OBAMA HAS WON THE US ELECTION!
Yes, I know it has not happened but judging from the tone of the BBC coverage today, it may as well have. I caught Justin Webb (Who else?0 on Today just before 7am declaring that the only factors that can stop The One winning are 1. If his huge army of cultists don’t actually turn out to vote on the day and 2. If Americans are really prepared to vote for a black man. So, the defence is already in from Justin- if America does NOT elect Obama it is because too many Americans are RACIST. Got that? When he was at it, Justin managed his obligatory swipe at Sarah Palin, suggesting that whilst she was the darling of “the base” (aka redneck scum in the sophisticated Justin’s deluded mind) she was a real problem for many other voters (Democrats) There is no doubt that Sarah Palin has induced real irrational hatred from the political left and Justin is a prime example of PDS.
Next up, the polls. The BBC runs an interview with Bob Worcester in which he concludes Obama has a 95.7% chance of winning. The polls have been playing a major part in the Democrat campaign and as has been reported here the intent is to demoralise McCain supporters and imply that the outcome is already predetermined so there is no real point in republican supporters voting . I believe the BBC will play along with this “It’s a landslide” riff as Obamania fever mounts over the next week. The BBC thinks that in just over seven days the end of the wicked Bush regime is in sight and that a socialising appeasing liberal will be elected as President. Nothing will stop it doing everything possible to project this and this week’s Question Time from the States should be a guaranteed Halloween horror show (I won’t be around to blog it).
an interview with Bob Worcester in which he concludes Obama has a 95.7% chance of winning.
I heard that interview and Worcester seemed to me to be saying that Obama had a 95.7% chance of winning in the state of Virginia, not the election as a whole. But maybe I misheard.
If you’re right then the BBC should be even more ashamed of itself since it clearly suggests on the Today blog that Obama has a 95.7% chance of winning the Presidential election. Twisting words is what it does best.
An absolute parody of the item David. do you set out to see bias in everything? the 95.7% figure is what fivethirtyeight are saying is the national scenario, based on their analysis of national and state polls.
538 has got it up to 96.6%, and I’m inclined to agree with the statisticians and their track record. When McCain starts talking about himself as the underdog, even he’s admitting he’s not in a winning position.
jesus christ this is hard to read it’s such an unstable ranting piece of crap, it’s just one piece of horrified ranting followed by some other perceived affront to your delicate sensibilities
note how the tone of your election coverage has gone from, a while ago, how on earth will those poor beeboids cope i can’t wait to see the look on their faces when their bff barack HUSSEIN obama isn’t elected har har, to now some angry angry rant about how dare the bbc say that barry is about to win with his ~10 point poll lead and 95% chance of victory how dare they rrr cultists obamessiah pun pun negro librul
Stats, gosh-darned stats and… the real world.
If anyone calling a % ‘win’ to one decimal place is given credence, or indeed those who engage in similar vein, I think the world of punditry has disappeared up its own sunshine emitter.
“The politics of pure hatred”
(by Mark Hendrickson)
“More recently, Gov. Sarah Palin has been the object of vicious vituperation and seething hatred (like the threat by comedienne Sandra Bernhard that Palin would be gang-raped if she campaigns in New York City). Perhaps her female attackers feel rebuked by her decision to choose life for babies. Perhaps they feel inadequate by comparison. When I see their contorted faces and hear the desperate unhappiness in their voices, I feel sorry for them and pray that the venom might leave their hearts.
“Hatred, of course, knows no ideological bounds. Chain e-mails foment hatred for both Obama and McCain. Let us all refuse to forward such nastiness. Indulging hatred is playing with fire. On an individual level, it ruins one’s happiness and disposition. On a societal level, it exacerbates the venomous miasma that pollutes our political discourse.”
The BBC love him because hes a Marxist.
Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
There’s a perfectly “rational” basis for “attacking” sarah palin and a perfectly good argument that she’s alienated a lot of swing voters beyond “democrats” from the mccain cause.
But, but, but… there’s been other hopeless inadequates propped up into unsuitable positions to appease a party’s “base” who the BBC have seemed far more reluctant to criticise. Mssrs Prescott and Harman perhaps??
Some of the vilification of Palin by Obama fans has crossed waaaaay over the line into sicko unpleasantness, but it seems as though Beeb cameramen and reporters are only in the vicinity when the more loathesome elements of Republican support have something to say about “Barry”.
There’s plenty of rational arguments for attacking Obama but it seems that if you do so you’re a racist. Or live in a shack in Kansas.
Look, I think that the BBC is as biased as anything. But I also think that picking Sarah Palin as running mate was a colossal error on McCain’s part, completely undercutting his appeal as the patriot who would do the right thing no matter what the circumstances. And the opinion polls do show Obama in the lead, don’t they? Even if the BBC is overdoing its jubilation, as widely noted.
