The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[magekillr]

So are you really un educated enough to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot? Nice. Actually, I don't think you know anything about me, except that I'm a human, who used to play RS. Really, the race card is thrown because people don't know why people don't like Obama. Yet none of you can seem to fathom, that some people will always be Republican, and some will always be Democratic, no matter waht you say. And Magekillr, when people come to ym house to ask if I'll vote for Obama, I simply say "No, sorry I'm goin for McCain." And they say how I'm a racist and too stupid to understand why an old guy shouldn't be in office.And do you guys realize you're the ones doing the name game? I'm just playing along. And anyone remember a certain Alan Keyes? I was rooting for him, actually. It's funny how people only remember Obama, and not Keyes.

 

 

 

 

Your main argument against Obama was "Universal Health Care". Obama is not bringing that, and then you didn't have much of anything.

 

 

 

By the by, I'm not necessarily attacking Republicans, I'm attacking Reagan Democrats. These are the people who LOVE people like Mark Warner, but won't vote for Obama despite them having the same political ideology. The only explanation for that is, race, and his name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jack, sorry, but you trying to use the race card in favor of Obama won't get you anywhere. It's a known fact that black people and minorities support the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers regardless of the race of the candidate. Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and I expect Obama to get around the same.

 

 

 

Also, that doesn't address the hatred that Ginger was discussing either.

 

 

 

This is what Ginger is describing:

 

 

 

[jackattack]

Race isn't really going to be a factor either way. The only reason people are bringing it up is so that in the unlikely event that he actually loses they will say it's because America is such a horribly racist country. Mark Warner is very different from Obama. Listening to him talking about a 'centrist coalition' makes me think he would be in the model of Mary Landrieu who Obama is the opposite of. I haven't actually looked into where he stands on most issues though and I won't really try to tell you about your own Governor. I bet if Arnie was able to run dems in California who support Obama would vote for him.

[Saru Inc]

So are you really un educated enough to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot? Nice. Actually, I don't think you know anything about me, except that I'm a human, who used to play RS. Really, the race card is thrown because people don't know why people don't like Obama. Yet none of you can seem to fathom, that some people will always be Republican, and some will always be Democratic, no matter waht you say. And Magekillr, when people come to ym house to ask if I'll vote for Obama, I simply say "No, sorry I'm goin for McCain." And they say how I'm a racist and too stupid to understand why an old guy shouldn't be in office.And do you guys realize you're the ones doing the name game? I'm just playing along. And anyone remember a certain Alan Keyes? I was rooting for him, actually. It's funny how people only remember Obama, and not Keyes.

 

 

 

 

Your main argument against Obama was "Universal Health Care". Obama is not bringing that, and then you didn't have much of anything.

 

 

 

By the by, I'm not necessarily attacking Republicans, I'm attacking Reagan Democrats. These are the people who LOVE people like Mark Warner, but won't vote for Obama despite them having the same political ideology. The only explanation for that is, race, and his name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jack, sorry, but you trying to use the race card in favor of Obama won't get you anywhere. It's a known fact that black people and minorities support the Democratic Party in overwhelming numbers regardless of the race of the candidate. Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and I expect Obama to get around the same.

 

 

 

Also, that doesn't address the hatred that Ginger was discussing either.

 

 

 

This is what Ginger is describing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you just read what I wrote? And I feel hatred, not at Obama, infact I agree with Michelle, but with his followers. At school, my friends will tell their freidns "Do you know Sam? He ISN'T voting for Obama! What a racist!" did you vote for Keyes? Why not? Because of his race? As you can see, that makes no sense, you didn't vote for him because you don't believe in what he believes, it had nothing to do with his race. So why is it a racial question? I mean, I also don't agree with his views on the War in Iraq... So.

 

 

 

Edit: I just watched a vid, that interviewer was misguided, McCain is running for President, not Palin. So why compare Palin to Obama? No one knows about Biden. I learned about him 2 motnhs ago, I knew about McCain 10 years ago.

[jackattack]

Oh I didn't even see the video. I bet I could go to an Obama rally and do the same thing. "was 9/11 an inside job?" "did McCain father an black child out of wedlock?" "are the troops in Iraq terrorists?"

