Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: taurusowner on October 19, 2008, 02:20:45 PM
-
Not who do you want to win, or hope to win. But who do you think is actually going to win? What do you think of the general attitude of America? I know there's polls and all that, but what does your gut feeling tell you?
-
Gut feeling tells me that Americans wake up and realize Obama will wreck this great country. Therefore, they vote for McCain and he wins by a very slim margine
-
Obama will take this election in a walk. Much of America either wants socialism, or is just voting their feelings, or both.
There is also a heavy dose of "White Guilt" playing a part. For the first time there is (on the surface) a likeable black candidate running for President. A candidate not of the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton school.
Many of those intending to vote for Obama certainly are not actively thinking about their candidate and the issues.
I am having a difficult time articulating my thoughts on this issue.
-
Gut feeling tells me that Americans wake up and realize Obama will wreck this great country. Therefore, they vote for McCain and he wins by a very slim margine
We can only hope . . . . . . =(
-
I don't have the optimism of Lennyjoe unfortunately. I've already started stuffing money in my mattress.
-
I don't have the optimism of Lennyjoe unfortunately. I've already started stuffing money in my mattress.
I'd say fill some water jugs and load your mags too, but you probably already have.
-
I am close to saying it is over. When McCain chose Palin I thought he had a good shot at a huge win. He had the momentum and the support of the base of his party and squandered it. Its like he really didn't want to win after all.
-
I am close to saying it is over. When McCain chose Palin I thought he had a good shot at a huge win. He had the momentum and the support of the base of his party and squandered it. Its like he really didn't want to win after all.
Agreed. This is a factor in his impending loss.
-
I picked a random card. Red for McCain, black for Obama... for obvious reasons.
10 o' hearts. It's rainin' McCain, halelujah, it's rainin' McCain...
Either way we're doomed, of course, but with McCain we're doomed on the installment plan.
Much of America either wants socialism, or is just voting their feelings, or both.
That's my notion, too. But we have an ace in the hole - a lot of the people who want socialism (just with a different name) won't show up to vote.
And we're working on good ol' Machiavellian principles, more or less: it's better to be feared than loved. You can assume from that that people are more inclined to vote against a guy they're scared of than vote for a guy they like. Based on that axiom, McCain ought to win.
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to voter turnout."
-
I see so much love for Obama everywhere I go, maybe that's just because I live in Michigan. I just can't shake the feeling that a lot of these whackos really are going to show up and vote for him. I'm young, but I've never seen this kind of devotion for a candidate before.
-
I see so much love for Obama everywhere I go, maybe that's just because I live in Michigan. I just can't shake the feeling that a lot of these whackos really are going to show up and vote for him. I'm young, but I've never seen this kind of devotion for a candidate before.
taurusowner, it is a cult of personality. I don't recall ever seeing this sort of thing in the USA, and it truly frightens me.
The only places that I know of this occuring, the results have been uniformly bad.
-
I don't have the optimism of Lennyjoe unfortunately. I've already started stuffing money in my mattress.
Mags. Mags mags mags mags mags mags.
Lowers.
Mags.
-
Mags. Mags mags mags mags mags mags.
Lowers.
Mags.
Keep in mind that when the ban is passed next year, it will in all likelihood not include any grandfather clauses for current ownership. It will be a "turn them all in" ban, including accessories.
There will not be a sunset clause, and it will cover many of our favorite C&R semi-autos left off previous bans.
The Dems have learned from past mistakes.
edited for speelin'
-
It will be a "turn them all in" ban, including accessories.
You mean the ones that fell overboard??? :)
Shopping note to self: PVC pipe and desiccant.
-
You mean the ones that fell overboard??? :)
Shopping note to self: PVC pipe and desiccant.
Don't forget the pipe glue.
-
When one considers that half of the voters in this country have IQ's less than a 100, those with 100 to about 120 don't really waste a lot of time thinking about anything but their dicks or who's gonna pay for the next SUV or redecorating the kitchen, and most of 'em were educated by government schools it should be obvious that that socialist *expletive deleted*che OBAMA will win.
-
I'm thinking we need to start doing group buy's on lowers, mags ect.
-
You know, joining a forum to spam the hell out of it with advertisements for your own forum is one of the more annoying things I can think of.
On the original subject I think Obama is going to walk away with this. I also don't think he will push a new AWB anytime soon. Maybe if he gets a second term, but only then. Ammunition on the other hand ...
-
In my opinion it is not a very good idea. Would you be buying all those guns if you knew for certain Obama will lose?
-
The Messiah has risen. We all will see the light, join hands, sing and rejoice!
