Why is this presidential race tied?

How tied is tied? electoral-vote.com puts Obama way ahead.

Obama's more fanatical supporters also happen to be all over the Internet, etc. They're seriously giving the guy a Jim Jones vibe.

Obama, in my opinion, is no worse than McCain. Overall, probably better. Judging each by his record, however, we find neither is a prize.

McCain might be the more disastrous choice -- looking small scale -- being that his nuclear temper and record of verbal abuse toward staff makes it unlikely that he'll have a single "truth teller" in his administration. Worse than the present one, probably.

We know where that has gotten us.

Still, electing a president who is a "messianic" figure to so many supporters might well be MORE dangerous -- looking at the whole package. Do we really need a president with a built-in mob that has his back, a la Hugo Chavez?

Either way, I rue Election Day.

I voted for Obama in CA, but had I known then what I came to know about him later (pastor, etc) then I would have voted Clinton. Also, the more popular he becomes, the less I like him. I don't like his avid supporters, they're as crazy and far-left as Bush's core supporters are crazy and far-right, I'm an independent and dead in the middle with a slightly left of the center voting record. Now I wish Clinton were in this. I don't want her as veep, though. If the election were today, McCain. The R's chose their nominee correctly because not one of the other ones could have even made me consider for R's this year. It's all about who McCain chooses as veep. Romney or Huckabee or Giuliana? Not a chance.

Will McCain's supporters answer a poll call? Yes.

Will McCain's supporters drag themselves out to the polls? Maybe.

I think McCain's supporters will drag themselves to the polls, especially since they are mostly older and mostly whiter and mostly used to voting.

Why is this presidential race tied?

Because Obama is running for President of the planet?
Because Obama is transitioning into the White House before the election?
Because the average man on the street likes a little humility with their heroes?

Most voters won't focus on this till the Olympics and the conventions are over and done with.

I suppose Obama could overplay his hand, but he's tall and McCain is short; Obama's youthful and McCain is old; Obama's a skilled orator and McCain comes off flat; Obama's from the opposition in a time of war, corruption, and economic distress and McCain has George Bush around his neck like a rotting albatross.

Could Obama be too GQ, too black, too big-city, too self-absorbed for enough voters to lose? Yes, but Sen. McCain, I knew Harry Truman, and you're no Harry Truman!

I live in Sweden, Europe, and has of course nothing to do in the american election. You can choose the candidate you want.

But I also is a little bit scarred of having Obama as the president. He talks a lot of doing things with other nations, but at the same time he talks about starting a trade war.

Romney or Huckabee or Giuliani?

Okay, I can see the last two, but what do you have against Romney? It's not that he's great or anything, I just don't get the passion against him.

There's multiple reasons for why the race is so close, any one of which only counts for a couple of points here and there and alone wouldn't make much difference, but put together cause problems for Obama at this stage of the game. Rod's suggestion about independent voters makes sense as part of the explanation, as does the fact that McCain is seen as an independent and a moderate Republican (when he really isn't either) by much of the electorate, and thus able to separate himself from the GOP's woes.

Also, let's face it, there's a small part of the electorate that has problems with Obama because of his race and perceived foreignness. And before someone says "you're just saying all of Obama's opponents are racist!", no, that's not what I'm saying. Most people who are polling for McCain right now aren't doing so because of the race or foreignness issue. But I suspect there's about 4-5% of the electorate for whom those are big issues and who would probably otherwise support the Democratic candidate (translation - they aren't conservatives or GOP rank-and-file, they are Democrats or Democrat-leaners who haven't gotten the memo from the Party about what it means to be a progressive in 2008). There aren't enough of them to swing the election all by themselves, but add them all up with the other groups, and you have a tight election.

Plus, while some of Obama's more vocal supporters and some nervous-nellie Republicans have been talking about a Democratic Presidential landslide for awhile, most sensible observers have said from the beginning that this will be a close one. I expect it'll all come down to a few states, as it has for the last couple of of election cycles.

"Why is this presidential race tied?"

Because Obama is black and Reagan Democrats are freaked out enough by their memories of the racial agitation of the sixties that they fear the worst of him.

Marxist or Mussolini? Make up your mind please. I guess if you make your comparisons broad enough you can equate Mussolini and Obama. They were both men who wanted to run things.

