Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

The pundits were worse, with more lies, but then again, why should we expect anything any different, cyclops.

I would have to go to the text of the speech, but one big one that struck me at the time they kept saying over and over that Bush did not give the country or congress anything to do, which is utter and complete nonsense. Not that it matters, but the pundits are so blatantly partisan that their entire shows stink, period.

You and the pundits don't take what he said seriously because you don't want to consider anything associated with conservative or Republican ideas, but for them to characterize it as not making any suggestions for congress to do is a lie, plain and simple.

Another point about the rebuttal speech. She is probably a nice person, being from a decent state like Kansas, but she was clearly more robotic than real. And it is so obvious the Democrats pick a nice little touchy feely Democrat from a Republican state to do those things, instead of some flaming lib that is actually involved in running their party that would instead polarize people. The people they pick are nothing but dupes and they are apparently too dumb to know it.

.........any program or issue he highlights in his speech is doomed for severe budget cuts and vetos soon after so don't hold your breath for anything to come of the speech.

Butrflynet wrote:

.........any program or issue he highlights in his speech is doomed for severe budget cuts and vetos soon after so don't hold your breath for anything to come of the speech.

Agreed, and that all comes as a result of being a lame duck president, regardless of who you are or what party you belong to.

Where did I say Bush gave a great speech? I do think most of the stuff he said, and I didn't hear all of it, most of what I saw him say seemed reasonable and logical, and I find the criticisms of his speech as small minded and mis-directed, and merely for partisan purposes. Criticizing the president is fine, but at least make the criticisms based on what he said rather than what I perceive as probably pre-prepared talking point analysis by obviously partisan talking heads. Some of these people remind me of immature teenagers criticizing the class president because the class party didn't start on time or something. At least, Bush is an adult compared to the pundits.

You can't name any of the specific criticisms they gave, either, but obviously whatever they are are childish criticisms.

Geez

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You can't name any of the specific criticisms they gave, either, but obviously whatever they are are childish criticisms.

Geez

Cycloptichorn

I most certainly did. Do you even read my posts?

You said that they said he 'didn't give Congress anything to do.' that isn't a specific criticism. What pundits, which channels, btw?

What else?
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You said that they said he 'didn't give Congress anything to do.' that isn't a specific criticism. What pundits, which channels, btw?

What else?
Cycloptichorn

I think it was Chris Matthews and a couple others, I don't remember names, they all sounded about the same. I didn't record the conversations, so obviously I can't quote the exact words, but the whole theme of the analysis was Bush said nothing of substance, didn't have anything new, did not give the people of the country or congress anything to do, which is total nonsense in my opinion. I listened to quite a bit of the same speech they did, and my analysis is totally different, and I think my analysis is every bit as valid.

Look, I don't mind criticisms from partisans, but my point is that these news organizations claim to report things in a sort of balanced manner, and it isn't, not even close. That is why I agree with Rush Limbaugh when he says he is balance to the rest of the press. That is why talk radio is so popular, with most or virtually all of talk radio conservative, because the popular press does not give us a voice. They totally attempt to marginalize us, and we remain a very large portion of the country.

By Staying In The Campaign, Edwards Helps Obama

Open Left
by: Chris Bowers
Fri Jan 18, 2008

As the arguments against Edwards begin to mount online, I want to point out something that should be obvious to Obama supporters, but which I have rarely seen mentioned. By staying in the campaign, Edwards is helping Obama in most states, particularly those with large African-American populations. Consider, for example, that Clinton would instantaneously pull even with Obama in South Carolina if Edwards were to drop out [..]

Obama is dominating Clinton among African-Americans nationwide, and even stronger in states where campaigning has actually taken place. Edwards draws very little of the African-American vote from Obama, but is competitive for white southern votes. This means that in states like South Carolina (Jan 26th) and Georgia (Feb 5th), Obama's lead is largely dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign. In Alabama, which will take place on February 5th, Obama leads Clinton 36%-34%. However, that lead would be gone if the 9% of voters who support Edwards, most of whom are white, have to choose only between Clinton and Obama. While there are no recent polls out of other February 5th states, like Kansas and Missouri, given the strength of Edwards in those two states, I imagine the situation is very similar. Further, while Obama's winning or losing in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee is not dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign, for exactly the same reason I cited in the previously mentioned states, Obama's delegate totals from these other states will probably be better with Edwards in the campaign than with Edwards out of the campaign. In every case, Edwards will take a larger bite out of Clinton's advantage among white voters than he will from Obama's advantage among African-American voters.

With Hillary Clinton nudging ahead in Nevada, right now Edwards dropping out would be absolutely devastating to the Obama campaign. If Clinton won Nevada, and Edwards dropped out, Illinois and Georgia might be the only two remaining states where Obama would have an advantage. Barring a spectacular Clinton collapse, the campaign would be all but over. Clinton's advantage would be insurmountable.

Obama's only chance in this campaign is if Edwards stays in the race through February 5th, and stays in the double-digits in just about every state through February 5th. If Obama can put together a string of victories from January 19th through February 5th, he might be able to compete with Clinton one on one. Right now, however, he can't do that. So, if you are an Obama supporter pissed at Edwards for staying in the campaign, or frustrated that Edwards has maintained large support online, remember this: if Edwards drops out, or sees his poll numbers collapse before February 5th, this campaign is over. If you don't believe me and all of hte states I have cited so far, just look at the difference between the two Nevada polls were Edwards is strong (Clinton and Obama are tied in those polls) and the two Nevada polls where Edwards is weak (Clinton leads a 7.5% lead in those two polls). Right now, unless he wins Nevada, Edwards is functionally acting as a spoiler to Clinton, and in favor of Obama. If he does well between now and February 5th, Obama might be strong enough to challenge Clinton one-on-one. However, he isn't strong enough yet, and he needs help from Edwards to get him to that point.