But I'm still voting for the other guy. Maybe I can cancel out one of those Acorn votes.
-
I really feel that Johnny will pull it out in the end. Don't get me wrong, I am very scared, therefore I will hit my knees in prayer. If it is not meant to be, then this country deserved BHO, and we need a whole lot of repentance.
-
Maybe I can cancel out one of those Acorn votes.
You mean cancel 1/100th of an ACORN vote....
-
I hope and actually think that the people who will come out and vote will realize who the best canidate is and chose McCain when the time comes to vote. A bunch of people I think when it come to the polls are being PC and saying that they will vote for Obama. But most of those people will either not even show up to vote or will acutally vote for McCain. And they planned on doing it all along. :laugh:
-
In my opinion it is not a very good idea. Would you be buying all those guns if you knew for certain Obama will lose?
Let's see.
1. The guns are necessary for personal defense and defense of family anyway. Mags don't last forever. I also like guns.
2. If Obama wins, prices will spike overnight.
3. If Obama wins, after the price spike, a ban will come, and you won't ever be able to buy them ever again.
4. Guns, especially unused, continue to appreciate in price.
-
Would you rather bury your guns and lose your freedom or die free? The time to bury is the time to use. Which I hope is years off if ever. Obama isn't going to take our guns, he is one man. A large government that represents a culture of fear and sheepdom will. Obama is merely the representative of all of the wrong that is here in this country. The man is nothing more than a idealist dupe.
-
1. The guns are necessary for personal defense and defense of family anyway. Mags don't last forever. I also like guns.
I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.
2. If Obama wins, prices will spike overnight.
So you're betting your money on the chance Obama wins?
3. If Obama wins, after the price spike, a ban will come, and you won't ever be able to buy them ever again.
It is not certain that Obama will be able to pass a ban or that he'll try to do so.
It is even less certain that the ban will be permanent. There's no reason for it to be any more permanent than the previous ban, or the demand for filling out paperwork with every ammunition purchase (both of which went away), or the bans on concealed carry of firearms (most of which were replaced by 'right'-to-carry laws), or the first Gun-Free Schools Act (which is dead), or the D.C. gun ban (which is dead).
-
I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.
Wow. That sounds like the Joyce Foundation there.
Four guns, huh? Is that what you would mandate? I have a lot more than four guns. Because I can. And yes, there ARE more instances than four guns would cover, as different guns are better for specific purposes. In addition, they do not last forever. Parts break, peen, and stretch. Even entire receivers stretch after a while, especially with .308 and larger calibers.
-
Wow. That sounds like the Joyce Foundation there.
Four guns, huh? Is that what you would mandate?
What does it have to do with mandating?
I support your right to own 145,000,332,111 guns, if you are capable of purchasing that many.
But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.
Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun. THe fifth gun will not improve your safety by as great a factor as the first gun did, or even the second. At some point you need to admit to yourself that you're buying guns for a hobby, not genuine self-defense need, because your self-defense needs will be filled at this time. Maybe this will come at the 100th gun or the 500th, but I suspect it will come much earlier.
I don't understand how this is somehow an anti-gun statement.
I do not oppose your ownership of any kind of guns and I believe the more people own guns and carry them, the better.
I can however question the wisdom of the decision to buy dozens of guns on the argument that Obama might win the election, and question the self-defense role of dozens of identical rifles without being anti-gun. In the same manner I can criticize a man's purchase of a given weapon without necessarily being anti-gun.
-
Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun
.22 rifle, pistol caliber carbine, short-to-medium-range intermediate caliber rifle, battle rifle, long-range rifle.
Pocket pistol, mid caliber pistol, large caliber pistol, snake gun.
shotgun.
Gee, that's ten. With a lot of additional variations possible. 7.62x39 is a better post-disaster intermediate caliber than 5.56x45 if the bad guys like using cover, but the latter lets you carry more and get quicker followup shots. And so on and so on.
Hence, a number of guns.
-
I do not insist on a certain amount of guns, but observe.
Suppose you have no guns.
You are now almost completely defenseless.
You purchase a gun for, say, $1000 dollars.
Now there is a huge difference between owning no guns and owning a gun.
There's less of a difference, defense-wise, be owning two guns and one gun.
Even less of a difference, when you already have two guns and are buying a third. Or fourth. Or tenth.
The law of diminishing returns is going to kick in at some point, and there's no really good self-defense value in going past that point - but there's great hobby value.
My main point, however, stands.
-
What does it have to do with mandating?
I support your right to own 145,000,332,111 guns, if you are capable of purchasing that many.
But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.
Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun. THe fifth gun will not improve your safety by as great a factor as the first gun did, or even the second. At some point you need to admit to yourself that you're buying guns for a hobby, not genuine self-defense need, because your self-defense needs will be filled at this time. Maybe this will come at the 100th gun or the 500th, but I suspect it will come much earlier.
I don't understand how this is somehow an anti-gun statement.
I do not oppose your ownership of any kind of guns and I believe the more people own guns and carry them, the better.
I can however question the wisdom of the decision to buy dozens of guns on the argument that Obama might win the election, and question the self-defense role of dozens of identical rifles without being anti-gun. In the same manner I can criticize a man's purchase of a given weapon without necessarily being anti-gun.
With extra guns, you can outfit other people who weren't able to arm themselves. And if they're identical, that means there's a common caliber and manual of arms as well as the ability to cannibalize parts in order to fix malfunctions. This could be a good thing in a SHTF situation.
-
Outfitting others would not be self defense.
Manedwolf: MicroBalrog is not saying anything about how many guns one should be allowed to own. You're reading what isn't there. He IS saying that one guy cannot carry and use 10 guns in a self defense situation. That's it. If you own a 1 pistol, 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun, you are pretty reasonably equipped for self-defense. That pretty much the max that you can reasonable carry and use in a fight. Now lets say you own 30 pistol, 30 rifles, and 30 shotguns. You gonna carry all 90 guns to a fight? No, you'll probably bring 2 maybe 3. That's MicroBalrog's point. Any more guns that you can carry and use in a fight are not useful in said fight. Pretty simple. He's not saying you should not own more
-
Yes, but I am more worried about what I might have to use in a fight in ten or twenty years, when one or more of the ones I have have worn out. Or if one breaks when I really need it, it would be bad if it were the only one of its type and/or caliber. Why do you think I have at least two rifles of each caliber? That would be it. If an AWB II is passed, you cannot have another. Ever. If a part that is considered the actual gun breaks, that's it. So if someone has their one AR, and five years from now, post ban, a bad round cracks the lower, game over. They can never have an AR again. And if there's a disaster in ten years, they have no AR. See the point, now?
The same with magazines. They wear out. Springs fail, feedlips are dinged. If they're banned, you cannot get any more.
-
I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.
WTF?
So you are saving we should limit clothing purchases also? I guess one only needs two pairs of clothes, one to wear and one to wash then rotate.
I am also an avid hunter, I can't even fathom how many different firearms I hunt with. Each game in chase can take a different type of firearm depending upon the species and game laws. You can't legally shoot a duck with a handgun, you have to use a plugged shotgun with steel shot to hunt them legally. In my state you can only gun hunt deer with a shotgun shooting slugs, a muzzleloader or a pistol (.357 magnum and larger w 4" barrel)
Seriously why the hell would you want to limit how many firearms that a person can own? I have at least 6 different handguns I carry for protection depending upon clothing and weather.
-C
-
Are any of you even reading MicroBalrogs post??? Please tell me where he says he wants actual limits on anything. Go ahead, quote his posts and bold the parts where he says there should be limits and laws on quantity.
ALL HE SAID WAS THERE IS A POINT WHEN MORE DOES MEAN MORE USEFULNESS. THAT'S IT.
-
I'd say that keeping a lot of guns at home is rather prudent actually, to make sure you've covered as many calibers as possible. No telling what you will be able to find, trade or scrounge in a SHTF scenario. You'd feel rather silly if you came upon a stash of 10mm ammo, and all you've got is a .357 SIG pistol...
Also, they do fill different niches. Sometimes the best gun for the job at hand might be a .22 rifle with a can. Other times, it might be something that can reliably reach out and touch someone at a respectable distance. And sometimes you might find yourself needing something small, but with a fairly large amount of ouch-factor to carry around for protection. A shotgun for home defense. And then everything in between that.
Personally, I'd look into buying machinery, as well as raw material to feed into it. After all, it's easier to build an SMG than a semi-automatic EBR ;).
-
Are any of you even reading MicroBalrogs post??? Please tell me where he says he wants actual limits on anything. Go ahead, quote his posts and bold the parts where he says there should be limits and laws on quantity.
ALL HE SAID WAS THERE IS A POINT WHEN MORE DOES MEAN MORE USEFULNESS. THAT'S IT.
When "more" means the gun that fits your winter attire, fall attire, and summer attire, your casual attire and formalwear and level of threat you might run into...which can be different guns.
When "more" means replacements for the rifles that wear out after you are no longer allowed to buy those rifles anywhere.
-
In regards to gunz there is only one word of use: MOAR! Followed by 11!!!11!!oneoneonetwobackspaceone!!!