I think it is close and will remain close because Obama has less experience than most candidates. McCain is also one of the most effective politicians ever at using the press. Negative campaigning also works well, especially because the press repeats it without validating it.

Steve

Yes, Obama's lack of political experience has to have some people worried.

I'm an independent. I trend towards Republican. But after 8 years of GWB, I would vote for Pee Wee Herman if he were the Democratic nominee. This country can survive four more years of Republicans in the White House. Christ almighty, I'm praying we survive until 1/20/09 without Bush vaporizing 25 million Iranians as a going away present.

Rod, do you have the guts to put a little money behind your prediction? How about you join me at the Iowa Presidential Stock Market and put some money on McCain's stock? I'll buy an equal amount of Obama stock, and we'll see who makes money come November.

You up for it?

www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/about/

Barack Hussein Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is starting to look good in comparison.

I wonder what surprises await us between now and the Convention and November?

Racism is very much alive and well. Many white people, particularly many over age 60 or so, will never, ever vote for a Black candidate.

Maybe some places, but having always lived on the west coast among people of a great variety of different origins, raised by parents and teachers who insisted that everyone is a child of God, we all learned to judge people only by behavior, not by appearance. And we learned and believe that racism too was a sin. We raised our children that way, and they too are bemused by the insistence, by the media and certain "leaders" who have something to gain, that racism is everywhere in society. We look around us at school, at work, at church, in our community, and say "Where?"

Our last governor was Chinese-American (although the state is only 7.5% Asian), our current county executive is black (although the county is less than 5.5% black. Personally, I would happily vote for several black conservatives I could name. But not Obama, not because of his color but what he believes, and what he has promised he will do.

Why is Obama slipping in the polls ... despite the biggest media buildup in modern history?

Answer: Because nobody TRUSTS this guy.

America this morning will wake up to the news that Obama has flip-flopped on the issue of off-shore drilling for oil.

In St. Pete, Florida yesterday, Obama said "we have to compromise" and allow for a "well thought-out drilling strategy" off the coast of Florida.

As he pointed out, "On each of these issues I have spoken out, I may not have spoken out the way you wanted me to speak out."

Is there ANYTHING this man will not say or do to get himself elected to the Presidency?

I don't think people are exempting Democrats from fault when it comes to gas prices, so it's an issue that's either neutral or favors Republicans.

It may be even worse for Obama than the numbers are showing. I have heard some pundits alluding to the "Bradley effect" which I believes has to do with former pro ball player and U S Senator Bill Bradley.

People will say they are for a candidate, yet on election day will not vote for him.

That aside, his rhetoric is just all over the place and those who attempt to understand who he is and what he stands for are ending up confused.

Joe Marier: "I don't think people are exempting Democrats from fault when it comes to gas prices, so it's an issue that's either neutral or favors Republicans."

Yes, it clearly favors the GOP. The Democrat-controlled Congress adjourned this week without doing ANYTHING about it (they got elected in 2006 to actually DO something, right?). Pelosi and her gang totally shut down any DISCUSSION of proposals to increase domestic energy supplies.

For nearly FOUR DECADES, the extreme environmentalists (who are a core component of the Democrat party "base") have opposed EVERY path to increasing domestic energy supplies. No wonder we now face another crisis ... AND little wonder who's at fault?

As for Obama flip-flopping yesterday on offshore oil drilling: Even if he is sincere on this (and that's a VERY BIG IF, given his Nixonian tacking to the center since June), does anyone REALLY think that Nancy Pelosi will let him pass a law allowing this? He'll be more than happy to cave to Pelosi on this if he gets to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Reader John: "Not because Obama's black, but because he's green and pink."

That is both pithy and brilliant. Any additional explanation would be superfluous.

Thanks, Reader John! I will use that.

I'm an indenpendent who leans a little to the right on economic issues. At this point I'm appalled at what the GOP has done to grow government and let big business re-monopolize much like they were at the turn of the earlier century.

I don't see much change with McCain but he is JUST radical enough based on his voting record and has enough power in DC to actually not give in every time like GW has. It's hard to get very possitive about him though, he just doesn't bring it.

Obama however, speaks the words in the speachs that tugs on idealist part of me. I want to believe him which is in his favor.

