Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

It's like in football if you're down 17 and get a touchdown and two point conversion. You're still trailing by two scores even if you recover the onside.

Closer? Yes. Does it matter? No.

I said the 'tightening' race. I feel that was accurate.

I have no doubt that Obama supporters will be chewing their nails on election night despite their assuring posts that it's all over.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So we're going to let the Iran thing drop?

I think you did a fine job of summarizing some of the information, some of which I wasn't aware of. Well done.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I said the 'tightening' race. I feel that was accurate.

I have no doubt that Obama supporters will be chewing their nails on election night despite their assuring posts that it's all over.

Just like Missouri fans were chewing their nails when Colorado came to town. Sure, you were a double-digit favorite, but you never know until the teams get out there and PLAY.

[flere-imsaho]

Anyone want to guess what Obama's 30-minute commercial tonight will be?

I'm thinking Obama comes on and says:

"So, I bought this airtime tonight to save you from another 30 minutes of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. No, no need to thank me. Just remember to go out and vote next Tuesday. And instead of Buck & McCarver, we'll just run YouTube videos of McCain saying stupid things for 30 minutes."

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess it's easier to make a one liner than discuss the actual topic. Fair enough. You should have just told me you weren't interested in actual discussion.

I told you, I don't know a damn thing about polling weights and all that. I guess you must, but I don't claim I do.

I guess I don't see the plausibility of a massive case of error on the part of all pollsters. It's not so much that they all have Obama leading, but it's by how much they have him leading electoral vote wise. I guess national trackers may indicate trends some states may follow but like somebody said earlier, I don't see enough state races improving for McCain for him to pull it off.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lungs

I told you, I don't know a damn thing about polling weights and all that. I guess you must, but I don't claim I do.

No, I just have a problem with people that would rather lump people into one party or another without any middle ground. I have said that I'm voting McCain, but that doesn't mean I agree with much of the religions right or the gun toters. I'm not sure why you chose to go there. There are other alternatives.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Anyone want to guess what Obama's 30-minute commercial tonight will be?

I'm thinking Obama comes on and says:

"So, I bought this airtime tonight to save you from another 30 minutes of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. No, no need to thank me. Just remember to go out and vote next Tuesday. And instead of Buck & McCarver, we'll just run YouTube videos of McCain saying stupid things for 30 minutes."

I'm guessing you haven't seen McCain's comment on that situation. He's evidently appealing to the baseball hardcores who don't want their World Series delayed. Someone should tell him that no one watches baseball anymore.

"He's planned his first address to the nation -- an infomercial. By the way, I will never delay the start of the World Series for an infomercial."

Breitbart.tv » McCain Mocks Obama for Delaying World Series Game for ‘Infomercial’

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So a degree and/or job listing is now required to discuss polls in a FOFC political thread? That's rich.

FWIW, if you'd like a statistician/political outlook on it, there's yet another article about the possibility of the polls not being terribly accurate.

Accuracy Of Polls a Question In Itself

That is a good article, but it suggests that the inaccuracy of the polling may not be in McCain's favor.

The polls in which McCain is close presuppose 1 of 2 things:

1. Solid republican voters will turn out in high numbers
2. Survey weighting is set to 2004 election demographics

Both suppositions are certainly possible, but there are strong arguments against both from happening (mentioned earlier in the thread, possibly by me).

I'm not presumptuous enough to dismiss the possibilities 1 and/or 2 of happening. It is possible that the Obama youth vote may be over-estimated and/or the republican base is being under-estimated. But, in any case, it is very reasonable to say that the demographics in 2008 won't look like 2004 since the basic dynamics of the race (e.g, race with incumbency vs race with open seat, candidates on both sides that appeal to different demographics relative to the candidates in 2004, etc) are different.

To your point about "right" weighting vs "wrong" weighting of the polls. Sure, some will be right some will be wrong. But we won't know that until after the election (ironically, with the use of another poll). We can't make that judgment now.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I said the 'tightening' race. I feel that was accurate.

I have no doubt that Obama supporters will be chewing their nails on election night despite their assuring posts that it's all over.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but a bettor.