I am bracing for an Obama win by slim margins. I will hold out hope for minimal damage, hopefully piece together one more AR between November and February, and get another dozen or so mags for AR's and M14's.
I will help teach at 2 Appleseeds in that time as well, whether McCain or Obama wins, and pray for a return to sanity by American voters in 2010.
-
So you are saving we should limit clothing purchases also? I guess one only needs two pairs of clothes, one to wear and one to wash then rotate.
I SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND.
Obviously I want everybody to own as many guns as they possibly can.
But I do not think it wise to make purchases you would have not otherwise made out of the sheer fear of Obama who may, and the notion that the gun laws he may or may not pass would be necessarily permanent.
All those guys who bought expensive pre-ban rifles in 1995? They're screwed now.
-
All those guys who bought expensive pre-ban rifles in 1995? They're screwed now.
They are? That's funny. A Daewoo or a Norinco is worth more now than it was preban, because they ARE STILL BANNED FROM IMPORT FOREVER.
There's a lot you don't know.
-
They are? That's funny. A Daewoo or a Norinco is worth more now than it was preban, because they ARE STILL BANNED FROM IMPORT FOREVER.
So your wealth is now in rifles which can lose 50% of their value if a President is elected who decides to cancel that particular EO?
And there's nothing wrong that you see with that?
-
So your wealth is now in rifles which can lose 50% of their value if a President is elected who decides to cancel that particular EO?
And there's nothing wrong that you see with that?
I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.
Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?
-
But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.
For practical purposes anything much over 1 Shotgun, 1 pistol, and 1 rifle is more than one can handle in any defense or offensive situation. Which is why of the 30 or so guns I own if it ever comes to it I will be doling out 20 or so of them to family, friends and deserving neighbors.
Those extra guns will not go to waste.
-
I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.
Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?
Yes. So now you have rich people (who are more influential than most), with fortunes invested into gun control. Yay?
Mind, they'll be screwed horridly when it's over.
-
I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.
Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?
I agree with MW about 90% of the time but not on this one.
The Pres and the Congress can make our guns worthless overnight. Heck, didn't CA do it to some guns a while back and no one blinked an eye?
I've never been afraid of my government in my entire 56 years of life but I genuinely fear what the combination of an Obama presidency and a congress solidly controlled by democrats along with a Supreme Court with a couple of Obama justices on it could - NO - will do to the United States of America.
That combination, IMO, will take away our guns. It's not an if but a when. 80 Million gun owners not withstanding - most will rollover and turn them in, those that don't will become instant felons, those that resist will be destroyed by agents of the state and deemed terrorists by the media.
-
Yes. So now you have rich people (who are more influential than most), with fortunes invested into gun control. Yay?
Mind, they'll be screwed horridly when it's over.
Machine guns are not going to be legal again outside of strange Paulian fantasies fueled by watching Red Dawn while drunk or something. Ever. That ship has sailed. 1986 or older, registered, with an ATF proctological exam before purchase. That is it.
If you meant those investors might be ordered to turn them in and lose their investments, that is a definite possibility. They're "dangerous" and all.
-
Machine guns are not going to be legal again outside of strange Paulian fantasies fueled by watching Red Dawn while drunk or something. Ever.
One: "There's as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a humming bird to fly to Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail."
There was a time before these laws. There will be a time after.
Two: Do you even think it's moral to have money invested in gun control. Do you want to be like those collectors that have so much money thrown into $5,000 Stens that they don't want to get the ban dropped?
-
What a dumb argument. ;/ Everyone just go watch Red Dawn and get your Hooah!s out of your system.
All this keyboard commando crap of preparing for a civil war is comical. There ain't gonna be no war.
You can talk "Molon Labe" and "From my cold, dead hands" all you want, but in the end, that's all it is. Talk.
-
Sgt. Bob, I dearly hope your right. I used to believe the same as you.
I'm not entirely persuaded you're wrong, OTOH I do NOT see a pleasant future ahead for this country.
-
What a dumb argument. ;/ Everyone just go watch Red Dawn and get your Hooah!s out of your system.
All this keyboard commando crap of preparing for a civil war is comical. There ain't gonna be no war.
You can talk "Molon Labe" and "From my cold, dead hands" all you want, but in the end, that's all it is. Talk.
Who said anything about a civil war?
-
I propose a toast to the future 'moonshiners, rum-runners, and bootleggers' of the firearms world.
-
I propose a toast to the future 'moonshiners, rum-runners, and bootleggers' of the firearms world.
Yeah, that'll last five seconds.
ATF agents raid Gilbert gun shop
Nick R. Martin, Tribune
Federal agents raided a Gilbert gun store on Wednesday, seizing hundreds of high-powered and military-style weapons in the process, though authorities were silent as to why.
