PDA

View Full Version : Trouble in Montana



ari1013
09-09-2008, 12:55 PM
The Constitution Party has just elected to put Ron Paul at the head of their ticket in Montana, with their perennial nominee Michael Peroutka as the VP. (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/05/montana-constitution-party-submits-presidential-electors-pledged-to-ron-paul-and-michael-peroutka/)

Paul received 22% of the vote during the primaries in Montana, right behind Mitt Romney, but finishing ahead of John McCain by a fairly solid margin.

Bear in mind that Montanans deserted GHW Bush in 1992 in rather large numbers and gave Perot enough votes that Clinton was able to pick up the state.

Obama's already polling very well there: Rasmussen has had him +5 and +0 in their last two polls. If Ron Paul peels away even 3% from McCain, Obama could very well take this state home.

Looking at the electoral map, Obama's essentially a lock for 243 electoral votes and holds a slight (just barely above the MoE) lead in Michigan which would bring him up to 260. If he wins Montana on top of that, all he needs is one of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, or the pair of Nevada+New Hampshire to pull it off. All six of those states are no more than +1 in McCain's favor right now -- even with McCain polling better than him in the popular vote.

BG7
09-09-2008, 01:08 PM
Prophecy:


If Ron Paul gets on the ballot, he could be a spoiler for John McCain in Montana, the Dakotas, and Nevada, which would guarantee an Obama win. Ron Paul's following in those states is pretty large.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6559170&postcount=42

b1e9a8r5s
09-09-2008, 01:12 PM
The Constitution Party has just elected to put Ron Paul at the head of their ticket in Montana, with their perennial nominee Michael Peroutka as the VP. (http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/05/montana-constitution-party-submits-presidential-electors-pledged-to-ron-paul-and-michael-peroutka/)

Paul received 22% of the vote during the primaries in Montana, right behind Mitt Romney, but finishing ahead of John McCain by a fairly solid margin.

Bear in mind that Montanans deserted GHW Bush in 1992 in rather large numbers and gave Perot enough votes that Clinton was able to pick up the state.

Obama's already polling very well there: Rasmussen has had him +5 and +0 in their last two polls. If Ron Paul peels away even 3% from McCain, Obama could very well take this state home.

Looking at the electoral map, Obama's essentially a lock for 243 electoral votes and holds a slight (just barely above the MoE) lead in Michigan which would bring him up to 260. If he wins Montana on top of that, all he needs is one of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, or the pair of Nevada+New Hampshire to pull it off. All six of those states are no more than +1 in McCain's favor right now -- even with McCain polling better than him in the popular vote.

The last Montanta poll (even) was done on 7/29, so it doesn't reflect recent events (Palin). I would imagine that Montana, being a historically red state, would show the same "surge" in support for McCain as has been seen nationally, probably more so. I understand your point about Paul stealing votes, but I have a hard time seeing him taking enough to make an impact.

Also, I was wondering were 243 comes from. I go to realclearpolitics and they have 217-174-147 (Obama-McCain-Toss Up). I'm guessing you have have Penn and Nevada in the Obama column?

BG7
09-09-2008, 01:25 PM
Montana is more libertarian minded, so they would be pissed at the Palin pick imo. The same might hold true in North Dakota and Nevada.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-09-2008, 01:35 PM
That is tough. There are a lot of Ron Paul fans. It could be a repeat of Ross Perot for sure.

Doc Fluty
09-09-2008, 01:39 PM
dont they shoot moose in montana also?

they should be palin fans lol

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 01:54 PM
Anyone who votes for Paul over McCain at this point is casting a vote for Obama. I love Ron Paul, but he is unelectable and those who support him need to face the reality of what they are doing.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-09-2008, 01:58 PM
Anyone who votes for Paul over McCain at this point is casting a vote for Obama. I love Ron Paul, but he is unelectable and those who support him need to face the reality of what they are doing.

I understand what you are saying but sometimes people vote for their conviction. I voted for Ross Perot twice. :)

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 02:08 PM
I understand what you are saying but sometimes people vote for their conviction. I voted for Ross Perot twice. :)

So did I. And it cost me and us alot. Its time to be a bit more responsible with our votes this time.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-09-2008, 02:11 PM
So did I. And it cost me and us alot. Its time to be a bit more responsible with our votes this time.

I was younger and more idealistic back then. Now I realize nobody cares if you waste your vote. . I now will only vote for somebody that has a chance to win.

sboyajian
09-09-2008, 02:21 PM
Anyone who votes for Paul over McCain at this point is casting a vote for Obama. I love Ron Paul, but he is unelectable and those who support him need to face the reality of what they are doing.
In the eyes of a McCain supporter, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

However, in the eyes of a Paul supporter, a vote for Paul is just that.. a vote for Paul.

Regardless of whether someone thinks he is electable or not, if that is who someone wants to vote for, they have every right to do so and they should not be swayed to vote a different way just because someone thinks it's a waste of time.

BG7
09-09-2008, 03:58 PM
Any Paul supporter who votes for McCain, was just in it for the celebrity of Ron Paul, and not the issues.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-09-2008, 04:25 PM
Any Paul supporter who votes for McCain, was just in it for the celebrity of Ron Paul, and not the issues.

That is just your opinion. I disagree

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 04:47 PM
I was younger and more idealistic back then. Now I realize nobody cares if you waste your vote. . I now will only vote for somebody that has a chance to win.

It's a horrible compromise, I know. But this election is so important and will be decided by such a narrow margin that pragmatism must subjugate idealism.

As I have said many times before, there are many things about McCain that I just don not agree with, but I am very uneasy about the prospects of an Obama administration.

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 04:50 PM
In the eyes of a McCain supporter, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

However, in the eyes of a Paul supporter, a vote for Paul is just that.. a vote for Paul.

Regardless of whether someone thinks he is electable or not, if that is who someone wants to vote for, they have every right to do so and they should not be swayed to vote a different way just because someone thinks it's a waste of time.

That is EXACTLY what the democrats are hoping for and the very thing about which I am worried.

And if you are so concerned about trying to sway somebody's vote, what the hell do you think political campaigns are all about, anyway? Um, to sway public opinion to vote for a particular candidate. 101, man. 101.

Uncle Funster
09-09-2008, 04:56 PM
Any Paul supporter who votes for McCain, was just in it for the celebrity of Ron Paul, and not the issues.

No, no, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is time to carefully consider what a vote for Paul actaully accomplishes in the context of Paul's own political philosophy. A vote for Paul becomes a vote for Obama, plain and simple. Look at the '92 election and respect history.

I voted for Paul in the California primary and voted for Perot in the presidential election of 1992. I have voted my conscience in the primary, but will not allow my selfish ideals to usher in a man who I despise both morally and politically. I will cast my vote against Obama...what will you do with yours?

Politics is a dirty business by nature where a man/woman is asked to compromise for the greater good according to his/her beliefs. Voting for Paul at this point, IMO, is voting against the greater good according to my beliefs.

b1e9a8r5s
09-09-2008, 05:21 PM
A new poll for Montana just came out. It has McCain up 11. This is only a two man race, but I don't think Paul would be able to eat enough into that margin to give the state in Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mt/montana_mccain_vs_obama-614.html

ari1013
09-09-2008, 05:33 PM
The last Montanta poll (even) was done on 7/29, so it doesn't reflect recent events (Palin). I would imagine that Montana, being a historically red state, would show the same "surge" in support for McCain as has been seen nationally, probably more so. I understand your point about Paul stealing votes, but I have a hard time seeing him taking enough to make an impact.

Also, I was wondering were 243 comes from. I go to realclearpolitics and they have 217-174-147 (Obama-McCain-Toss Up). I'm guessing you have have Penn and Nevada in the Obama column?
Maybe so, but a September ND poll put Obama up 3 there -- and that was after Palin was announced.

ari1013
09-09-2008, 05:36 PM
No, no, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is time to carefully consider what a vote for Paul actaully accomplishes in the context of Paul's own political philosophy. A vote for Paul becomes a vote for Obama, plain and simple. Look at the '92 election and respect history.

I voted for Paul in the California primary and voted for Perot in the presidential election of 1992. I have voted my conscience in the primary, but will not allow my selfish ideals to usher in a man who I despise both morally and politically. I will cast my vote against Obama...what will you do with yours?

