57 responses so far ↓

• 1 mark // Aug 15, 2008 at 7:01 am

  has the simulator been updated with the new poll numbers?

  270toWin: The simulator always has the latest state poll numbers that we have available to us. I believe 3 or 4 states were updated last night. The national polls referred to in this post have no bearing on the simulations.

• 2 mark // Aug 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  ok….I played with the simulator for about 20 minutes today……obama still wins most.but mccain also has won more times than usual…..do you guys have a new break-down on the percentages?….and also some nutty outcomes on the simulator……..obama winning arkansas?……also………real clear politics has the poll averages for states updated daily………they clearly show some states favoring mccain……but the polls used in the simulator seem outdated.again…….any reason for this?

  270toWin: Based on the statistical probabilities associated with the current Arkansas poll, Obama would be expected to win about 7 out of every 1,000 times. So, you just got lucky, or unlucky, depending on your point of view.

• 3 Justin // Aug 19, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  I think Obama can still win some of the swing states. Especially in the southwest. I think Obama will take Colorado and New Mexico easily….and it will be VERY close in Nevada, but I think he can pull it off there also.

• 4 quincyconscience // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

  The main reason Obama can take Colorado easily is the water issue. In colorado they say “Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting” and this year is no exception. McCain is being flamed in Colorado for his comments about wanting to change the water sharing agreements about the Colorado River to favor California and Arizona over Colorado. Obama is not going to let this go lightly, as he has shown to be viscious when attacking locally, Yucca comes to mind. I don’t think the same can be said of New Mexico. Easily is a definite overstatement for New Mexico. Nevada is too close to say anything about. The demographics favor Obama in those three states, but with the time factor it is hard to say that McCain can’t comeback in New Mexico and pull away in Nevada.

• 5 mark // Aug 20, 2008 at 7:08 am

  well.this is a newsflashhttp://americassentinel.com/2008/08/19/mccain-leads-real-clear-politics-electoral-college-count/

• 6 mark // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:09 am

  quincy……..water issue?………there is another liquid issue that is far greater than water.its called oil………..and with the latest poll numbers {including colorado} obama is fading fast….today is the first day in which mccain has the lead in the electoral collegehttp://americassentinel.com/2008/08/19/mccain-leads-real-clear-politics-electoral-college-count/

• 7 Quincyconscience // Aug 20, 2008 at 7:35 pm

  Oil is not more important than water in colorado, especially now that both candidates back offshore drilling, and all of those polls were taken before McCain said he wanted to renegotiate water. Maybe he will recant, but if he doesn’t Obama could win big in Colorado. RCP has Obama ahead unless you count states within the margin of error which is clearly not a wise thing to do. I am not trying to over inflate his chances as now it is about 50-50 but I don’t forsee a McCain blowout, or an Obama blowout for that matter.

• 8 mark // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:19 am

  obama changed his position on drilling?….thats news to me.and probably to 50-60 % of the electorate……….it wasnt but a wek and a half ago.obama said………..” more oil drilling is a gimmick”…………..and then he suggested we could save more oil by inflating our tires than all the drilling combined………{which is absurd}……..I dont know where you are getting the.”he changed his position”…which is it/….tax the legal profits of the oil companies.or let them drill more…obama cant have it both ways…and you cant either…………

• 9 quincyconscience // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  factcheck says that tire pressure claim is factually accurate, so calling that claim absurd is, well, absurd. Obama backs the compromise bill that includes drilling with environmental oversight (see: Paris Hilton). He still calls drilling a gimmick, but he is supporting the compromise that closes tax “loopholes” and allows for drilling in the southeastern US. That is why I said kinda sorta. His campaign will probably push this. It will probably be high on the to do list at the convention to really talk about this, probably from the VP for looks sake. It has been called a flip flop by the McCain campaign and hopefully for them the flip-flop argument sticks. He is in the trial balloon phase of this position and it seems to have been getting the expected reaction of uneasiness by environmentalists, but nothing too major. Again this position will not be a clincher for the Obama camp, but it will likely be important in many states.