This was a vitriolic post – not really in keeping with what is a usual reason-minded blog.
If you look at this site then you will see that the BBC piece was based on mathematical analysis of polls.
Oh – if you think that Obama is a socialising, appeasing liberal then you are probably even more detached from reality than Fox News.
Yes- the BBC coverage of the US election has indeed been mathematically sound – it’s called a zero sum game and guess who wins?
I don’t think it was vitriolic enough.
Palin is the only person keeping McCain in the race. She has brought energy to her party, which until she was selected had really settled on coming second.
Now with her on board they now have a very real chance of winning, and all that inspite of the vicious campaign of hate the MSM has conducted against her.
What surprises me is how the media has harped on about her inexperience and deliberately contorted her words (Gibson and Curic). If Palin is inexperienced after being in charge of a $10billion USD budget, over 20 thousand employees, rooting out corruption from her own party then what does that make Obama (who by the way is part of the political corruption machine in both Chicago and Washington DC)?
Re Obama winning in Virginia, not if you believe this little item;
Finally, watching the Marr show on Sunday morning and the two people looking through the newspapers were also harping on about racism beating Obama, not the fact the guy is the ultimate “man who never was”.
That Republican blog piece seems to ignore the fact that Virginia now has a Democratic Governor and a Democrat Senator.
It also ignores the fact that different polling companies have built in much sounder techniques that still come up with polls like the latest Virginia poll from Zogby today:
A shame that this site has used some evidence of BBC bias into an unconditional love fest for the floundering McCain-Palin ticket.
this week’s Question Time from the States should be a guaranteed Halloween horror show
Oh My God … let me guess the panel…
Michael Moore or Susan Sarandon or some other Hollywood lefty nutjob; Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; a fake conservative like David Brooks of the Slimes; the British Ambassador; Ed Rendell or some other elected Democrat Governor
That sounds fair.
JB: Hollywood leftie buts? Is’nt that just about all of them?
You just know Palin is going to get slaughtered!!!
Disraeli, the problem for you is the source comes from someone who is actively involved in polling peoples opinions and offers an interesting insight in to whats going on.
If you doubt the report, then you must also doubt every polling report being carried by the MSM.
Also think of this site as being an example of how every action (Al Beebs bias) has an equal and opposite reaction (McCain/Palin love fest)
Schama’s on QT, I understand. He’ll be the conservative voice, at a guess.
Never mind Palin, will the BBC be reporting on Biden putting his foot in it again?
Obama talkig Socialist bollocks in 2001
“Oh – if you think that Obama is a socialising, appeasing liberal then you are probably even more detached from reality than Fox News.”
Well what would you call him then Disraeli?
This piece, by Melanie Phillips, on the Big Media, applies to the BBC too:
“The sacrifice of truth to power”
…” not only has history been rewritten, not only have Britain and America been to a greater or lesser extent turned against themselves and demoralised by the propaganda of their mortal enemies recycled as truth by our fifth-column Big Media, but they have been incited to an ugly and dangerous level of irrationality, hatred and hysteria which history tells us presages the twilight of freedom. It is that media class which, in refusing to tell the public what it needs to know about Barack Obama, may now finally install in the White House the man who personifies the repudiation of the American power and western values that the media and left-wing intelligentsia (of which the media is the mouthpiece) have themselves spared no effort to destroy these past seven years”
Disraeli | 27.10.08 – 11:46 am | #
Oh – if you think that Obama is a socialising, appeasing liberal then you are probably even more detached from reality than Fox News.
Can we officially recognize Fox News Derangement Syndrome (FNDS) too please? It’s endemic among liberal sheep here in the States. They simply can’t express an opinion without some tediously derogatory reference to the highest rated news channel in America. If one of them says anything without reference to it, the liberal standing next to them nudges them with their elbow and whispers “You forgot to mention Fox News.”
Fox is, in fact, the only station in the US which has come anywhere NEAR being realistic about the Anointed One. While the rest of the MSM got together in a huddle and decided unanimously that their job this election was not going to be to report the news but in fact to run 24/7 infomercials for Barack Obama, Fox has actually taken it upon themselves to ask questions – RELEVANT questions – about this unrepentant socialist who has perhaps some of the most odious associations and ties of any US presidential candidate in history.
It has done this, moreover, while simultaneously giving a voice to many pro-Obama, anti-McCain pundits on a daily basis and there has actually been some spirited debate on air – contrast this with the rest of the American MSM to whom an “interview” with Obama consists of asking him who does the cooking at home.
Obama IS in fact a socialist and appeasing but to be honest I think that even the term “liberal” is too good for him because it suggests someone who believes in the freedom of the individual, not someone who believes in “doing your patriotic duty” by enslaving yourself to work in order to pay taxes on behalf of people who breeze through school half asleep and then can’t even hold a job down in Dunkin Donuts.