Politics is a dirty business by nature where a man/woman is asked to compromise for the greater good according to his/her beliefs. Voting for Paul at this point, IMO, is voting against the greater good according to my beliefs.
Did your home state in 1992 go Blue because of Perot?

ari1013
09-09-2008, 05:37 PM
A new poll for Montana just came out. It has McCain up 11. This is only a two man race, but I don't think Paul would be able to eat enough into that margin to give the state in Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mt/montana_mccain_vs_obama-614.html
A one day post-convention poll doesn't really mean all that much at this point. If McCain's still got that much of a lead in a week, then yes, it's real. But right now it's probably mostly bounce.

b1e9a8r5s
09-09-2008, 05:45 PM
Maybe so, but a September ND poll put Obama up 3 there -- and that was after Palin was announced.

The poll your refering to, came out Sept 3, but the survey took place from August 23-27 and therefore does not reflect the Palin choice or the RNC.

http://www.dakotapolitics.com/blogPost.asp?PostId=10915

ari1013
09-09-2008, 05:53 PM
The poll your refering to, came out Sept 3, but the survey took place from August 23-27 and therefore does not reflect the Palin choice or the RNC.

http://www.dakotapolitics.com/blogPost.asp?PostId=10915
Thanks. I didn't know that. Why did they have such a delay?

b1e9a8r5s
09-09-2008, 06:47 PM
Thanks. I didn't know that. Why did they have such a delay?

No clue. I had a hard time believing the +3 Obama was right after Palin/RNC in ND, so I looked up.

BG7
09-09-2008, 07:32 PM
No, no, no. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is time to carefully consider what a vote for Paul actaully accomplishes in the context of Paul's own political philosophy. A vote for Paul becomes a vote for Obama, plain and simple. Look at the '92 election and respect history.

I voted for Paul in the California primary and voted for Perot in the presidential election of 1992. I have voted my conscience in the primary, but will not allow my selfish ideals to usher in a man who I despise both morally and politically. I will cast my vote against Obama...what will you do with yours?

Politics is a dirty business by nature where a man/woman is asked to compromise for the greater good according to his/her beliefs. Voting for Paul at this point, IMO, is voting against the greater good according to my beliefs.

Your logic is faulty here. A vote for Paul is not a vote for Obama.

There is three scenarios here.

Vote for Paul: Voter would not vote otherwise, but casts vote for Ron Paul. No effect on Obama/McCain.

Vote for Paul, who otherwise would have voted for McCain: -1 in the McCain column.

Swing voter, who was going to vote for McCain, votes for Obama: -1 in the McCain column, +1 for Obama.

Also, how can you find Barack Obama wrong morally? Is it because he is black? I don't think you find him morally unacceptable over the abortion issue, because McCain is a war monger who likes killing just to spread the neocon agenda, and Palin would love to mindlessly slaughter Muslims in wars against Muslim countries. And with Matthew 22, Obama is for helping the poor, giving them healthcare, etc., while McCain is against it.

I'm not buying that someone judges these people morally. I find things in both of them that is morally wrong (Obama's stance on abortion, McCain/Palin's slaughtering of people for their neocon/anti-Muslim agendas, McCain not helping the poor).

Doc Fluty
09-09-2008, 07:41 PM
so im kida lost in the thread about "a vote for pual is/is not a vote for obama"

isnt that kinda like saying is someone writes in Hillary its like a vote for mccain?

CubsGirl
09-09-2008, 07:42 PM
so im kida lost in the thread about "a vote for pual is/is not a vote for obama"

isnt that kinda like saying is someone writes in Hillary its like a vote for mccain?
Pretty much.

I get kind of bummed out when I see people say stuff like that and dissuade themselves/others from voting third party, because it continues to hinder the multi-party system of our nation which could lead to the better candidates that people who don't like Obama or McCain always complain about wanting ("I'd rather have Hilary/Romney," "Best of two evils," etc.)

If you vote third-party, is it going to change how we vote this election? No. Next election? Nope. But it's taking a step back instead of a step forward.

hoosiercubsfan
09-09-2008, 09:48 PM
Pretty much.

