to say Americans would choose the former.

Who will lead us toward energy independence in a reasonable period of time? Who will divorce us from reliance on Sheiks and Sultans and that part of the world in general? Who can reform our entitlement programs, education system, health care industry, and ensure we remain a prosperous nation and retain all the freedoms that our founding fathers fought so hard and risked so much for? Who will lead us toward real harmony with each other? Who can lead the world toward respecting human rights and dignity, prosperity, and end all the hate and bloodshed? These are the paramount questions Americans are thinking about (much more than Bob and Mike anyways).



AW
Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything from McCain to indicate that he would push for drilling of oil in the USA, not that it would matter anyways. Bush and some Republicans have pushed for this and the Democrat Congress won't let it happen. It may make more sense to have a Democrat President and a Democrat supermajority in Congress, so that they cannot blame Republicans for the inevitable failure on energy policy that would follow their reign. Only then would people wake up and kick them out come 2012 and we will have a sensible energy policy - developing our own energy supply.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything from McCain to indicate that he would push for drilling of oil in the USA, not that it would matter anyways. Bush and some Republicans have pushed for this and the Democrat Congress won't let it happen. It may make more sense to have a Democrat President and a Democrat supermajority in Congress, so that they cannot blame Republicans for the inevitable failure on energy policy that would follow their reign. Only then would people wake up and kick them out come 2012 and we will have a sensible energy policy - developing our own energy supply.

Let's be honest though, even if we drill in Anwar it won't make a big difference. We're talking about roughly a million bpd, which is 5% of our daily usage. However, the reserves at Anwar would only last between 12 and 32 years (according to Wiki). Moreover, it is doubtful a 5% supply increase (which would take 4 or 5 years to realize anyway) would impact the ppb in a way that would translate into lower prices at the pump (or at least a significant reduction in the ppg we pay at the pump).

In fact I find McCain's honesty appealing. He tells us outright that we shouldn't expect, ever again, cheap gasoline. I guess God didn't give us enough oil to do ourselves in from an atmospheric standpoint (even though most of the "green" hoopla is far overblown & in many cases outright false).

The only problem I have with McCain (though I still support him) is he has not put forth an actual plan for infrastructure redevelopment and alternative energy transition -- though he has talked about it (and has promised a plan). I view these two areas as the two single most important issues facing us & two issues that frankly I do not want impacted by ideology.

There a few things we can do as a country that will turn this ship around. First, we can and must demand that our auto industry not only build more hybrids, but build only hybrids & flex-fuel vehicles (and perhaps other alternatives like hydrogen vehicles, though they are a longer term solution if they will ever be viable at all). Even if it requires government subsidies, loans, grants, or whatever we cannot commit ideological suicide by refusing to consider such things (Reagan did such things when our national security depended it). Second we have studied nuclear power for long enough, there is no reason why we cannot license new plants now (and a significant number of new nuclear plants). Thirdly, cellulose ethanol and other processes like thermal de-polymerization is the mid-term (perhaps even long-term) solution for our energy needs. The problem right now is start up costs in relation to corn based ethanol. Corn is not the answer since it is already negatively impacting food prices across the board (and I think ethanol right now only provides about 5% of our transportation fuel --- imagine if that number became much higher?).

During the transition period we will continue to deal with high gasoline prices, nothing we can do about it. Drilling dry the last of our large known reserves is probably not a wise decision. It has nothing to do with the environmental impact of Anwar (since of course there is none) it's about national security IMO. Why leave ourselves dry?

However, there is some level of risk even in this policy. For example, we become more venerable during our transition period to oil shocks if we're not prepared to drill in places like Anwar .... so it's a bit of a catch 22 (since the oil companies will not prepare to drill "just in case" unless we both compensate & force them to do it). It also seems to me that our current fuel delivery infrastructure can be upgraded to satisfy our future needs without radical redesign. For example, current retail gas stations already in operation can easily support ethanol delivery. Current refinery and fuel storage installations can also support ethanol. We need new pipelines (to transport ethanol) but we can build them along side of existing pipelines so we won't need to become wrangled in endless eminent domain litigation. We have plenty of unproductive farmland in this country (particular in the Southeast blackbelt region, now the poorest part of the country) that could be used for farming ethanol crops like switchgrass (which doesn't require the sort of fertile soil food crops require) without impacting food supplies or prices. In short we can view this challenge as an opportunity if we think outside of the box just a little bit.

Anyways, just some thoughts .....


AW

[nachtmusick]

McCain will sweep California's central valley, mountain, and desert counties. Obama will take the coast and large urban areas, excepting only San Diego and a few republican enclaves like Orange County.

Since the population centers will go to Obama, an Obama win seems likely.



But not an entirely comfortable one. There are two confounding factors for Obama:

1. McCain has moderate credentials. They are not in evidence now, but will re-emerge when he goes straight-up against Obama. California's independents and political moderates are pissed at the Republicans right now, but if McCain can distance himself from Bush, he might be able to win enough of them back to make a difference.

2. California has an enormous Latino population. Latinos are not warm for Obama, and disproportionately voted for Hillary in the California Democratic primary. There is a large population of third, fourth, and fifth-generation Latinos in California, and they are not nearly as Democratically-skewed as first and second-generation Latinos.

So it is Obama's state to lose, but that could easily happen if McCain out-campaigns him.

California is, after all, the state that voted Reagan and Schwarzenegger into the Governor's mansion. If McCain was an actor, he would be a shoo-in.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Let's be honest ... California is not a state where republicans typically spend a great deal of time wondering if they'll win.

However, I do agree McCain has a good chance with the Latino population & he can put Cali in play merely by caveat of that fact (since obviously there's many Latinos in Cali). Indeed Obama's current lead over McCain in recent polling (according to the LA Times, link here (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-poll24-2008may24,0,6353526.story)) is only 7% .... not very wide at all (putting Cali in play).

If McCain can put the left coast in play Obama is finished for sure. Heck, even New Jersey is shaping up to become a swing state, with the Mac virtually running tied to Obama (some polls put him ahead). McCain also has a chance in Connecticut (although slimmer) and NH has always loved the Mac.

Weird things are happening .... while a couple typically democratic strongholds have a soft spot for the Mac, Colorado is suddenly in play for Obama (typically an assumed win for repubs). I think when we look at the delegate map of Bush's 2004 win (link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004)) IMO McCain comes out on top (regardless of which way Cali votes). Even if by some chance Colorado goes to Obama, McCain still wins if he can simply hold the rest of the states Bush won in 2004 (which he almost surely will). If, however, Obama does something like pick Clinton as his V.P choice ..... then the dynamic changes in Obama's favor (putting states like Ohio in strong play --- which McCain now leads in by a somewhat comfortable margin). Thankfully McCain gets to make his V.P. choice after the dems do (the repub convention is in Sept. & the dems in August). So if McCain is smart he'll hold off on a V.P. pick until after Obama makes his. If it's Hillary then McCain would be wise to pick a guy like John Kasich of Ohio (since Ohio is 20 electoral votes, making them much more important than Colorado... with only 9).

AW

[nachtmusick]

True, Cali is almost certain to go for Obama. The point is that he must expend resources in that direction to maintain his edge.

Clinton, Gore and Kerry all assumed that Cali was in the bag, and focused elsewhere. They were right to do so, because they all opposed strongly right-wing candidates. California will vote for a moderate Republican; but never, ever a Bush.

McCain used to be the kind of Republican who might have a snowball's chance in California, but he has shifted right during the Republican primary. I doubt he can redeem himself against Obama.

If McCain makes a strong play for Cali, Obama can squelch it. If McCain makes a merely threatening play for Cali, however, Obama will still have to respond. That response will suck up resources that Obama badly needs to make any kind of dent in the rest of the west.

[Tladatsi]

Jaltus,

Aside from our illustrious RINO Governator, there is not a single Republican holding any state-wide office in California. The Republicans have not held a majority in either house of the state legislature or elected a US Senator in 20 years. The whole gay-marriage issue is so last century. One of the reasons the Republican party is comatose in California is indeed the illegal immigration issue. The Republicans ran hard on Prop 187 and got lots of votes from older white voters but badly alienated the large population of younger legal immigrants. The only reason McCain is polling as well as he does is because people think he is anti-Bush.

So don't hold your breath.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807388,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Evidently the State Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage might very well make California a hot spot for the upcoming election. The Republicans are looking to get an amendment to the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal, a law which had passed with 61% of the vote in 2000. This could very well get more conservatives to the polls. With Obama supporting unions (allegedly, I am not sure what he actually stands for in this case), voters may well come out against him for that.

I am not sure if Cal will really be in play, but this forces Obama to spend money and time in a place he should not have to. I think it makes the race for the White House much more interesting.

[Mudflap]

If anything it will get liberals out to vote against it. Gay marriage is kind of a lame issue now, I personally don't care if gay people can get married. In fact I think more people should be gay, leaves more women for me. :D

[shadowmaster]

Nah!

Women do it too.