If you'd like to wager with me (for any stakes, friendly or financial) on the closeness of this election I would be happy to do so.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No, I just have a problem with people that would rather lump people into one party or another without any middle ground. I have said that I'm voting McCain, but that doesn't mean I agree with much of the religions right or the gun toters. I'm not sure why you chose to go there. There are other alternatives.

Don't take things so god damned personal. Like you said, it was a one liner. I guess I'm used to debating with my dad (a McCain supporter). We make the most ridiculous assertions about each other's views that we know aren't true. It's all light hearted. Sometimes a lot of you all in here could stand to lighten up a bit when talking politics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

That is a good article, but it suggests that the inaccuracy of the polling may not be in McCain's favor.

To your point about "right" weighting vs "wrong" weighting of the polls. Sure, some will be right some will be wrong. But we won't know that until after the election (ironically, with the use of another poll). We can't make that judgment now.

And I agree (though I didn't realize that I was required to post only articles that favor McCain ). It's something to discuss and I think there's merit to both arguments.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm not an Obama supporter, but a bettor.

If you'd like to wager with me (for any stakes, friendly or financial) on the closeness of this election I would be happy to do so.

I'd have to get odds on that bet. As I've stated repeatedly over the last week, I do still believe that Obama holds a slim lead.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, I asked "which states are now in play that make the electoral college look like a winner for McCain."

In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 34 electoral votes.

Bush states that are with Obama now (all using RCP averages):
Florida, 27 votes, Obama +3.4
Nevada, 5 votes, Obama +7.5
Colorado, 9 votes, Obama +8.3
Ohio, 20 votes, Obama +5.8
Virginina, 13 votes, Obama +7.4
Iowa, 7 votes, Obama +11.4

Out of thsoe states, I'd toss Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado in Obama's bin at this point. All of the rest are still in play. I'd also add that even the Obama campaign privately believes Pennsylvania to be a 2-3 point race, so I'd include that in the list of states still in play.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm guessing you haven't seen McCain's comment on that situation. He's evidently appealing to the baseball hardcores who don't want their World Series delayed. Someone should tell him that no one watches baseball anymore.



Breitbart.tv » McCain Mocks Obama for Delaying World Series Game for ‘Infomercial’

And McCain missed the memo from Fox that the game wasn't delayed, they just sold the airtime instead of showing a pregame show:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._baseball.html

"Our first pitch for the world series is usually around 8:30 anyway – so we didn’t push back the game, it was really just about suspending the pre-game -- you know, Joe Buck," said the account executive, Joe Coppola. "That’s all we did."

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd have to get odds on that bet. As I've stated repeatedly over the last week, I do still believe that Obama holds a slim lead.

Name your odds and terms sir.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

And McCain missed the memo from Fox that the game wasn't delayed, they just sold the airtime instead of showing a pregame show:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._baseball.html

Choose your poison: 30 minutes of Joe Buck or 30 minutes of Barack Obama

I honestly think I'd choose Obama. Buck is TERRIBLE.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. They do not run the government. They exert a high amount of influence, but one could argue that the religious right or certain branches of the media do the same thing in America. That doesn't mean that foreign leaders talk to those people.

2. Iran is not 'growing worse' as a country. Their leader is making some stupid decisions that are pissing off the rest of the world and disenfranchising the poor people in Southern Iran for failing to deliver on campaign promises. As a result, his approval rating is brutal and he doesn't have much support in his own country. He won't win re-election.

Our best move is to stay out of the way in regards to leadership and let the Iranian people do the dirty work for us. Our only concern is the nuclear ambitions of their leader. To keep that in check, we have to speak directly to the Iranian president that is behind the nuclear initiative.