I get kind of bummed out when I see people say stuff like that and dissuade themselves/others from voting third party, because it continues to hinder the multi-party system of our nation which could lead to the better candidates that people who don't like Obama or McCain always complain about wanting ("I'd rather have Hilary/Romney," "Best of two evils," etc.)

If you vote third-party, is it going to change how we vote this election? No. Next election? Nope. But it's taking a step back instead of a step forward.

The only time we are going to have better candidates is when the electorate starts paying attention. When you have more people voting for the next American Idol than president that says something. People are just so apathetic to politicians that they just say they are all crooks. Which sadly to say is more or less true. Americans have forgoten the struggles to give them the right to vote. And until that changes we are stuck with the status quo we are in now.

SmthBluCitrus
09-10-2008, 12:10 AM
Expanding on the Ron Paul theme ...


Ron Paul Makes an Appeal for Third-Party Candidates

Representative Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas who attracted a devoted following in his bid for the Republican nomination, is once again trying to shake up the presidential race.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, Mr. Paul plans to urge voters to support one of the third-party candidates for president rather than cast their ballot for either Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, or Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate.

“At a time when 60 percent of the American people are dissatisfied with their presidential choices,” Mr. Paul said in a statement, “this could be the year that third-party option brings in a big chunk of the vote.”

New York Times (continued) (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/ron-paul-makes-an-appeal-for-third-party-candidates/)

Uncle Funster
09-10-2008, 07:37 PM
Did your home state in 1992 go Blue because of Perot?

My "home" state in NJ = permanently blue. My adopted state in CA = permanently blue. But the weather is much better in Cali...:D

Uncle Funster
09-10-2008, 07:39 PM
Your logic is faulty here. A vote for Paul is not a vote for Obama.

There is three scenarios here.

Vote for Paul: Voter would not vote otherwise, but casts vote for Ron Paul. No effect on Obama/McCain.

Vote for Paul, who otherwise would have voted for McCain: -1 in the McCain column.

Swing voter, who was going to vote for McCain, votes for Obama: -1 in the McCain column, +1 for Obama.

Also, how can you find Barack Obama wrong morally? Is it because he is black? I don't think you find him morally unacceptable over the abortion issue, because McCain is a war monger who likes killing just to spread the neocon agenda, and Palin would love to mindlessly slaughter Muslims in wars against Muslim countries. And with Matthew 22, Obama is for helping the poor, giving them healthcare, etc., while McCain is against it.

I'm not buying that someone judges these people morally. I find things in both of them that is morally wrong (Obama's stance on abortion, McCain/Palin's slaughtering of people for their neocon/anti-Muslim agendas, McCain not helping the poor).

Don't try the race card on me, skippy. Conversation over.

Uncle Funster
09-10-2008, 07:42 PM
Pretty much.

I get kind of bummed out when I see people say stuff like that and dissuade themselves/others from voting third party, because it continues to hinder the multi-party system of our nation which could lead to the better candidates that people who don't like Obama or McCain always complain about wanting ("I'd rather have Hilary/Romney," "Best of two evils," etc.)

If you vote third-party, is it going to change how we vote this election? No. Next election? Nope. But it's taking a step back instead of a step forward.

In theory and on a philosophiocal level, I completely agree that it is bad to dissuade any third party efforts. However, politics exists in the real world and in real time and is where the very essence of self-interest is promoted. It is also why these "debates" on PSD can get so heated.

ari1013
09-10-2008, 07:43 PM
My "home" state in NJ = permanently blue. My adopted state in CA = permanently blue. But the weather is much better in Cali...:D
So your vote didn't really matter much then either way, right? While I was in NY I voted for all kinds of random 3rd parties when the outcomes were assured.

Uncle Funster
09-10-2008, 07:53 PM
So your vote didn't really matter much then either way, right? While I was in NY I voted for all kinds of random 3rd parties when the outcomes were assured.

Well, I suppose that it opens an entirely different conversation about the worth of the individual vote. But this election promises to be so close that I almost believe that every vote counts.

ari1013
09-10-2008, 08:20 PM
Well, I suppose that it opens an entirely different conversation about the worth of the individual vote. But this election promises to be so close that I almost believe that every vote counts.
I agree to some extent. As I wrote in my first post, it could indeed matter in Montana. But NJ's not going McCain no matter how you slice it. Just as Oklahoma's not going Obama. Neither is North Carolina despite Obama putting up ads down there.