Dozens of guns could be seen being organized and moved by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the afternoon outside the Cavalry Arms Corp. near Cooper and Guadalupe roads.
ATF agents spent hours executing a federal search warrant there, but agency spokesman Thomas Mangan declined to say what prompted the seizure of what he called a “large quantity” of weapons.
“By no means is that any indication of any type of guilt,” Mangan said.
Still, every gun that was at the business on Wednesday was confiscated in the raid, he said.
-
Yeah, that'll last five seconds.
Well, I never said that they'd be without their share of defeats, just that, I admire them, in a way.
*Salute*
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FLOCPOD%2FLC-USZ62-123257%7EProhibition-Raid-New-York-City-Posters.jpg&hash=189fd2cd9f9afa0dfe274fd2499a6e39535133a2)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ac-nancy-metz.fr%2Fenseign%2Fanglais%2FHenry%2FCaponeMugShot.jpg&hash=4cd009f99113f80f2309522e617ff3e56ddd9680)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.headroyce.org%2F%7Eus_history%2Faguardado%2Fraid.jpg&hash=ef656a031cb39e50cade7c91c561fd7e39091737)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoubledeckerbuses.org%2Fpastyme%2Fmedia%2Fprohibition.jpg&hash=048abcb73aad875e7751e6faee20e192fa46dcca)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexhibitions.library.temple.edu%2Fprohibition%2Fimages%2F06.jpg&hash=f7d8df3cbd16e46798f097d36982137324a41244)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.howstuffworks.com%2Fgif%2Fprohib-10.jpg&hash=dc9e504bcbb749cd8957e7c5874cbe8f453e071b)(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.howstuffworks.com%2Fgif%2Fprohib-5.jpg&hash=2fbd42b1441d0052a97f1680d0dea9f17ecadf9a)
It is a bit exhilarating, though—the fate of our liberties resting on the outcome of a fight between a few savage thugs, and the folks who don't work in the capitol building.
Anyway, I'm going to go grab a beer and mow the lawn for what will likely be the last time before winter sets in here. Thanks, Capone. ;)
-
Let's see... what was the question?
Oh, yeah! Who do I think will win?
In my state, McCain. The Marxist doesn't fool enough people here. As for myself, I was going to vote Libertarian. I don't care much for either major candidate. All the prospects I thought were worth a crap lost in the primaries.
Because "he who shall not be middle named" scares me so much, I'll vote for the lesser of two losers this time. It will be a first for me. I'm an Independent who hasn't voted for either major party since Reagan. I'll be out of town on election day, so I'm voting tomorrow. For McCain.
Sadly, I fear too much of the country is lacking in both intelligence, and common sense. They treat selecting their government like it was a new "American Idol". Forget past performance, proposed policy, and demonstrated tendencies. Vote for the glib talker!
I think for at least the next two years, we're going to see trouble that will make the present economic situation look like a boom. In short. It's Obama, in a squeaker. We're hosed.
-
Obama unfortunately has it locked up...
-
Obama unfortunately has it locked up...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fangela-stevens.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F10%2Fobamaween.jpg&hash=431c6bbda972a24ec127a73536b7cbee810ce7ab)
-
Obama unfortunately has it locked up...
I have to disagree with that opinion. Here in Minnesota, the race it very, very close. When a Democrat is struggling in this place, he's hurtin' and hurtin' bad.
I think Barry will have his arse handed to him. I'm not wild about McCain, and may not vote for him but the Obama camp is scared here.
Recall, if you will (or are old enough to do so), that the only state McGovern got in '72 was Minnesota. Things haven't changed much in 36 years. Think back to Mondale/Ferraro.
In my community, I have yet to see an Obama yard sign, while McCain/Palin signs abound at homes and businesses. There are a few (very few!) Obama bumper stickers but the only sign is in front of the Democrat campaign office here.
jb
-
I have to disagree with that opinion. Here in Minnesota, the race it very, very close. When a Democrat is struggling in this place, he's hurtin' and hurtin' bad.
I think Barry will have his arse handed to him. I'm not wild about McCain, and may not vote for him but the Obama camp is scared here.
Recall, if you will (or are old enough to do so), that the only state McGovern got in '72 was Minnesota. Things haven't changed much in 36 years. Think back to Mondale/Ferraro.
In my community, I have yet to see an Obama yard sign, while McCain/Palin signs abound at homes and businesses. There are a few (very few!) Obama bumper stickers but the only sign is in front of the Democrat campaign office here.
jb
Kansas city is the exact opposite. 4x8 Obama billboards spring up overnight in peoples front yards along busy streets.
