This post is really f-ing stupid. Too stupid to be quoted, even. Normally, I would refrain from calling a post really f-ing stupid, but after that whole Obama appealing to the stupid and uneducated bit, I think it's only fair.
You've never taken a poll, and no one in your immediate family and no one known by anyone in your immediate family have ever taken a poll. That proves absolutely nothing. Promise you'll take evidence. You really, really need it.
The POTUS is greated by adoring, clapping admirers one, because he's the president, and when the president comes to town, most people generally put aside substantive concerns and just want to meet the person holding the office. Two, because people who flock to see a particular president are probably in significant part those inclined to support that president. Three, because this president's handlers are really good at stocking the audience with avowed fans and question plants.
Thank you for playing, though, and enjoy the parting gifts.
So - have you ever taken a poll? Do you know anyone who has ever been polled?
Just because I can't provide a list of the millions of americans who have never been polled, doesn't make my argument incorrect. If you look at the polls carefully, you may notice that most polls are conducted amongst a 'random' sampling of no more than 1000-1500. That's why polls are so silly - it's a polling of a small group of random people who happen to be home and are willing to participate.
As for my comment about Obama appealing to the stupid and uneducated, that's a fact jack.
Pop star likeability has been a core strategy employed by the Obama people. Virtually ever major news organization has favored his rhetoric over Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain alike. When Hillary complained about it, the industry pretended to give a crap, then later fought to be allowed to participate in the Obama European Tour. I wasn't trying to imply that ALL or even MOST of his supporters are uneducated and stupid, but the fact remains that you will find many Obama supporters who will vote for Obama because he's black, he's not Bush, he's a democrat, and/or he represents hope or change or whatever word that sounds groovy.
But none of those reasons make much sense - unless you are a partisan. Or black. Or hate Bush and are unable to see that no one in this election is the same as Bush. Or you are stupid and think words like 'hope' and 'change' are only the province of the democrat party and Barrack Obama. I have news for those who do: Just words.
The fact is that the number one issue I have with Obama sits right there - in the words he uses. Neatly packaged and marketed properly, but without substance - change and hope is great, but McCain represents change too. And hope. The difference is in the approach, not the words. While Obama was a state senator, he did very little. When he worked on the Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers, there were no marked improvements in the schools that participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."
That's why Obama hasn't tried to use this as executive experience (though had it been successful, would be a fantastic proof of ability). While a 'lecturer' at U of C law school, well we just don't know how that went. You'd think a former student of his would be excited to tell the world how Obama was a genius, a patient teacher, a wise beyond his year, inspiration. 23 years he was on the books as a lecturer or senior lecturer and not one law student has been the focal point of a campaign ad or puff piece. Ever wonder why that is? If my K prof ran for President in 5 years, you bet your ass I be telling people how impressive he was as a lawyer and a teacher. I wonder why no one has done that? Maybe they have. Maybe I just couldn't find it.
The point is if you are going to fall for marketing tricks and elect a president who is running on words like 'hope' and 'change' instead of substance and proven history, I would call that uneducated. That would be tragic. If you are going to vote for him because you understand and believe what he says, I would say that there is a chance you are mistaken, but respect your position. But I have a hard time because people rarely can explain how his positions are better. Do you really buy this nonsense about not increasing taxes on us, the american people? He plans on the biggest tax increase in 100 + years, aimed squarely at businesses. When businesses get hit like this, they stop growth, close plants, increase prices, fire workers, and some move out of country. That will leave more people unemployed, more people dependant on welfare, unemployment and social security and fewer jobs. People will take paycuts while paying more for gas, groceries, electricity, goods and services. We don't live in a vaccuum and shifting the tax burden to business ends up with them shifting the burden back to us.
And by the way, many small business owners don't file as businesses. I know a guy who owns 5 cell stores. He opened his first store 10 years ago and has grown and been successful. Last year I pushed him to incorporate. But there are plenty who never do. Many will be taxed at the highest bracket and hit the hardest, while taking home far less than the previous year if Obama is elected. That's a bet. Small businesses will suffer more than anyone else.
By the by, I really enjoyed your outrage about 'question plants'. Weren't the democrats embarrassed, severeal times and quite exclusively because of planted questioners? I don't recall a republican scandal last year - yup, it was the dems. Come on dude, pay attention.
I knew you'd give me *&^% about 'proving' it, so here you go:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310316,00.html
"Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy."
I know Obama said he'd never do it, but that's not the point. Most candidates do it. Most recently a democrat got caught.
The reason people are excited to see Bush is because I don't think the number of people who hate him is as high as you think it is. As a matter of fact, I'd wager more than half the country generally likes him, even though some may disagree with him at times. And we shouldn't get too deep into this line of thought anyway - while Bush's approval rating is low, there is no way a democrat can bring this up because the democrat led congress' approval rating is the lowest ever, and by a lot. What does THAT tell you about voters? It should tell you that Bush may not be the favorite, but nobody's too fond of the left either.