• 10 mark // Aug 22, 2008 at 7:45 am

  lets not get in the weeds about factcheck.org…………{owned by the annenberg foundation}…which was run by guess who….barack obama……..and lets disect the claim….first of all.for the tire inflation claim to be correct….it would have to mean that every single car in america has under inflated tires……..and right now….popular mechanics says that 75% of all cars are properly inflated…

• 11 mark // Aug 22, 2008 at 7:48 am

  lets see:……..inflating your tires at some govt. controlled gas station……….or lowering the price of a gallon of gas……..I know which one I’d pick….how bout you?…

• 12 Daniel // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  1. factcheck.org does not say Obama’s tire pressure claim is factually accurate. It says that the tire pressure could save a lot of oil and could start doing so immediately, but once offshore drilling began, it would produce roughly three times as much oil as proper tire inflation. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html)

  2. Barack Obama was the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2000. factcheck.org is maintained by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which is part of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Obama has never been in charge of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and has never run the Annenberg Foundation.

  3. Where the %^@* did the comment about “government controlled gas stations” come from? Do you actually have some evidence that someone is suggesting the government take control of all the gas stations, or is this just the tired, pathetic scare tactic that it appears to be?

• 13 mark // Aug 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  daniel,…….anneberg controls factcheck.org……….obama and ayers were directors of the anneberg challenge….they decided who got over 120 million in donations…..the fatcs are clear…factcheck has a serious conflict of interest…….and why arent they releasing the records of the anneberg challenge?….as far as govt run gas stations…..is it such a stretch to think obama would regulate tire inflation…..since he is already pushing a windfall profits tax on legal proceeds of american owned companies…..try to get your facts right…before accusing anyone of using…”scare” tactics……..heres whats scary………govt incursion on legally acquired profits….the windfall tax would be on top of the taxes already paid by the oil companies……not very american…..is it?

• 14 mark // Aug 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  p.s. if seizing profits from individual companies because you think they..’made too much”….I dont have a better example of govt control…….do you?

• 15 Daniel // Aug 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  “Is it such a stretch to think”? Exactly what I thought: you’re making stuff up to scare us. If you’re not, provide the proof that he ever suggested it. If you can’t provide the evidence, then I’m going to treat it like a baseless scare tactic. It’s that simple.

  As for the Annenberg situation, your “response” is nothing more than the same (deliberate?) confusion of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Annenberg Public Policy Center which I’ve already responded to. You still have nothing more than innuendo to support your claim that factcheck.org (which currently has two corrections of Obama ads on its front page for every one correction of a McCain ad) is biased in favor of Obama. Again, come up with actual proof or don’t expect me to take your claim seriously.

  Finally, yes I can come up with a better example of government control than a windfall tax: actually taking over ownership of a company.

• 16 quincyconscience // Aug 24, 2008 at 1:01 am

  redaction: fact check did not say his claim was accurate, politifact did:

  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/

  got my fact sites mixed up

  The difference is is that politifact includes the entire quote which also includes “getting regular tune-ups”. The politifact verdict has been challenged and they explain there verdict fully twice. Its simply true. Fallacies used in this thread: slippery slope (a stretch to think), equivocation fallacy (Annenberg), and a simply use of an ad nauseam fallacy (tires and tune-ups). Thanks for the correction on the factcheck site, hopefully Politifact is not owned by Obama too.

• 17 mark // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:09 am

  lol.does politifact also mention that most cars dont require tuneups but every 100,000 miles?……..daniel….so its ok to take their profits…as long as you leave them the buildings?.wow.amazing

• 18 mark // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:11 am

  daniel.whats the difference?.taking their money.or taking the company?????

