# Pollster says election could end in landslide



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I know there are polls that put Obama ahead slightly, but when likely voters are polled instead of just registered voters McCain pulls ahead. The economic problems have held McCain back slightly, but I think he will recover from that and make a slow steady climb above Obama.

Now when is Biden going to get sick so Hillary can take the vp position. If the way bill has been nuking Obama is any indication Hillary would perhaps turn Obama down. Bill's latest interviews make me think the Clintons want Obama to loose bad so they can ride in on the white horse in 2012.



> One of the country's top pollsters was in Rochester on Thursday and suggested that the November presidential election will end in an electoral landslide, even though the candidates are running close.
> 
> "Essentially the election is at equilibrium," said John Zogby, president of Zogby International. "This election will stay close until the end."
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree that this election could end in a landslide, but I think that the landslide will likely be in the other direction unless Grampa John gets his campaign back on track. Trying to duck debates with did not sit well with many voters, and the interviews conducted with his VP choice so far have demonstrated that she is truly in over her head. The more she talks, the more harm she does to the McCain campaign.

McCain has been able to talk about only two things: 1) stay the course in Iraq, and 2) his perception that the economy is fundamentally strong. On both of these issues, he is simply echoing positions from GWB. Folks want nothing more than to get rid of GWB and the disaster called his 8 years in office.

As much of a disaster that GWB has been as a president, even he has finally figured out that the economy is in big, big trouble.

McCain had better find a way to differentiate himself from the Bush administration's policies, or he is going to get his you-know-what handed to him.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Grampa


Hey, come on now, I resemble that remark. There sure has been a lot of age discrimination around lately. What a surprise coming from the tolerant none discriminating liberals. 
So what are the things they have against them?
Old
Religious
Can't use a computer
Pregnant daughter
Didn't get an abortion
Knew some of the people in the Keating Five
Slightly conservative 
Can't remember how many houses they have
Can't remember how many cars they have
Don't support cut and run
Knows Bush
Wife has money
Husband races snowmobiles
Hunts moose 
etc 
etc

Ya, I can see where those things are real important. 

What isn't important:

Friends of pastor that says God dam America
Friends of man who was a terrorist 
Most liberal person in the senate
Wants to ban firearms (not important to hunters)
Wants to ban ammo
Wants to make self defense in your home a felony
Wants to tax Americans and give billions to the United Nations
Wants to increase the taxes we already have
etc
etc


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> So what are the things they have against them?
> Old
> Religious
> Can't use a computer
> ...


Plainsman: Have you forgotten who is running for President? I don't recall Grampa John hunting moose or having a pregnant daughter. Let's be specific when you use the word "them".

What do I have against McCain? Well, some are on your list, some aren't.

Yes, it does bug me that conservatives label Obama as an elitist, and then say that it isn't important that McCain is the one that owns all the houses and cars. Yes, it does bug me that he can't remember stuff. I wonder how sound his mind is.

However, more important than these things, is the position that McCain has on real issues:

1. The war in Iraq
2. The economy
3. The environment
4. The state of our country's education system
5. Getting our country in a place where we can compete in a flat world

Simply put, McCain is stuck in the 1950s mindset of the U.S. being the biggest dog on the block with the strongest economy, and being able to dominate world demand for key goods. With the rise of new world players like China, India, and Brazil, and the shipping of our manufacturing industry oversees, those days are gone. We need a president that recognizes this and has a plan for us to compete.

We need a president that is able to look ahead to 2050, not back to 1950.

I think of the great generation that produced people like John McCain and my father. They are great men. However, I look at how the world has changed. My dad (now 68) can't use email either. He knows enough about the internet to know that it involves computers, but that's about it. My dad doesn't even understand or know what is being used now, let alone what is possible. I doubt that McCain does either.

The key to us competing in a flat world is being able to utilize advances in technology. If folks of that generation generally don't use or understand modern technology, how are they supposed to lead us in a modern world?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsmen,

You forgot one ............
Shady house deal with a convected felon :******:

We need more details on that one.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Wants to ban firearms (not important to hunters)
Wants to ban ammo
Wants to make self defense in your home a felony

Did you read the interview with Obama in Field and Stream? I certainly did not get that impression when I read that. I know its hard to fathom, but not all liberals want to take everyone's handguns away.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Willie the interveiw is prue :bs:

His track record speaks for volumes about him better than all the campain :bs:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

you cannot trust anything Obama says since hes decided to run for the presidency on gun issues because hes savy politician that knows he cannot let his true feelings on the second amendment gun ownership issues

look at this record

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/42/34/

hes definitely not gun owner friendly


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... obama.html


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Robert I am still willing to buy that nice Savage Sniper rifle for 10 cents on the dollar :wink:

I will agree the NRA may embelist slightly and I am glad they do. It's the only way to get the point across. However NO bama is outright LYING :******: (my opinion only)


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

The NRA would be doing sportsmen a favor if they gave them factual information all the time and did away with the scare tactics. It seems some people like to get half-truths and don't mind when their sources don't give them the full story. This happens on both sides, right and left.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Factcheck has it right ---- sort of.
There is no way we can know if Obama wants to ban all our handguns or not. So the NRA has it wrong?

Factcheck has it right in the sense we can not see into the future. The only thing the NRA did wrong was look to the future which has no evidence instead of looking to Obamas past. He has called for a total ban on handguns, he has called for a ban on ammo. That didn't work so he asked for something like a 500% tax on all ammo. His record as little as it is shows his disdain for the second amendment.

What the NRA did was look at the past and predict the future. Most common sense people do that. However we can only be 99.99% sure that is what he would do. So factcheck got it right if you want to be a sticker about 100% sure. I'm usually not 100% sure about anything. So me someone who is and I will show you someone who is wrong often.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

it's pretty clear what NO-bama has in mind...no guns, no ammo. i predict a lot of firearms will be buried and available when necessary.......


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Out of Obamas own mouth was something to the effect of....

"Even if I wanted to take away your guns, I couldn't. I wouldn't have the votes in congress"

Notice the key words here. He doesnt say I cant, because it would be unconstitutional, he says he cant because he knows that it would be hard to convince that many members of the house and senate to commit political suicide and run another gun ban.

Theres this little gem



> Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
> Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
> 
> 35. Do you support state legislation to:
> ...


Can you even see someones arms when they are backpeddling that fast?

Obama wants them, anyone that tries to think otherwise is a blindsided fool.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Interesting info, that factcheck link posted by Robert.

I found Obama's statement that a total ban on handguns would not be "politically practicable" very enlightening. To me, that speaks volumes when you consider the context of the statement, which is to rebut the notion he is for an all out ban.

"Practicable" is defined as capable of being done. Synonymous with feasible. So the word could have stood alone in the sentence with no need for the use of the word "politically", and I believe the use of that word completely changed the meaning of the statement. So I submit what he meant was that it would not be politically HEALTHY to allow it to be known that he is for the ban.

Splitting hairs? Sure. But so is Factcheck.com by using only the words spoken in a campaign to arrive at a conclusion, with no consideration for what lies between the lines. But I guess then they would have to call it gutcheck.com :roll:

He has made no bones about reinstating the Brady bill, which should clearly show he is not in step with what he would LIKE us to believe.

But I guess if we are to believe he had no idea his pastor of so many years was a racist that hated America we can also buy into him being pro gun :eyeroll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Getting back to the polls issue, I talked with a person this past weekend who is making calls for one of these polls, they were instructed to check Obama if the caller was undecided. The poll is being sponsered by, who would have guessed, the Democrats.

So much for unbiased polls. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------

