Obama vs. McCain

Even a man like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's always full of ideas, is mocking Obama's ideas or lack of it.
Linky

Arnie's advice to Obama: beef up your body and your ideas

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has some advice for Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama: beef up your body and your ideas.

Schwarzenegger, who organizes a bodybuilding competition in Columbus every year, said he wanted to invite Obama because "he needs to do something about those skinny legs. I'm going to make him do some squats."

"And then we're going to make him do some biceps curls to beef up those scrawny little arms," Schwarzenegger said, before his punchline: "But if he could only do something about putting some meat on his ideas."

I swear this guy is my hero

Money!

Together, the two presidential candidates have amassed nearly $1 billion — a stratospheric number in a campaign of record-shattering money numbers. Depending on turnout, $1 billion means nearly $8 for every presidential vote, compared with $5.50 in 2004.

Perfecting a fundraising practice initially mastered by George W. Bush, presidential candidates enlisted fundraisers to raise thousands upon thousands of dollars for them. These are the well-connected money people to whom a campaign is ultimately indebted. Both McCain and Obama list their fundraisers — or bundlers, as they are known — on their Web sites. McCain's are easier to find than Obama's. But unlike McCain, Obama lists the fundraisers' home towns.

Federal law requires candidates to identify only those donors who contribute, in the aggregate, more than $200. But McCain has made his entire donor database available through his Web site. Obama has not, drawing criticism.

http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDE ... ed&id=9390

My prediction. Don't mind the switched colors, its just that site. Everyone should post their maps.

my prediction http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDE ... ed&id=9394



the poor coal workers!!!! this is big!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xBlTdsnOh8
OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

I don't want to bother to register. Also, this was over months ago. Obama's over-under is 350ish. Probably 52-45.

The real question is, and has been since mid-September when the Presidential race ended, whether or not the Dems get 60 in the Senate.

Not that it really matters if they fall short, they'll get more than enough in 2010. So much for the shining city on a hill.

And let's not forget the standard for an Obama administration includes fixing our broken souls and:

generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

that quote says it all benji! this guy thinks his plan usurps God's plan for hope and salvation!!!!

I hope that both your mention of "God's plan" and your map were jokes, puttincomputers. God returning to give us hope and salvation is almost as likely as John McCain breaking 90% in Illinois.

we should try to select the worst possible candidate, abuse the planet as much as possible and try to destroy the world as soon as possible

Isn't that what's going to happen on Tuesday?

*GASP!* YOU EDITED YOUR POST. MODS, MOODDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSS! BAN! BAN! BAN!

Perhaps, but I think the election could go either way, and my personal (perhaps naive) hunch is that whoever wins will be better than our current administration. Quote me in 4 years if I'm wrong.

If Barack wins, he will likely lose reelection or get assassinated anyway.

Perhaps, but I think the election could go either way

Nah. This race has been over since mid-September. We all want a McCain victory for the epic lulz that follow, but there's no way that happens.

If Barack wins, he will likely lose reelection

Nah, he's winning eight years on Tuesday.

and my personal (perhaps naive) hunch is that whoever wins will be better than our current administration. Quote me in 4 years if I'm wrong.

In five years we'll be remembering 2008 as the good old days. And it has nothing to do with Obama. He, like FDR, is just going to make bad times even worse.

I'm pessimistic when it comes to politics (yes, I'm rooting for Obama, if only because I agree with him on social issues and I don't want my mom to go into another deep depression) so I am weary of the Bradley effect, the Republicans pulling another 2000 (people say 2004 was stolen too, but I think its a huge stretch), or the polls turning out to be false. I also could see him losing in 2012 if the economy continues to decline, and the Republicans nominate this guy.

Also, I remember 1998 at the good old days.

I agree with him on social issues

Do tell. (And are silly positions like "I hate gay marriage, but will allow it" really worth the destruction of a dream? And a goon squad thug state?)

Anyway.

Re: Bradley Effect. Made up. Doesn't exist in a national election. Didn't even exist in the original case.

Re: Republicans pulling another 2000. You mean, losing a slim lead in the polls due to a late faux-scandal, and the election being close all year? Allowing the people who lost to claim "stolen!" because they're idiots? (If Gore had won Florida, Republicans would've claimed "stolen" due to the illegal recounts, and double punching. It just wouldn't have gone mainstream because they don't control the media.)

Re: Losing in 2012. No, never. The Democrats will blame everything on Bush. Any problems will be the result of "Bush policies." I mean, if Democrats can get away with blaming de-regulation for the most regulated sector of the economy and government entities (Freddie/Fannie) failing they'll easily get away with blaming Bush. (They've already successfully spent the last four years doing it.)

Re: 1998 as good old days. Feh, how was 1998 better than 2004 or 2005? Or 2006 and 2007? Just because you had a criminal, yet moderately liberal President (who rolled back welfare, lowered taxes and promoted free trade!), and a moderately liberal Republican Congress doesn't make it good times. (Or does it! We'll really want those days back not long from now. But still, lower quality internet, no YouTube, NO STEAM, no legal liquor access for benji, etc.)

I agree with him on social issues

Do tell. (And are silly positions like "I hate gay marriage, but will allow it" really worth the destruction of a dream? And a goon squad thug state?)

I am pro-choice and do not think that gay marriage should be banned. And please tell about this goon squad thug state.

Re: Bradley Effect. Made up. Doesn't exist in a national election. Didn't even exist in the original case.

Predominately white counties suddenly voting against an African American candidate after all polls suggested a comfortable victory means nothing?