• 19 quincyconscience // Aug 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  that would be regular tune-ups. You haven’t refuted this claim. Look Obama lies just like everyone else, but in this case he is right and most everyone else is wrong. The permanent benefits of conservation through tune-ups and tire inflation would net more gas than offshore drilling, especially since conservation can stack its numbers while offshore drilling is being developed. Refute this using numbers and facts not just saying tune-ups are not done every mile, which politifact never claims. You are wrong man. I can give you real anti-Obama ammo if you want like his flip flop on this issue and others, but there is no reason to say things that logically are not true. Conservation can be done every year where as drilling is limited, obviously. Factcheck took it as a year-to-year thing, which Obama never claimed and did not include the car check up part of the claim.

• 20 mark // Aug 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm

  ok.let me be clear……….I want everyone to inflate your tires to the correct pressure.I want everyone to get their cars tuned up.{every 100,000} …thats a great idea..{75%} of you do it anyway} and I want to drill offshore for more oil for only domestic use…..I want to move to wind and solar.electric cars powered by clean coal technology……..I want to get every barrel of oil thats in america.every barrel we dont buy from countries that hate us.in my opinion…is a good thing……..thats john mccains argument……….and its a winning argument……

• 21 mark // Aug 24, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  p.s. it is gonna take 25-30 years to get all this other technology online.in the meantime……..lets use our own resources….sound good too you?

• 22 quincyconscience // Aug 25, 2008 at 6:35 am

  I don’t care what you think, I was not arguing for Obama or against McCain. Back to the point, Barack Obama did not lie when he said car tune-ups and tire inflation together beats offshore drilling. You said he lied. Address this issue and don’t just continue to shamelessly advocate talking points. I am simply speaking about truth, I really don’t care who wins, so don’t act like you can say that McCain’s policy is better therefore you win. That is not what I am arguing. I am saying that you, the RNC, and McCain are all wrong on this particular issue, I am not saying vote Obama.

• 23 mark // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:18 am

  ok…let me get this straight……….for obama’s tire and tuneup strategy to be correct lots of stars have to line up….first……every single car in america would have to be under inflated….and.tuneups would have to happen every 3,000 miles……..popular mechanics has said that 75% of all cars in america have the proper inflation.and that cars dont need tuneups, but every 100,000 miles……….obama’s figures are way off…….as popular mechanics says it nicely….in order for all obama’s calculations to be accurate.and all things being equal.it would take over 11,273 years for the amount saved by conservation to equal the 2.8 trillion barrels of oil in the united states…….you may not care what I think.fine……but popular mechanics and 70 % of americans agree with me….barack may not have lied……but we dont have 11,273 years to try out his suggestion…….

• 24 mark // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:19 am

  I even left out the fact that tuneups….also means getting your oil changed………….I was trying to help obama out by not mentioning that….

• 25 mark // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:21 am

  http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/…………you might want to re-read .even politifact says they are only using..”estimates”…and it clearly says…..”about a quarter” of cars currently have under inflated tires…..before you pass something off as fact.you cant use estimates….

• 26 quincyconscience // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:28 am

  The fact that Politifact mentions “about one quarter” means they factored that in to the estimates. I don’t know why you think Politifact lied when you even say they included the one quarter adjustment for tire inflation. Where did that year comment come from. Also we don’t get the oil that is here just cause we are American, it goes on the global market to everybody including China, Europe, and other top competitors, so the resources that the US would get are all that you can consider, not all the gas thats there (as if you could even get 80% of it out). Cite one of your numbers, I dare you to put an article or government statement or fact site next to a single one of the stats that you just pulled up. Who are you relying on?

