2008 Presidential Poll

With Wall Street in turmoil and the economy hurting, whichever presidential candidate convinces a swath of persuadable voters that he gets it  and can be trusted to lead the country back to fiscal stability could well win the White House.

A recent AP-Yahoo News poll found that 18 percent of likely voters are up for grabs undecided or willing to change their minds  little more than five weeks before Americans choose between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

Historically, the ruling party loses the White House when the economy is bad, and it’s rare for voters to keep the same party in power for three straight terms. But the poll, conducted by Knowledge Networks, shows that Obama still hasn’t sealed the deal and McCain still has a shot after eight years of President Bush.

The key to unlocking the support of persuadable voters may be this: convincing them that one candidate alone has the ability to identify, understand and fix the country’s ills, especially the economy.

These voters view McCain as far more qualified than Obama, with 82 percent saying the four-term Arizona senator has the experience to be a good president compared with 37 percent for the first-term Illinois senator. However, these voters don’t see either candidate as more likely to understand the problems the country faces.

Original Article  By LIZ SIDOTI

Wow just wow there were some members of the christian right selling boxes of Obama waffle mix. On the cover of the box Obama is depicted as a stereotypical African-American. On the back of the box it says things like Open Border Fiesta Waffles” and that it can serve “4 or more illegal aliens.” Boxes were going for 10 dollars each, and though I have yet to get my hands on a box I am desperatly trying.  I was extremely angry when ebay told me that I could not buy an unfinished waffle, and I am not going to rest until I get an Obama waffle one way or another!

I am a 17 year old guy and up until recently I thought I was an Obama supporter. A friend of mine kept asking me why it was that I supported Obama and eventually I realized I did not have an answer. After doing some research I found three issues I would like clarification on. So Obama is for gay rights but not for gay marriage, he wants a middle ground between pro-choice and pro-life, and he wants to send 845 billion dollars overseas.
Ok so from just these three things it does not look like I am a big Obama supporter. I am totally for gay marriage and gay rights, whereas he seems to have not picked an overly decisive path. One might say that some gay rights are better than none, but I would have to disagree saying that if there are no gay rights people will continue fighting for the rights instead of being placated.  What middle ground is there for pro-choice and pro-life? Instead of calling it a middle ground why not say that strict standards need to be set in place? If that is the case then what would the middle ground be? No infanticide? Only in certain circumstances?
845 billion dollars to send overseas to fight poverty. How? It sounds grand and it is something I very much believe we should do, but how? My vote is by cutting our military funding but did he propose that? Has he given some other way that we can fund this?  Let me know if any of this is wrong, and also give me reasons to support Obama or not. Thank you for your help in molding my young mind.

David Appelman

There are always at least two sides to every story and after the rioting at the Republican National Convention we can see two distinct stories of what happened.

On one side there is this group of people saying that the freedom of speech was ignored as the National Guard came in and arrested these peaceful protestors. Worse still they were arresting people with their press passes predominantly displayed. These men and women promoting our press, which is oh so free, bravely stood up against oppression by continuing to film the atrocities unfolding at this peaceful protest. Cops were arresting everybody they could, there were not enough cars to fill. This is of course what is wrong with the country today.

Then on the other end of the spectrum there are these anarchists who are trying to intimidate our politicians, who despite all recent setbacks are still pushing forward with their planned convention. While our elected officials were fulfilling the duties the American people ask of them, these masked anarchists took to the streets breaking windows and wreaking havoc. Cops were attacked and people got violent. Only people who were breaking windows and violating laws were being detained. This is of course what is wrong with the country today.

Now this is how I see it, this group of protestors was made up of people who had very different goals. You have these people who want to better their country, not saying that they were bettering our country but this was their goal. Then there are these fake anarchists who were just kids wanting to stir some trouble up. Mind you there was a lot of peaceful protesting going on even from these masked men. Like them lying across a road to impede traffic, illegal yes, violent no. So that being said lets look at the other major side. There are these police and these men in power who cannot distinguish between the rioters and the peaceful protestors. So looking at it that way the best way to protect people was to remove the ones they deemed threats. Mind you I do not condone the way  some of the press was treated but the public also has to understand that that’s a risk great reporters take and understand. Both sides go to an extreme to try to convince the general public that they are in the right and the information gets skewed. People do not take enough time to try understanding the other side and to me that is what’s wrong with our country today.

Story By David Appelman

2008PresidentialPoll is a nonpartisan site and  in no way do the views of this article represent the site.

The 2008 Presidential election is one for the history books, the year of firsts. The democratic nominees at least, bore the distinct flavor of revolution. They were young, hip, and above all, the first of their kind. But where did McCain fall in this race of radicals?  This year’s election is as much about groundbreaking candidates as it is about the economy and the war in Iraq. As we watch the race unfold modern historians are poised to record either a continuation of the norm or America’s first black president. With uniqueness being the undertone of this race how can McCain, your traditional old white republican, hope to compete…Well, he can pick a female running mate and that’s just what he did.
Sara Palin, a first term governor of Alaska, was chosen this Friday by McCain or at least his political advisers, to stand beside this aging candidate in the race for the White House. Not necessarily chosen for having sound political views, nor for an impressive political background, no her gender is what put her name on the ballet. She is the ‘wow’ factor McCain’s champagne so obviously lacked. With this attractive woman at his side, he can stand against Obama and declare he too is pushing the boarders of the norm.
His motives are rather simple in origin. He need a to associate himself with a new, breaking from tradition to entice young voters. But beyond that this was a ploy, poorly executed however, to gain Hillary Clinton supporter’s votes. Both Clinton and Palin are women, isn’t that enough? Isn’t that what her supporters wanted, to see a woman in a top job? In this he was wrong. It was not her gender that excited voters, but her experience and her capability, two things Palin lacks. She is a naïve beginner and a vicious political jungle. She may turn out to have good views and integrity, but with out the understanding and experience to back her up, she won’t last a minute in this predatory world.
Now the question is why her in particular? There are a plethora of perfectly capable and seasoned republican women who would ultimately boost McCain’s political views and also give him that edge that is at the center of this election. Why not choose someone who would fill in his weaker spots and would be a qualified leader in the invent that she was need as Commander in Chief?
Whatever his reasoning we, the people of America, have our candidates, a black man and a seasoned senator vs. an aging republican and an inexperienced women. We must wait and see which revolutionary pair takes the cake and the presidency too.

By: Landis Grenville