Re: Republicans pulling another 2000. You mean, losing a slim lead in the polls due to a late faux-scandal, and the election being close all year? Allowing the people who lost to claim "stolen!" because they're idiots? (If Gore had won Florida, Republicans would've claimed "stolen" due to the illegal recounts, and double punching. It just wouldn't have gone mainstream because they don't control the media.)

Roughly 50,000 votes were discounted due to people being listed as convicted felons. However, most of those people were in fact not convicted felons. Most of these purged ballots were from black voters, who voted 88% for Gore. I think that is enough to beat a 537 vote spread, and enough to warrant a recount.

Re: Losing in 2012. No, never. The Democrats will blame everything on Bush. Any problems will be the result of "Bush policies." I mean, if Democrats can get away with blaming de-regulation for the most regulated sector of the economy and government entities (Freddie/Fannie) failing they'll easily get away with blaming Bush. (They've already successfully spent the last four years doing it.)

So why did they lose in 2004?

Re: 1998 as good old days. Feh, how was 1998 better than 2004 or 2005? Or 2006 and 2007? Just because you had a criminal, yet moderately liberal President (who rolled back welfare, lowered taxes and promoted free trade!), and a moderately liberal Republican Congress doesn't make it good times. (Or does it! We'll really want those days back not long from now. But still, lower quality internet, no YouTube, NO STEAM, no legal liquor access for benji, etc.)

People still had their retirement funds, gas was half the price it is now (yes, it has been going down recently, which has been quite nice, but you know that it is going to shoot back up again soon, and a year ago it was around this price anyway), our dollar owned the Canadien dollar (I never thought I would see the day when their dollar was better than ours) and we didn't mind that we didn't have these things, because we weren't exposed to today's technology. Sure, it was suck to go back to 1998 now when we are used to our high speed computers, and our YouTube, but back then we didn't mind.

Predominately white counties suddenly voting against an African American candidate after all polls suggested a comfortable victory means nothing?

Except the polls suggested a small victory...and they oddly seemed to not account for any sort of state-wide ballot measure that might have brought traditional non-voters to the polls.

Like say, a gun control one. And it might not have helped for the black candidate to be very very pro-gun control. (Which he later moderated, and won!)

Roughly 50,000 votes were discounted due to people being listed as convicted felons. However, most of those people were in fact not convicted felons. Most of these purged ballots were from black voters, who voted 88% for Gore. I think that is enough to beat a 537 vote spread, and enough to warrant a recount.

I didn't say anything about not warranting any recount. But the Gore legal camp wanted illegal recounts in specific counties. (You had to count all counties, not just high Democrat ones.) And who knows how many ballots were double punched by Democrat election workers? And all those military absentee ballots thrown out? And who knows if Gore really won? Or if Bush did? "537" was not a real vote count, it was the decided vote count.

(And your example is more likely failure of government. Not malicious Republican effort.) (It's amazing how much government can fail, yet people still want to give it more power.)

So why did they lose in 2004?

John F. Kerry. The worst candidate in modern American politics.

And because 2004 came before the last four years?

People still had their retirement funds, gas was half the price it is now (yes, it has been going down recently, which has been quite nice, but you know that it is going to shoot back up again soon, and a year ago it was around this price anyway), our dollar owned the Canadien dollar

All of which was true in 2004? And 2005? And most of 2006? And most of it also true in 2007?

but back then we didn't mind.

Well, yeah. That's the point. We don't want to go back now. In five years we'll want to go back to 2008. That's what a $100 trillion entitlement collapse will do to you.

I am pro-choice

And that's reason enough to vote for Obama? When a McCain victory sadly won't change anything? Is it worth it to lose more of your freedom in order to keep the legal choice to terminate pregnancies? (Well, you can't decide this. Only women can, but whatever.)

(And gay marriage won't change either, McCain hates the religious right when he doesn't need them to win elections. Neither candidate supports the proper thing and eliminating marriage as a state institution.)

And please tell about this goon squad thug state.

Look up the "Obama Truth Squad", the Obama campaign petitions to the FCC and DOJ on political opponents, Chicago Politics, and the Fairness Doctrine. And add in that shortly the government will probably control your health decisions and your bank. And that a majority of the country will not be paying more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.

Apparently this election is seeing a record turnout of voters.

"The Mac is back!"

-John McCain in front of a 1,000 person crowd in Florida. Meanwhile, Barack Obama spoke in front of an 85,000 person crowd in North Carolina.

If Obama loses this thing, the projected one million turnout in Chicago is going to RIOT.

Just them? Lam: you're forgetting we're talking about a country who win or lose riots. Be prepared for interesting headlines tomorrow...

Apparently this election is seeing a record turnout of voters.

that would be because of the african americans voting for barakalaka

That story says 130 million. 2004 was 123ish million. A "record turnout" only because there's more Americans than ever. (We had 75-80% turnout in the latter half of the 1800s.)

The big question is if we get back to pre-26th Amendment levels.

2012 will probably be a drop off like 1996.

Obama won Pennsylvania, which is huge since McCain went there like 1000 times. I am holding my breath until one of Obama's 8 potential boilovers work out.

Why? Obama won. McCain needed Pennsylvania. And Obama's getting Ohio and Florida. Obama's on the path to 400.

That story says 130 million. 2004 was 123ish million. A "record turnout" only because there's more Americans than ever. (We had 75-80% turnout in the latter half of the 1800s.)

That does make it sound less impressive.

mcain is winning new mexico and yet the media is calling it for obama

They can project the winner based on exit polls and common sense. Sometimes they start counting in Republican counties, and so you see the person with less votes with the check next to their name.

God picked Obama. Only explanation for it.

375 or 378.

EDIT: I'll never get used to people wildly celebrating elections. Or being so emotionally invested.

This Grant Park stuff is just scary and unsettling.