• 27 mark // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:24 am

  ok.nothing in the politifact article says its ‘factored in”………I guess you made that up…right/……..and why do you pre-suppose that any oil included in the numbers will go on the open market??/…thats not in the article either…..It seems you have taken great pains and tortured logic to make the article say more than it really does…..I dont claim politifact lied……they just played with the numbers..they never said the 25% was factored in.they also admitted they were using estimates.and as far as tuneups go….they dont have a single shred of data to back up their assertion..one more thing…..you claim that ” the u.s. will get all that you can consider”….ok.what number is that?…can you cite any number given on the politifact article?…….I didnt think so….cause its not there….it seems that politifact hasnt used any sound mathematical formula……but…if you find out the number…..let me know..

• 28 quincyconscience // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  Citations from poltifact:
  2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires. – the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data.
  This means that with a quarter of the tires under inflated we are loosing this amount.

  …if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. -Minerals Management Service

  .2 mil barrels is the dif. After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that’s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.

  1.4 billion is LESS than 2.8 billion. I mean you can argue about estimates but damn. Unless the estimates are wrong by %50 and 25% respectively, in the direction you want it to go, then Obama was right. And what about car tune-ups? also in the 9 years it would take to START production, inflating tires if done perfectly across the board (Obama was of course speaking in impossible hypothetical situations) using the 2.4 bil figure the US would have saved 21.6 BILLION gallons of fuel. Even using McCain’s 1.2 figure it is clear that the .2 difference would result in offshore drilling being better than tire inflation… in 54 years (math: 1.4 (billion gallons from offshore) – 1.2 (McCain’s tire inflation saving stat in billions of gallons) = .2…. 1.2/.2 = 6 (number of years it would take for the difference between offshore and tire inflation to equal one year of tire inflation saving)
  6 * 9 (number of years for production to boot up) = 54 years

  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t offshore drill. It does mean that Obama was right on his tire inflation claim. No mention of car tune-ups at all because you seem to think those numbers are wrong. Cite something in response

• 29 mark // Aug 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  classic example of “cooking” the numbers…….exactly what source are you using to verify the “2017″ production date?………I need this info before I can respond………especially the “booting” up claim….one more thing…………your analysis doesnt factor in diminishing returns…..are people having to inflate their tires every single day?…that would throw your numbers off by a factor of almost 3 to 1…..and the tuneup problem you have is simple.ford….gm….chrysler………..all are reporting 100,000 per tune up…….and you also dont factor in that most americans change their cars every 7-8 years….{which means fewer tuneups would be required……and………you also dont consider other facts……….increased fuel standards……….better self inflated tires……..the list is endless….so many variables…its hard to take obama’s tire suggestion seriously…another silly fact.inflating tires doesnt bring down the cost of a gallon of fuel……..less driving will bring down demand…..{of course}….I could be getting anal over the numbers, but I dont think so……….in fact………did you know that if everyone drove with the wind , gas mileage would increase 20%….next thing you know.obama will have us putting sails on the tops of our cars…..

• 30 Anonymous // Aug 27, 2008 at 9:32 am

  Sadly I have to say McCain has a great chance of winning this 2008 election. If president George W. Bush has been elected twice by lying and using scare tactics towards the American people; McCain can use the same method. It is clear that Democrats are still divided amongst themselves; however, Republicans are clearly unified and ready for this election. It is clear that McCain will win Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia. The rest of the swing states clearly lay in the hands of American voters. May God bless us all for we do not know what we are approaching.

• 31 mark // Aug 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

  dear anonymous….I get a funny suspicion that you are an obama supporter……lol……..and if you think bush is a liar………youre gonna love the whoppers that obama tells.{campaign finance} {fisa law} {born alive infant protection act}…….{iran isnt a threat}.ooops..{Iran is a grave threat}….pick one………

• 32 quincyconscience // Aug 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  lrn2 straw man fallacy. I am not arguing about wind. I also DID NOT (note: this means i did not) INCLUDE TUNE UPS AT ALL!!!! (this means not one gallon of fuel could be save by tune-ups in my numbers) SO STOP SAYING THAT I USE ANY NUMBERS IN REGARDS TO TUNE-UPS! argh its infuriating. If mile standards increase, then proper inflation would become more important because under inflated tires would have even more of an impact as it effects the percentage mpg. If demand goes down because people need to buy less gas with their inflated tires obviously prices go down. In your next post, could you please explain how more mpg with inflated tires does not drive down demand? More mpg directly leads to less g needed for the m people drive.

