An optimistic and fired up John McCain showed up to Meet the Press this morning where he dispelled the notion that he was hurting in the polls. McCain said, “We are doing fine. We have closed in the last week, and we’re going to continue this close in the next week.” Did you catch that? "The next week" he's referring to is the last week of the campaign. It's almost impossible to believe that there's still an ending to this.
Talk turned to his running mate and McCain stood firm on his Palin-position, “I don’t defend her. I praise her. She needs no defense." And as for that much ballyhooed shopping spree, McCain is very pragmatic about it. “She lives a frugal life, she and her family are not wealthy, she and her family were thrust into this."
Though a Newsweek poll released yesterday shows Obama with a 13-point lead nationally, McCain pressed on assuring voters, "We've closed in the last week. We'll continue to be very competitive in many of the battleground states." In all this morning, he sounded tough, rough, and ready, good-naturedly likening himself to Knute Rockne at half time. Is his optimism right on?
To see what he had to say, read more.
Nicoli
Havaianas
Adidas
my favorite part had to have been when he started naming all the secretary's that support him and not Obama...all five of them..yet he only named four because he forgot the last ones name! My hubby and I were cracking up!
Its a shame Tim Russert passed away so early...I would have loved to see him interview McCain and Obama.
1The polls don't sound promising, to be totally honest, I mean, if I'm a betting gal, I'd probably say it's over for their ticket based on the polls alone. But of course, the polls chosen by Brokaw to bring to his attention is probably the worst one for their ticket, so he won't agree with them LOL.
I don't think he's going to concede before the election, plus he has to keep his voters's optimism up too. If he's saying he's giving up now, his supporters probably won't want to vote for him
2If his prediction comes true, I'll be devastated.
3ohmygoodness, yeah ,mommaof2, I watched that portion too. That was kind of funny. He's probably so pissed off over the polls brought up by Brokaw or his memory just failed him.
4My fiancee didn't find it too funny and was all like, 'look, he forgets the name of the fifth one, the Obama people will gobble that one up!' He's a McCain supporter now tho'.
I kind of felt sorry for him a little when he forgot the names...he seems to be sick of this, IMO.
As for what he said, what else is he going to say, we're screwed, Sarah Palin is a nut job I was forced to pick even though people like her are the biggest reason I almost turned Democrat?
5Yes, praise the psycho woman who's done nothing but stir and stoke a lot of hatred into this campaign. She makes my skin crawl.
Well, unfortunately the election ISN'T over yet. And the high rollers in Vegas are betting like millions of dollars on *McCain* to win: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/eveningnews/main4544780.shtml?...
The tycoons wouldn't bet like that unless there was some SERIOUS shot of McCain winning - they NEVER throw away money! If they're doing that, either somebody's lost a few screws - or there is something VERY fishy that is going on behind the scenes.
I wouldn't be so sure to call this race just yet - stranger things have occurred. I'm betting this election's going to have scandals that make Florida in 2004 look like a little crack in the sidewalk.
6I won't ever feel sorry for McCain. He needs to seriously retire from a whole lot of things.
7Eh? SOmeone actually bet a million for McCain to win? Well, maybe it's multi-billionaires and they don't mind spending that much.
I think I've read serious gamblers won't mind spending/losing up to that point. I mean, if he actually won, these rich cats probably are going to rake in serious amount of dough if things go that way since it's pretty obvious McCain is way behind on the polls.
I don't feel sorry for McCain at all, but I do respect his service in the military, tho.
8I am linking a really interesting article from our weekend papers written by the former Premier of NSW, he is a history and US politics scholar.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/this-race-is-far-from-over/2008/1...
I had never heard of the Bradley effect. I found his take on the state of play concise and objective.
9It's certainly possible that he'll win.
10I agree, steph. It's possible. Just hope that doesn't become a reality.
11is there a reliable exit poll that always gets it right?
12all it comes down to is that the same thing is going to happen that happened when bush was elected. The democrat is unanymous on the ballots, but at the end dirty foul plays are done so that once again, the republicans win. No on PROP 8!!
13What happened when Bush was elected?? Uh, Bush won. You can scream foul play all you want, but right now, ACORN (you know, that liberal voter registration group) is the only one committing voter fraud.
14"I think I'm going to win" ---- GWAD - I hope not.
[ACORN (you know, that liberal voter registration group) is the only one committing voter fraud.]
That's not true! They aren't the ONLY ones! There was a guy - out here (in Cali) working for the GOP that also committed voter fraud.
15Pot Meet Kettle: McCain campaign paid Republican operative accused of voter fraud
16http://teamsugar.com/group/2385592/blog/2424176
It would be more believable if the source wasn't another blog...
17Yeah, I know ACORN, that group that McCain supported not that long ago. We know who they are by now.
18"As for what he said, what else is he going to say, we're screwed, Sarah Palin is a nut job I was forced to pick even though people like her are the biggest reason I almost turned Democrat?"
Exactly Zeze. Is he supposed to go on national TV and tell hiss supporters "oh it is looking just terrible. We are going to lose big time!" No matter what his position in the polls are, he has to save face. Also, just because there are rumors of Palin "going rogue" and discontent in the McCain campaign, I don't think any reasonable person can expect McCain to come out and denounce her. If he loses, he can say whatever he want about her, but not now with one week less.
This thing is far from over. It is still any ones game, as terrifying as that may be.
19In all fairness Dave, dream's source seems to be the London Times, not a blog.
20Then give the London Times source, not a Sugar blog
21The Times is sourced at the bottom of her blog, dave.
22haha yeah okay mccain.....
23haha yeah okay mccain.....
24I just hope this won't be another case of winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. Why do we still use the electoral vote
? Its outdated and is undermining the democratic process at this point. Candidates shouldn't "win"
states. My vote shouldn't count less because I live in a historically blue state or vice versa. The majority shouldn't dictate the weight of your vote.
25The story was also covered by CNN, CBS, MSNNBC -- but I saw it on ABC News a couple of days ago -- I post it in my blog because I don't have to wait for the links to get approved (just a tip).
26I couldn't agree with you more Jessie.
27[It would be more believable if the source wasn't another blog...]
There -- I added video.
28http://teamsugar.com/group/2385592/blog/2424176
How is the electoral college votes for each state determined? I thought is was based on the last census, with the most populated state getting the most, and the least populated state getting the least.
29People always say that the electoral college is outdated, but nobody has ever been able to give me a good explanation of that statement. The reason the electoral college was put in place was to keep the hugely populated states from pushing the states with smaller populations around. We still have big states and small states, so there isn't anything 'outdated' about the idea.
30There is reportedly a lot of tension inside the McCain campaign between staffers and Palin, some even telling CNN that Palin's "gone rouge", off message, voicing her policy disagreements with McCain publicly and basically trying to lay her foundation for a 2012 run.
"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.
"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
31I don't understand how big states push little states around. This is about the individual. In the school I volunteer at I always tell high school seniors to vote and that every vote counts, but when I say that sometimes I feel like a big fat liar. Whether I'm voting in Oregon or California I know that, while not every Democrat could stay home, a lot of people can because there are enough democrats to win the electoral vote and vice versa for republicans in states like Texas. In a way it gives small concentrated groups too much power and takes power away from the individual. I want my vote to count for the entire election overall and not just for my states electoral votes. This isn't about big states versus small states, its about the overall majority versus the minority. I was going to say if my state has more people than it should have the bigger vote, but I actually don't think that is relevant. If we are voting for a federal level than we should actually be voting on a federal level. What state a voter lives in should be irrelevant. We have a representative democracy on so many other platforms and sometimes it works, but in this case it's failing. It should be one person, one vote.
32UnDave35 according to Wikipedia...
"Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, Washington, D.C. is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College."
33This makes me realise how much I appreciate our preferential voting system, no vote is wasted.
34Anyways Michelin, you wouldn't want to be accused of spreading the vote around
...
35Yes I have major problems with...
"Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors."
"...the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally."
36"This isn't about big states versus small states, its about the overall majority versus the minority."
It's the same principle. Democracy is a nice idea until the majority realizes they can vote money out of the pockets of the minority and into their own pockets. You have to find a balance, and that is what the electoral college attempts to do.
"If we are voting for a federal level than we should actually be voting on a federal level. What state a voter lives in should be irrelevant." This goes completely against the idea of federalism.
If you dislike the electoral college, it's because you have a problem with the way the founding fathers chose to set up our country. That's fine, but your problem isn't that it's "outdated", you just don't agree with it.
37In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper and the sheep are well armed.
-Doug Newman
38Okay Michelin I concede that outdated is the wrong choice of words, but I strongly disagree with it. And maybe when I get out of grad school I'll be more aggressive in attacking it. I never wanted to go into politics, I'm a science research nerd, but my level of dissatisfaction with government is up to here (my hand is gesturing way above my petite head)
. After 18 years of having a very small voice and a few more years of b*tching I don't know if I handle
being inactive. I'm a put up or shut up kind of person.
39Jessie, how do you feel about the dangers of democracy?
40Hmmm..could you be more specific? I think I'm by far more concerned about the dangers of capitalism (even pre-crisis) than I am about democracy. Of course I do see what your saying if your referring to civil rights issues. When it came down to Brown vs Board of Education I wouldn't have wanted to take a vote...
41Democracy and socialism limit personal freedoms far more than I'm comfortable with. Capitalism gives every individual the freedom to make their own choices. I guess I just don't see how individual freedom is scarier than mob rule.
42But you wanted a more specific question. You clearly like the idea of one person, one vote. But doesn't it worry you that the dumb masses (sorry, couldn't resist) will abuse their power to take advantage of the minority?