However, he has virtually no power in DC which means that his presidency would hand the reigns to Polosi and Reid and scares me - Allot! If he doesn't go along with them, then he will turn into another Jimmy Carter and who needs that economic disaster.

So my guess it that McCain will be the lesser of two evils and at least he can offset the Dems who most likely control the house and senate. I've grown to believe the best government is one who's powers are split.

Sigh. Republicans used to understand market economics. The same day he announced this the EIA report showed that oil and gas inventories were up. Hedge fund participation in energy funds dropped. For that matter, Congress voted on a preliminary bill to crack down on oil speculation. Oh, almost forgot the announcement on cracking down on naked shorts. Makes it harder for those straddle strategies. Anyway, which of those drove oil prices down? Im betting on the inventory numbers, plus a big dollop of herd mentality. People piling on going up, people jumping off going down.

Obama is likely to lose with poll numbers like these. If you figure the Bradley Effect he is probably down at least by ten per cent and the Bradley Effect is, by definition, something almost impossible to accurately poll, it is just there. Unless Obama polls over 55% in any given state he is likely to lose that state.

The reason is very simple. The likely voter is over 50, white and not at all impressed by speeches. They find them boring and hit the mute button or change the channel. There are not enough votes in the Obama fanatic camp to win state by state elections.

Sorry for the half a post above. Lemme try again.

Sigh. Republicans used to understand market economics. The same day he announced this the EIA report showed that oil and gas inventories were up. Hedge fund participation in energy funds dropped. For that matter, Congress voted on a preliminary bill to crack down on oil speculation. Oh, almost forgot the announcement on cracking down on naked shorts. Makes it harder for those straddle strategies. Anyway, which of those drove oil prices down? Im betting on the inventory numbers, plus a big dollop of herd mentality. People piling on going up, people jumping off going down.

What I had meant to say above was that Hannity, Glenn Beck, Jim Kudlow on CNBC and the rest of the drill-mania talking heads don't seem to understand this. The supply and demand mantra is so simple and easy to fall back on it is almost a hypnotic suggestion.

Hannity yesterday was making me yell at the radio because he kept on about "We could be doubling our own oil reserves in this country by drilling off-shore and in ANWR." Every five or so minutes, lather, rinse, repeat. What this doesn't take into account is that this isn't actually increasing daily supply, but rather merely replacing other sources as they deplete. While I think we need to eventually have access to off-shore sources, they are going to be sorely disappointed that these "huge reserves" turn out to be small potatoes in the face of demand increasing at higher rates than supply can ever hope to meet.

I don't think those people would know Hubbert's Peak if they sat on it.

Noodle Beach | August 2, 2008 11:24 AM, I think you're being over-analytical here. Of course the ad was about Britney and Paris. If McCain wanted the viewers to focus on energy policy he could have shown pictures of oil drills and power stations. It's a bit pointless accusing Obama of deception when all the latter is doing is saying "lookee there! there's a man behind the curtain!"

Also, if McCain wants to be seen to talk about policy, he should put out ads that show him, McCain, talking about policy. At this stage in the campaign he's just put out two negative ads. I happen to think they're effective ads, but Obama would be mad not to remark on the rather unorthodox iconography and lack of policy statements on McCain's part. On Mcain's Youtube channel the last video before these two anti-Obama videos was four months ago so he cannot point to recent positive videos outlining his campaign because there aren't any. Obama would be mad not to point that out. And if you look at Obama's own campaign videos you'll see that he has put out a lot of stuff about his own policies.

Many voters are concerned about John McCain's age and health. Google the news section for 'mccain mole' and you will see over 600 articles concerning his recent mole removal.

Many wonder, and mainstream media refuses to ask, if John McCain suffers from PTSD from his the five years of captivity, including three years in solitary and torture so extreme that, as he put it, "broke" him to the point he attempted suicide several times. Google the news section for 'mccain ptsd' and you will see zero articles from
mainstream media pondering this question.

One of the most important considerations with regard to medical predictions of future PTSD, is how the initial trauma was dealt with.

In 1999, Dr. Michael M. Ambrose, director of the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoner of War Studies, was contacted by John McCain to conduct a mental health review. The quality of the review is a matter of dispute as some say Dr. Ambrose did a full medical exam of the patient and others say the doctor only reviewed McCain's old medical
records.

