With only five days to go before election day, the polls are all over the place.
They range from Gallup showing a three point lead for Obama among decided voters to Newsweek with a straight 13 point lead for Obama.
Rumours abound that McCain is moving up and the polls are tightening (which ususally happens a few days before the vote.)
Now, I don’t know about you but I don’t spend much time looking at national polls. The real information is to be gleaned in the polling for individual states, especially the battle ground states.
And in the states the numbers show Obama pulling away. CNN has already given him 286 electoral votes (he needs only 270 to win.) In these last days Obama has forced McCain to defend states that Bush won in 2004. In other words, Obama is on the offense, McCain on the defense.
Frankly, looking at the battle ground states, especially Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and maybe even Missouri, it is almost impossible to conclude that McCain can still win.
Do you agree?
Between now, the actual voting, the glitches in the electronic voting machines, Florida snafus and the Great Electors’ meeting, anything can happen including McCain getting in with a minority vote. Let’s wait for November 5 or 6.
Nixon often spoke about the “silent majority”, the hard working Americans too busy to attend rallies and too concerned with the immediate issues in life to go out and but Obama shirts.
I feel that McCain’s last hope is that the silent majority is out there, keeping their opinions to themselves but strongly holding that opinion and just waiting to make it official by voting. I think enough of them are out there to give McCain the win in the electoral college. But even if he does win the electoral college, he will certainly lose the popular vote.
So I think it is quite possible for Mac to win but the pro-liberal media has certainly achieved the creation of an atmosphere that doesn’t look good for him. But then again the media wrote Truman off and even delared “Dewey Defeats Truman”. Despite that banner headline, I have not been able to find anything about a President Dewey whenever I google it.
Paul writes:
…anything can happen including McCain getting in with a minority vote
Keep in mind, Paul, that Clinton’s wins in ‘92 and ‘96 were both “minority vote” victories.
…and there are other examples out there. The Founding Fathers did not trust the voters and created the Electors to counterbalance the popular unwise choices. It also gave short shrift to smaller or more recent states entering the Union. Ironic, no?
“Margins of error” estimates in polling does not account for the statistical validity of polling results that is reflected when they show the same thing each and every day over an extended period of time. Some tightening of numbers now in many states – but that is generally to be expected.
I’ve looked at the states and the numbers over the past 9-10 weeks forward, backward, inside out, and sideways. Not too many ways McCain can pull this off, but it is definitely possible. If it can happen to the Democrats (the Minnesota Vikings of American politics), it will.
The problem with concluding that McCain is going to lose. Is this, Obama like no other contender has everything going for him. The economy is in the doldrums, He has the geatest political apparatus backing him in their knowledge of how to beat an opponent.
Obma, himself is the greatest orator and inspirational politician, I would say the world has ever known.
He would make the greatest international President for The United States .
And yet, McCain represents approximately 50% of the American population that thinks the same way he does.
Virginia, at 1930 hrs., according to the pundits, will tell the tale on who wins, Tuesday.
Virtually all US presidential elections have results that are close to 50/50. It was part of the great compromise of the Constitution, part of the checks and balances, that there is an electoral college that ultimately decides who the next president will be so there would no tyranny by the larger states. My hope is that Obama will be a landslide winner in the electoral college.
Last night, on Radio-Canada they had some interviews with Oklahomans. They were overwhelmingly McCain. One, a genuine cowboy, complete with horse and rifle, said, speaking of Obama: “they won’t be keeping him long. Someone’s gonna kill him”.
Thank you, Radio Canada, for whatever inspiration quoting some redneck in Oklahoma gave to some lunatic out there who wants to go down in history! Of course, this is a possibility, but — as Obama says — it is time to listen to our better angels. There will certainly be great security surrounding him. I don’t envy that restriction on his life, but it is sadly needed. What’s your point, Paul?
Peter, I respect your opinion that “Obama, himself is the greatest orator and inspirational politician, I would say the world has ever known.”
However, I would say that Obama is no match for Winston Churchill in the greatest orator competition, especially on an international stage, the likes of which Obama has never been on thus far, and as for inspirational … I don’t personally find Obama inspirational but then, people get inspired in very ways that are quite individual.
As for the results of the US election, I think it’s anybody’s guess, and I’m much more interested in Canadian politics.
Barbara,
I simply wanted to show what could lye ahead for Obama. He already has the heaviest security detail any candidate has ever had. He is in the same category as the Kennedys and I, for one , would hate to see him go the same way. The quote I made is from a serie that Radio-Canada filmed along Route 66 all the way from Chicago. Last night they were in Oklahoma. In all the deepest America states, with very few exceptions, those who spoke believe that he is, almost, the devil and those -religious souls- can’t bear the thought of President Obama, much better a nice religious lady like Sara Palin who shares their beliefs.