  BTW the Minerals Management Service gave us the 2017 figure. They also said that the 1.4 bil gal figure I use would not be obtained until 2030. Obviously this is not sustainable in terms of people inflating tires. Obama was simply using the figures for comparison to show that offshore drilling really won’t be all that awesome. He was speaking hypothetically. The claim is that if all cars where tuned and inflated that dif would equal all the production from offshore. Offshore would basically not be an answer is all he is claiming and conservation could do just as much.

• 33 mark // Aug 27, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  quincy……..you need to relax…..Im merely pointing out flaws in the argument..{of which there are many}………lets just agree to disagree……ok?

• 34 quincyconscience // Aug 28, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  No way can you just abandon this now. Obama did not lie in this very specific case. You can’t just agree that facts can be disagreed with. That is my argument. You haven’t given any supporting evidence to your claims.

• 35 mark connete // Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  well.when you can refine your argument with hard data.such as exact time frames…exact numbers of cars with underinflated tires………and the number of tuneups .when you can stop using.”estimates”……..when you can stop guessing about drilling time frames………..when you can give me an exact ratio of cars to trucks with more tires…..what Im getting at is this……….this is an argument you cant win………..

• 36 Michael // Aug 29, 2008 at 8:36 am

  This is an argument Quincy can’t win because you are asking for something that isn’t possible.
  No one can give any absolute number on anything that will happen in the future. The numbers have to be estimates, as they haven’t happened yet. Just as the amount of oil and gas to be extracted are estimated amounts of barrels or cubic meters.
  Mark, I’m really sorry, but you’re ridiculous. Incapable of debating, you simply can’t admit a different opinion than your own.
  Please, for your own sake, read the documents from our founding fathers, do a little philosophy, and then come back and debate. You might or might not want to vote for the same man and the same party, but you will have learned to think on your own. Quincy seems to have despaired of the whole process, and I understand him when I read what people like you call debate.

• 37 mark connete // Aug 29, 2008 at 1:15 pm

  not thats funny…..ok mike…..first of all..why in the world would I “admit another opinion” when my position is quite correct……….I didnt ask the impossible of Quincy………I merely asked for better defined numbers.It is people like you who think the ..”debate” is over………..thats anti-science, The purpose of science is to investigate and draw conclusions based on hard science………period.If its above your paygrade..fine.admit it and we will move on………………….p.s. you might want to read something called the heisenburg theory………

• 38 quincyconscience // Aug 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  Do you look up the fallacies i ask you to. The one you are committing with a vengeance right now is called the moving goal posts fallacy. This is absurd. As a science major at a respected university I think I know what science is, don’t lecture me. The figures I gave before are perfectly sound and I am not going to refine them its over. Also I know fallacy, which your entire argument is based on. The paygrade comment is another fallacy as well as mentioning the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics in a political setting and setting up an impossible goal. What bothers me most is that this is a blatantly republican form of the fallacy (democrats bs very differently) where you mention it as if the people at politifact, Minerals Management, and all the people who collaborated on the tire stats are some how not making enough money to understand the science. Also republicans say ‘anti-science’ which is not at all something you can do, but a belief that science itself is flawed. Wiki it. Democrats say bad science which is a more correct term, but generally they misapply it. This task is impossible because the goalposts would move again if I were to complete it. fin.

  ps that word thing down the bottom gave me the words “Unsolvable” and “bc”. good sense of humor, random word generator.