[magekillr]

Race isn't really going to be a factor either way. The only reason people are bringing it up is so that in the unlikely event that he actually loses they will say it's because America is such a horribly racist country. Mark Warner is very different from Obama. Listening to him talking about a 'centrist coalition' makes me think he would be in the model of Mary Landrieu who Obama is the opposite of. I haven't actually looked into where he stands on most issues though and I won't really try to tell you about your own Governor. I bet if Arnie was able to run dems in California who support Obama would vote for him.

 

 

 

Mark Warner is almost EXACTLY like Obama in his policies, and his methodology. Have you even read Obama's book about what kind of politics he dreams of? He and Mark Warner are almost identical: they're trying to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats with compromise. I mean, sure, Obama pissed me off with some of his votes like FISA...but if you read his book, you'll understand why he votes the way he does on certain bills. Warner successfully bridged the gap in Virginia for the better, and that's why he's leading Gilmore by like 30 points (last I checked). Obama is exactly the same as Warner when it comes to the type of politics that they want to see, although I would say Warner is slightly less liberal in a few areas, and slightly more liberal in others (which is expected...).

 

 

 

Please, Obama's race helps him in some regards, this I will admit (especially for winning the nomination). However, in the General Election, for the most part, it is hurting him. West Virginia is not a Republican state, they should be Democrat this election, but his race is causing him to be behind by a few points. Obama's numbers are getting better there (and Ohio's are looking better too).

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh I didn't even see the video. I bet I could go to an Obama rally and do the same thing. "was 9/11 an inside job?" "did McCain father an black child out of wedlock?" "are the troops in Iraq terrorists?"

 

Yes but the fact of the matter is this - he doesn't.

 

 

 

Why? Because he doesn't need to tap into that sort of emotion to get people to the polling booths (or whatever they are in America, point still stands).

 

 

 

So I suppose by saying that I've answered my own question. The reason people hate Obama is because there is a deep-rooted fear in America of change. Although, that said, I have never seen a group of people react that passionately towards a single stimulus before.

[magekillr]

Oh I didn't even see the video. I bet I could go to an Obama rally and do the same thing. "was 9/11 an inside job?" "did McCain father an black child out of wedlock?" "are the troops in Iraq terrorists?"

 

 

 

Actually, you won't find many "troofers" at an Obama rally. You'd have to stick with Ron Paul rallies.

[jackattack]

^^ Code pink people are all conspiracy theorists. And your talking about a tiny minority of loud people. This is like saying westboro church is like all baptists. Whoever took that video just found the most uninformed people at the whole rally and it is probably only like 1% of them in total.

 

 

 

And if race is a factor why has Democratic West Virgina Senator Robert Byrd and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, who's only regret of being in the KKK was that it hurt him politically and used the n word as recently as 2002, endorsed Obama?

 

 

 

Anyway if Warner is anything like Obama he won't be starting any 'centrist coalition'. hearing him speak he sounds like the next Mary landrieu but I guess not. Obama hasn't really done anything to work with Republicans his whole time in the Senate. The bill he did with [bleep] Lugar wasn't controversial at all and passed on Unanimous consent. The only example he could think of at Saddleback was the ethics bill he worked with McCain on. They worked together for a week in 2006 but the Obama decided to do what his party leaders wanted and McCain accused him of "Partisan Posturing" and said that he was stupid for thinking that Obama was sincere. I will give him credit on voting for FISA but that was after he was already running for President. Other that that there is absolutely nothing. If you want people who work across the aisle you supporting the wrong ticket. McCain has worked with democrats more time than I can count. And Palin appointed a lot of Democrats as governor.

[Flodder450]

[hide=

[magekillr]

Obama is my President, if he wins or if he loses:

 

 

 

Iraq and the United States have finally agreed on a security pact which would mean that US forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2011, American and Iraqi officials said yesterday.

 

 

 

The accord became a major test of strength between the Iraqi government and Washington since negotiations began in March with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, pictured below, demanding US concessions on the date of the troop withdrawal and immunity for US troops. The pact replaces the UN Security Council resolution enacted after the American invasion of 2003.

 

 

 

The agreement still needs to be approved by the council of Iraqi leaders, the cabinet and the Iraqi parliament. Mr Maliki saw the highly influential Shia religious leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, last week and was assured that he would not stand in the way of the pact if approved by parliament.

 

 

 

The accord has been on the verge of being signed several times in the past only for fresh objections to be made by the Iraqi government, which has become increasingly confident of its own strength. A compromise has been reached on whether or not US troops can be tried by an Iraqi court if they commit crimes while not engaged in operations. US troops are to withdraw from Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year and from Iraq entirely by the middle of 2011 said the government's spokesman, Ali Dabbagh.