I agree, and sincerely hope, that they are not representative of the majority of decent USAers, but they exist and can do desperate things to uphold virtue. Those guys have killed to demonstrate their opposition to abortion.
True, these wack jobs exist. But there is evidence that they are not in the majority. One hopes they are a dying breed. I am frightened for Barack Obama myself.
However, when Radio-Canada chooses to give these wack jobs so much attention, it FEELS to me like it is one more attempt for Canadians to put down USAmericans in order to boost their own sense of superiority. If it had been just that one instance, but I get that feeling very often.
YouTube and the various blogs expose these wack jobs to the glare of sunlight enough. The US networks are a bit more cautious because they know this is a rump group and there is no need to give them publicity. It might even encourage them.
That’s the way I see it anyway.
And you are most probably right.
Hi, Cate, I agree that Winston Churchill was the greatest, until now.
A recent survey in Russia has reported that they hope McCain wins the election so they can keep alive the international view that the U.S. wants to dominate the world.
I think they are afraid of Obama. I think Obama has the charisma and authenticity that will place him in a position to reinvent the way the world looks at Americans.
He will in time, if elected propose policies that will reconcile and support the regulations that the international community is seeking.
His presence on the world stage gives me nothing but hope.
Good morrow, all!
Suppose each candidate were to govern in the same manner as the respective candidate has campaigned to date.
Obama preaches change and hope. He speaks with respect and refuses to get riled when he is reviled. He is in control of himself, and he inspires others to demand more of themselves.
McCain preaches fear and intimidation. He speaks of “that one…you know, the community organizer who hangs arounds with terrorists and is probably a closet Muslim, who isn’t proud of America, who wants to spread the wealth…he’s black, Muslim, socialist, and hates America…why doesn’t he go back to Africa and butt the rug over there?” (oh, wait, I’m sorry, I was channelling comedian Rush Limbaugh, the ultimate Republican’t water carrier)
If Obama runs a government with half the skill he has demonstrated in running his campaign, America is in good hands. If McCain were to run the government half as badly as he has campaigned, even destitute Mexicans wouldn’t want to cross the Rio Grande. Perhaps that is the greatest fear of the rednecks — that Obama is really as smart as he sounds. Scary, huh? makes you wanna just…digress all over yourself…which I think I just did…CTZen
As for Barack Obama being the greatest orator who ever lived, here is another prospective:
http://tinyurl.com/68jn6v
.
CTZen wrote:
If Obama runs a government with half the skill he has demonstrated in running his campaign, America is in good hands.
What planet are you on?
This was the Democrats’ year. After 8 years of a very unpopular president and the unpopular war he wrought, the Democratic nominee was supposed to be a shoe-in. He had the momentum of the pendulum that was going to swing all the way to the Left.
Obama was supposed to be leading in the polls by about 20 points by now.
But with 3 days to go, the two candidates are neck-and-neck…and, indeed, there’s the possibility that Barack might blow it.
So, no, Barack has not demonstrated much skill at all in this campaign, CTZen, and it bodes very badly on his ability to run anything, much less a country.
Tony,
Thanks for the article on Obama at tinyurl.com as above. I quite agree with the author’s point of view, and think “ego and mouth” are applicable to Obama in ways that most followers and certainly the mainline press don’t want to hear. I think the meltdown of which this author speaks could very well happen.
Tony, and Cate in giving my opinion of Obama being the greatest orator and inspirational politician the world has ever known. I am seeing forward to the end of his 8 year term and looking back.
I am interested in Canadian Politics and 30 years ago I predicated that Bob Rae would eventually be the Prime Minister of Canada. He is finally on his way, even though he is not a democratic socialst anymore, as I am. Although I tend to vote for the leader first, party second.
“I quite agree with the author’s point of view, and think “ego and mouth” are applicable to Obama”
As do I.
Only I arrive at a very different place than yourself and the author, Cate.
If one feels that a little “ego and mouth” (backed by some smarts and understanding of human nature to distinguish it from the Bush ego and mouth) could serve the upcoming presidency better than a lot of political experience, then the article shines a rather favourable light on Obama.
In the end, not all experience is equal. It’s like choosing Rocket Richard to be your coach and general manager over Scotty Bowman based on their respective playing records. Huge mistake.
If the nature of the game changes then experience in the old game isn’t all that relevant, except to those who didn’t want the game to change.
Good morrow, all!
Nothing is ever as it was supposed to be. Live long enough, and you will understand. The Republicans have had control of Congress for 12 years. They have owned the White House for eight years. Two branches of the government, 20 years in all, and look at the mess. The polls are essentially meaningless. History teaches what we refuse to learn. Dewey was supposed to be president in 1948.
All the polls represent are those people who are willing to tell somebody how they would LIKELY vote. All in all, Obama is clearly the more attractive candidate. Remember, JFK won in a squeaker in 1960.
Many people fear real change. Better the devil you know, and all that.
Tony, it appears that you prefer McCain, not because he would be any improvement on Dick Cheney (does anybody, ANYBODY, out there really think that Dubya was EVER in charge?) but because you prefer the devil you know (white, rich, divorced at least once, third from the bottom of the class, old, crochety, inarticulate, crashed five Navy jets on duty, wants to bomb Iran, chose Mooseburger Spice for running mate) over the devil you don’t (mulatto, can’t remember his only wedding anniversary, yeah, he’s wealthy, too, community organizer, closet Muslim under deep cover, handsome, articulate, cool, in control, let us never negotiate from fear, but never let us fear to negotiate, doesn’t want to bomb Iran, and the beat goes on)
If Dubya can squeak past Mr. Nobel Prize Winner by 537 disputed votes from a trailer park in Florida, Obama only needs to secure 270 electoral college votes. That’s all. I think I prefer a candidate who would mak ehistory, as opposed to one who refuses to learn from it. But, as usual, I digress…CTZen
John says,
“If the nature of the game changes then experience in the old game isn’t all that relevant, except to those who didn’t want the game to change.”
John, I fail to see that the fundamental nature of the game is changing at all with Obama! The only difference is that we now have ego, mouth, and still big money — but from different places than many are used to except that the Kennedy’s are still in the picture.
And Peter,
As for Bob Rae, heaven help us, please god, not him for Prime Minister!! Yes, he’s smart but many, especially in health care, have never forgiven him for the Rae days whereby he lost a lot of credibility. After a long hiatus from active organizing and campaigning for any Liberal candidate, I may just get out my running shoes and help Ignatieff whom I have supported from the beginning.
Were I to vote south of the border I would go for Obama because of his inherent human qualities. What’s wrong with saying what people do not always want to hear, being a non-divorced husband and father. The guy earned 4m$ last year, so what if he earned it?
As for Canada, although a liberal, Tony must have figured that out by now, I would not vote for a liberal party headed either by Rae or Ignatieff. Rae almost bankrupted Ontario and Ignatieff, while a university professor in the US sided with Dubya on Iraq only to limply comment after coming back that as an intellectual he could be for Iraq but not as a Canadian politician???? Potent balderdash.
Paul,
There’s nothing wrong with inherently human qualities — Obama shares them with the rest of us. And there’s nothing wrong with saying what people do not always want to hear. I don’t know what you’re implying re: “being a non-divorced husband and father.” What’s the connection between that and saying what people do not always want to hear? So what, if he earned 4m$ last year? For me, it is not — so what? — if it blinds him from the realities that most people face. Although his talk sounds good, and he uses catchy phrases like “yes we can!”, I’m not at all convinced that he isn’t just as far from the average person as McCain is. I’m not supporting McCain either, so don’t get the wrong idea.
As for Ignatieff and his “potent balderdash” as you call it, Ignatieff is smart enough to realize that anything may be a good idea on the intellectual level in theory, but not be a good idea in political practice, especially across geographical lines from the US to Canada. In other words, he knows thoroughly well the country he’s in — precisely what many are accusing him of not knowing just because he lived in the US for a time.
CTZen:
I find it interesting that within the confines of one post you make reference to the JFK victory of ‘60 as “a squeaker” (it was). Yet you refer to Bush winning in 2000 as “disputed”.
Gosh, I find that a double standard.
There is more evidence to suggest that JFK and his Daddy Warbucks, Joe Kennedy, illegally bought his election than there is that Dubya won because of any mispropriety. Florida has been independently studied time and time again since the fact and found to have been won fairly.
As Joe Kennedy infamously said to his son during the campaign (in jest but it portended the reality of what was to come in West Virginia and Illinois, Barack’s home state, notorious then as it is now for political corruption): Don’t buy a single vote more than is necessary. I’m happy to buy you the election, Jack, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.
There is no connection Cate. The juxtaposition was unfortunate. As for knowing the country he’s in, for Ignatieff, and being able to distinguish what is intellectually defensible in the US and politically unpalatable in Canada, in my book, it sounds opportunistic and untrustworthy. I can’t vote for a guy whom I can’t trust.
