OT- Landslide?

Ed Rollins seems to think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeOBqM5sMc


So does the Princeton Electoral Consortium

http://election.princeton.edu/todays...ote-histogram/


hth


GeoC

George Cleveland wrote:
Ed Rollins seems to think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeOBqM5sMc


So does the Princeton Electoral Consortium

http://election.princeton.edu/todays...ote-histogram/

I don't know about a landslide but the realclearpolitics electoral
map is sure looking good.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._mccain/?map=5

Obama could lose Nevada, West Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana,
North Carolina, Ohio *and* Florida !!, all the toss up states, and
*still* beat McCain 277 - 261.

It looks like McCain is trying to back off the "lynch mob" strategy
in his own campaigning, it remains to be seen whether Palin will
tone down her hatemongering. At any rate, that strategy fired up
the faithful but it appears to be backfiring with independents and
working class Dems.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 11, 5:46*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

It looks like McCain is trying to back off the "lynch mob" strategy
in his own campaigning, it remains to be seen whether Palin will
tone down her hatemongering. At any rate, that strategy fired up
the faithful but it appears to be backfiring with independents and
working class Dems.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well, there is little doubt of your expertise in hate-mongering and
lying propaganda. Indeed, you seem to do little else.

Hopefully it will backfire on you as well.

On Oct 11, 9:23*am, George Cleveland
wrote:
Ed Rollins seems to think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeOBqM5sMc

So does the Princeton Electoral Consortium

http://election.princeton.edu/todays...ote-histogram/

hth

GeoC

This could turn on a dime, all it would take is one Obama mistake.
And I would be very careful not to underestimate Palin (same thing
that I said about Bush before his first election): she is much, much
better out on the trail than she is being given credit for, and - I
suspect - she is getting better by the day, and could end up making a
significant difference in critical regions such as in Ohio and PA.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:57:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 11, 9:23*am, George Cleveland
wrote:
Ed Rollins seems to think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeOBqM5sMc

So does the Princeton Electoral Consortium

http://election.princeton.edu/todays...ote-histogram/

hth

GeoC

This could turn on a dime, all it would take is one Obama mistake.
And I would be very careful not to underestimate Palin (same thing
that I said about Bush before his first election): she is much, much
better out on the trail than she is being given credit for, and - I
suspect - she is getting better by the day, and could end up making a
significant difference in critical regions such as in Ohio and PA.

PA is in Obama's pocket now, with a 14% lead in the polls. I think
McCain is still campaigning there because it is the only big state
that he has a remote chance of picking up and the way his campaign
handled pulling out of MI hurt him badly. He can't do it again. He's
stuck their and it will siphon off money and time that he could be
spending more profitably elsewhere. Ohio is a "different matter", but
of course is a "no matter" if Obama wins Florida or Virginia.

Of course this could turn on a dime. 3 weeks is a couple of changes of
momentum in the usual election. But it could also turn in Obama's
direction just as easily. McCain and Palin are the desperate ones and
its obvious in their actions and words. Palins favorability rating is
the lowest of the four Pres./VP candidates and dropping. Undecideds
are breaking 2 to 1 against her. She obviously appeals to the
Republican base but with a base 5 to 10 percent smaller than the
Democrats thats not going to do it this election. According to the AP,
Democratic registration has grown 5% and Repiublican registrations are
down 2% from 2004.

I know that Democrats are a pessimistic bunch. But if the numbers hold
up for another week and a half, if Bambi is still up by 6 to 8 points
nationally, then they are going to have to start acting like the Party
of Destiny in order to siphon off those last few people who, whether
we like it or not, are attracted in the last few days to the candidate
with the mantle of "Winner".

Its important that Democrats not get complacent but rather take the
attitude that an absolute crushing of the Party of Bush is a first
step in exacting justice for the disaster of the last 8 years. With
more to come.

hth

GeoC

wrote in message
...
I would be very careful not to underestimate Palin (same thing
that I said about Bush before his first election): she is much, much
better out on the trail than she is being given credit for, and - I
suspect - she is getting better by the day, and could end up making a
significant difference in critical regions such as in Ohio and PA.


she got booed in Philly at a hockey game last night, and the GOP state
chairman fretted publicly as to how the ticket seems to have lost votes
among suburban women in Southeastern PA(normally GOP country, in past
years).
I agree with GC's sentiments, that barring a major Obama misstep, they
should be able to win this one, easily.
That said, I have watched Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
countless times.......g
Tom

On Oct 12, 12:57*pm, George Cleveland
wrote:



Its important that Democrats not get complacent but rather take the
attitude that an absolute crushing of the Party of Bush is a first
step in exacting justice for the disaster of the last 8 years. With
more to come.

hth

GeoC

Regardless of any other considerations, a "landslide" might be a good
thing, giving the incumbent the necessary power to actually implement
reform. One of the major problems facing reform in many parties and
governments is the deadlocking which occurs through lack of
majorities, which effectively blocks many things.

One must also remember that the will to reform is one thing, having
the power to actually do it is quite another, and that by and large
civil servants are mainly responsible for implementing policy, and not
politicians. If those civil servants block or frustrate policy, then
the politicians are basically powerless.

Of course, some of those reforms may also be something that many don´t
want, as they might well negatively affect their present status. Many
things are as they are because people wish them to stay that way.

Democracy itself has one major flaw, in that it assumes equality on
the part of the participants. This is obviously not the case. When
capitalism is added to this, then the concept and operation becomes
even more skewed, usually in favour of those with the most clout.

"Crushing" a party would not seem to be a particularly good idea,
especially in this case, as it would remove many checks and balances.
Although it may seem that a particular party is responsible for a lot
of unfortunate circumstances, because they happen to be in power, this
is rarely the case. It takes cooperation on many levels to implement
various things, and both parties are involved in this.

Also, having a majority does not automatically guarantee success in
any particular situation.

This type of "scapegoat" thinking merely results in more problems. One
can not do anything about what happened yesterday, one can only change
what will happen today or tomorrow.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 12:57 pm, George Cleveland
wrote:



Its important that Democrats not get complacent but rather take the
attitude that an absolute crushing of the Party of Bush is a first
step in exacting justice for the disaster of the last 8 years. With
more to come.

hth

GeoC

Regardless of any other considerations, a "landslide" might be a good
thing, giving the incumbent the necessary power to actually implement
reform. One of the major problems facing reform in many parties and
governments is the deadlocking which occurs through lack of
majorities, which effectively blocks many things.

One must also remember that the will to reform is one thing, having
the power to actually do it is quite another, and that by and large
civil servants are mainly responsible for implementing policy, and not
politicians. If those civil servants block or frustrate policy, then
the politicians are basically powerless.

Of course, some of those reforms may also be something that many don´t
want, as they might well negatively affect their present status. Many
things are as they are because people wish them to stay that way.

Democracy itself has one major flaw, in that it assumes equality on
the part of the participants. This is obviously not the case. When
capitalism is added to this, then the concept and operation becomes
even more skewed, usually in favour of those with the most clout.

"Crushing" a party would not seem to be a particularly good idea,
especially in this case, as it would remove many checks and balances.
Although it may seem that a particular party is responsible for a lot
of unfortunate circumstances, because they happen to be in power, this
is rarely the case. It takes cooperation on many levels to implement
various things, and both parties are involved in this.

Also, having a majority does not automatically guarantee success in
any particular situation.

This type of "scapegoat" thinking merely results in more problems. One
can not do anything about what happened yesterday, one can only change
what will happen today or tomorrow.


Reform? What exactly are his reform policies? Both the candidates are
scary. I just think Obama and his life long political leanings are more
scary than McCain's. And Obama and Pelosi are an extremely scary combo.

"Calif Bill" wrote in news:vcOdnSCVw9
:

Regardless of any other considerations, a "landslide" might be a good
thing, giving the incumbent the necessary power to actually implement
reform.

More importantly, it gives a clear message to the Republican Party that it
needs to retool. In the long run, two viable vital parties (or more) are
probably in everyone's best interest.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Oct 12, 7:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

Reform? *What exactly are his reform policies? *Both the candidates are
scary. *I just think Obama and his life long political leanings are more
scary than McCain's. *And Obama and Pelosi are an extremely scary combo..

As far as I have been able to determine, and of course my resources
are limited, as is my interest, knowledge, and ability to perceive and
integrate what I do know, none of these people have any specific plans
or policies for reform.

For quite a few people it seems to be implicit, but up to now there
has been nothing to even suggest it. The whole thing resembles more
than anything a tribal slanging match and a power struggle.