After the evaluation was completed, John McCain's 1999 campaign released a statement by Dr. Ambrose, which stated:

"McCain has never been diagnosed with or treated at the center for a psychological or psychiatric disorder (The term PTSD first appeared in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980, years after John McCain's initial military medical evaluations.). He has been subject to an extensive
battery of psychological tests and following his last examination in 1993, we judged him to be in good physical and mental health.''

The McCain campaign press release included a statement by Dr. Ambrose, which reveals John McCain created a fantasy world in order to escape the reality of captivity and torture. They further stated McCain always heard the guards coming with his food, but "was often so much in his private world, that he strongly resented their coming around and

bringing him back to reality by intruding. He was enjoying his fantasies so much."

"Findings suggest that it is less what happens at the time of a trauma (e.g., disrupted encoding) that predicts PTSD

than what occurs thereafter (i.e., persistent avoidance)." [John Briere, Ph.D., Catherine Scott, M.D., and Frank Weathers, Ph.D.]

The keyword here is 'persistent avoidance' which was evidenced by the findings of Dr. Ambrose.

"The presence of dissociative symptoms soon after exposure to trauma has been found to predict the subsequent development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)" [Gary Tucker, MD, Published in Journal Watch Psychiatry
October 9, 2002]

"The amount of dissociation that follows directly after a trauma predicts PTSD" [American Psychiatric Association]

"Individuals that are more likely to dissociate during a traumatic event are considerably more likely to develop chronic PTSD" [Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (1998). Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law.]

"In several studies, dissociation at the time of a trauma (peritraumatic dissociation) has been found to predict symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder at follow-up assessments' [Michael W. Otto, PhD, Published in Journal
Watch Psychiatry July 21, 2005]

"Early numbing contributed to the prediction of later PTSD" [Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety, Psychiatry Department, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine]

"Peritraumatic dissociation is frequently considered to be a risk factor for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)"

[Doris C. Breh PhD, Department of Psychotraumatology, Psychosomatic University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany]

Ambrose later told the Associated Press, "He had a very healthy way of dealing with his experiences."

One of the examiners even noted that McCain had improved his ability to control his infamous temper due to his years of torture
and captivity.

Anyone familiar with Workers' Compensation or personal injury cases understands full well you can pull the right strings or pay a 'company' doctor to say anything necessary to help your client.

It is worth noting the1999 McCain campaign only released a small number of redacted medical records, the pages were not allowed to be photocopied and only a few select news organizations were privy to what few medical records were
made available under these conditions.

John McCain has a consistent history of out-of-control outbursts of anger and even admits an adverse reaction to the sound of jangling keys. Author Robert Timberg, who McCain has said "knows more about me than I do," calls these
episodes "an eruption of temper out of all proportion to the provocation," and says they are a result of Vietnam coming "back to haunt him."

VA studies have shown time and again that POWs suffer a much higher risk of developing PTSD than combat veterans.

Even so, to this date, mainstream media still has not pushed for full disclosure of John McCain's military medical records and refuses to ask the one simple question:

'Is John McCain emotionally fit for the most stressful job in our country, the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief?"

EIA report on available oil, currently available and available after restrictions removed, in following link.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Steve

We hear all the time that Congress' approval rating is at 9%. Nine percent!

If that is so (...and we don't know what the questions were...), why is it a foregone conclusion that the Dems are going to win a fillibuster-proof majority, in spite of the fact that THEY have been the ones in charge for the last two years ?

To me, it sounds like a recipe for "Throw all the rascals out ". Term-limiting by ballot.

Obama has not done sufficiently well at appealing to older white voters and Catholics. Despite the "National Review" crowd disliking McCain, for everyone else he is somewhat better. He is more liked among Independents and moderate Republicans than Romney ever was or probable ever will be. McCain's religion is also less controversial than Huckabee or Romney. (McCain's some kind of vague Baptist who was a vague Episcopalian. He was never a minister or a member of a religion new enough to be founded in the US.) In fact McCain's religion is less controversial than Obama's I suppose.

From what I can tell, exempting Dole, when a candidates is over 63- years-old they usually win unless they're facing someone even older. Youth is good for media excitement, positive and negative, more than it is for polls.

Because Obama has been out of the country for almost two weeks. McCain slipped big on his foreign tour, too.