The man has a tax plan which is going to be a disaster for the American economy and all around me, left wing IDIOTS are partying like it’s 1999 at the thought of having the plug pulled on their own economy.
Please tell me how a tax cut for 95% of the population is a Socialist measure. Don’t forget it is your beloved GOP who has just presided over the biggest growth in Government power and the Government deficit since the war!
I agree, that Palin is the reason McCain is doing as well as he is. Much of the Republican base doesn’t like McCain, and if he had a picked a boring rich white guy like he was supposed to, he’d be toast. If he picked Joe Lieberman, like the press wanted, then much of the Republican base wouldn’t even show up to vote.
Because 40% of that population doesnt pay tax at all Disreali.
So please do tell me, how do you cut tax for someone who doesnt even pay tax?
Disraeli, lets not get ahead of our selves. The seeds for todays economic problems were sown by the Democrats and only made worse by a lame duck democratic congress that refused to take action to limit the economic risks Freddy and Fanny took (thanks to buying support from Chriss Dod, Barney Frank and Barak Obama).
Actually, its amazing that in only 140 days in the senate, Obama has managed to get himself in to the top 3 receivers of campaign donations from Freddy and Fanny.
Did you really just ask how a tax cut for the 40% of Americans who pay no tax in the first place (i.e. a welfare check) – paid for by a massive hike in taxes for the most productive – is socialistic?
Yoinks. You did!
Incidentally, the top 20% of earners in America already pay 80% of taxes, and Obamarx bin Stalin doesn’t think they pay enough.
The socialist idiot doesn’t even realize that when he hikes business taxes, big business will just raise their prices the same way they did when the price of gas went up. The poor will suffer the most.
But Obamao, like most socialists, doesn’t care about the poor. To him, the economy is a stage on which to perform morality plays about “greed” and “sharing.” Damn the poor – how much did they contribute to Obama’s campaign anyway?
That is arrant nonsense.
Obama will only increase taxes for the top 5% of earners to the same level that they were in 2000. The remainder of people, earning under $250,000 will get a tax cut.
If you think that is socialism then you do not understand economics and you do not understand political philosophy.
It is a shame that so many on this, otherwise sensible, board are seduced by the simplistic ideas of the hard right. And I say that as a Conservative and an active member of the Conservative Party.
Oh – do you really think that Walter Buffet and Chris Buckley would be supporting a Socialist?
“I really believe that when you reach a certain level of comfort there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”
Guess which ‘Socialist’ said that? It was the well known Marxist Senator John McCain…
Who the US people vote for is none of my business. But one thing puzzles me.
The vast majority of the white Libleft commentators here take it as read, and all approve, that the US Afro- American people will all vote Obama.
That is racial politics not democratic politics and very patronising. It implies that the Afro Americans can only make a decision on the basis of skin colour.
If I was Afro American I would find this insulting.
How do you know what Obama will do once in office, been privy to his internal mail have you?
What Obama says and what he will do IF he gets elected to the big house are two very different things!
If Obama becomes the big giant head then he will have to raise revenue for his massive spending plans and where do you think the money is going to come from, the sky fairy?
He may slightly lower one tax then raise ten others, just like all tax’N’spend socialists do, lets face it, you have no clear idea what codger or Osama will do once in office other than the fact that both will have to claw back the hundreds of billions that chimpy threw away on illegal wars’N’stuff!
What Webb consistently omits on Obama:
“Melanie Phillips: Obama adopts the agenda of the jihadists”
“Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves.”
Hi dave s:
The link above is for you, and real, and you must promise if you watch it ot to be offended as it is from real American black people.
You said, ” If I was Afro American I would find this insulting.”
That link is your validation.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that you are a conservative. RINO, yes, as is Collin Powell the traitor, however, I would believe.
I am a British Conservative. The fact that the GOP has veered so far from the traditions of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt is their own problem.
The fact that Al Queda has veered into the US became all our problem.
You called yourself conservative – implying American – as part of the premise to prove your logic that Obama has the better tax plan. Never mind that your logic was false to begin with, next time please show your colors complete.
Betyangelo. This is what I said:
“I say that as a Conservative and an active member of the Conservative Party.”
This is a British based blog about the British Broadcasting Corporation. How on earth did I imply that I was an American conservative?
Disraeli, you havent answered my question.
How do you give the 40% of americans who do not pay income tax a tax cut?
Because you presented the fact as proof you knew what you were talking about concerning the Obamination’s tax plan.
But, let’s concede: I presumed, therefore you lacked clarity.
Be fair though, that discussion was not about BBC bias, but American taxes.
You asked, “How do you give the 40% of americans who do not pay income tax a tax cut?”
Oh Oh!! (hand waving)
By taking less of their pay check for medicaid and social security?? They keep mentioning taxes but nobody ever talks about medicaid and ss taking more together.