Let me back up a couple of steps here. Where is the assertion that Obama wants to talk to the Supreme Council? Here is what I can verify for certain:

Iran
* The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama and Biden believe that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

* Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

* Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

from: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues...n_policy/#iran

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

* Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

* Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

I totally agree with the first bullet point. As for your question about the supreme council, the above doesn't even addres WHO they will talk with. Your point is valid that he is very general in this information. With that said, Obama's results won't be any different than Bush in the above scenario. I suppose he can argue that it's different in approach, but he's fooling himself if he thinks that will end in anything different (Iran is continuing its troubling behavior and the UN and Bush continue to isolate Iran along with sanctions). There won't be any progress.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Out of thsoe states, I'd toss Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado in Obama's bin at this point. All of the rest are still in play. I'd also add that even the Obama campaign privately believes Pennsylvania to be a 2-3 point race, so I'd include that in the list of states still in play.

Iowa + Nevada + Colorado = 21 EVs, for a swing of 42 EVs, giving Obama the election unless McCain picks off a Kerry state.

Given the way election results are going to be reported, the first two litmus tests will probably be Virginia & Florida. If Obama takes Virginia, it'll look very dire for McCain. If Obama takes Florida, it's all over and we can all go to be early. If, in the midst of those two, Obama manages to take North Carolina, it's probably a safe assumption that he's got the race.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, after 8,800 posts did anyone cause anyone to change their vote yet?

Yes. I have gone from "Bipartisanship has no chance of working in our political system" to "Bipartisanship has no fucking chance of working because both sides will fight each other over the color of the sky even though the true differences between them is the true difference between baby blue and sky blue"

As long as the losers in this election don't give me some crap about "looking forward to working with" the winners, I will be happy. In fact, the first Dem who says "I intend to stick it to Republicans" or the first Republican who says "Fuck the Dems. agenda" will have the lead for my vote in the next election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Iowa + Nevada + Colorado = 21 EVs, for a swing of 42 EVs, giving Obama the election unless McCain picks off a Kerry state.

Given the way election results are going to be reported, the first two litmus tests will probably be Virginia & Florida. If Obama takes Virginia, it'll look very dire for McCain. If Obama takes Florida, it's all over and we can all go to be early. If, in the midst of those two, Obama manages to take North Carolina, it's probably a safe assumption that he's got the race.

I really hope that the drama drags on a bit through Nevada. I've somewhat enjoyed the late night watching of the last two elections. It's like a Super Bowl. I'm guessing the major news channels are hoping for the same as they'll lose viewers pretty quickly if it is over early.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I really hope that the drama drags on a bit through Nevada. I've somewhat enjoyed the late night watching of the last two elections. It's like a Super Bowl. I'm guessing the major news channels are hoping for the same as they'll lose viewers pretty quickly if it is over early.

"Will the Democrats get 60 Senate seats?" might be what the networks have to turn to. I wonder what time polls close in Alaska, though that race might not be close now that Stevens has been found guilty.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I totally agree with the first bullet point. As for your question about the supreme council, the above doesn't even addres WHO they will talk with. Your point is valid that he is very general in this information. With that said, Obama's results won't be any different than Bush in the above scenario. I suppose he can argue that it's different in approach, but he's fooling himself if he thinks that will end in anything different (Iran is continuing its troubling behavior and the UN and Bush continue to isolate Iran along with sanctions). There won't be any progress.

And I'm not the one claiming he's going to talk to the Supreme Council, that was you. I was hoping you would back it up with some sort of reference.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I really hope that the drama drags on a bit through Nevada. I've somewhat enjoyed the late night watching of the last two elections. It's like a Super Bowl. I'm guessing the major news channels are hoping for the same as they'll lose viewers pretty quickly if it is over early.

Given the demographics it's very unlikely that NV will be a difference maker. If Obama wins there he's likely won in NM and CO which likely gives him the election. Personally I think it'll be a early night. If PA goes to Obama it's very difficult to craft a scenario where McCain wins.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If PA goes to Obama it's very difficult to craft a scenario where McCain wins.

I'd agree with that. As the Obama campaign has said, it's a close race in PA right now and it's very important that they win it. The avenues for a possible win open up for McCain if he can win there.

[JPhillips]

Bill O'Reilly has a map MBBF might approve of:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

And I'm not the one claiming he's going to talk to the Supreme Council, that was you. I was hoping you would back it up with some sort of reference.

