I believe Obama will win this...

[Writer]

but I'm not using the campaigns, news media behavior, or any other institutional factor as a measure.

I'm using the mood of the American public, whose conventional wisdom has now developed a great thirst for change; a great enough thirst that to believe that a septuagenarian candidate who wishes to continue the status quo could beat a younger, Gen X candidate who calls for a change in our current politico-logic is unfathomable.

We didn't win Congress because suddenly Democratic politics improved; it's because finally enough Americans were ready to accept Democratic ideas as a necessary option. And they did and still do.

In synthesis, we have more power than we think.

~Writer~

[SteppingRazor]

1. I agree, but at the same time, I do look at the polls, and ....

national polls are meaningless. When you look at the state-by-state stuff, this isn't even close. I'm sure it'll take a lot of hard work, but as long as people log those hours, I really don't think Obama can lose. Jesus, just take a look at the map per the recent state-by-states:

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

I've been keeping track. That's the closest it's been in weeks, and Obama's still ahead by more than 50 points. Obviously it can't keep going in the same direction it's been going in the last few days, but Obama can lose Ohio, Florida and Missouri and still win.

[Writer]

3. Polls are a measure of the public's mood.

So I absolutely agree with your assessment. This is a year of political realignment.

[cbc5g]

2. Never discount the stupidity of the American people

[Writer]

4. I have to ask: Aren't you an American?

And me, and everyone else on this site?

Why is it that we view ourselves as intelligent but "everyone else" as stupid?

[SwampG8r]

7. its an almost european way of looking at america to boot!

[treestar]

16. We are political junkies

And very informed and forget that most Americans have no clue and don't pay attention.

On DU people will get upset over what the pundits say 3 months before the election and think it will cause harm.

Most Americans are vacationing. When they watch TV, they watch other things, not political shows.

One often sees the comment that Americans care more about who wins American Idol. As long as they are comfortably off, politics does not matter to them.

[AndyTiedye]

9. When You Own All the TV Stations, You Can Fool Most of the People Most of the Time

It's the same everywhere else too. Look at Italy. That crook Berlusconi is back in power,
and he even got a law passed saying he's above the law!
How did he do it? He owns all the TV stations!

[Writer]

10. Who owns all the TV stations?

[Diamonique]

14. Republicans own all the TV stations. n/t

[Writer]

15. Republicans own all the TV stations? Really?

I'd like to see where this is written.

[HughBeaumont]

18. I'm not aware of any companies listed here being fronted by liberals:

Or have anything but a BewshCo/pro-corporate-championing/hyper-consumerist message.

[Writer]

20. But why do you assume that a corporation automatically leads to conservative news?

[HughBeaumont]

22. It's not exactly an assumption.

Watch OutFoxed. Read What Liberal Media by Eric Altermann. Peruse the mediamatters site. There are more than enough examples of anything from underhanded "typos" to blatant conservative bias, and not just on Faux News. There is very little objectivity or variance in today's news since it's not in a corporation's best interests to broadcast protests, positives of liberal causes such as Universal Health Care or how the Failure Fuhrer's war is REALLY going.

[Writer]

24. But there is a fundamental problem in this assumption.

Let me ask:

Does MSNBC, a subsidiary of NBC Universal, not air Keith Olbermann's program?

Is AAR not backed by moneyed interests who explicitly wish to promote a liberal view? Also, did Clear Channel not decide to carry AAR on many of their affiliated stations?

There's a very large problem with our continuing to replay this same old tape of the "corporate-owned media" asserting a conservative bias in its news. It's hurting the liberal cause and stripping us of our ability to improve American news media for the sake of DEMOCRACY. Consider the fact that the infamous William Randolph Hearst was NOT a corporation, but an individual who decided to use his mouthpiece for his own agenda. Even back during the Civil Right's movement, family-owned papers who disagreed with the abolition of Jim Crow used their newspapers to attack local civil rights leaders.

But we keep going back to this fallacious belief that bias occurs only because of corporate ownership; however, from the very day a Colonial politician decided to start his own newspaper (see: The Zenger Trial) the news has ALWAYS been beholden to its owner, whether it be by an individual, a family, or a corporation.

And the fact that we make this logical leap - that a corporation will always assert a CONSERVATIVE bias - is also false, as I've indicated in my two examples above. The question then becomes: Why would assumably "conservative" corporations offer liberal views in their news programming? The answer is not that a corporation cares one way or another what viewpoint it markets - it's that the corporation may stand to MAKE MONEY from feeding political candy to like-minded viewers. Bias in many news organizations is not a result of pure politics, but of the fact that we live in a capitalist nation.

[HughBeaumont]

28. It's that profit-driven interest, however, that's the problem.

I was not aware that I made the suggestion that the mainstream media is completely conservative. Yet despite the proverbial "broken clock being right twice a day” in Keith Olberman, I think it’s dangerously off the mark to suggest that NBC or it’s affiliates, parented by one of the most loathsome, predatory and polluting corporations in existence (witness it’s former CEO’s actions on Election Night 2000), offers it’s audience an overall objective viewpoint or extensive coverage of news that matters when it comes to politics, world events or the economy.

Let’s not even bring up the low-hanging fruit that is Rupert Murdoch or NewsCorp, whose bias is all but by its own admission and beyond question. I can offer the example of CNBC, which I watch every business day at work. While there are a few moderate guests, very little of its content veers from the supply-side standard load of toss solidified by Reagan’s minions in the 80s. When it comes to economic policy, Democratic politicians and their consultants are taken to task heavily while the conservative views are broadcast pretty much uninterrupted by circus loudmouths like Larry Kudlow and without rebuttal. On this station and others, there aren't any real cause celebres of corporate malfeasance like there were in the 80s.

And AAR and it’s hosts aren’t exactly as far reaching or ubiquitous as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage, are they?

I understand that the news is beholden to its corporate owners. It has to be; there are those poor shareholders (also fellow CEOs) to please, after all. That does not make this sorry system right; not back in Hearst’s time, and especially not NOW. Despite what economic and business professors tell you, corporations DO have more than just the sole responsibility of pleasing their major shareholders. When an entity performs a service, especially in an area as dependant on truth and accountability as news reporting, that entity has a responsibility to it’s customers that pay through the nose in exorbitant cable and satellite fees to deliver something with a little bit more than a right-leaning pro-consumerist bent. Otherwise, where is the line drawn between fair media and farce?

Witness the area of universal health care. Anyone who saw the bonus footage of Sicko and all of it’s news items focused solely on promoting the pro-Big Insurance side of the health care argument could come to the conclusion that both sides of the coin are not being presented and there was indeed a driven interest not to defend the views presented in the movie.

Or the war: why is it that when this debacle first started, there was round-the-clock coverage, but now that it’s going horribly wrong, it’s now visibly absent from American news? When nearly half-a-million citizens converge in D.C. to protest this administration’s horrible policies, how can anyone call it fair when the event’s attendance is under-cut by thousands and given all the attention of a sub-relevant factoid? European news channels cover their citizen’s protests and the war. Why doesn’t ours?

Demanding credibility from broadcast news can hardly be construed as a regressive action on our part. Just as point-shaving and lying undermines the credibility of sports, overwhelming bias on either side of the fence impedes the public’s ability to take the media seriously. Sitting idly by and waiting to see what happens has resulted in a giant failure for everyone except corporations and the wealthy that run them.

[DaveJ]

5. Yes, I don't think Obama will win because he's a Democrat

I believe he's serious when he talks about putting party politics aside. To me, that means putting the Republican party aside. The only way to do this is to make Republican party totally obsolete. People say that the political mood of the country is cyclical, but I cannot bear going through the last 7.6 years again again. I'm almost 40 now and don't want to see Republicans rule again when I'm 48, 64, 80, or ever....

That explains why when Democrats pass policies that I disagree with, I remind myself that they are executing the flawed will of the American people, which is what Democracy is all about, they are not appeasing Republicans. I would like to put that other party of greed and war out of my mind completely.

[Writer]

8. Yup.

"That explains why when Democrats pass policies that I disagree with, I remind myself that they are executing the flawed will of the American people, which is what Democracy is all about, they are not appeasing Republicans."

:thumbsup:

[GreenTea]

27. No doubt - Fascism is rolling right along.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I have visualized it and it will be so!

Better yet, it's going to be a great ride. Watching Barack pivot and spank McBush is exhilarating.