 

 

 

He said: "The withdrawal is to be achieved in three years. In 2011, the government at that time will determine whether it needs a new pact or not, and what type of pact will depend on the challenges it faces."

 

 

 

The US administration will present the pact as a sign of its success in Iraq but in fact the accord is very different from originally envisaged by Washington which would largely have continued the occupation as before.

 

 

 

President Bush was opposed to timelines or dates for an American withdrawal and the US is still stressing that this is conditional on improved security in Iraq. But it is unlikely that the Shia majority will want to share power with the US.

 

 

 

Iraqi politicians have always assumed that Washington's insistence on signing a new accord before the presidential election was motivated by the White House's hope that the accord would be seen as a sign that its Iraq policy had at last produced a success. The Republican contender, Senator John McCain, started off his campaign by saying that US troops might stay for 100 years and there should be no date for their withdrawal. The Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, wants combat troops home by the middle of 2010, which was also the date originally proposed by Mr Maliki.

 

 

 

Iraq has faded as an issue in the presidential election as the financial crisis worsened. However, claims that the Republicans had won a victory in Iraq looked increasingly unreal as it became clear that a withdrawal date would be determined by Mr Maliki, and not by the US.

 

 

 

The US has given ground on crucial issues. On the legal immunity of American troops Mr Dabbagh said: "Inside their bases, they will be under American law. Iraqi judicial law will be implemented in case these forces commit a serious and deliberate felony outside their military bases and when off duty." Contractors, who have more men in Iraq than the US army, will no longer have immunity.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 62874.html

[Saru Inc]

Obama is my President, if he wins or if he loses:

 

 

 

Iraq and the United States have finally agreed on a security pact which would mean that US forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2011, American and Iraqi officials said yesterday.

 

 

 

The accord became a major test of strength between the Iraqi government and Washington since negotiations began in March with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, pictured below, demanding US concessions on the date of the troop withdrawal and immunity for US troops. The pact replaces the UN Security Council resolution enacted after the American invasion of 2003.

 

 

 

The agreement still needs to be approved by the council of Iraqi leaders, the cabinet and the Iraqi parliament. Mr Maliki saw the highly influential Shia religious leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, last week and was assured that he would not stand in the way of the pact if approved by parliament.

 

 

 

The accord has been on the verge of being signed several times in the past only for fresh objections to be made by the Iraqi government, which has become increasingly confident of its own strength. A compromise has been reached on whether or not US troops can be tried by an Iraqi court if they commit crimes while not engaged in operations. US troops are to withdraw from Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year and from Iraq entirely by the middle of 2011 said the government's spokesman, Ali Dabbagh.

 

 

 

He said: "The withdrawal is to be achieved in three years. In 2011, the government at that time will determine whether it needs a new pact or not, and what type of pact will depend on the challenges it faces."

 

 

 

The US administration will present the pact as a sign of its success in Iraq but in fact the accord is very different from originally envisaged by Washington which would largely have continued the occupation as before.

 

 

 

President Bush was opposed to timelines or dates for an American withdrawal and the US is still stressing that this is conditional on improved security in Iraq. But it is unlikely that the Shia majority will want to share power with the US.

 

 

 

Iraqi politicians have always assumed that Washington's insistence on signing a new accord before the presidential election was motivated by the White House's hope that the accord would be seen as a sign that its Iraq policy had at last produced a success. The Republican contender, Senator John McCain, started off his campaign by saying that US troops might stay for 100 years and there should be no date for their withdrawal. The Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, wants combat troops home by the middle of 2010, which was also the date originally proposed by Mr Maliki.

 

 

 

Iraq has faded as an issue in the presidential election as the financial crisis worsened. However, claims that the Republicans had won a victory in Iraq looked increasingly unreal as it became clear that a withdrawal date would be determined by Mr Maliki, and not by the US.

 

 

 

The US has given ground on crucial issues. On the legal immunity of American troops Mr Dabbagh said: "Inside their bases, they will be under American law. Iraqi judicial law will be implemented in case these forces commit a serious and deliberate felony outside their military bases and when off duty." Contractors, who have more men in Iraq than the US army, will no longer have immunity.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 62874.html

 

 

 

We're [bleep]ed.