• 39 mark connete // Aug 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  hahaha.thats rich..first:..science isnt flawed. science is always about the ..”unanswered question”….the search for being definitive as to exclude other possibilities…{a science major should know that}……simply saying..”the debate is over” does nothing to further the study…..thats 101…….second:I wasnt inplying anything about the people doing the tire study.or the mineral mang. team.Im sure they are good at what they are doing………..I merely point out the glaring lack of facts.and your poor decision to take it at face value…………..third:..my use of the term..”above paygrade”..was totally my attempt to be facious…excuse meeeeeeeeee……you remind me of the old joe biden video ,,,when he told the interviewer…and I quote.”I think my I.Q. is a lot higher than yours”……………….”moving the goal post” thats a nice try…Im not moving the goalpost.Im making you work for the endzone.linebackers dont just let you walk in……………ps………Why havent we heard obama mention tire inflation in weeks?..hmmmmmmmm………does the university you attend say anything about intellectual honesty?

• 40 mark connete // Aug 30, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  quincy..you arent one of those people that thing global warming is caused by man.are you?

• 41 mark connete // Aug 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  another thought……the heisenburg theory cuts your own argument………its all about the validity of the process and its parameters.it hits at the essence of the observational problem..the so-called flaw of science………

• 42 Brandon // Sep 2, 2008 at 3:38 am

  I think that Pa might be a key swing state that might go red this year despite the polls. Pa has one of the highest elderly populations in America where there are many who will refuse to vote for Obama due to race and not even cast their votes. If this happens and McCain takes Pa, the election will be over and Obama can Take Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Also Minnesota could play a huge role in this years election with it going red for the first time in 20 years due to the national convention being held there and a well liked Republican Governor who was almost the VP.

• 43 Brandon // Sep 2, 2008 at 3:40 am

  Also, Who will win the election in the event of a tie. I did the math based on the Projections and state laws of the Electoral College that McCain would have to fight for 142 of his won state votes while Obama would have to fight for 63. Could we in fact have a Obama-Palin ticket or a McCain-Biden Ticket?

  Read this post for more on what would happen in the event of a tie.

• 44 mark connete // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:14 am

  brandon……..interesting take.I would say that a tie is a very remote possibility…we probably have better odds of a comet striking the earth.{not literally}………as I see it…..if mccain holds florida and takes ohio………the real battleground is michigan……with the displeasure of the people with the democrat controlled govt……..3rd highest tax rate….{the gov. just raised them this year}..and the mayor of detroit being a huge embarrasment.{then playing the race card}…the population is rapidly moving out of michigan….michigan is ripe for a flip to the red.maybe by less than 2%…. but a flip that big……..game over

• 45 William // Sep 2, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Romney would’ve made Michigan competitive for McCain, but I think MI is Obama’s to lose now. McCain’s positions on health care and the economy aren’t helping him there.

  Also, I find it disingenius trying to tie Obama to Kwame Kilpatrick. That’s like saying McCain will lose Florida because he’s in the same party as Mark Foley.

• 46 mark connete // Sep 2, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  william..direct obama quote.” he’s a great leader, just what detroit needs”…………end quote”..its a shame kwame couldnt attend the convention….he kept setting off the metal detectors with his ankle locator device. ouch…..

• 47 William // Sep 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  but cheney won’t set off the metal detectors at his convention with his hunting rifle right?? What does he plan on doing there anyway?? Scowling at everyone for 15 minutes straight??

  it could’ve been worse, Obama could’ve said he’s “done a heck of a job.”

  “Now watch this drive.”

