FLASHPOINT:

Nevada not yet decided

Monday, Oct. 20, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

Sarah Palin’s visit to Nevada this week — assuming it still occurs Friday, North and South — would seem to belie all that chatter that John McCain has given up on Nevada to focus on more populous red states where he is losing ground. The campaign was active Friday, with a cute “spread the wealth” event at the entrance to the Joe Biden rally, where they handed out free hot dogs. But more and more, the state is looking as if it leans toward Barack Obama, no matter what the overmatched McCain folks do here. There are 100,000-plus more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada now. That should be an insurmountable barrier. If it’s not, and McCain wins Nevada, the Democrats will have to go into hiding.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By Future2012

10/20/08 at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yes there are 100,000-plus more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada now, and that should be an insurmountable barrier.

The reason the Democrats are not happy is they have doubts about their candidate's leadership, associations, and socialism plans.

Whether that doubt is enough to swing the state to McCain, it is clear that many Democrats still have major problems with Barack Obama.
By skertso

10/20/08 at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

100,000 more Democrats and very motivated ones! We will win this state for Obama/Biden and turn this state Blue! McCain's bad judgment has become more and more apparent and many are seeing it more and more clearly. We need a steady hand in these tough times and we will get it with Obama and Biden.
By Furshur

10/20/08 at 9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

I don't think we Democrats are worried about our candidate one bit. Barack Obama, as Colin Powell said, has the ability to be an exceptional president. The bogus "associations" to which you refer are just that: bogus. I don't think it is possible to prove that to any of you who choose to live without intellectual curiosity, another problem cited by Mr. Powell that seems to have infected many Republicans. I like a leader who is smart, elite and has intellectual curiosity. Call me a nerd, I guess, I just think smart, well-educated and socially conscious people make better decisions than ignorant and simplistic people.

As for the question of "redistribution of wealth"--exactly what would you call the last eight, and overall, the last twenty-eight years of Republican rule? The rich have redistributed the wealth right into their own hands. They have done this without being real producers of any kind; they simply rig tax laws to benefit themselves, take giant subsidies from various levels of government when it suits them and tax the hell out of the small guy by speculating us all to death. However, when a man comes along who would dare to challenge this system of wealth redistribution benefitting the wealthy, it becomes a "socialist" sin to think the average guy deserves some of that money. Well, bubba, we do. I doubt you make more than $250,000/year NET, so why do carry the water for those that do? Lack of intellectual curiosity, that's why.

Actually, the only way for things to work will be to reclaim some of the wealth we poured into the top in the vain idea that trickle-down economics might work. In the history of man, trickle-down economics has NEVER worked. All it accomplishes is to concentrate the wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Eventually that becomes a problem, as our current economic crisis shows, even the wealthy need to fear. When the middle class has no money, spending stops. That's what caused the Great Depression and it can happen again.
By johnevegas

10/20/08 at 11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

"The reason the Democrats are not happy is they have doubts about their candidate's leadership, associations, and socialism plans."

Try getting beyond your own material some time. I know it's hard. But at least then you might actually see what's happening around you.

Democrats are in fact ecstatic. The reason is that we have a real candidate. A history making one at that!
By boftx

10/20/08 at 12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Half of Democrats are NOT happy with Obama. It does not matter that Obama's and Hillary's postions are almost identical, what matters is that Obama has on a number of occasions said one thing then voted the opposite (FISA being a prime example).

It is impossible for me to put any faith in Obama's words.

Having said that, I will vote for Obama instead of "none of the above" ONLY because I fear what would happen with Palin as POTUS.

If McCain had not embraced so much of the current RNC platform since 2004 I would vote for him with no qualms. But the choice of Palin for his VP tells me that he is not in charge of his campaign and is in too much political debt to the RNC.
By redferret

10/20/08 at 12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Seriously, I want some organization to compile how much time republicans have wasted trashing Obama versus how much time they spent on their own candidate. People don't vote against candidates, they vote for them.
By johnevegas

10/20/08 at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Half of Democrats are NOT happy with Obama."

I doubt it's half, but agree with the gist of what you are saying. Hillary supporters are not happy about what happened. That's clear.

I actually wanted Hillary first and still think she would have made a fine president. But Obama got picked and he's a great choice for times we live in now.

It is my sincere hope that he chooses his cabinet wisely. He would be in excellent shape with Hillary, Powell, and Biden sitting around the table.
By jfnance32

10/20/08 at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Obama did not like those 18 million voters who voted for Hillary.

He called them......Bitter folks who cling to guns and religion to deal with their problems.
By mikegino

10/20/08 at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sorry Jon but a lot of the new Democrat registrations were up north where Republicans wanted to vote against Hillary.
By NYR

10/21/08 at 11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

There may be 100,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada, but unless Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, Roy Williams and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys roster shows up at the polls here in Nevada, that numerical advantage may not help Hussein Obama all that much.

The Democrats can pay Acorn all they like to make up a bunch of phony registrations and dredge up every homeless crack head they can find to pay $10 to sign a registration card.

That will give Big Blue a numbers advantage and bragging rights, but it won't translate into votes at the polls.

Unlike stoners who love to parade around in their Che Obama t-shirts and sign registration cards, Republicans like me get up early every day, go to work, and actually SHOW UP at the polls to vote.

So, Jon, give my best to Marion Barber if you see him at the polls next Sunday, and tell him not to cry too hard when the Redskins roll through the playoffs in January, right about the time John McCain is sworn in as our next president.
By TruthPlease

10/21/08 at 5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Chief Executive, Issue Date: September/October 2008, Posted On: 10/8/2008
Debate Over, By ED Kopko

It is clear job-creating Business Leaders chose McCain over Obama largely because his policies are seen as pro-growth, whereas Obama's policies are viewed as redistributive and anti-growth.

http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/dirmod...

For some months during this Presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs' attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. In CE's most recent poll in September, 751 respondents, more than double the usual number of business leaders, made their voices heard on their Presidential choice.

By a four-to-one margin CEOs support Senator John McCain over his rival, Senator Barack Obama. More to the point, a thundering 74 percent majority say they fear the consequences of an Obama presidency, compared to only 19 percent who fear a McCain presidency.

Also, according to the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) when it comes to cutting spending and voting to reduce taxes McCain's has a Lifetime Vote Rating of 88 percent compared to Sen. Obama's Lifetime Rating at 18 percent . Go to their website and read it for yourself

Also according to the CCAGW, Sen. McCain has never requested a single special-interest, pork-barrel earmark in his 25 years in Congress but, Sen. Obama has requested $740 million in earmarks in just three years.

Go to both of their websites and read for yourself.
By neiman1

10/21/08 at 10:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Is this how democrats everywhere get out the vote.
First you pay Acorn to register them.
Then you pay the local precinct workers to deliver the votes.
All for cash??

If Obama does it in Philly does he have to do it everywhere?

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_upd...