this reminds me of a story I heard once. Jesse Helms was in a very tight race. Suddenly on election night the power goes out in several communities in North Carolina -- all heavily black populated communities. It may be part true and part myth. I don't know. I just don't see a democrat winning in certain states. The only way Obama takes southern states like Mississippi or Georgia is if McCain makes a few major gaffes the next three weeks. It's possible, I guess.

My information came from a Fox graphic for a Gallup poll, Oct 2-5, 2000. (Insert anti-Fox rhetoric here.) Just reporting what they said.

Also note, Gallup's tracking poll is not the same as when he teams with another news organization (thus Gallup and Gallup/USA Today often have widely different results).

Thanks for that link that mentioned nothing about Gallup or the 2000 election.

Our discussion was not about whether "debates have an impact" but whether that debate had an impact. They have one opinion. I have another.

Not my fault you can't post in the correct thread.

Of course I do. You think I'm the only one with this opinion? Or that 538 and HuffPo are the only blogs on the Internet?

Your A.D.D. is, though.

Here's an example:

http://stateoftheunion.files.wordpre...svsmccain1.jpg

The American people have decided to blame the Republicans for the market, and believe Obama can Moses us out of it. (Ha!) The debate is barely even a blip.

http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com...-mccains-fall/

0.77 correlation seems pretty good to me.

Tex keeps busting out this ADD reference. Uses it too much, imo.

The other day, he giggled as he called me a POS.

I have impored him to work on his material and I really believe that he is doing so. Give him some time.

It's an indication the economy is the chief factor, and far better "proof" than anything you've offered.

And with that, I bow out of the Dance of Death. Cheers.

It hasn't.

And he's back!

Then present some evidence supporting your view.

So far, you have only shown a .77 correlation between the economy and McCain's numbers (which actually suggests there are other factors at play, supporting my view, otherwise it would be a 1.0 correlation).

By the way, Intrade now has Obama winning (55.1-41.9 are the prices right now).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-334.html

Define "good" support, other than that you don't agree.

Something that actually supports the proposition.

Fair enough.

If McCain can't even win over a board full of Republican social conservatives, you know he's in trouble.

I'm writing in Jack Bauer

if you're throwing your vote away anyway, why not vote for a real candidate?

Yet another survey is out indicating increased support for Obama. The chief reason given for people becoming more supportive of Obama? His role in the debates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...pStoryHeadline

Style over less style. This is what America is coming to?

Sad.

I don't believe it, nor do I believe Obama has a 13-point edge. That alone classifies this poll as an outlier.

That America doesn't want bellicose imbeciles in office?

No, sad that America wants a Marxist in the White House.

Which America? The real one or the fake one?

All this means is that the country is sick of fascism and is willing to see if socialism might be better. End result is pretty much the same: more debt and more big government. Anyone who votes for the lesser of evils pretty much deserves more of the same.

You don't see it because you're blinded by the shiny Obama. Either that or you're a Marxist.

Save your condescension for another time.

The day after the debate last week, USA Today had a list of items for the new president to tackle. #1 on the list: "reuniting the country." Tackling terrorism clocked in at #5 or #6.

It wasn't a scientific list of course ... just some writer/editor's idea for the front page graphic. But it reflects a reality. As long as Americans are more concerned about political unity and gov't handouts than they are about core capitalist principles and national security, men like Obama will be popular.

He promises the retraction of the oceans, the healing of the planet, freedom from risk in the market, and insulation from the business cycle. What's not to love?

Better Marx than Napoleon.

'I preferred Groucho to Karl, but we're getting Karl.

I like Richard.

Ah, I see. So THAT is the kind of poll you are wanting me to give to support my claim that the debate had an impact. All this time, non-scientific "polls" of one writer at USA Today represent the strongest evidence you can find.

Understood. I will try to find a single author at USA Today who said that the debates were important. Certainly that will convince you!

We don't need Napoleon. We've had Napoleon for the last 8 years.

But we can't afford Marx.

Wow. Obama=Marx and McCain=Napolean. This debate sponsored by Archaea (the captain of all hyperbole) and the letters FU.

Bush = Napoleon

McCain is closer to Napoleon than to Marx, yes. But McCain won't appease those that will do us harm.

You disagree. Fine. But get over the fact that I disagree with you.

Your posts remind me of a John Mayer record......nobody listens to them.

I say what I need to say.

Me, too: Your body is a wonderland.

The sexism around here is rampant. And you guys wonder why I'm waiting on the world to change.

Hellooo, non sequitur.

I am over the fact that you disagree with me. If you think Obama=Marx, you aren't a person particularly worth persuading.