:sad:

[Tladatsi]

Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but but gay marriage includes lesbians. Their off the market too.

If anything it will get liberals out to vote against it. Gay marriage is kind of a lame issue now, I personally don't care if gay people can get married. In fact I think more people should be gay, leaves more women for me. :D

[Mudflap]

Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but but gay marriage includes lesbians. Their off the market too.


Yeah but most lesbians look like truckers, I don't mind them going off the market.

[shadowmaster]

Yeah but most lesbians look like truckers,

Only half of them.

[Paintbucket]

McCain won't win CA. He will win the election though, he has it (nearly) in the bag. As long as he doesn't make a major mistake between now and election day he should win.

[Mudflap]

I don't know about that paint, I think the Democrats are poised for a win.

[Tladatsi]

I don't know about that paint, I think the Democrats are poised for a win.

That bastion of left-wing thinking, the Wall Street Journal says that it looks like it will be a bad year for Republicans.

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121314230267962603.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

It is hard to imagine the party loosing big in the Congress and still carrying the White House.

[Mudflap]

That bastion of left-wing thinking, the Wall Street Journal says that it looks like it will be a bad year for Republicans.

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121314230267962603.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

It is hard to imagine the party loosing big in the Congress and still carrying the White House.


That, and all the groups that people thought would be a problem for Obama didn't prove so, according to the latest polls. Basically what I thought would happen, once the decision wasn't between 2 Democrats who were basically the same to now between Obama and McCain. Obama's leading in those working class votes, women votes, latino votes, catholic, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103463.html

[Paintbucket]

I think McCain wins presidency in a close race. They'll trade some states from 04 but he should pull it out. Both have positives, but Obama has more negatives. Still, Congress is more important and the Dems will grow stronger in that department.

[shadowmaster]

shadowmaster likes this one:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mccain_vows_to_replace_secret

For everybody but that humorless paintbucket, that is.

[Paintbucket]

shadowmaster likes this one:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mccain_vows_to_replace_secret

For everybody but that humorless paintbucket, that is.

I can't read it... :bawl:

[shadowmaster]

I can't read it... :bawl:



Sorry Painty.
:sad:
Shadowmaster confused you with some grumpy old lawyer that he knows.
:doh:
He begs for your forgiveness.
:flowers:

[Paintbucket]

A grumpy lawyer? Please do tell more. (No, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I don't have the soul for that)

No need to beg either, because you have quite a shiny ring...

[Yankee_Doodle]

hey .... law is an honorable profession (depends on the individual like any other profession). John Calvin was a lawyer, so was Hugo Grotius.

AW

[shadowmaster]

hey .... law is an honorable profession (depends on the individual like any other profession). John Calvin was a lawyer, so was Hugo Grotius.

AW

So are a lot of our legislators.

Q.E.D.

[Jaltus]

A grumpy lawyer? Please do tell more. (No, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I don't have the soul for that)

No need to beg either, because you have quite a shiny ring...

You mean you have the soul, and therefore cannot be a lawyer.

[nachtmusick]

I once gave a deposition.

I had two lawyers advising me, and one grilling me.

Four people entered that room, but only one soul, and that soul was lost.

[Yankee_Doodle]

So are a lot of our legislators.

Q.E.D.

so also were most of our founding fathers? So am I .....

Law is like any other profession, full of sinners. If however someone is a Christian then whatever they do in their professional life they will serve God in whatever way they're anointed to.

It's funny -- everyone loves to make fun of lawyers .... no big deal we're used to it; but when people run into some sort of catastrophe in their lives who do they call? Everyone loves to talk about how those big bad tort lawyers love to sue poor doctors or companies; yet they never stop to think why these entities get sued? When a doctor leaves a sponge in someones body and they get an infection that kills or almost kills them --- and the family discovers that the hospital was overworking the doctor who performed the surgery so bad it was a matter of time before he negligently hurt someone. What will prevent that hospital from continuing their negligent practices? I'll tell you -- knowing they will be sued? How will that family survive now that their bread winner is dead? I'll tell you -- the hospital who gets pummeled by a law suit. So my suggestion is before making fun of lawyers imagine being the son of some guy who dies because of the negligence of some entity like the hypothetical hospital I mentioned.



AW

[Paintbucket]

And then we have the folks who spill coffee on themselves in drive-thrus, break into a house and slip on a knife, break into a building to steal copper wire and get electrocuted, walk across a toxic waste container and fall in, etc. And then they sue...

