Obama - real or manufactured

[dichotomy]

What do you think is more likely out of these three scenarios?

 

The extended versions of the options below -

 

option 1. Obama will be elected president because the US and the world genuinely need this perceived positive change: accepting an intelligent black, result of a mixed marriage, Christian, outsider, who has taken drugs and had a ‘raised Muslim’ father.

 

option 2. Obama will be elected president by vote rigging, to soften up the US international image on a surface level only. This would be useful for making US opponents more pliable. Getting them to more readily give up their nukes, power, alliances, and to sell their resources, etc.

 

option 3. Obama won’t be elected.

 

I hope Obama gets elected because he's genuinely voted in.

But I really don't thing he'll be elected.

Edited October 29, 2008 by dichotomy

[Phi for All]

I don't accept the premise of your question. Option 1 is worded differently in the poll than it is in the OP.

 

Why does Obama have to be elected based only on the criteria in your OP?

 

Why does Obama need to resort to "vote rigging" if he's so far ahead in the polls?

 

If "vote rigging" is such a viable option, why wouldn't McCain use it?

[john5746]

Yeah, I chose option 1 because Obama is from Krypton and will save the world. We just need to make sure Cheney has no kryptonite.

[Mr Skeptic]

Option 4: People vote for who they like best, and he wins. Why might people vote? That's their own business.

[Phi for All]

dichotomy, next time you post a poll, you need to stop tweaking the OP after people have already voted. You added "president for ruling elite" to your title. Is this all a slam against the US?

[Sisyphus]

Well, there's a 96% chance of option 1, a 0% chance of option 2, and a 4% chance of option 3. I'm going with 1. I don't think dichotomy has been paying attention.

[Realitycheck]

McCain is not the one bringing in droves of new voters. No chance for McCain.

[ParanoiA]

McCain has run out of Palin's to get new voters...

[bascule]

Why would Obama even need to rig the vote? He's way ahead in the polls...

[foodchain]

McCain has run out of Palin's to get new voters...

 

I dont think Palin is going to vote for McCain.

[Pangloss]

The only Republican politician I know of who won't be voting for McCain next week is Ted Stevens.

[dichotomy]

Why does Obama need to resort to "vote rigging" if he's so far ahead in the polls?

 

If "vote rigging" is such a viable option, why wouldn't McCain use it?

 

This is the conspiracy theory (that are generally wrong) option -

Say I was part of an evil Russian leadership. I could construct an election that looked like there where definite good guys and bad guys in political opposition when in reality they were both on the same side (Pro Russian supremacy). Now if the election was rigged so that the good guys got elected, this would give their main rivals in the western world the impression that things where softening up in Russia, becoming more friendly. This might prompt the west to start giving them technology that increases Russian power. Maybe the U.S. might start to reduce the number of nukes they have, thus exposing them to greater security risks, all because of this new perceived friendliness. Now say that Obama makes a great choice of showing the US rivals (china, Russia, etc) a new ‘real’ friendliness that is simply an instrument for greater US control? …Or maybe this would just make a great movie script?

 

Also, polls can be very wrong and often, I’ve seen this occur at home, even ones that predict a landslide victory. Maybe US polls are more accurate?

 

This is just me gathering a handful of opinions on the perception of US elections. From my home tv it really looks like a circus with the narrow minded and senile villains – McCain and Palin, and hero’s of the ‘new’ US glasnost - Obama.

 

dichotomy, next time you post a poll, you need to stop tweaking the OP after people have already voted. You added "president for ruling elite" to your title. Is this all a slam against the US?

 

Sorry, I write it all out next time instead of on the fly. No it's not a slam against the US. More a gauge on perceptions of politics.

[ecoli]

What do you think is more likely out of these three scenarios?

 

The extended versions of the options below -

 

option 1. Obama will be elected president because the US and the world genuinely need this perceived positive change: accepting an intelligent black, result of a mixed marriage, Christian, outsider, who has taken drugs and had a ‘raised Muslim’ father.

 

option 2. Obama will be elected president by vote rigging, to soften up the US international image on a surface level only. This would be useful for making US opponents more pliable. Getting them to more readily give up their nukes, power, alliances, and to sell their resources, etc.

 

option 3. Obama won’t be elected.

 

I hope Obama gets elected because he's genuinely voted in.

But I really don't thing he'll be elected.

 

there's some unbiased poll choices. [/sarcasm]

[dichotomy]

there's some unbiased poll choices. [/sarcasm]

 

 

What should the other options be?

[Sisyphus]

What should the other options be?

 

The short versions are pretty straightforward, although its missing an "Obama will lose due to vote rigging" option. The long versions are overly specific and biased and I don't think any of them represent what's really going on.

