Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Here's an argument I got into last night, curious what people's opinion might be. We all know that, around the time of the Repub. Convention, McCain took over in the polls. This lead didn't last long, though, as Obama has surged over the past two weeks.
How much of Obama's surge do you think is tied to the economic developments, and how much is the sheen coming off of Palin (which one could argue was why McCain took back the lead in the first place)?
Personally, I think it's around 90% economy, but two guys I was arguing with thought 50/50.
|
I agree with you. It's mostly the economy. It also illustrated a key rebuttal that Palin missed out on last night. The ducks are all in a row in regards to the Fannie Mae/Mac debacle for the Republicans to lay this firmly at the feet of the Democrats. Dodd, Obama, Schumer, and Frank all received substantial amounts of payouts from these companies and in 2003 (except for Obama who was still in Illinois) they were all in hearings quoted as saying that the problems were fabricated and an attempt to rob the poor of the opportunity to own a home. Meanwhile, guys like Raines were giving themselves huge bonuses based on the quantity of loans created. Raines eventually paid back $31M in a civil suit on the matter. McCain needs to come fully equipped with the facts regarding these payouts and the quotes from Democrats to firmly lay blame on their doorstep. Failing to do so and gain a foothold would hurt his chances tremendously.