I made that assumption based on the fact that he said he wanted to go directly to the top. After your post from Obama's website, it's quite clear that even he hasn't laid out exactly who he'll be talking to, which is concerning in its own right.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bill O'Reilly has a map MBBF might approve of:

And as I stated yesterday, I'm not sure why I'd approve of a map that's not based in reality. I believe that map is just as unreliable as some of the polls giving Obama a 7+ point lead in the national election numbers. But I guess it's easier to paint me as being an extremist than to actually discuss the topic at hand.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You keep hanging your hat on this "internal memo" from a relatively low-level Obama staffer from over a week ago.

I would argue its just as likely an idea that this was meant to motivate the staffers and ensure they don't get complacent than it revealed that the Obama camp secretly believes PA is 10 pts closer than most of the polling.

The polling numbers would show it to be a bad move. His numbers have steadily declined since that information was released. Confidence is always a better motivator than fear in an election. It was a misstep if they thought otherwise.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The polling numbers would show it to be a bad move. His numbers have steadily declined since that information was released. Confidence is always a better motivator than fear in an election. It was a misstep if they thought otherwise.

Show me the Pennsylvania polling showing his numbers declining since that leak came out 2 weeks ago.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com commented today (or yesterday) that the stats show that the "tightening" of the race is mostly the result of previously uncommitted Republicans finally committing to McCain.

He also notes that while this trend is showing up in overall national polling, it hasn't cut into Obama's lead in the battleground states, and thus hasn't changed the overall EV picture.

maybe this has been discussed to death while i was at lunch, but to me, the national tracking polls are largely worthless. it's the state-polling that matters, and McCain hasn't meaningfully closed the gap (in anything more than a "statistical noise" sense) in multiple battleground states.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Show me the Pennsylvania polling showing his numbers declining since that leak came out 2 weeks ago.

I was speaking of the national polling, which has trended to McCain as is evident by the RCP numbers.

[Butter]

Anybody like to discuss Palin as the face of the GOP going forward (if McCain loses)? Is this even viable, or is it a pipe dream perpetuated by Palin's people?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I made that assumption based on the fact that he said he wanted to go directly to the top. After your post from Obama's website, it's quite clear that even he hasn't laid out exactly who he'll be talking to, which is concerning in its own right.

Wow. So, on one hand you claim the Supreme Council does not run the country, but on the other you interpret "straight to the top" to mean the Supreme Council. You can't have it both ways.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Out of thsoe states, I'd toss Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado in Obama's bin at this point. All of the rest are still in play. I'd also add that even the Obama campaign privately believes Pennsylvania to be a 2-3 point race, so I'd include that in the list of states still in play.

linky?

2-3pts? Really? Even though all the state polls have it at high single-digits? (down from low double-digits admittedly)

i'd like to see where you got that info

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was speaking of the national polling, which has trended to McCain as is evident by the RCP numbers.

I would argue that, again, the national polling is irrelevant at this point and tightening of it to be expected during the final week of any election. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with any perceived tightening of the race in PA, because according to all released state polls up to now, that race has been static and for Obama for weeks. You would think that the PA poll would have some kind of effect in, of all places, PA, and not nationwide.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody like to discuss Palin as the face of the GOP going forward (if McCain loses)? Is this even viable, or is it a pipe dream perpetuated by Palin's people?

Add Biden to that mix. The choice is largely Dumb and Dumber if you're choosing between Palin and Biden.

[JPhillips]

But the two most respectable national trackers aren't really showing a tightening either. Rasmussen and Gallup have shown both guys very stable for nearly a month.

Rasmussen in October
McCain 44-47
Obama 50-52

Gallup Traditional since October 8
McCain 44-47
Obama 49-51

Gallup Expanded since October 8
McCain 43-45
Obama 50-53

All of the variance has been within the margin of error.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody like to discuss Palin as the face of the GOP going forward (if McCain loses)? Is this even viable, or is it a pipe dream perpetuated by Palin's people?

pipe dream. they've been smoking too much ganja.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Add Biden to that mix. The choice is largely Dumb and Dumber if you're choosing between Palin and Biden.

