McCain or Obama ?


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

McCain or Obama ?

McCain
9
17%
Obama
43
83%
 
Total votes : 52

McCain or Obama ?

Postby eldrick » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:07 pm

We might as well have a poll to get an idea of the leanings of the readership !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:10 pm

i forgot to add ray stewart as another option, so i'll have to do another poll :P
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:12 pm

We need to find some ACORN operatives to get out the vote . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:12 pm

eldrick wrote:i forgot to add ray stewart as another option, so i'll have to do another poll :P


eldy you haven;t made me laugh for years but that was good :-) :D
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby JRM » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:34 pm

I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.

He has significant momentum in the polls and the predicted electoral college victories. I can't see this turning around in a week. For those who are interested in tracking the daily polls statistics leading up to next week, I find these provide good insight:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:38 pm

JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.

I think the Bradley Effect is still a threat.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:53 pm

Marlow wrote:
JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.

I think the Bradley Effect is still a threat.

I agree. We will know for sure Nov. 5th. In the meantime, Obama supporters should keep the pedal to the metal no matter how good the polls look.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:12 pm

mump boy wrote:
eldrick wrote:i forgot to add ray stewart as another option, so i'll have to do another poll :P


eldy you haven;t made me laugh for years but that was good :-) :D


I endorse this message.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:09 am

I assume that a NASCAR message board would have the oppositee results, but I wonder how the vote would go if this were a golf message board instead of a track and field message board.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:20 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I assume that a NASCAR message board would have the oppositee results, but I wonder how the vote would go if this were a golf message board instead of a track and field message board.


Good point, jazz. I suppose I exist in a closed (non-golf) environment but I am surprised at the disparity of the vote here and I too wondered about the demographics of the posters.
The demographics of who is polled is, of course, the reason for the wide range of results. Well, that and the fact people lie in polls to avoid confrontation or to deliberately create misleading data.
The only meaningful poll with be next Tuesday.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby JRM » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:48 am

Marlow wrote:
JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.

I think the Bradley Effect is still a threat.


I question whether or not the Bradley Effect is real, particularly in this day and age. A lot has changed in 25+ years. From a cursory perusal of the data, it seems that there is just as much of a case for no Bradley effect, or even a reverse-Bradley effect, in modern elections with non-white candidates.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:38 pm

mump boy wrote:
eldrick wrote:i forgot to add ray stewart as another option, so i'll have to do another poll :P


eldy you haven;t made me laugh for years but that was good :-) :D


I don't get it? :?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:08 pm

If you really don't get it, check out this thread:

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?t=33442
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:39 pm

It's ok I called Mump and he explained.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:23 pm

This is the fifth election in a row that pitted a war veteran against someone who's never fought in a war, and if Obama wins, the war veterans will be 0-5.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:This is the fifth election in a row that pitted a war veteran against someone who's never fought in a war



It's a stretch to say Gore "fought" in a war. A big stretch.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:22 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:This is the fifth election in a row that pitted a war veteran against someone who's never fought in a war



It's a stretch to say Gore "fought" in a war. A big stretch.

He never came under hostile fire, but he did receive a combat medal that goes to everyone who serves in a combat theater, and once you're there, anything can happen. For example, a friend of mine joined the Air Force in order to avoid action, but he ended up receiving a purple heart from wounds received when his base came under artillery fire during the Tet Offensive. Furthermore, Al Gore enlisted in the Army, unlike another famous, Ivy League son of privilege who joined the National Guard, and he was one of only a dozen of the 1,115 Harvard graduates in the Class of 1969 who went to Vietnam. Gore was lucky enough to avoid getting assigned to an infantry unit, but that's just the luck of the draw. I have another friend who was drafted into the Army, but by the luck of the draw ended up going to Germany instead Vietnam, while guys he went to basic training with came home in body bags.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:39 am

bump

on the home stretch

let's see if we can get this poll into 3 figures by tuesday
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:01 pm

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but The Vet Who Did Not Vet is the best campaign video of the year, IMO.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby BillVol » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:46 pm

Glad this isn't a scientific poll.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby paulthefan » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:26 pm

BillVol wrote:Glad this isn't a scientific poll.


it certainly is a scientific poll.

it is true that in the last few election cycles military service seems to not be viewed as a big plus (think Clinton Dole or Obama McCain) as it had been previously. This could represent a real change in US public/demographic interests, temperament and values.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:51 am

paulthefan wrote:it is true that in the last few election cycles military service seems to not be viewed as a big plus (think Clinton Dole or Obama McCain) as it had been previously. This could represent a real change in US public/demographic interests, temperament and values.