 

 

 

The whole point of no timeline was that if the terrorists know when we're leaving, they won't attack as much, so we know "hey we beat em!" we leave, and the [cabbage] just hit the fan, a lot of it. When we leave, all the terrorists and their 'buddies' come back, and all the money we wasted and lives lost (though minimal) were of no use. And we all know how incompetent the Iraqi leadership is.

[jackattack]

^^ Barack Obama knows that too. I guess he just doesn't think Iraq is worth winning.

 

 

 

What the militias are essentially doing is they've just pulled back. They've said as long as there's these increased troop presence, we'll lie low, we'll wait it out. As soon as the Americans start leaving and redeploying into other areas, we will come back in.

 

 

 

[

 

 

 

And Magekillr, is that the same deal Obama tried to stop from happening when he was in Iraq?

[Ginger_Warrior]

If there was ever any doubt about why McCain is currently losing this election, then this should surely be the final nail in the blinkered coffin. Is it just me who believes these out-of-control scare tactics, endorsed in name by McCain and the Republicans, are hurting McCain more than it's damaging Obama's credibility? You needn't answer that question as it's rhetorical - the polls speak for themselves.

 

 

 

McCain has already said Obama is not a terrorist. His activists linking the man to terrorism, even if subtly, seems to be typical of McCain's campaign as a whole - unorganised, incoherent, and apparently pertaining to a momentum outside of even McCain's control. Obama's campaign on the other hand seems well-oiled and effective, targeting specific groups who previously have had no interest in politics. That is why out of all the battleground states, McCain is currently polling higher in none, even states which he realistically has to keep hold of such as North Carolina and Florida.

 

 

 

I think everyone expects the polls to get tighter as November draws in, but for McCain, it's either change tactics now, or lose this election.

[Saru Inc]

If there was ever any doubt about why McCain is currently losing this election, then this should surely be the final nail in the blinkered coffin. Is it just me who believes these out-of-control scare tactics, endorsed in name by McCain and the Republicans, are hurting McCain more than it's damaging Obama's credibility? You needn't answer that question as it's rhetorical - the polls speak for themselves.

 

 

 

McCain has already said Obama is not a terrorist. His activists linking the man to terrorism, even if subtly, seems to be typical of McCain's campaign as a whole - unorganised, incoherent, and apparently pertaining to a momentum outside of even McCain's control. Obama's campaign on the other hand seems well-oiled and effective, targeting specific groups who previously have had no interest in politics. That is why out of all the battleground states, McCain is currently polling higher in none, even states which he realistically has to keep hold of such as North Carolina and Florida.

 

 

 

I think everyone expects the polls to get tighter as November draws in, but for McCain, it's either change tactics now, or lose this election.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I think McCain still has a chance, simply because of Obama and ACORN's voter fraud in 17 (I think its 17) different states. Most people don't know about it though.

[jackattack]

If there was ever any doubt about why McCain is currently losing this election, then this should surely be the final nail in the blinkered coffin. Is it just me who believes these out-of-control scare tactics, endorsed in name by McCain and the Republicans, are hurting McCain more than it's damaging Obama's credibility? You needn't answer that question as it's rhetorical - the polls speak for themselves.

 

 

 

McCain has already said Obama is not a terrorist. His activists linking the man to terrorism, even if subtly, seems to be typical of McCain's campaign as a whole - unorganised, incoherent, and apparently pertaining to a momentum outside of even McCain's control. Obama's campaign on the other hand seems well-oiled and effective, targeting specific groups who previously have had no interest in politics. That is why out of all the battleground states, McCain is currently polling higher in none, even states which he realistically has to keep hold of such as North Carolina and Florida.

 

 

 

I think everyone expects the polls to get tighter as November draws in, but for McCain, it's either change tactics now, or lose this election.

 

 

 

Actually McCain has come back slightly since he started pounding the Bill Ayers. ANd the point of linking Obama to Ayers isn't to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist. It shows Obama's poor judgment. Obama has associated himself with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezco.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You're missing the point jack (again). Your personal opinion, and mine for that matter, doesn't impact on the polls. What does impact, and what the point of that whole post was, is how McCain is running his campaign. Constant negative attacks, angry expressions and nothing but disdain for Obama, all the while whilst trying to distance himself from Bush to appeal to independent voters and still keep a hold of the Right of the Republican Party.

 

 

 

He's running his campaign in two completely different directions. If he carries on, he will lose. He needs to start appealing to a bigger picture, a vision, of what America would be like under his leadership. In other words, something positive rather than these constant smear campaigns which are frankly not fooling enough people.

[magekillr]

If there was ever any doubt about why McCain is currently losing this election, then this should surely be the final nail in the blinkered coffin. Is it just me who believes these out-of-control scare tactics, endorsed in name by McCain and the Republicans, are hurting McCain more than it's damaging Obama's credibility? You needn't answer that question as it's rhetorical - the polls speak for themselves.

 

 

 

McCain has already said Obama is not a terrorist. His activists linking the man to terrorism, even if subtly, seems to be typical of McCain's campaign as a whole - unorganised, incoherent, and apparently pertaining to a momentum outside of even McCain's control. Obama's campaign on the other hand seems well-oiled and effective, targeting specific groups who previously have had no interest in politics. That is why out of all the battleground states, McCain is currently polling higher in none, even states which he realistically has to keep hold of such as North Carolina and Florida.

 

 

 

I think everyone expects the polls to get tighter as November draws in, but for McCain, it's either change tactics now, or lose this election.

 

 

 

Well, I think McCain still has a chance, simply because of Obama and ACORN's voter fraud in 17 (I think its 17) different states. Most people don't know about it though.

 

 

 

If the people in that video I posted (the ignorant idiots from Ohio) know what ACORN is (or at least they think they know what it is), I'm pretty sure the "informed" voters know what it is, or at least what the McCain campaign is accusing it of. God damn, you probably don't even know what ACORN is.

 

 

 

You guys are missing the big picture here: these are all NON-ISSUES! Obama's "relationship" with Bill Ayers, "Tony Rezko" who has nothing to do with Obama and all money donated by him was returned the second he discovered what Rezko was guilty of, Jeremiah Wright is a non-issue who dominated the airwaves way back in March. Don't you get it? Jesus christ, if you're thinking people are going to vote because of these characters, then you're out of touch with what most of America, and the independent voters (the ones that sway elections), care about.

 

 

 

Who cares who McCain slept with while he was married? I sure don't. It's none of my business. Who cares that McCain had a relationship with Gordon Liddy, I don't...but shouldn't you, Jack? You love bringing up Ayers and Rezko and Wright, but if anyone McCain is associated with is brought up, you turn a blind eye. In case anyone is wondering, Liddy was one of the main people involved in the Watergate Scandal.

 

 

 

Obama's message of hope and positivity is what is bringing John McCain down, and it's why he shocked the world and beat Hillary in Iowa. The American people are tired of negativity, and they want a leader that leads and guides, rather than tears down and divides.

 

 

 

McCain's problem is that he can't even attack in any battle ground states. Obama hit the ground running and made him defend RED states. When he has to defend Indiana and Georgia, whilst withdrawing from Wisconsin, Colorado, and Michigan, he is in big trouble. McCain didn't withdraw from Colorado, but the RNC did. The RNC was where most of McCain's help was expected to come from.

 

 

 

This is why I thought Obama had a better chance than Hillary Clinton did. His map is so damn diverse that it makes McCain/RNC spend all of their resources DEFENDING states they normally wouldn't even be campaigning in. He can't even attack any states, he's stuck defending Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri.

 

 

 

Not only is Obama draining McCain's funds, but he's draining the RNC's funds. Guess who else the RNC funds? The Senators and Representatives running for re-election. Obama has not only beaten John McCain in the GE (at this time), he has beaten the entire Republican National Committee, winning us Senate and House seats. Al Franken was soooo far behind a month ago. Franken is currently WINNING now.

 

 

 

This is like Christmas...the whole Republican Party is in shambles because of three men: George Bush, John McCain, and most importantly, Barack Obama. I love it.

 

 

 

Huge edit...gd Obama is brilliant. You cannot touch him Saru, sorry:

 

 

 

Obama Camp Connects ACORN Probe to US Attorneys Scandal

 

By Zachary Roth - October 17, 2008, 3:01PM

 

 

 

Add the Obama campaign to the growing list of players who think that DOJ's election-eve investigation into ACORN is a repeat of the politicization of the department that we saw in the US attorney firings scandal.

 

 

 

"With this voter fraud [investigation], we're seeing an unholy alliance of law enforcement and the ugliest form of partisan politics," Bob Bauer, an elections lawyer with the Obama camp, said on a conference call with reporters just now. Bauer compared the decision to launch the investigation with the US attorneys scandal, in which several US attorneys were fired for their unwillingess to pursue politically charged cases, including voter fraud, with sufficient aggression to satisfy the Bush administration.

 

 

 

Bauer released a letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey calling on him to have the issue taken on by Nora Dannehy, the prosecutor he appointed to investigate the US attorney firings.

 

 

 

Bauer went on to accuse John McCain of "trying to create a much greater doubt about the electoral process altogether," by alleging that ACORN voter fraud could threaten the fabric of our democracy, as McCain claimed in the debate Wednesday night.

 

 

 

House Judiciary chair John Conyers, as well as David Iglesias -- whose firing as US attorney was a direct result of his reluctance to pursue GOP-pushed claims of voter fraud, according to the recent OIG report -- have also connected the FBI's ACORN investigation to the kind of politicization exposed in the firings saga.

[JeremyM]

i hope barack doesnt win.

 

 

 

that is all.

[Lordjake]

 

Actually McCain has come back slightly since he started pounding the Bill Ayers. ANd the point of linking Obama to Ayers isn't to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist. It shows Obama's poor judgment. Obama has associated himself with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezco.

 

McCain has associated with, among others:

 

 

 

Charles Keating - bank scandal

 

McCain was very good friends with Keating. Keating donated over $100k to McCain's political campaign. McCain met with federal regulators on Keating's behalf.

 

 

 

G. Gordon Liddy - convicted Watergate burglar, domestic terrorist

 

Liddy hosted a fundraiser for McCain in 1998. In May 2007, McCain appeared on his talk show and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

 

 

 

 

 

John Hagee - made Anti-Catholic, Anti-Jew, Anti-Islamic remarks

 

McCain sought out his endorsement, then was "honored" to accept it ... then rejected it later once Hagee's past remarks brought up

 

 

 

United States Council for World Freedom - illegally supplied weapons to guerillas in the Iron-Contra conflict, and was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which noted the organization had increasingly become a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites

 

McCain served on its Board of Directors

 

 

 

Todd Palin - former member of Alaskan Independence Party, a group which attempted to secede from the U.S.

 

McCain... Sarah Palin... duh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What was that about poor judgment? #-o

[magekillr]

Let's see, McCain is finished unless the Republicans start pulling massive illegal activity at the polls.

 

 

 

Obama has raised over 100 million for the month of September, and he's now moving into Kentucky.

 

 

 

"Senator Barack Obama is days away from breaking the advertising spending record set by President Bush in the general election four years ago, having unleashed an advertising campaign of a scale and complexity unrivaled in the television era."

 

 

 

"The huge gap has been made possible by Mr. Obamas decision to opt out of the federal campaign finance system, which gives presidential nominees $84 million in public money and prohibits them from spending any amount above that from their party convention to Election Day. Mr. McCain is participating in the system. Mr. Obama, who at one point promised to participate in it as well, is expected to announce in the next few days that he raised more than $100 million in September, a figure that would shatter fund-raising records."

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/po ... ref=slogin

 

 

 

He can afford to. Start moving into states he won't win... THIS TIME

 

 

 

Set up 2012. Let em get to know you. Help dems downticket. Help the future of the party. There is no reason NOT to leave all that money laid on the table, building infrastructure and establishing a long term majority.

 

 

 

McCain, Republicans...you're done.

[eazy187]

Election is a little more than 2 weeks away and I was wondering what do the people on tip.it think.

 

 

 

I personally am rooting for Obama because our economy is falling through the drain and Mccain is supporting the economic policy that our current (idiotic) president is using. Mccain is proving to us that the next 4 years could be worse than the last 8.

 

 

 

 

 

Feel free to say what you want and please don't use Obama being african american in any part of this topic

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks! :)

[Dizzle229]

Obama. He's the one that wants to end this war, which would be a MASSIVE help to the economy. Mccain wants to cut taxes for EVERYONE, and even though it sounds good, Congress won't have much to spend, and we're already spending money we don't have.

 

 

 

Bush is a prime example that our voters aren't too bright. This year we were this close to electing Spongebob.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Been getting lower and lower by the day, unless something groundbreaking happens or he suddenly gets assassinated, it's almost inevitable Obama is the next president. Some betting agencies even refuse to take bets for Obama anymore due to the extremely high probability.

[Lenticular_J]

Shouldn't this just be sorta molded into the elections topic?

[BlueLancer]

Shouldn't this just be sorta molded into the elections topic?

 

 

 

You're right, sorry.