43Funny y'all should mention the EC system. There was a commentary in my local paper today about why it should be abolished: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6078833.html
For me [a blue dot in a VERY red state, which has become even MORE red district-wise since 2006 because of a certain former state rep who pushed for redistricting around the state that effectively diluted any Democratic votes for district reps], getting rid of the EC sounds nice, but as has been said in the responding comments: going only by the popular vote means that the most populous states in this country would decide the presidency.
I vote for a tweak in the EC system [reposted from another commentary I wrote about this article]: whatever percentage of the popular vote a candidate wins in a state, they get that percentage of the electoral votes of that state. So, if a state goes 60/40 for each candidate and there were 50 electoral votes up for grabs, the candidate that got 60% of the popular vote would get 30 electoral votes; the other candidate would get the other 20. That seems pretty fair.
44I don't see how democracy limits personal freedom. I think democracy empowers the personal freedom of everyone. Well maybe I should start off by saying that type of government and economy can be separate. In the case of communism and pure socialism the role of government in economy makes them inherently inseparable, but in other cases there can be a control of government and a control of economy (ie Democratic socialist, Theocratic capitalist).
You say mob, I say people. In capitalism you trust that the market will run and support itself. You assume that ALL individuals (especially those at the top) are making intelligent decisions, looking at the big picture and are on occasion being generous, without a system of checks and balances. You assume there is no greed or evil or that they will be naturally squashed by practicality (ie you take too much from or don't give enough to the middle and there will be no one to support you). The assumptions are unrealistic and ideal and you ultimately hurt those who are making intelligent decisions.
If businesses across the board were capable of paying people decent wages and running safe and ethical businesses that wouldn't sink our economy, if human nature were such, than I wouldn't be afraid of pure capitalism, but it's not. I wouldn't be afraid of communism on the same bases, but unfortunately that level of community interest can't be entrusted even when its tied directly to personal interest.
45"going only by the popular vote means that the most populous states in this country would decide the presidency."
See I don't get that logic. Shouldn't the "populous" decide the election. I don't see how its "fair" that states with less people, get in ratio more weight, than states with more people. Smaller states, smaller groups of people, have more rights than they represent?
46"You say mob, I say people. In capitalism you trust that the market will run and support itself. You assume that ALL individuals (especially those at the top) are making intelligent decisions, looking at the big picture and are on occasion being generous, without a system of checks and balances. You assume there is no greed or evil or that they will be naturally squashed by practicality (ie you take too much from or don't give enough to the middle and there will be no one to support you). The assumptions are unrealistic and ideal and you ultimately hurt those who are making intelligent decisions."
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Evidenced by our current economic situation. Yes, I know there's some blame to be had by *some* individuals trying to live beyond their means, but targeting and milking those people for their mistake, and then running away with the money and leaving them with foreclosures wasn't the way to handle it.
47Capitalism doesn't assume that there is no greed; it relies on greed. People will act within their own self-interest (you can't tie communism to personal interest in this way). This is why communism does not lead to prosperity.
In a free market, people don't have to make intelligent decisions, because the market will account for their mistakes by punishing them. This gives an incentive to make the intelligent decision, because one will be rewarded.
48Jessie,
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with where the populous lies and their spheres of influence. Let's take some of the more populated states: CA, TX, NY, FL. The majority of their residents are concentrated in major cities (LA, SF, Dallas, Houston, Austin, NYC, Miami). A candidate would have a better opportunity to influence a large swath of people from a major city - via media endorsements, setting up party offices, being able to conduct more events and rallies with possible large turnouts - than the few people that constitute smaller towns. Being visible might encourage people in the big cities to actually look at the issues, rather than just the candidate promoting themselves - but it doesn't mean that they *will*. If a candidate is more visible in a major city, it's likely that many of the people in the city will vote based on who's more visible or seems to be more popular.
Hence, the more populous states (really, I guess it should be more populous cities) will have much more influence in determining the presidency. I guess that's why some of the less populated states have more EC votes - to balance out the large population of votes from other states and ensure that their votes count just as much as others [at least I *think* this would be the reasoning, I'm not sure exactly how it goes].
49Sorry I was trying to that in as least words as possible. In that sentence I wasn't referring to communism I was referring to capitalism (where personal interest should support community interest, profit coming from communities and not individuals), I should have switched gears (my bad
). What I was saying is DESPITE the threat of punishment, individuals, often for the sake of greed, make dumb decisions (ie our current situation).
And yes Organic the market does punish them. In the case of the bailout had it not been for government they would have been punished severely. Of course they would have taken our economy with them. In smaller cases when people at the top are punished they takes jobs with them. If I ran a small business and lost it, the impact of that would rest mostly on my shoulders...fine. When a business who is heavily entangled in the economy fails, its not that simple. I am concerned that people don't want to take into account that we are entwined and what impacts you impacts others, bottom-up and top-down.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.