Alright, this is what I’m talking about. And only a small dollop of condescension to go with the argument. Thank you jwright40. Now, for my re-rebuttal:
1) True, but state polls are lagging indicators to the national poll. We’ll see for sure in the next few days.
2) I’d like to see these analytics, you may very well have a point. I think we agree that polls are generally untrustworthy. My experience – those in the lead tend to believe them more. Major case of polls failing – Ohio 2004. Not to prove McCain will win, but to reinforce the point polls may be wrong for many reasons.
3)2004 may have been unprecedented (and it did little to offset the increase Bush had in 2000), and 2008 may be even more, but the history going back has shown it ALWAYS underperforms expectations. So don’t count on the youth vote too much.
4)I would like to understand the context as you see it. The “Joe the Plumber incident” was a simple exchange, and Obama said it very plainly. It’s also in line with his stated desire to raise the capital gains tax out of fairness, even though it may result in less revenue to the treasury. The 2001 incident is more troubling. After listening to the realaudio( http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram ) from Chicago Public Radio and reading the transcript, the context of that conversation seemed to be the civil rights movement. That moves the focus of the discussion from socioeconomic status to that of race, making his talk on “redistributed change” about reparations for slavery and Jim Crow. Not the context many in and out of the conservative base would agree with.
5) We agree, no comment.
6)True, we would have probably held our nose and voted McCain, but only as a protest vote against Obama. Not a winning formula – Kerry lost running as not Bush. There’s still a strong element of “NoBama” this year and it worries me the most. You win by having someone to vote FOR, not against and that’s Obama’s greatest strength. Palin “going rogue” could very well be overstated. You can’t win for losing – hang on to her tightly and she’s “not ready”, let her loose and she’s a “rogue”.
7) McCain=Bush is an effective argument, they’re both Republicans. However, I invite you to read this post by Dan Mclaughlin at redstate: http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/oct/29/john-mccain-joe-biden-and-the-integrity-gap/, especially section C – Maverick. Yes, it’s a right leaning blog, but this post is quite comprehensive, if quite pro-McCain. I figure if you’re willing to come here, you’d be willing to take a look there. It gives quite a long rundown of where he broke with Bush and/or his party. The 90% with bush meme never takes into consideration that that 10% includes some of the most highly visible and contested legislation in the past 10 years or the 97% with-party percentage of Obama, and Obama has NEVER taken a principled stand against his party, or worked across the aisle on anything controversial or for the sake of just doing the right thing, if his party didn’t want it.
8 ) Thugocracy is probably too strong and too incendiary a word but the treatment of various people who have embarrassed or are a threat to Obama is, if not quite criminal, then unethical in the extreme. But coming from a right-winger is rich? How? No matter, the way that Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, David Freddoso, Stanly Kurtz, the Florida anchorwoman, and others have been savaged by the Left has been nothing short of breathtaking. Palin’s family – not off limits even after Obama said it should be, and Andrew Sullivan is the worst of the lot. Joe – asks one question and everything potentially embarrassing is thrown out, no matter if it’s pertinent to anything. the Anchorwoman is now getting similar treatment – did you know her husband was cited for not wearing his seatbelt? And they’re both Republican? Why is that so important? There’s PLENTY of democrats in or related to media figures and that never seems to be a problem. In the case of Kurtz and Freddoso, the Obama campaign itself prompted it’s followers to attack those two when being interviewed on the radio. Oh, and the Obama campaign demanded the DOJ investigate a 527 because they ran an ad the campaign merely didn’t like. Maybe not a “thugocracy, but maybe too eager to squelch dissent and debate by any means necessary.
You’re right, extremists in both parties will attempt to skew the results in their favor. It’s also equally true that this year at least, officials and groups allied with the democrats are VASTLY more involved with vote fraud – and they don’t seem to care. In Ohio, 200,000 registrations with incorrect verification information are allowed, but registrations submitted by the McCain campaign are rejected because they didn’t check a box. In Virginia, a democrat county registrar is rejecting military registrations (a favorite of democrats, see Gore 2000 Florida) due to a technicality while going out of his way to register prisoners and non-resident students. All arguably legal, but it begs the question of loyalty. ACORN is the most prominent and egregious example, and his past close association with them is quite relevant, not hollow. And to borrow a phrase, those who are going to vote for him won’t care.
9) Same as 5), no comment.
10) Yes, and it confirms our worst fears. Those who would vote for him respond exactly as you do. You don’t care. I personally can’t see how it couldn’t bother you, but it is what it is. Now, Wright, Ayers, ACORN, Rezko, et al could be the crux of a larger fundamental problem with the Obama campaign. with all of his advantages – prodigious (and possibly unethical or illegal) fundraising, message discipline, excited followers, the economy, Bush, and a poor McCain campaign – he should be up by at least 15 points and take this in a walk. That it is this close is telling and I think those people are why. If he didn’t have these troubling associations in his past, which give insight to his character and ideology, it would be his year walking away.
