Again, national polls are meaningless. I'm sure picking a creationist for the ticket picked up a lot of support for McCain in the babble belt. He was going to win there, anyway. If he wins there by a bigger margin, it doesn't mean a hill of beans as to who will be taking the oath of office next January. The Gallup poll is meaningless because a) it provides zero information about where those polled live and b) even if it did, polling is done over land lines, and hardly anyone under the age of 40 has one of those anymore. We always knew the old fart vote was gonna be cornered by Grandpa Simpson, and there's little doubt that they have been oversampled in virtually every poll this year.

Posted at September 7, 2008 10:03 PM in response to McCain Gets Convention Bounce In Latest Polls

There will be no 50-50 tie. Obama is not going to lose a single Kerry state, and there are a number of additional ones where he holds a large advantage. I love all this chicken-little-ish "OMG! McCain is ahead in a national poll!!!" stuff. It's just so retarded.

President Gore thinks so, too.

Posted at September 7, 2008 9:29 PM in response to McCain Gets Convention Bounce In Latest Polls

As someone mentioned on a previous thread, I really wish someone would ask Palin at what point in what she believes is the Earth's 6,000 year history those "fossil fuels" were created. Is this the reason for her "drill more" stance? Does she think that, if we can just make it through a few more years, all those fossil fuel reserves will be replenished, given that it only took a few hundred years to make them?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted at September 7, 2008 5:47 PM in response to McCain Gets Convention Bounce In Latest Polls

If the Republicans want to play the game this way, the Democrats should press charges against them for the theft of those flags.

Posted at September 7, 2008 1:06 AM in response to Election Central Saturday Roundup

Obama ad:

"Take away the lies, the unpatriotic attempts to divide Americans and the schoolyard taunts and insults, and what do you have?"

(Picture of McCain & Palin with crickets chirping in the backround.)

"Haven't we seen this show already? Didn't we wish we could have turned it off halfway through? Since when have re-runs been about change or new ideas?"

P.S. Fix the goddamn comments!!!

Posted at September 5, 2008 8:33 PM in response to New RNC Ad: It's Obama Who Represents "More Of The Same"

Obama ad:

"Take away the lies, the unpatriotic attempts to divide Americans and the schoolyard taunts and insults, and what do you have?"

(Picture of McCain & Palin with crickets chirping in the backround.)

"Haven't we seen this show already? Didn't we wish we could have turned it off halfway through? Since when have re-runs been about change or new ideas?"

Posted at September 5, 2008 8:30 PM in response to New RNC Ad: It's Obama Who Represents "More Of The Same"

Obama ad:

"Take away the lies, the unpatriotic attempts to divide Americans and the schoolyard taunts and insults, and what do you have?"

(Picture of McCain & Palin with crickets chirping in the backround.)

"Haven't we seen this show already? Didn't we wish we could have turned it off halfway through? Since when have re-runs been about change or new ideas?"

Posted at September 5, 2008 8:26 PM in response to New RNC Ad: It's Obama Who Represents "More Of The Same"

Obama ad:

"Take away the lies, the unpatriotic attempts to divide Americans and the schoolyard taunts and insults, and what do you have?"

(Picture of McCain & Palin with crickets chirping in the backround.)

"Haven't we seen this show already? Didn't we wish we could have turned it off halfway through? Since when have re-runs been about change or new ideas?"

Posted at September 5, 2008 8:26 PM in response to New RNC Ad: It's Obama Who Represents "More Of The Same"

You know, I've stayed away from this "she should be at home with her kids" thing, but I gotta say this:

There's something that doesn't jibe about almost breaking your arm patting yourself on the back for "choosing life" for your 4 month old special needs child to underline your "pro-life" cred, and then 4 months after the birth "choosing to do something other than attending to his needs". I guess for me it just underlines the hypocrisy of pretty much everyone in the "pro-life" movement, who have a lot of concern about making sure every fertilized egg is carried to full term, but don't give a damn about the kids once they are here.

Posted at September 5, 2008 10:49 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

Well, Lalo, I would never find myself in her situation because I'm not an avowed "pro-lifer".

I want to clarify: I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the mother of a special needs child working, even in a stressful or powerful position. What I find unseemly is the use of a child as a political prop to "prove" your cred, particularly when your commitment to said child is not so all-consuming that you would choose putting your time into attending to his needs ahead of your political ambitions. There's the rub, as I see it. Giving birth to a special needs child is not in and of itself heroic. Caring for one is a different story. And I don't have any doubt that should the unthinkable happen and this ill-suited woman become our vice-president, she'll be spending very little time with that child that she touts as proof of her sacrifice to her unshakable principle of the value of life.

Posted at September 5, 2008 10:33 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup