The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

keda · 05-10-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

Will also help Hussein if there are no major Islamic terror outrage against the US in the next month...can't imagine why though!

Btw, anyone care to guess when and where the hopeful messiah was born? What, no offers?

He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, after Hawaii attained statehood.

Do you claim otherwise?

I claimed nothing - you just did!

Milkman · 05-10-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

Will also help Hussein if there are no major Islamic terror outrage against the US in the next month...can't imagine why though!

Btw, anyone care to guess when and where the hopeful messiah was born? What, no offers?

He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, after Hawaii attained statehood.

Do you claim otherwise?

I claimed nothing - you just did!

You asked a question. I answered it. You could have googled.

sabang · 05-10-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keda

when and where the hopeful messiah was born

Obama- Honolulu, August 4 1961.
McCain- Panama canal zone, August 29, 1936

Milkman · 05-10-2008, 02:24 PM

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.
“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr O
Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.
Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

This is the fourth presidential election in which The Economist has surveyed economists on the candidates and their plans. Responses, anonymous except where requested, were received between September 18th and 30th. For full results see article.

Link & Entire: Examining America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist

Yes, the economic situation in the US is helping Obama. But McCain does not go into very much detail about economics.

S Landreth · 05-10-2008, 03:09 PM

some more info on McCain

http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/

mad_dog · 06-10-2008, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.
“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr O
Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.
Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

This is the fourth presidential election in which The Economist has surveyed economists on the candidates and their plans. Responses, anonymous except where requested, were received between September 18th and 30th. For full results see article.

Link & Entire: Examining America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist

Yes, the economic situation in the US is helping Obama. But McCain does not go into very much detail about economics.

That data points to landslide win for the Democrats but I think there are a significant number of people who are happy to say they would vote for a black man but I fear when citizens are in the voting booth some will pause for thought before electing a jig to the White House.

As I said about a year ago Obama will win but by a smaller margin than expected in the polls for the reason stated above.

Mr Earl · 06-10-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad_dog

That data points to landslide win for the Democrats but I think there are a significant number of people who are happy to say they would vote for a black man but I fear when citizens are in the voting booth some will pause for thought before electing a jig to the White House.

If Obama looses it wont be because of his skin color. He's got the thinnest resume of any candidate to come along for a long time.
I'm sure many astute black people wont be voting for him either.

mad_dog · 06-10-2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad_dog

That data points to landslide win for the Democrats but I think there are a significant number of people who are happy to say they would vote for a black man but I fear when citizens are in the voting booth some will pause for thought before electing a jig to the White House.

If Obama looses it wont be because of his skin color. He's got the thinnest resume of any candidate to come along for a long time.
.

I don't think eight years is along time. "W" had a little experience and absolutely no knowledge of basic geography or International Relations.

If you don't think race is an issue in country which only moved to end aparthied 40 years ago you are naive. The South was The Democratic homeland until LBJ reluctantly moved away from racial segregation. That move handed the South to the GOP on a plate. IN England class is the cultural obesession in America it is race.

keda · 06-10-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad_dog

That data points to landslide win for the Democrats but I think there are a significant number of people who are happy to say they would vote for a black man but I fear when citizens are in the voting booth some will pause for thought before electing a jig to the White House.

If Obama looses it wont be because of his skin color. He's got the thinnest resume of any candidate to come along for a long time.
I'm sure many astute black people wont be voting for him either.

If Barak loses the Dems will claim it's because he's black, and or Rep fraud...can't be that the electorate figured him and them out.

S Landreth · 06-10-2008, 04:27 PM

more helpful information:

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

Jet Gorgon · 05-10-2008, 03:19 PM

Geez, MM, do a precis wouldya.
At this point, I don't care. I think Obama is a finky lying self-aggrandizing fek, and McC can't get any steam under his engine.

Milkman · 05-10-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Geez, MM, do a precis wouldya.
At this point, I don't care. I think Obama is a finky lying self-aggrandizing fek, and McC can't get any steam under his engine.

The point of the above polling and article from the Economist shows that the economic prolems and the candidates economic policies of these problems are helping Obama.

Jet, I know what you "think" about Obama.

The point is in the polling, the statistics, the numbers, and now, the shifting momentum.

What I think or what you think about a candidate's personality or character is not the issue in the campaign it.

The issue is 1. who will win it, and 2. what factors are influencing.

ChiangMai noon · 06-10-2008, 12:29 PM

it's slipping further away from Mcain day by day.....

only question rewmaining is just how much Obama is going to win by.
even Alaska has become a race.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Today's Polls, 10/5

Quote:

Barack Obama has risen to his highest-ever level in both our electoral college and popular vote projections, principally on the strength of his commanding lead in the national tracking polls. Gallup, Rasmussen and Hotline each have Obama ahead by 7 points, and Research 2000 has him up by 12 (Battleground, which has generally had the most conservative numbers for Obama, does not publish on the weekend). Whether or not the McCain campaign's new round of attacks will have a significant impact on Obama's numbers we shall see, but they're going to have to knock him off a fairly high pedestal.

There is state polling out today in Minnesota, Colorado and Ohio. In Minnesota, the Star Tribune has Obama ahead by 18, quite a contrast from SurveyUSA's contemporaneous poll which had McCain up by 1. Yesterday, I discussed the disparities between these two polls on the senate side, and it is not surprising that the presidential numbers have followed suit. Our model projects Obama to win Minnesota by 8-9 points, roughly in between the SurveyUSA and Star Tribune estimates.

In Colorado, Mason-Dixon -- polling for the Denver Post -- has the race tied at 44-44. Mason-Dixon's polls have had a statistically significantly Republican lean thus far this cycle, and so it's not terribly surprising to see their numbers a couple of points to the McCain side of other recent polling of the state. Nevertheless, there have now been a couple of different polls coming out in Colorado -- ARG, Ciruli, and last Monday's Rasmussen number -- suggesting that the race there may have tightened a bit.

Lastly, in Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch has Barack Obama ahead by 7. It's a good number for Obama, but not one that should be taken very seriously, as the Dispatch poll is conducted by mail and has not been very reliable in the past. Still, the notion that Ohio was somehow immune from Obama's recent bounce is rapidly losing credibility.

Milkman · 06-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Here's an article on younger registered voters: 18-29 is defined as younger voters.

Quote:

USA TODAY/MTV/Gallup Poll of registered voters 18 to 29 years old shows Democrat Barack Obama leading Republican John McCain by 61%-32%, the most lopsided contest within an age group in any presidential election in modern times. Obama's margin is overwhelming across four groups of younger voters, divided by their engagement in the election, their optimism about the future and other factors.

Quote:

Diverse views, but most are aligned behind Obama Democrat Barack Obama is outpacing Republican John McCain in each group of young voters.

"Fired up" "Upbeat""Downbeat" "Tuned out"(29% of young voters)(23%)(26%)(17%)

Obama: 65%

McCain: 33% Obama: 65%

McCain: 27% Obama: 63%

McCain: 24% Obama: 60%

McCain: 34%

Note: 5% of those surveyed don't fit into any of these groups.

Source: USA TODAY/MTV/Gallup Poll of 903 18- to 29-year-olds taken Sept. 18-28. Analysis by Jim Norman, USA TODAY.

Link & Entire: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...m?csp=15#table

Milkman · 06-10-2008, 07:03 PM

More good news for Obama. And the good news is based on numbers.

Quote:

Obama may benefit from registration gains

Voter rolls are swelling for Democrats in crucial states

By Alec MacGillis and Alice Crites

updated 5:02 a.m. ET Oct. 6, 2008

WASHINGTON - As the deadline for voter registration arrives today in many states, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is poised to benefit from a wave of newcomers to the rolls in key states in numbers that far outweigh any gains made by Republicans.

In the past year, the rolls have expanded by about 4 million voters in a dozen key states -- 11 Obama targets that were carried by George W. Bush in 2004 (Ohio, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico) plus Pennsylvania, the largest state carried by Sen. John F. Kerry that Sen. John McCain is targeting.

In Florida, Democratic registration gains this year are more than double those made by Republicans; in Colorado and Nevada the ratio is 4 to 1, and in North Carolina it is 6 to 1. Even in states with nonpartisan registration, the trend is clear -- of the 310,000 new voters in Virginia, a disproportionate share live in Democratic strongholds.

Link & Entire: Registration gains favor Democrats - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

How do you like these apples?

ChiangMai noon · 07-10-2008, 11:48 AM

you are so flippantly arrogant jet.

why does it surprise you that people have had more than they can take of the republicans.

are all of this lot brainwashed??

Quote:

In New Hampshire, Obama May Out-Perform Every Democratic Presidential Candidate Since Lyndon Johnson in 1964

Fiercely independent New Hampshire, which was expected to be a 2008 battleground, is poised today to award Democrat Barack Obama a larger share of the presidential vote than it has given any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WBZ-TV in Boston. In an election today, 10/06/08, four weeks till votes are counted, Obama defeats John McCain 53% to 40%. New Hampshire voted Republican in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000. New Hampshire voted Democrat in 1992, 1996 and 2004, but no Democrat running for President in New Hampshire has received more than 50% of the vote in the past 44 years.

The contest is close among men, voters age 35 to 49, those who have not graduated from college and regular church goers. McCain leads among gun owners and pro-life voters. But Obama builds to a 13-point overall lead on the strength of his 22-point advantage among women, 29-point advantage among young voters, 21-point advantage among Moderates, 18-point advantage among those who consider themselves an intellectual, 24-point advantage among lower-income voters, and 23-point advantage among college graduates.

SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » In New Hampshire, Obama May Out-Perform Every Democratic Presidential Candidate Since Lyndon Johnson in 1964

As McCain’s Lead Among White Virginians Shrinks, So Too His Chances of Holding The State’s 13 Electoral Votes

29 days until votes are counted in Virginia, Democrat Barack Obama is ahead 53% to 43%, according to this SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WDBJ-TV in Roanoke, WJLA-TV in Washington DC, WTVR-TV in Richmond, and WJHL-TV in the Tri-Cities. In 4 tracking polls conducted since the Republican Convention, McCain has gone from up by 2 to down by 10.

There is movement among men, where immediately after the GOP convention, McCain led by 10, and where today Obama leads by 11.
There is movement among whites, where McCain’s once 22-point lead is today reduced to single digits.
There is movement among the well-to-do, where today for the first time Obama leads.
There is movement among pro-choice voters, where Obama’s lead has doubled since August.

McCain no longer leads in any region of the state. In Northeastern VA, which includes the DC suburbs, Obama leads by 24 points. In Central Virginia, home of the Confederate White House, the Museum of the Confederacy and Appomattox, Obama today leads by 8. In Southeastern Virginia, Obama leads by 11. In the Shenandoah, where John McCain led by 24 points one month ago, Obama and McCain today tie.

SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » As McCain’s Lead Among White Virginians Shrinks, So Too His Chances of Holding The State’s 13 Electoral Votes

ChiangMai noon · 07-10-2008, 11:49 AM

^
those Virginia stats spell the end.

Norton · 07-10-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

those Virginia stats spell the end.

Again, I reiterate. It's all about the Independents. Neither McCain nor Palin has said anything to sway their vote. An interesting opinion poll from CNN indicates the problem may well be Palin.

"A pair of Washington post-ABC News polls found that last month, 60 percent of independents had a favorable impression of her. That's down to 48 percent. Her "unfavorable'"ratings rose from 26 percent to 36 percent. And McCain has followed her down a bit in the polls too.

Has Sarah Palin become a problem? - CNN.com

ChiangMai noon · 07-10-2008, 12:29 PM

I'm very new to looking at these analyses.
it has always been about Ohio and Florida coverage in the past so I don't know a great deal about the significance of these numbers except there are dems bursting their bollux over these Virginia result of the sites i read.

pai nai ma · 07-10-2008, 12:35 PM

The tide is perceived by many to be turning.

fecking optimists! (jeez I hope they are correct)

View Poll Results: Who will be the next US President?
Obama	33	66.00%
McCain	12	24.00%
Neither	1	2.00%
Honestly don't care	4	8.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

07-10-2008, 12:29 PM	#19 (permalink)
ChiangMai noon punk douche bag Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: o dan y bryn Posts: 28,059	I'm very new to looking at these analyses. it has always been about Ohio and Florida coverage in the past so I don't know a great deal about the significance of these numbers except there are dems bursting their bollux over these Virginia result of the sites i read. __________________ Pictures of Lily make my life so wonderful. Pictures of Lily, help me sleep at night.....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-10-2008, 02:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
Milkman Gone Off Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: shelf Posts: 15,355	The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection. A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.” There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical. “John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.” On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr O Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans. On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own. Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation. Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good. Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good. The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist. This is the fourth presidential election in which The Economist has surveyed economists on the candidates and their plans. Responses, anonymous except where requested, were received between September 18th and 30th. For full results see article. Link & Entire: Examining America's presidential candidates \| Examining the candidates \| The Economist Yes, the economic situation in the US is helping Obama. But McCain does not go into very much detail about economics.

05-10-2008, 03:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
S Landreth Guest Member Last Online: Yesterday 09:20 PM Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Khon Kaen Posts: 1,287	some more info on McCain http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/

06-10-2008, 04:27 PM	#10 (permalink)
S Landreth Guest Member Last Online: Yesterday 09:20 PM Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Khon Kaen Posts: 1,287	more helpful information: http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

05-10-2008, 03:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
Jet Gorgon Jihad Barbie Last Online: Today 04:50 AM Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Near Libbies Posts: 12,470	Geez, MM, do a precis wouldya. At this point, I don't care. I think Obama is a finky lying self-aggrandizing fek, and McC can't get any steam under his engine.

07-10-2008, 11:49 AM	#17 (permalink)
ChiangMai noon punk douche bag Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: o dan y bryn Posts: 28,059	^ those Virginia stats spell the end.

07-10-2008, 12:35 PM	#20 (permalink)
pai nai ma I am in Jail Last Online: 18-12-2008 08:14 PM Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,038	The tide is perceived by many to be turning. fecking optimists! (jeez I hope they are correct)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)