Tony, on the web, you are listed as an entrepreneur, a businessman, a financial adviser, an income tax consultant, etc…, are you also a paid political agent for the McCain campaign? You sound full time on it and on tinyurl???
Paul:
tinyurl is just an internet tool for making long and unruly url’s “tiny”.
Although I’ve written about taxes within the context of IRAs, I am not a tax consultant nor a financial adviser…I do estate planning which touches on taxes but I have nothing to do with telling people which investments to put their money (unless it has to do with estate planning).
I am not a fan of John McCain.
The race is closer than the polls indicate. We’ll see.
Peter, seriously. He’s nowhere near being the “greatest orator ever.” He’s the greatest orator you let control your emotions. The guy hasn’t said a darn things of historical value to me.
As for Radio-Canada report. Whatever. I don’t trust the CBC with that sort of stuff. That’s such a short-sighted, one-sided thing it really, at the end of it, proves nothing.
Tony, when the left “investigates” Republican connections to unsavoury characters it’s called “honesty and reporting.” When conservatives explore Obama’s questionable past it’s called “racism” and “hate-mongering.” And vice-versa of course.
Now, Obama has outright censored the NY Post and Washington Times.Suppressing the press, eh?
Hmm. Imagine if Bush (who is always been cited for repressing freedom) if the right had done something like this? So much for being a uniter.
The silence is deafening on this issue.
The hypocrisy is hilarious.
I must have missed some of the action. If Obama did censor newspapers, I agree it is the wrong thing to do. As for CBC/Radio-Canada their reports can be one sided and have been on numerous occasions, however, they are right also on many occasions.
That is why I gather my infos from many sources, left, right and international. For instance when Al Jazeera, the BBC, Le Monde and even CNN have just about the same tack on an event, unless they refer to an AP story, I figure something has to be true, in what proportion? That is the question. (Forgive me Shakespeare)
Corneilas T. Zen” The Republicans have had control of Congress for 12 years. They owned the White for 8 years. Two branches of the Government, 20 years in all, and look at the mess”.
I beg your pardon, under Obama it is hoped he will have the same power.
Cate, Bob Rae said he learned from his mistakes. As for Ignatieff, imagine an out of towner coming to Canada to tell us what to do. No thanks.
Exposrip, whatever that means. It has nothing to do with my emotions. The fact is there is either Obama or McCain, who do you think is the greatest orator.
Frankly, after G. W. Bush, Porky Pig would sound like a great orator. Nevertheless, Obama has a way of addressing the public like thinking adults and I find that refreshing. He has been delivering his kind of message since he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention four years ago. One has to start with ideals or one is left scrambling for immediate fixes a la McCain.
There are many USAmericans out there really hurting because of what Bush and his cronies have done to their country in the past 8 years. They want a restoration of unity as a people, all working together to make things right again. They are wearied of the red vs blue, patriotic towns vs unpatriotic cities, Joe the Plumber vs the terrorist/Muslim/foreigner. Obama’s words need to be spoken. Few do it as well as he does. His preternatural calm, his reason, the blend of extremes he represents in his own flesh are so significant at this time.
Alas, ideals are seldom fulfilled in all their aspects. One can only hope he makes some progress and that the country feels different after four years.
By the way, does it strike anyone amusing that Ignatieff is scorned because he comes from American academia and purports to have all the answers for Canada and yet Canadians purport to know what is best for the USA?
My reservations about Ignatieff has more to do with his thinking switches wether he is in his academic or political roles than his origins whichever way you look at it. When I say I would vote for Obama I speak for me, same about Ignatieff. I don’t pretend talking for Canadians.
May I remind that Paul Cellucci and the current US ambassador Wilkins have both told Canadians who they should vote for and what measures to take to not seem unfriendly to the US? They were not disavowed by Dubya so I figure they were talking for the US people.
Peter, between the two absolutely agree. I understood you meant the world. I felt that was a little, erm, rich and fanciful.
Paul, he censored not just journalists but entire papers: notably the Washington Times and NY Post.
I like to play devil’s advocate here. I don’t get this “unity” thing. A deep, vibrant and colorful society like America will always be “divided.” Division can be healthy. And what do we mean by “division” anyway? A Democratic house and Republican president? Has America ever been “united?” The American Revolution was the work of a small segment of the population at the time. What about the Civil War where its effects are still felt? The south, mid-west, north-east etc will always have its social and political cleavages.
What hurt? Seems to me, American history is filled with “damaging” aspects to its society yet the people have risen to the task to fix it. The people that feel hurt are the ones that simply don’t like Bush. Fair enough but he does speak for millions.