[DrP]

What about 4? - Obama will win by the seat of his hanging chad.

[dichotomy]

The short versions are pretty straightforward, although its missing an "Obama will lose due to vote rigging" option. .

 

Agreed. I should have definately inc. that one.

 

The long versions are overly specific and biased and I don't think any of them represent what's really going on.

 

It's not about what's actually going on. It's about peoples perceptions of this particular campaign. I don't follow you on how a question can be overly specific and biased? Polls have a bias to find results. My poll has found, thus far, that the general perceptions on this forum are that Obama will win. I suggest that this is due to him being percieved as a genuinely favored candidate that the general public want's in power, and one that doesn't rely on any secretive rigging of any sort to win.

 

You added "president for ruling elite" to your title. Is this all a slam against the US?

 

Ha! this is like an unintentional ink blot test:D. I just realised that the way you must have interpreted this is that - the 'U.S., including its people, are the ruling elite of the world'; as opposed to what I mean: the small number that make up a ruling elite of the US, or any other nation. Appologies for the confusion, I could have made the same error.

Edited October 31, 2008 by dichotomy
multiple post merged

[Sisyphus]

It's not about what's actually going on. It's about peoples perceptions of this particular campaign. I don't follow you on how a question can be overly specific and biased?

 

What I meant is that you're putting words in our mouths. I think Obama will win legitimately, but not necessarily for the reasons you give. That makes the option overly specific. It comes across almost as editorializing about causes within the question itself, which is why it seems biased. And polls themselves can be biased, too, since even asking a question is a way of putting things in people's minds. "Do you think Obama will cheat, yes or no?" That is not making any assertion, but it nevertheless implies that it's at least an issue. It's what push polls do.

[dichotomy]

What I meant is that you're putting words in our mouths. I think Obama will win legitimately, but not necessarily for the reasons you give. That makes the option overly specific. It comes across almost as editorializing about causes within the question itself, which is why it seems biased. And polls themselves can be biased, too, since even asking a question is a way of putting things in people's minds. "Do you think Obama will cheat, yes or no?" That is not making any assertion, but it nevertheless implies that it's at least an issue. It's what push polls do.

 

Sorry, I don’t agree at all with you here. Members here are more intelligent than general, so I don’t see why I’d try something like that here. I’ve made it specific in order to give people a better opportunity to either agree, disagree, or, even ignore all together if it seems like I’m plotting "putting words in their mouths". If you see it as a Push poll that’s your opinion and I respect it. I intended it as a perception gauge for a few specific questions. Maybe I should post some more polls so it doesn't 'look' like I'm trying to Bias results? As if my little poll has any impact on the results anyway, I wish .

 

What do you think this poll is attempting to bias towards anyway, this might be interesting?

[Phi for All]

Ha! this is like an unintentional ink blot test:D.

Ha ha. No. It's a poll you want us to vote in. Why are you surprised we would question the way you worded it? You say you made it specific so people could ignore it if they felt you were putting words in their mouths? I wish I would have known that from the beginning.

[Riogho]

What do you think is more likely out of these three scenarios?

 

The extended versions of the options below -

 

option 1. Obama will be elected president because the US and the world genuinely need this perceived positive change: accepting an intelligent black, result of a mixed marriage, Christian, outsider, who has taken drugs and had a ‘raised Muslim’ father.

 

option 2. Obama will be elected president by vote rigging, to soften up the US international image on a surface level only. This would be useful for making US opponents more pliable. Getting them to more readily give up their nukes, power, alliances, and to sell their resources, etc.

 

option 3. Obama won’t be elected.

 

I hope Obama gets elected because he's genuinely voted in.

But I really don't thing he'll be elected.

 

Option one is very much biased. There should be an option that more corresponds to the title of this thread. Real or manufactured? Obama will be elected because he can deceive millions of people into thinking that he'll be a good president. Not because of vote rigging. And not because we need his change.

[ydoaPs]

And not because we need his change.

But we do need change.

[ParanoiA]

I agree. Dr Paul tried to offer some actual change. Obama's (and McCain's) change is a joke, there is no change. It's the same recycled BS we hear every election and his actions have mirrored every scum bag that exploits the sheeple into voting for him. It's the status quo. Although, I should also say, he's certainly no worse, and probably the best we've seen in awhile.

[Mr Skeptic]

If we want real change, we need to change our voting system so that voting for a third party is not wasting a vote.

[ParanoiA]

If we want real change, we need to change our voting system so that voting for a third party is not wasting a vote.

 

I am definitely all for this. I don't how we could get that to pass at this point, but it would seem quite healthy for our country to do this.