CubsGirl
09-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Don't try the race card on me, skippy. Conversation over.
Why use one sentence fragment to dodge an entire valid question?

Uncle Funster
09-11-2008, 04:52 AM
Why use one sentence fragment to dodge an entire valid question?

Because it was one of the first sentences and colored the entire post in the light of racism. Why get involved? We seem to have moved on, howz aboot you, too?

CubsGirl
09-11-2008, 09:09 PM
Because it was one of the first sentences and colored the entire post in the light of racism. Why get involved? We seem to have moved on, howz aboot you, too?
Because I'm also very curious how you could find Obama morally reprehensible. I don't like McCain, but I don't find anything morally wrong with the guy.

BG7
09-11-2008, 10:12 PM
Because I'm also very curious how you could find Obama morally reprehensible. I don't like McCain, but I don't find anything morally wrong with the guy.

The problem is these people find Obama wrong because he's black. If they didn't, they would be able to explain what they find wrong with the guy. Instead they just throw out the veil, "Don't play the race card on me!" Why not? If you had other reasons to be against him other than he's black (or a man), you would surely be able to explain them.

I think this is a great example of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

Uncle Funster
09-11-2008, 11:07 PM
The problem is these people find Obama wrong because he's black. If they didn't, they would be able to explain what they find wrong with the guy. Instead they just throw out the veil, "Don't play the race card on me!" Why not? If you had other reasons to be against him other than he's black (or a man), you would surely be able to explain them.

I think this is a great example of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

Your logic is ****, man. That's the second time you have accused me of being racist without a shred of evidence. Knock it off asap.

Obama is morally unacceptable to me because of:

1. His stance on abortion
2. Platform of social programs that I cannot support
3. Foreign Policy platform that would weaken the country's defenses
4. His religious beliefs
5. His early (and continued) political influences were communists and socialists; two ideologies I despise
6. His tax program that will substantially efect my earnings in order to support the social programs I mentioned above

You may not like my conservative beliefs and they may not be on par with yours, but this does NOT make me a racist. So take your head out of whatever dark hole in which it currently resides and stop spewing vile nonsense.

BG7
09-11-2008, 11:28 PM
Your logic is ****, man. That's the second time you have accused me of being racist without a shred of evidence. Knock it off asap.

Obama is morally unacceptable to me because of:

1. His stance on abortion
2. Platform of social programs that I cannot support
3. Foreign Policy platform that would weaken the country's defenses
4. His religious beliefs
5. His early (and continued) political influences were communists and socialists; two ideologies I despise
6. His tax program that will substantially efect my earnings in order to support the social programs I mentioned above

You may not like my conservative beliefs and they may not be on par with yours, but this does NOT make me a racist. So take your head out of whatever dark hole in which it currently resides and stop spewing vile nonsense.

His stance on abortion yes. His religious beliefs...maybe. But if you find his religion morally reprehensible, you would have to find McCain's, Palin's, Paul's, Hillary's, Huckabee's, and so on's religion morally reprehensible, since they all are following the same thing.

Not sure what makes his social programs or foreign policy morally wrong.

You can continue to make stuff up about Obama-Ayers connection if you want, and talk about his early political influences.

And congrats on making 250k a year, or more. I'm sure Obama's tax plan will have you hurting, just barely scraping by.

Uncle Funster
09-12-2008, 12:36 AM
His stance on abortion yes. His religious beliefs...maybe. But if you find his religion morally reprehensible, you would have to find McCain's, Palin's, Paul's, Hillary's, Huckabee's, and so on's religion morally reprehensible, since they all are following the same thing.

Not sure what makes his social programs or foreign policy morally wrong.

You can continue to make stuff up about Obama-Ayers connection if you want, and talk about his early political influences.

And congrats on making 250k a year, or more. I'm sure Obama's tax plan will have you hurting, just barely scraping by.

I respect all of your opposing views. Just don't call people racist or pull the race card indiscriminently...it makes you look bad.;)

DenButsu
09-12-2008, 01:19 AM
4. His religious beliefs
5. His early (and continued) political influences were communists and socialists; two ideologies I despise


I'd love to hear exactly which of his religious beliefs you oppose.

And I'd love for you to provide legitimate evidence that he actually holds those beliefs.

And while you're providing that evidence, if you could also provide evidence for that highly wacky claim #5 there, well I'd sure get a kick out of seeing that, too.

Real, legitimate evidence, please.

Thank you. :cool:

hoosiercubsfan
09-12-2008, 09:27 AM
The problem is these people find Obama wrong because he's black. If they didn't, they would be able to explain what they find wrong with the guy. Instead they just throw out the veil, "Don't play the race card on me!" Why not? If you had other reasons to be against him other than he's black (or a man), you would surely be able to explain them.

I think this is a great example of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

Your views are completely reprehensible. I don't agree with the guys policies I could care less if he is green blue purple or green. I do not believe his policies on taxes will only stop with the rich no matter what he says. That he will bring our economy back to the Carter era. And you think it is bad now just wait it can get A LOT worse. He wants to grow the size of government which I oppose that is why I am against Obama. To suggest it is race based is completely ludicrous. It does nothing for the conversation and if he loses it will not be because he is black alone. Granted I agree there will be people who vote against him simply because he is black but there will be other people that vote for him simply because he IS black. Are you going to call these people racist also?

Uncle Funster
09-12-2008, 10:42 AM
I'd love to hear exactly which of his religious beliefs you oppose.

And I'd love for you to provide legitimate evidence that he actually holds those beliefs.

And while you're providing that evidence, if you could also provide evidence for that highly wacky claim #5 there, well I'd sure get a kick out of seeing that, too.

Real, legitimate evidence, please.

Thank you. :cool:

Ya know, I don't need to provide you or anyone with ****, sir. Any "evidence" I post will only be met with scorn and ridicule as always in this liberal-infested forum. My main point was that a poster called me a racist (twice) for no reason, but you mods (CG and you, DB) didn't do a damn thing about that. There was no response to a completely irresponsible accusation of bigotry on that poster's part. Instead, I am attacked for listing my thoughts about the candidate (supposedly the intent of these forums). What a total joke.

So, when you, or any other mod or poster, want to trade posts on a level playing field, then I will consider granting your request.

Until then...:moon:

Uncle Funster
09-12-2008, 10:44 AM
Your views are completely reprehensible. I don't agree with the guys policies I could care less if he is green blue purple or green. I do not believe his policies on taxes will only stop with the rich no matter what he says. That he will bring our economy back to the Carter era. And you think it is bad now just wait it can get A LOT worse. He wants to grow the size of government which I oppose that is why I am against Obama. To suggest it is race based is completely ludicrous. It does nothing for the conversation and if he loses it will not be because he is black alone. Granted I agree there will be people who vote against him simply because he is black but there will be other people that vote for him simply because he IS black. Are you going to call these people racist also?

Its odd how TWO different liberal mods completely ignored this poster's completely mendacious claims of racism (baiting, really), but instead chose to attack my opinions further. What a bunch in here, huh?

DenButsu
09-12-2008, 10:59 AM
How about this, Uncle Funster: If somebody makes a post that you think needs to be dealt with by mods, you report it, instead of just letting it hang out there to prove some kind of point.

Every mod in this forum - including the conservative ones - know that I've constantly asked for more support from conservative mods, and have constantly not really gotten it, so if you've got a problem, tell them about it, not me, because I do what I can, all right?

In this particular case, he asked you a question, you answered it - well enough, I thought, and dealt with it. I didn't think it warranted an edit or infraction. Maybe Wrigley or SLY would disagree. Why don't you ask them. If so, and they want to act on it, I have absolutely no problem with that.

sboyajian
09-12-2008, 01:28 PM
That is EXACTLY what the democrats are hoping for and the very thing about which I am worried.

And if you are so concerned about trying to sway somebody's vote, what the hell do you think political campaigns are all about, anyway? Um, to sway public opinion to vote for a particular candidate. 101, man. 101.

Campaigns are to sway people who have not yet decided. Not to change someone's mind by convincing them their candidate is a waste of time.

People who believe Obama is better, are not going to be swayed and vice versa. It's the people who honestly don't know who to vote for because once again we are sitting here with two subpar choices.