[Booster]

11. I've stumbled upon something that I think is working.

When the Repugs booed the veterans in Congress, when McCain demoralized his wife with the bikers, when I pointed out McCain's voting record regarding veterans benefits, etc., I would copy whatever it was, send it to everyone on my list (including one very rabid Repug) and put in the subject line:
Remind me again.......
why veterans vote Republican
why women vote Republican

It seems to be working. My Marine nephew has been totally turned around, and the rabid Repug has never challenged any of them, and he always did in the past. I think he's ashamed of his party.

[Writer]

12. If he has little to refute a claim, then he's likely just ignoring it.

[Booster]

19. Oh, he's not ignoring it. It must be eating him inside out not to be

able to come back with something - anything. He's not ignoring it, trust me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. The other thing about these polls that doesn't quite make sense...

Look at all the demographic groups. The WaPost just reported that Obama now leads working class voters by a 3 to 1 margin. That's better than Clinton (who was helped by Ross Perot), Gore or Kerry. So with that statistic, Obama is winning every demographic group except for white men and seniors. And yet the national polls want us to believe that it's close??!?! Something isn't right here. Common sense ought to tell us that.

[HughBeaumont]

21. Have you seen ONE McCain bumper sticker or lawn sign?

In two months, IN OHIO, the bumper sticker/lawn sign sighting count for me has been Obama 28 and McCain a big fat ZEro.

Seems kind of strange that for all this supposed closeness there happens to be NO obvious support for McClown. Softening the blow when the theft happens, perhaps?

Kind of like a certain individual parading his "The 'Conomy's Strong and Gettin' Stronger", yet the two-term Bushconomy's job creation record has to be the most dismal in 100 years (even discounting the fact America's had 7 straight MONTHS of job loss). Oh, I forgot: when they say "Economy", they mean "someone who isn't you getting paid".

[bunkerbuster1]

25. I'm starting to see a very few here in the white, middle-class GA 'burbs

but only a very few.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Thankfully I live in a very BLUE area, so no. I've only seen 1 or 2 and those were outliers

I think from Virginia, not D.C./MD where I live. In fact, it was funny because everyone turned and looked at the dude with the bumper sticker as if to say, "How stupid can that asshole be?" That's just how rare McSame enthusiasm (or lack thereof) is around these parts. MD and D.C. residents are envading Virginia trying to turn it BLUE!! B has 22 offices throughout the state and I think we will win VA. I just feel it...

[HughBeaumont]

30. I have a feeling the tide is turning in BOTH of our states . . .

I don't really see why it wouldn't. Our states turning blue will drive the final nail in the coffin of McClown and the Reagan/Bewsh neocon plague.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Yeah, I think the Republican attacks are falling flat with the public.

There are plenty of stupid people out there who parrot the talking points, but I think the tide's turned, you can't milk fear of a "liberal" president like you could in '88 and '04.

Also, McCain is a terrible, terrible campaigner.

I don't think it'll be a blowout, but I do believe Obama will take all the Kerry states plus another half-dozen; one or more will be a former Confederate state (likely VA or NC), and the game will be changed.

You're right. We do have more power than you think. Rational responses to irrational attacks work very, very well one-on-one, and I think that's happening a lot across America right now.

[HughBeaumont]

23. The more intelligent one dismembers with few words and a swift chop.

Exactly what Obama's doing and the public loves it.

Simple choice: McCain's continuation of the excrement sandwich or a reversal of direction, hopefully to switch to a "we" society and not a "ME" society.

[LaPera]

26. I believe it will be stolen for republican McCain - The Dems have their heads up their asses......

The Democrats don't believe the republicans have ever stolen any elections, with the incredibly easily hackable republican owned (Diebold & ES&S) electronic voting machines.

The polls will keep the election close enough to steal again. The republicans have only gotten better at stealing elections and have had four years to work on this one....The powerful corporate republican fascist certainly aren't simply going to leave it up to the voters whims!

The republicans know very well that all you need to keep the country in a fascist state is to have a strong, powerful, over-reaching dictatorial Executive Branch (along with the courts and the usual puppet Attorney General).

Bush & Cheney have created this the past eight years and have fascism in control to prove it....Yes, they will steal it again for a McBush third term...and fourth! (Maybe Jeb will inherit it though McCrazy's death)?