It’s like Harper, he’s apparently “divisive” yet millions vote for him. Is Canada not massively divided (I would say MORE than the USA) between Quebec, Ontario, Nunavut and the West? Heck, we still have free trade between us!
Meant to say, don’t have free trade. Apologies.
United countries have always been an intellectual concept, Expos. As long as a nation, despite its internal tensions can still remain a political entity, everything is fine, here and elsewhere.
exposrip wrote:
I like to play devil’s advocate here. I don’t get this “unity” thing. A deep, vibrant and colorful society like America will always be “divided.” Division can be healthy. And what do we mean by “division” anyway? A Democratic house and Republican president? Has America ever been “united?”
Good points.
Canada’s parliamentary system is built upon the concept of having an “Official Opposition” serve as the counterpart to the ruling party. Pierre Trudeau called it “creative tension”, I believe.
Indeed, you can’t have harmony without differences. If everything’s the same, there’s no contrast…and without contrast you can’t have harmony. In music, try and have “harmony” playing the same notes.
You want unity? Everyone with opposing views should state their respective arguments, hash ‘em out, and the result will be unity.
You prevent unity from occuring if you deprive people with opposing points of view of the opportunity to express themselves.
That’s where disharmony and disunity arise from.
Well, on reading all of the above, I guess I have to reiterate what The Man said, “If there is a lesson to be learned, it is to be skeptical about conventional wisdom”
By-the-by – Obama by 5 points
Paul, Canadians are rightfully tee-d off when American ambassadors purport to tell them what to do. It works the other way around, too. Actually, the tone here has been more of the “what I would do, if I were in the position to vote.”
Unity, to me, means all heading in the same direction, working to solve the problems together, bringing our various positions together to cobble a workable solution. It is not uniformity. “Creative tension” is a good thing. Bush exacerbated the differences and, I fear, election of McCain/Palin would continue that. A Democratically-dominated Congress is worrisome. I hope there is some “creative tension” there. Mind you, the role of a party whip is a greater challenge in the USA than in Canada.
There is a core American value that says “out of many, one.” The Civil War was a terrible event in the USA’s history and its scars remain. Americans know how much internal strife can hurt if allowed to run unchecked by a counterbalancing sense of unity. Canadians see the “melting pot” as attempting to suppress differences. I see it as embracing those differences to create a better whole.
PC,
It’s exposRIP and don’t you forget buddy boy.
Heh.
Good points on all. Just making sure we’re alive.
Here’s one for you: Is Canada a “nation” or a “country?” Are these words interchangeable? We do interchange them but I think there’s a difference.
Exposrip, I did not mean to rip your identity. As for “nation” vs “country” you are right, they are not interchangeable. Nation refers to an identifiable ethnic group, country refers to the territory commonly claimed as theirs by one or more ethnic groups sharing that particular spot on of Earth within recognized borders. Thus, English origin Canadians are a Nation and fFrench Canadians are a Nation, Canada is their common Country. The same can or should be said about other identifiable ethnic groups, here and elsewhere.
Now please spare the tomatoes.
What a load of ca-ca, Paul. You’ve bought into the whole let’s placate the Quebec nationalist by passing all sorts of resolutions recognizing Quebec as a nation in order to stave off independence.
A nation by any other name is still a nation…and a nation is defined, first and foremost, by the borders of a country, not by some flowery language that Stepen Harper and his merry band of distinct societists extend to an electorate they’ll never win over.
Indeed, if there is any “nation” within the borders of Canada, it is the First Nations. But even they get their moniker qualified by the word “First”.
If Quebec wants to be recognized as a nation, they can bloody well vote 50% plus one vote in the next sovereignty referendum, hard question only.
Otherwise, I, Tony Kondaks, can with equal legitimacy, declare myself a nation unto myself.
Peter,
Ignatieff is certainly not an “out-of-towner” as you put it. He is the son of a distinguished Canadian diplomat who very nearly became governor-general, and a great-grandson of the Victorian worthy George M. Grant. He was born and raised in Toronto, received his undergraduate degree at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College, won the Governor-General’s Award for Non-Fiction and has only ever held Canadian citizenship. And so what that he lived and taught in the US for a time! Many Canadians have done the same with less of a travel budget than Ignatieff took advantage of. And there are many people now in the House of Commons who have spent a lot less time in Canada and certainly have a lot less history here than Ignatieff!
Better Ignatieff than Justin.
Thanks PC and Tony.
A group of people with nothing in common cannot be a nation. Alternatively, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are nations under the umbrella of the United Kingdom which is a country.
The nations have no soveriegn rights and by the way neither does Quebec.
You are right Jim about Québec. Being a nation has nothing to do with sovereignty…and it is well this way.