Thanks for Commenting
Youtube is unavailable to me here so I don't know what that video is about, but I'm curious where you get the idea that people are claiming they'll vote for Obama when they're actually going to vote for mmcain/PALIN? Do you have any proof that the number of people doing this is significant? Are you basing it entirely on the Bradley effect? Are you really going to base your whole premise on what happened in a very small electoral population (The NH Dem primary drew less than 300,000 primary voters, Clinton won by less than 3%)?
Yes, it is possible that McCain could still win but pinning your hopes on the Bradley effect (which is a polite term for racism) isn't really in you or your party's best interests, is it?
In current news, McCain has essentially conceded NM, CO, and IA to Obama.
On the subject of Palin, I thought this op-ed by conservative David Brooks was very on the mark on why she represents what's wrong with the GOP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/1...n/
10brooks.html
To summarize, the GOP has abandoned its intellectual roots in favor of a purely culture war based ideology which, ironically, despises intellectualism.
You gotta love Joe Biden.
Bradley Effect? C'mon Dan, you can do better than that. Get out from under your rock and see the colors.
OK Chuck, enlighten me. Let's pretend for a moment that Mario is correct - that people are saying they will vote for Obama but are actually going to vote for McCain. What reason do they have for doing that?
The fact is that the idea that the polls are wrong - due to the Bradley effect - is the #2 GOP talking point this week. The #1 is of course the continued attempt to label Obama a terrorist for sitting on an educational board with Bill Ayers.
Not only are all these crypto-racists telling pollsters they'll vote for Obama while actually planning to vote for McCain, they're keeping up the illusion by:
A) Donating to Obama's campaign in record smashing numbers and amounts.
B) Attending Obama's rallies in numbers heretofore unheard of for a presidential candidate.
C) Having actually already voted for him in the primary. Whoops, maybe they tried *too* hard not to look racist.
'There's no other way to explain why the polls were so dramatically wrong in states such as NH and PA during the primaries.'
Really? Please. There are a million ways to explain errant polls. They are, in fact, often wrong for a given race in a specific state at a specific time. The most accurate numbers come from crunching many polls over time and extrapolating trends. New Hampshire likes to reverse Iowa (mavericks!) and the Pennsylvania Democratic machine got pissd at Obama when he declined to spread the usual bribe money around. Primaries are, in general, much harder to poll than the general because primary voters are harder to sample properly. In any case, there's no reason besides wishful thinking to believe that the long term trends showing Obama up by 8-12 points are due to secret racists lying to pollsters. Nice twofer though, getting to talk about how racist Democrats are. Good one.
Mario's whistling past the graveyard...
Commenting by HaloScan