• 48 mark // Sep 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  thats funny……….heres a hint…….bush aint runnin in 08………side note: john mccain spent more years as a p.o.w. than obama has been a senator.ouch.and his running mate sarah palin actually has more executive experience than obama and biden put together..thats gotta hurt………

• 49 Brandon // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:38 am

  All bickering aside, I am Libertarian, I like McCain on some issues and Obama on some as well. I love Sarah Palin but think Biden is a sleezeball. In the event of a tie, the way my map reads, there will be a split in the election, it is not that far fetched, just hasnt happened before. In this case Dick Cheney will pick the Next VP if the Senate stays the way it is based on 26 states requiring pledged delegates to go to the candidates and then the others to represent their party if they choose. In this case Sarah Palin would be Elected by Dick Cheney. There is a 2% chance of this happening so we may see a Obama-Palin Ticket. McCain has a slight chance in Michigan, but Ohio might offset that. Pa could go McCains way but he may lose Virginia and North Carolina in the process. In fact I would love to See Obama-Palin in there because they keep claiming how inexperienced the two are, it might be better off for our country. Also check out this issue I am concerned about. RFID’s coming from the administration of the Homeland Security and was passed right in the midst of the Tsunami of 2005 when nobody was focused. I am just concerned how our government is out there passing bills after disasters such as the Patriot Act and Homeland Security directly after 9/11. Big Brother is watching.

• 50 William // Sep 3, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  Can’t knock John McCain for his service to our country, but that alone doesn’t make him more qualified to be President. Sorry.

  It’s a problem for Palin that people don’t know anything about her ability to govern. She was Mayor of Wasilla, pop. 9,000. Wasilla is 1/2 the size of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. She had 50 employees and an annual budget of $12 million. Then she was Governor briefly. It’s not exactly a beehive of activity up there.

  McCain better do all he can to shake loose of lil bush. I sure hope it doesn’t end a tie. I don’t think the American people, Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, et al will stand for dick cheney selecting the Veep.

• 51 mark // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:31 am

  william……..palin isnt the mayor anymore…she is the governor………24,000 state employees….12 billion dollar budget…….she has more experience than obama……..she has been to iraq……she has been to visit wounded troops in germany……she beat a incumbent republican gov in alaska…..she blew the whistle on corrupt republicans in alaska……….alaska is the largest state in the union.alaska has about 60% of the oil and natural gas reserves that america holds…………Id say she has plenty of experience………..at least twice as much as the communtiy organizer……………..next?

• 52 William // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:30 am

  None of what you say about her is really all that unique. Making a case for her is like making a case for Obama. They are both new on the scene and relatively unknown. Just because you keep erroneously repeating that she has more experience than Obama doesn’t make it true.

• 53 mark // Sep 5, 2008 at 10:40 pm

  86% approval rating…………thats very unique……….game.set.match

• 54 William // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:34 am

  Ok…

  So she’s going to bring home Alaska for him… Didn’t need Madame Cleo to tell us that.

• 55 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:41 am

  william………..simple question……..what makes obama’s 144 days in the senate more relevant than palin’s 18 months as governor and chief exec. has obama ever handled a 25 billion dollar budget?……..has obama ever been the boss of 25,000 employees?…..has obama ever negotiated a deal with russia or canada?……obama is clearly not as experienced as palin……it would seem that obama has never run anything.{except a campaign}……..his is only 1/100 of a vote.sarah palin’s is 100/100 as a gov.. she cant have the luxury of voting “present” like sen. obama …

• 56 William // Sep 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  No, Obama casts 1 full vote for official business, but I see what you’re getting at. However, your argument is dependent upon a very narrow definition of executive experience. By a reasonable standard, Obama is more than qualified to be President.

  Alaska has a system of checks and balances just like everywhere else. Palin must split power with the legislative and judicial branches. So to quantify her will, it’s more like 33.3/100.

• 57 mark // Sep 8, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  william.the only way obama vote matters.is in event of a tie……..other than that.he has power…..sarah palin has.{and used} the line item veto…sarah palin has 25,000 under her immediate control{obama has 300 foreign policy advisors,,sheeesh}.what budget does obama have to control?….besides his family’s?……..and what actual negotiations has he done again? oh thats right.none…….Ithink obama was the chairman of the afghanistan panel in the senate.{0 hearings held} none.nadda……….so I ask you.what do you consider a reasonable standard….my goodness

Leave a Comment