-
I have to disagree with that opinion. Here in Minnesota, the race it very, very close.
I know it's good to be optimistic and all, but it's also good to live in reality and I wouldn't put any money on Obama losing MN. The latest Minnesota poll (from Big Ten) puts Obama at 57, McCain 38. Now there is a relatively large margin of error (4%), but that's still probably a bit more accurate than yard signs and bumper stickers.
Each week it seems like McCain is conceding another state to focus somewhere else, I'm not really sure what his winning electoral map would even look like anymore. Anyone know what states their plan includes (assuming there is one)?
-
Kansas city is the exact opposite.
Dallas as well. Here around richardson there are tons of Obama bumper stickers and yard signs.
-
These folks claim to be the most accurate pollsters from the 2004 election. They are showing the race to be essentially neck-and-neck. Personally, I think it's hogwash because every other poll out there save the AP's, show The One with a firm lead. But I'll post it because it might give some comfort to those whistling-past-the-graveyard types.
IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll: Day Eleven
Posted: Thursday, October 23, 2008
McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.
View Results From Prior Days
About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com.
-
I don't know. The incident with Joe might have scared a lot of people.
The attacks on Joe for daring to question, and Obama's smirky laughing about Joe, "How many plumbers do you know make that kind of money?" came off as completely elitist.
-
I don't know. The incident with Joe might have scared a lot of people.
The attacks on Joe for daring to question, and Obama's smirky laughing about Joe, "How many plumbers do you know make that kind of money?" came off as completely elitist.
Seriously, Joe may have saved this election. He'd make a better running mate than Palin.
-
Obama is leading at 7.5% on average now. The plumber hasn't saved anything whatever.
-
Obama is leading at 7.5% on average now. The plumber hasn't saved anything whatever.
Hasn't saved anything ....yet.
It is looking very bleak for traditional American values. Confucious's "interesting times" are ahead for this country.
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkM0JvRRUl81LuDA_P2t_goU2kGAD93VU2200
AP presidential poll: Race tightens in final weeks
By LIZ SIDOTI – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.
"I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don't think Obama has been around long enough," said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.
But Karen Judd, 58, of Middleton, Wis., said, "Obama certainly has sufficient qualifications." She said any positive feelings about McCain evaporated with "the outright lying" in TV ads and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin, who "doesn't have the correct skills."
The new AP-GfK head-to-head result is a departure from some, but not all, recent national polls.
Obama and McCain were essentially tied among likely voters in the latest George Washington University Battleground Poll, conducted by Republican strategist Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. In other surveys focusing on likely voters, a Washington Post-ABC News poll and a Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey have Obama up by 11 points, and a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center has him leading by 14.
Polls are snapshots of highly fluid campaigns. In this case, there is a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; that means Obama could be ahead by as many as 8 points or down by as many as 6. There are many reasons why polls differ, including methods of estimating likely voters and the wording of questions.
Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling authority, said variation between polls occurs, in part, because pollsters interview random samples of people.
"If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong," he said of polls. But he also said that surveys generally fall within a few points of each other, adding, "When you get much beyond that, there's something to explain."
The AP-GfK survey included interviews with a nationally representative random sample totaling 1,101 adults, including 931 registered voters and 800 adults deemed likely to vote. For the entire sample, the survey showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 37 percent. He was up by five points among all registered voters, including the likely voters.
A significant number of the interviews were conducted by dialing a randomly selected sample of cell phone numbers, and thus this poll had a chance to reach voters who were excluded from some other polls.
It was taken over five days from Thursday through Monday, starting the night after the candidates' final debate and ending the day after former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the Republican Party to endorse Obama.
McCain's strong showing is partly attributable to his strong debate performance; Thursday was his best night of the survey. Obama's best night was Sunday, hours after the Powell announcement, and the full impact of that endorsement may not have been captured in any surveys yet. Future polling could show whether either of those was merely a support "bounce" or something more lasting.
During their final debate, a feisty McCain repeatedly forced Obama to defend his record, comments and associations. He also used the story of a voter whom the Democrat had met in Ohio, "Joe the Plumber," to argue that Obama's tax plan would be bad for working class voters.
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man with the last name of Wurzelbacher, who had asked Obama whether his plan to increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year would impede his ability to buy the plumbing company where he works.
On Wednesday, McCain's campaign unveiled a new TV ad that features that Obama quote, and shows different people saying: "I'm Joe the Plumber." A man asks: "Obama wants my sweat to pay for his trillion dollars in new spending?"
Since McCain has seized on that line of argument, he has picked up support among white, married people and non-college educated whites, the poll shows, while widening his advantage among white men. Black voters still overwhelmingly support Obama.