I don't think there have been any national news articles arguing that if Obama loses, Joe Biden will become the face of the Democratic party. So I don't think that's pertinent.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody like to discuss Palin as the face of the GOP going forward (if McCain loses)? Is this even viable, or is it a pipe dream perpetuated by Palin's people?

They'll be too busy fending off attacks from the McCain people and Republican columnists for a bit before thinking about being the face of the party. We'll see what happens when the Civil War is concluded and which side wins.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Add Biden to that mix. The choice is largely Dumb and Dumber if you're choosing between Palin and Biden.

a) i don't think anybody's talking about Biden as the future of the democratic party

b) for you to even insinuate that Biden is as intellectually-stunted and ill-informed as Palin is just sheer lunacy. Really I could pull out numerous examples to counter this, but it's a waste of time, because if you honestly believe that then no amount of examples will convince you, your head is buried in the sand. The guy has been a senior Senator for years, has authored landmark legislation and bills, and has been a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Comparing his intellect to Palin's intellect is like saying a tricycle could beat a Ferrari in a drag-race.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I was very interested to read on RedState the following quote after a Palin article.



RedState: "Sarah Palin's a Brainiac"

This, along with a couple of other small stories and quotes I have read here and there seem to portend a coming battle for the soul of the Republican Party. And if Palin's side wins out, that means it's time to switch my party affiliation for the forseeable future.

Wow - I hope not. Talk about giving yourself over to the lunatic-fringe.

[Kodos]

Palin becoming the face of the Republicans would be awesome. There is no way in hell she could ever win the Presidency.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Show me the Pennsylvania polling showing his numbers declining since that leak came out 2 weeks ago.

One other thing regarding the weights being used in the Pennsylvania polls. Arguably, the Democrats had their best turnouts in recent memory in 2006 when they did extremely well. In that election, 43% of the voters were Democrats and 38% were Republicans, giving them a 5% advantage. In the 2004 election, the Democrats held a 2 point advantage. The current polls showing 11-13 point leads for Obama are giving the Democrats anywhere from a 12-19 point advantage in voting turnout. Is it any wonder why the polls show one thing while the Obama camp quitely says it's a close race? There's some serious issues with the polling in that state. Those weights wouldn't even pass a 'six sigma' test given past voter turnout results in Pennsylvania.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

One other thing regarding the weights being used in the Pennsylvania polls. Arguably, the Democrats had their best turnouts in recent memory in 2006 when they did extremely well. In that election, 43% of the voters were Democrats and 38% were Republicans, giving them a 5% advantage. In the 2004 election, the Democrats held a 2 point advantage. The current polls showing 11-13 point leads for Obama are giving the Democrats anywhere from a 12-19 point advantage in voting turnout. Is it any wonder why the polls show one thing while the Obama camp quitely says it's a close race? There's some serious issues with the polling in that state. Those weights wouldn't even pass a 'six sigma' test given past voter turnout results in Pennsylvania.

We cant help that we are rednecks who don't know how and where to vote properly!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

We cant help that we are rednecks who don't know how and where to vote properly!

Racists. You forgot racists.

Doc, will you be on the ground at your local PA polling site giving live reports to FOFC?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Palin becoming the face of the Republicans would be awesome. There is no way in hell she could ever win the Presidency.

Being the "face of your party" doesn't mean she's going to be the Presidential nominee. I mean Ted Kennedy was the face of the Democratic Party for a long while, but aside from 1980 never got close to the Democratic nomination.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Being the "face of your party" doesn't mean she's going to be the Presidential nominee. I mean Ted Kennedy was the face of the Democratic Party for a long while, but aside from 1980 never got close to the Democratic nomination.

Agreed. I see her playing a role in future elections regardless of this election's results much the same as Rudy Giuliani. She'll be more of a rah-rah type to keep the religious right fired up when elections come around. She obviously has the charisma and appeal to pull votes. McCain would be getting hammered right now without her.

[JPhillips]

The more interesting fight IMO is between her and Huckabee given that they have the same power base.