But you will not ever, I mean ever – find a link to the 97 “quick fix” economic emergency by Slick Willy effectually sucking the coffers dry even while taking more for them for a pay check.
No, they never mention the two mandatory deductoins that are not under reconsideration.
Let’s keep hyping up that Obama has this thing in the bag, and then maybe all the illuminati Obamatrons won’t feel like they need to go out and vote on Nov 4th!
“…Obamatrons won’t feel like they need to go out and vote on Nov 4th!”
Hopefully they will be too drunk with glory 🙂 not to forget to remember that elections are won with votes 🙂
So, if Al Beeb was so keen to report Palin being a grandmother, why not report on Barry O cheating on his wife?
Disraeli | 27.10.08 – 8:16 pm | #
Obama will increase the top income tax rate by 13%, the top capital gains rate by a whopping 33%, the top dividends tax rate by 33% and will reinstate the federal estate tax to 45%. He will also increase corporate income taxes despite them already being much higher than they are in Europe, to the detriment of American competition. He also plans a windfall profits tax – in other words, an “oh no you don’t” tax.
I don’t care which of these is going back to a Clinton level of taxation. That is irrelevant. The fact remains that he intends to greatly increase tax rates for the most productive, wealthiest people and businesses in order to fund tax cuts for the poor – a huge number of whom don’t even pay any taxes and will receive a welfare check. Oh that’s right though, they’ll have their payroll taxes cut. But social security and medicaid are things that are directly FOR the person paying the tax, i.e. you’re paying into your own insurance fund, so to speak. Obama will make the poor pay less into their own insurance fund and force the rich to pay for it instead.
Of course it’s not “socialism” as in the full “public ownership of the means of production” definition. But socialistic activity covers a broad spectrum of policy and robbing Peter to pay Paul is one of them.
As for Buffet and Buckley:
Well, Buffet is an entrepreneur who’s good at making money for himself – he’s not an economist. Just because a person is financially successful it doesn’t mean they know anything about long term economic effects and how they affect a broad range of people. The trouble with most people when it comes to economics is that in judging an economic policy they only think as far as the short term gains to a single group of people. I’m no expert on economics but I did read, and absorb, Henry Hazlitt’s classic “Economics in One Lesson” which teaches this principle. Buffet has reached a level of wealth which commonly induces feelings of leftist guilt and causes the sufferer to start a foundation (a la Bill and Melinda Gates or the Annenbergs) which will invariably be taken over by far-left radicals after their death. Buffet doesn’t care how much he is taxed now – he’s so rich, they could tax all of his new income at 95% and it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to him. Why not go ask the business owner who is on the brink of expanding into Obama’s new tax trap?
The fact remains that hiking taxes on big business during a recession is economic suicide. When a company faces an increase in costs they’ll invariably raise their prices to make up for it, especially if every business in their size group is faced with the same cost increase. When gas prices went up recently, the price of consumer goods rose. Who’s hit the hardest? The poorest. You raise taxes on the most productive and everyone will pay for them, mark my words.
John McCain is no flag waver for free market principles and economic freedom, of course he isn’t. He’s no George Reisman. Like virtually every politician out there today, he has socialistic tendencies and doesn’t fully understand the importance of economic freedom. How much of this has to do with the fact that voters are largely economically ignorant and will support anyone who promises to plunder the wealth of the rich for them, I don’t know. But I do know this. Whatever McCain’s shortfallings when it comes to an understanding of economics, at least he understands that long term economic growth does not happen when you use force to “spread the wealth around.” As for the quote you cited, well of course I’m not happy when I hear a politician say stupid things like that. But having said that, Adam Smith said something similar in “Wealth of Nations.” But Smith didn’t figure the creation of the welfare state, he was talking about the wealthiest paying more taxes for the same government services that everyone uses.
Take a look at this article by the Heritage Foundation – they used an economic analytical tool to calculate the economic effects of the plans of both Obama and McCain, and it’s pretty clear that McCain’s plan looks better for the economy in the long run – by far.
Oh and as for Buckley – he’s an idiot. He’s not the first conservative to lose his mind and drink the Obama Kool-Aid…and he won’t be the last. I’m driven to believe that anyone who is prepared to ignore Obama’s ideological identity for the sake of a “firm Presidential voice” wasn’t really a conservative in the first place.
Disraeli said to Jason, “If you think that is socialism then you do not understand economics and you do not understand political philosophy.”
And Jason non-chalantly chewed his ass up.
Disraeli -10,000, and go sleep on the couch.
“Here is your progressive tax plan, which, for any of you obamanots questioning my knowledge of socialism, should read the communist manifesto, one of marx’s ten planks of a socialist society, a progressive tax plan is one of them
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’
shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
I found this here. http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/abc-will-air-da.html