[Yankee_Doodle]

And then we have the folks who spill coffee on themselves in drive-thrus, break into a house and slip on a knife, break into a building to steal copper wire and get electrocuted, walk across a toxic waste container and fall in, etc. And then they sue...

Obviously these suits were beyond silly -- they should have never been allowed in a court room; but law is no different than any other business. If a lawyer thinks they can make money legally (even if their ethics are questionable) many will give it shot. Is this any different than the beef farmer who cuts corners by feeding cattle the crushed up remains of other cattle (putting us at risk of mad cow disease)? Legal but unethical -- yet I hear no rancher jokes? What about the company who fails to install a safety device because they figure the lawsuits will be cheaper than the one customer per million who dies? Legal but unethical -- yet I hear no corporate jokes? I can go on and on but you get the point, law is no different than any profession, you have good lawyers and bad lawyers. In fact few other professions afford one the opportunity to do as much good as law does; but again not all lawyers choose this route (like not all ranchers avoid feeding cows the remains of other cows or pumping them with hormones because there's an extra buck to be made).

I understand lawyer jokes are funny and it's become popular fodder to say it's them dang lawyers' fault -- but seriously it's just as dumb as blaming Bush for the weather. Usually I find lawyer jokes are most popular among those who either are making money unethically (and by harming others) or were too dumb to even think about law school.

AW

[shadowmaster]

Obviously these suits were beyond silly -- they should have never been allowed in a court room; but law is no different than any other business. If a lawyer thinks they can make money legally (even if their ethics are questionable) many will give it shot. Is this any different than the beef farmer who cuts corners by feeding cattle the crushed up remains of other cattle (putting us at risk of mad cow disease)? Legal but unethical -- yet I hear no rancher jokes? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=UWS&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rancher+jokes&spell=1

over 295.000 of them

What about the company who fails to install a safety device because they figure the lawsuits will be cheaper than the one customer per million who dies? Legal but unethical -- yet I hear no corporate jokes? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=9u7&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=corporate+jokes&spell=1

over 6 millionI can go on and on but you get the point, law is no different than any profession, you have good lawyers and bad lawyers. In fact few other professions afford one the opportunity to do as much good as law does; but again not all lawyers choose this route (like not all ranchers avoid feeding cows the remains of other cows or pumping them with hormones because there's an extra buck to be made).

I understand lawyer jokes are funny and it's become popular fodder to say it's them dang lawyers' fault -- but seriously it's just as dumb as blaming Bush for the weather. Usually I find lawyer jokes are most popular among those who either are making money unethically (and by harming others) or were too dumb to even think about law school.

AW

Someone needs to lighten up. You should hear the jokes about us superheros.
heh heh

[Tladatsi]

I think McCain wins presidency in a close race. They'll trade some states from 04 but he should pull it out. Both have positives, but Obama has more negatives. Still, Congress is more important and the Dems will grow stronger in that department.

Two poles both have Obama out ahead by double digits. The Newsweek pole has Obama leading by 15 points and the LA Times Bloomberg pole has him with a 12 point lead. There was another pole earlier which is even more interesting, sorry I don't remember which, where they surveyed people about who they were planning to vote for and who they thought would win. That one had ahead Obama by only a few points. However, what was really interesting was among people planning to vote for McCain, a solid majority thought that Obama would win. I think that is the a really key metric.

It is a long way to November and a lot can happen but with a lead like that in June, it is Obama's election to loose.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Two poles both have Obama out ahead by double digits. The Newsweek pole has Obama leading by 15 points and the LA Times Bloomberg pole has him with a 12 point lead. There was another pole earlier which is even more interesting, sorry I don't remember which, where they surveyed people about who they were planning to vote for and who they thought would win. That one had ahead Obama by only a few points. However, what was really interesting was among people planning to vote for McCain, a solid majority thought that Obama would win. I think that is the a really key metric.

It is a long way to November and a lot can happen but with a lead like that in June, it is Obama's election to loose.

funny, I looked at Gallup during the same time frames these polls were released & they had the race at practically a statistical dead heat. The so called news organizations that released these polls barely have the credibility of moveon.org


AW

[decoski]

Polls this early are meaningless. I heard that about this time in the campaign, Mondale had a 15 point national lead over Reagan.

[Tladatsi]

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article...gn2008_leftbox

It is not just John McCain.



funny, I looked at Gallup during the same time frames these polls were released & they had the race at practically a statistical dead heat. The so called news organizations that released these polls barely have the credibility of moveon.org


AW

[Yankee_Doodle]

Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate, as they fight to hold a wide range of districts and states normally seen as safe for them, from Alaska and Colorado to Mississippi and North Carolina.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article...gn2008_leftbox

It is not just John McCain.


And the republicans are playing dead ..... they're more like a hibernating elephant these days? I'm worried for this country; the dems given that much control will hurt us in ways I don't even want to imagine.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Polls this early are meaningless. I heard that about this time in the campaign, Mondale had a 15 point national lead over Reagan.

I hope you're right .... I think all conservatives need to step up and do something to help McCain. I'm gonna start by praying.


AW

[shadowmaster]

I hope you're right .... I think all conservatives need to step up and do something to help McCain. I'm gonna start by praying.


AW

History shows us that in the US: Lousy economy = "throw the bums out" and nothing else trumps that.

Do not fear.
The Lord can overcome even president Obama.
Did we not survive Carter?

heh?

[Yankee_Doodle]

History shows us that in the US: Lousy economy = "throw the bums out" and nothing else trumps that.

Do not fear.
The Lord can overcome even president Obama.

that's my only confidence

Did we not survive Carter?

heh?

yeah ..... but just barely :smile:


AW

[Jaltus]

Stop thinking about polls and pay more attention to the electoral map. Who cares who wins the popular media vote, all that matters is the big red and blue map.

[shadowmaster]

Check this out:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[FormerFundy]

Stop thinking about polls and pay more attention to the electoral map. Who cares who wins the popular media vote, all that matters is the big red and blue map.

Exactly.

I don't know if California is in play or not but I think it might be. As you mention, there are some strong conservatives there who will be motivated to go to the polls due to the gay marriage issue. In addition, as it stands right now, Obama is not doing real well with the Hispanics. Thats why I think he will take Bill Richardson as his running mate. He absolutely has to have them in order to win.

I am concerned about Georgia where I live. Normally we are a solidly red state but with Obama and the race factor, I don't know about this time. A very large number of black people, I feel, are going to turn out to vote for him simply because he is black and this is the first time that they have had a real chance to win the Presidency.

Lest someone say I am racist, I could care less what color Obama's skin is. Its not the race but the record that disturbs me.

I would gladly vote for Colin Powell or a number of other black leaders for President but not Obama. He is way too liberal for me and IMO, very close to Karl Marx in ideology.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I think McCain might have a problem with states like Colorado & his pledge to get rid of ethanol subsidies won't play well in farm states; so there is an opening for Obama. However, McCain does have a very good shot in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New Hampshire (traditional blue states). So it really is up in the air.

[decoski]

Exactly.

I don't know if California is in play or not but I think it might be. As you mention, there are some strong conservatives there who will be motivated to go to the polls due to the gay marriage issue. In addition, as it stands right now, Obama is not doing real well with the Hispanics. Thats why I think he will take Bill Richardson as his running mate. He absolutely has to have them in order to win.

I am concerned about Georgia where I live. Normally we are a solidly red state but with Obama and the race factor, I don't know about this time. A very large number of black people, I feel, are going to turn out to vote for him simply because he is black and this is the first time that they have had a real chance to win the Presidency.

Lest someone say I am racist, I could care less what color Obama's skin is. Its not the race but the record that disturbs me.

I would gladly vote for Colin Powell or a number of other black leaders for President but not Obama. He is way too liberal for me and IMO, very close to Karl Marx in ideology.

I'm glad I have company now. I caught hell from a couple of regulars in Civics 101 for posting that he is Marxist.

[shadowmaster]

I'm glad I have company now. I caught hell from a couple of regulars in Civics 101 for posting that he is Marxist.

Too bad. The shadowmaster would have supported you.

[Adam]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807388,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn

Evidently the State Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage might very well make California a hot spot for the upcoming election. The Republicans are looking to get an amendment to the state constitution to make gay marriage illegal, a law which had passed with 61% of the vote in 2000. This could very well get more conservatives to the polls. With Obama supporting unions (allegedly, I am not sure what he actually stands for in this case), voters may well come out against him for that.

I am not sure if Cal will really be in play, but this forces Obama to spend money and time in a place he should not have to. I think it makes the race for the White House much more interesting.
What do you think now, Jaltus?
Headline in SF Chronicle today:
"Field Poll: In California, Obama leads McCain by a whopping 24 points as he picks up Clinton backers" Obama picked up Clinton backers 80% to 8% and holds a 2-1 lead among likely female voters.
Adam

[Jaltus]

We shall see. It is likely not in play, but I would want to see what happens with respect to the Gay Marriage Amendment.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't think McCain really has a realistic shot at winning overall, barring some drastic change in circumstances or October Surprise.