The Republican also has improved his rating for handling the economy and the financial crisis. Nearly half of likely voters think their taxes will rise under an Obama administration compared with a third who say McCain would raise their taxes.
Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:
_Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.
_Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.
_Doubled his advantage among whites who haven't finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.
_Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.
_Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.
_Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.
McCain has cut into Obama's advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.
Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.
Intensity has increased among McCain's supporters.
A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.
Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.
Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.
Said John Ormesher, 67, of Dandridge, Tenn.: "I've got respect for them but that's the extent of it. I don't have a whole lot of affinity toward either one of them. They're both part of the same political mess."
-
I think it is much closer than the MSM wants to admit, and slowly creeping McCain's way.
OTOH, McCain seems to be doing everything he can to lose.
-
I think Obama will win. McCain is practically trying to lose, and never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
If you consider how well the WOSD is going, and how much better a class of human being gun owners are than drug users, I would say the feds won't win the war on guns, should guns ever be banned. Look at how well the war on guns is going in the parts of the country where they practically are banned, or in other countries where they are completely banned outright.
-
I suppose most of you who think Obama is a shoe in will not vote now, or vote Libertarian to make a statement??
-
It won't be the American people.
-
I suppose most of you who think Obama is a shoe in will not vote now, or vote Libertarian to make a statement??
I will be voting, and not for Obama. As an aside, my wife was wishing for a "None of the Above" choice on the ballot today. (Oregon has only vote-by-fraud mail-in ballots. They came in the mail a few days ago.)
-
Either Obama is going to win by a fair margin, or McCain will squeak out a victory. I'm not sure which way it will go, though I pray it goes McCain's way. Though I admit holding my nose when casting my early ballot last week.
Quote from: taurusowner on October 19, 2008, 01:27:13 PM
I see so much love for Obama everywhere I go, maybe that's just because I live in Michigan. I just can't shake the feeling that a lot of these whackos really are going to show up and vote for him. I'm young, but I've never seen this kind of devotion for a candidate before.
taurusowner, it is a cult of personality. I don't recall ever seeing this sort of thing in the USA, and it truly frightens me.
The only places that I know of this occuring, the results have been uniformly bad.
That is what scares me most about Obama. And judging by some of the totally moronic things he has been saying, Obama seems to know it. He could just about stand in front of a crowd and say "doo doo" and "pee pee" and they'd still cheer and faint for him. His ties to nutjob William Aires doesn't seem to bother anyone. Makes me wonder what would be happening right now if McCain had proven ties to an abortion clinic bomber. Anyway, I fear that his first year or so in office he will be able to say and do ANYTHING he wants. The one saving grace we have is that though he sounds good, he doesn't strike me as being all that bright. But you know, that can be dangerous too.
Though many here may not agree with him, I heard Rush Limbaugh suggest on his show that this country may well have to suffer through another Jimmy Carter in order to get a Ronald Reagan. Certainly, there are people here who don't like Reagan either, but it does illustrate a point. Once Obama effs everything up in his first term, we may well have a shot at someone much better. Assuming people can be snapped out of the daze the "messiah" seems to hold them under.
Would you rather bury your guns and lose your freedom or die free? The time to bury is the time to use. Which I hope is years off if ever. Obama isn't going to take our guns, he is one man. A large government that represents a culture of fear and sheepdom will. Obama is merely the representative of all of the wrong that is here in this country. The man is nothing more than a idealist dupe.
The reason some people choose to bury some of their guns is that they can turn in the "decoys" and live to fight alongside a resistance movement another day. Not that there would be a single, well organized resistance. If it comes to that (God forbid), I envision dozens of small groups spread all over the country. One thing in our favor to consider is that if congress doesn't have the guts to face an insurgency on the other side of the globe, they probably won't have the guts to face one in their own back yard either.
I do know personally a number of people who have looked me square in the eye and said they would NOT turn them in. Trust me, I got a little chill, as I fully understood they were speaking the truth. Their eyes told me more than their words that they were speaking the truth.
This may be why we may never see outright confiscation, instead our rights will be incrementally eroded, a little bit at a time. Here is Ric Edelman’s account of the Boiling Frog Syndrome: "If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump out. But if you place a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will boil to death."
As a side note, we as a country have not arrived at socialism's decrepid doorstep overnight, you know.
-
All the notions about another revolution in America are amusing, and sad. Amusing because the spirit that would lead Americans to revolt has long since been bred out of the population. When the subject is broached, it's just armchair warriors talking loud for the most part. It's sad for the same reason.
IMO, when this nation falls, it will be 65-75 years before anything remotely free rises from the ashes. It won't happen overnight.
-
All the notions about another revolution in America are amusing, and sad. Amusing because the spirit that would lead Americans to revolt has long since been bred out of the population. When the subject is broached, it's just armchair warriors talking loud for the most part. It's sad for the same reason.
IMO, when this nation falls, it will be 65-75 years before anything remotely free rises from the ashes. It won't happen overnight.
Exactly the spirit our Masters are counting on.
-
Exactly the spirit our Masters are counting on.
No, that's the reality. People only revolt when they have little to lose.
As it is now, people have families, money, possessions, houses, vehicles, and all the trappings of modern life, food when they want it, climate control, life is pretty good.
They would lose ALL of that if they "revolted". So they won't.
-
Well, we can count on inertia, sloth, cowardice, and entropy.
There's just one thing, though: the status quo isn't going to last too much longer, so any comfortable assumption, positive or negative, can be plausibly discarded. There will be severe disruptions in our economy and the repercussions of that will interrupt our never-ending ascent to our divine right of happiness. Meanwhile, this nation has enemies, deadly enemies, and when they finally strike there will be no way to just lower your head and trudge on. All your assumptions about the future will be up in smoke.
Sorry to be apocalyptic, but I just don't see us muddling through as Obamatons for the next fifty years. And that goes for the Europeans too.
-
Well, I do agree with Rocketman wherein most of the 80 million gun owners in this country would just obey like good servants and turn them in. Still though, even if 1/8 of a percent decided to fight, that would still be approximately 100,000 people. Of course, none of us could possibly predict the outcome of such an event, but 100,000 people is nothing to sneeze at. If we didn't represent at least some threat to total power by an all-powerful central government, then they wouldn't be trying to undermine RKBA, would they?
Lets just hope and pray that we never have to find out. I just fear that eventually we will.
-
Obama is almost certain to win.
The result? Not much will change-there will probably be a modest tax decrease for most of the population, a net tax increase on individuals with the cash to buy a 100 foot plus yacht, and no effective change in the net tax of corporations (due to Obama's support for a Corporate subsidy program similar to GW Bush's bailout).
The momentum behind national healthcare and rebuilding social security as a state institution will be impossible to stop now that the $700 billion bailout has happened. If the government can draw up hundreds of billions to provide welfare assistance to irresponsible banks, voters will demand the same for their medical expenses and pensions.
When these welfare state measures do not ruin the economy, the entire field of debate in the U.S. will shift leftwards, and we'll be on our way to living more like the Scandanavians.
That's my prediction for this election's outcome.
-
99.9% would comply and turn them in.
A small bit more would do what they did in Belfast after the troubles...the guns would vanish into basements, walls, gardens, wrapped in oiled cloth or sealed in tubes.
A couple, maybe a dozen would "revolt", get stomped by the local SWAT, lose everything they ever had including their family, and that would be the end of that.
Reality. It's good to live in.
Also, SS, you definitely don't live there, by your last post. You have no idea of the utter destruction of the small business entrepreneur and failure of small businesses that would come as a result of an Obama/dem unrestricted administration.
-
Maned,
The "utter destruction of small businesses" would happen how exactly?
It looks like the walmarts, chain shops, and chain restaurants are doing a pretty solid job of destroying small businesses of all sorts without an Obama tax policy change. What is it specifically about Obama as president that's going to add fuel to the fire?
To be honest, the teeth gnashing about how destructive Obama will be is only going to help the welfare state supporters-when the reality is that none of these dire predictions come true, the critics of the Obama plans will be discredited.
Over-hyping the evils of Obama is one of the best things that could happen to Obama at this stage: now that he's near certain to win, any beneficial effect to the economy as a result of his first term will look like a big victory. So in a sense, what the Obama apocalypse predictions are doing now is helping to give Obama term number 2, on top of term number 1.
Measured, accurate, and issues based criticism is what he is vulnerable to at this point. The right's failure to do that, instead going with sensationalism, predictions of doom, and "who is Obama?" is directly responsible for its abysmal polling.
-
Not much will change-there will probably be a modest tax decrease for most of the population, a net tax increase on individuals with the cash to buy a 100 foot plus yacht, and no effective change in the net tax of corporations (due to Obama's support for a Corporate subsidy program similar to GW Bush's bailout).
Not much will change. Probably just the First and Second Amendments. They're coming for talk radio and your guns. Bet on it. They're already on the record on both counts.
-
Ah, yes. Obama will only raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year or more. Your boy is a wonderful guy, SS.
Too bad he means $250,000 gross, not net. Read the fine print. Wave goodbye to a lot of the backbone of America.