Having been in the military, I can tell you that military service is a plus and a minus. You have to put the creative side of your brain in cold-storage most of the time. There is not much room for 'vision'. There's lots of room, however, for 'do this because I told you so' (which is, of course, necessary in time of war, but we're not always at war - it just seems as if we are :roll: )
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby EPelle » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:54 am

A greater part of Europe also believes that you are always at war.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:26 am

EPelle wrote:A greater part of Europe also believes that you are always at war.


Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors. Here's the list:

China (1945-46 & 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954 & 1960), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador & Nicaragua (1980's), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999).

Which might go some way to explaining some of the US's unpopularity abroad.

Of course, you can't say much for Britain either (cancels holiday abroad).
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:44 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:31 am

Marlow wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).

The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:50 am

I guess the posters on this board are fairly representative of world opinion. Here's how the rest of the world would vote:

http://iftheworldcouldvote.com/results
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:53 am

And the fact that only one of those interventions (which I think was necessary). resulted in a democratically elected government - in Yugoslavia.

Other Western countries have done similar things - Britain, France & Australia have intervened in quite a few places as well. With greater power comes greater responsibility but also greater opportunity for abuse. Goodness only knows Britain did many dreadful things when we were top dog. Although I think we wanted to "civilize" rather than "democratize"! Plus ca change, etc, etc!
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:59 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.


ALL of them were for both. To say they were devoid of any sense of altruism is far more cynical than the issues merit.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:02 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:Goodness only knows Britain did many dreadful things when we were top dog. Although I think we wanted to "civilize" rather than "democratize"! Plus ca change, etc, etc!

Yeah, I know what you mean.
Winston Churchill wrote:I don't admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I don't admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I don't admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
:roll:
http://www.adcnj.us/latestupdate.htm
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:12 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.


ALL of them were for both. To say they were devoid of any sense of altruism is far more cynical than the issues merit.

I respectfully disagree. The first Iraq War was done for both reasons as was WWII, but I don't see any altruistism at all for the second Iraq War. On the other hand, I see no ulterior motives for our involvement in WWI, Liberia, Somalia and Korsovo. Now I'll admit that my historical knowledge of some of these conflicts isn't as thorough as it could be, but perhaps you can fill me in and change my mind.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:25 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.


ALL of them were for both. To say they were devoid of any sense of altruism is far more cynical than the issues merit.

Man, you need to take off those red/white/blue glasses once in a while . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:28 am

bad hammy wrote:Man, you need to take off those red/white/blue glasses once in a while . . .


Is my only other choice the poop-brown ones you're selling?! :o
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:31 am

Marlow wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Man, you need to take off those red/white/blue glasses once in a while . . .


Is my only other choice the poop-brown ones you're selling?! :o

Crystal clear . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:34 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).

The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.


Exactly.

You have atrocities like Rwanda and Zimbabwe where nobody does anything because it's not in anyones self interest to do so.

I mean, has there ever been a more heinous regime than Afghanistan under the Taliban. It wasn't until 9/11 that the US reacted. I was in full agreement with the action in that case but it should have taken place years before.

As for Iraq the idea that the whole rthing was done for humanitarian reasons is laughable.

To give credit where it's due I do think the intervention in Yugoslavia was entirely justifiable and done for the correct humanitarian reasons rather than what anyone was getting out of it.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby LopenUupunut » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:59 am

Flumpy wrote:To give credit where it's due I do think the intervention in Yugoslavia was entirely justifiable and done for the correct humanitarian reasons rather than what anyone was getting out of it.

Mm... yes, stealing a bit of territory from Yugoslavia - a country not known for its long history of unshaken friendship with the US - and turning it into a NATO military stronghold sounds just like humanitarian action.
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:37 am

bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Man, you need to take off those red/white/blue glasses once in a while . . .

Is my only other choice the poop-brown ones you're selling?! :o

Crystal clear . . .

Um . . . uh . . . yeah . . . :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby rasb » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:36 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I guess the posters on this board are fairly representative of world opinion. Here's how the rest of the world would vote:

http://iftheworldcouldvote.com/results


That's quite a poll, not that it represents the demographics of the American electorate. But it looks like it's going to be a sad World, if McCain pulls off a miracle win. All of the major countries are between 85 and 95 % for Obama.
In fact, 208 out of 211 are pro-Obama, with Albania and Macedonia for McCain, and the two votes from Lesotho are split. That's very striking.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby cullman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:49 pm

Hey, 83,000+ Canadians took part. 79.8% of the 239,000+ Americans voted for Obama in this poll.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby gm » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:30 pm

Hey, if the rest of the world is so smart, they don't need our money and support!
Bring home ALL the troops, cut off ALL foreign aid, bonus! Score!

I was for it before I was against it. Or something.
gm
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest