Obama WILL be the next president

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2008, 1:56 pm

Sueven wrote:Obama is surging right now, and 538 currently has him ahead or even in every one of the states that Xyun thinks he'll win. So I started thinking: If Obama did win all those states, how many major cities would be in a state that went for McCain? The answer is very few. Nonexhaustive:

Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Austin...

Austin is the most Democrat heavy city in Texas, as well as a heavy College-age population. These two things alone will probably cause a win for Obaman here. About everyone here knows that this is a blue island in a sea of red. What was it that made you list this as an McCain win?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 1, 2008, 1:58 pm

Oregon and Washington are pretty goofy in that both states are mostly rural--agriculture-based while both states have very liberal "pockets". Oregon probably has more of these blue ponds, so to speak.

Portland, Eugene and Corvallis will carry the state for Obama, even though Hillary had a good showing in Oregon overall. McCain will get many votes, but these small areas represent a very strong Democrat base that loves them some politics.

We can discount the hippies and "outdoorsmen", since they don't vote. The students and coffee-shop-hipsters, wealthy liberals & Subaru drivers....this is what will carry the state for Obama.

WA may be a bit closer....

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 2:10 pm

Boog wrote:Austin is the most Democrat heavy city in Texas, as well as a heavy College-age population. These two things alone will probably cause a win for Obaman here. About everyone here knows that this is a blue island in a sea of red. What was it that made you list this as an McCain win?

The list was intended to be of cities located in McCain states. McCain will win Texas, not Austin. I doubt McCain carries a single city on that list on its own. Except maybe Salt Lake.

I was just struck by the fact that, out of 20 states that McCain is safely projected to win, only 7 contain major cities. If a state contains a big city, it's highly likely to go for Obama. Those states with big cities that are safe McCain wins tend to have some mitigating factor: They're Texas, they're his home state, they're in Appalachia, they're in Mormon country. I know that McCain has no chance of carrying urban regions, but perhaps if he was a bit less condescending toward urban folks, he could tamp down his margin of defeat in those areas, and that might make the difference in city-heavy swing states like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania...

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 1, 2008, 2:44 pm

I don't think that he was saying Austin is a win for McCain - just that Austin is one of the few major US cities in a state that's a win for McCain. I was doing the same math the other day, embarassed at the prospect that my city would be one of the few major cities in a red state that isn't in TX - no offense to you Texans but I don't want to be grouped in with y'all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 3:39 pm

McCain may lose his own state.

First real bad bit of news I heard for McCain is that the hispanics are leaning toward Obama. Not good!

Need to drum up some racial tension between the cholos and the darkies!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 4:38 pm

1. There's no chance McCain loses his own state.
2. Hispanics have been going for Obama since the candidates won their respective primaries. This is not a new thing.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 1, 2008, 5:02 pm

Of course the urban areas always lean towards Dems in the polls....and they leaned towards Kerry in the last election and Gore before that. The urban areas are filled with minorities that the liberals cater to and if called in a poll will always answer with a liberal lean. Your problem is that said people are also lazy and tend to not end up voting. I am betting the GOP finds a way to shut bus service down for the election week!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 5:09 pm

Yes, urban areas always lean liberal-- the question is whether McCain could have made them lean liberal less vehemently. Losing 80/20 instead of 60/40 in urban areas can be a HUGE difference in some very important states.

And white people still outnumber minorities in this country, so you're going to have to blame someone besides just minorities if and when McCain loses.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 1, 2008, 5:22 pm

I am not blaming the voting....I am saying the polls in those areas tends to be skewed by people who do not actually vote.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 5:42 pm

We've been over this before, but whites and blacks vote at similar rates (whites are a little higher, but not much). Hispanic voting is lower, but there it's less likely to be because of laziness and more likely to be because of legality issues and language barrier issues.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 9:00 pm

No no Sueven its because all of them coloured folks are just lazy fuckers who want to tek ir jubs.

The swing state polls are looking better and better with every passing day. It's still a long way from election day, but to be honest, it's become more than apparant that McCains huffy retarded faux-campaign suspension, coupled with his failure to run in and save the economy, was considered rightfully for what it was by the american people; a cynical desperate political powerplay. And it's really hurt McCain's chances in this election.

Good.

It's been an embarrassment for McCain, who now finds himself limping substantially (and increasingly) behind Obama in virtually every poll except those conducted by entirely partisan right wing websites (drudge etc).

There's no escaping it. His sneering derisory tone in the debate, the campaign suspension fiasco and the ongoing joke that is Sarah Palin are definitely losing him the election at this point.

Good.

Even if he does win, which is looking increasingly unlikely, these 3 things are still legitimate fact, by even the most basic intellectual standard (although I do know how republicans tend to hate education and intelligence, it is after all easier to hate the smart guy than actually be the smart guy).

As for Palin, these Couric clips are fucking unbelievable. If Obama spoke like that in an interview the election would be over. The media is really trying its best to be fair, but its getting to the point where no sane human can look at Palin without laughing out loud.

Hotness doesn't equate to being worthy of protecting a nation of 300 million people and affecting the lives of billions outside it. To supporters of Palin, you're the reason people hate America. Are the American people that dumb that "hotness" becomes a legitimate deciding factor? I'm sure it doesn't..but I fear it does. Just look at that moron Winnow for examples of total unthinking stupidity.

McCain really better have something up his sleeve beyond more desperate gambling for the election if he wants to have any real chance to win at this point. Likely? I don't think so. But who knows? But to be honest, as an outsider looking at this, why anyone would want to vote republican that isn't a new earth creationist, anti civil liberty warmongering fuck of a worthless human being is entirely beyond me (thankfully?). You would think the Republicans and their supporters would have realised something was amiss after the massive embarrassment that were the congressional elections. Apparently not.

Seems America has its fair share of those people unfortunately.

Still, I'm beginning to feel there is a real chance America isn't going to vote for its own destruction this election, and that's really cool

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » October 1, 2008, 9:14 pm

The likelihood, or lack thereof, to vote is accounted for within the statistical analysis of the given poll. You will see a much different statistical picture when considering young voters or newly registered voters instead of likely voters. Whether you're looking at data for the all important likely voter category, new voters, young voters, black voters, Hispanic voters or just about any other demographic you choose,the trends are moving decidedly in Obama's favor. He may not prevail in some of the swing states, and there's a lot of time yet for an "October Surprise" to shake things up before the election ends, but I really like the way things are looking, and specifically the direction that the trends are moving in virtually every important area of this country.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 1, 2008, 9:46 pm

Last week I mentioned that I wanted to bet on Obama and his stock was at 52 on intrade.com. Now that I have the money to bet, he's up to 65. I'm going to hedge my bet by betting on both of them. When McCain goes up and Obama goes down on a small spike (odds are this will happen one more time before the election) i will sell McCain at a profit and put that money into Obama. I'm still waiting for them to verify my identity though.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 9:53 pm

Seriously Xyun, I totally appreciate your effort, and your passion, and I think we are virtually ideologically identical - but the name of your blog is so fucking ridiculous that no one is ever going to take it seriously in its current form.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 1, 2008, 10:01 pm

Nick wrote:Seriously Xyun, I totally appreciate your effort, and your passion, and I think we are virtually ideologically identical - but the name of your blog is so fucking ridiculous that no one is ever going to take it seriously in its current form.

yea i know. I'm changing it after the election.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 10:03 pm

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » October 2, 2008, 1:17 am

Obama supporter or not, this video is gold.

Helps if your a fan of Les Mis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 2, 2008, 7:29 am

I didn't like it.

Thankfully, I still support Obama.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » October 2, 2008, 12:52 pm

Canelek wrote:WA may be a bit closer....

Here's a breakdown of the state, as I see it.

1- Northern suburbs of Seattle, including Everett: There is a fair rural presence here, but I don't think it's enough to offset the urban sprawl that has built up north of Seattle. Also, Boeing has a plant here, and them airplanies love them some democrats.

2- North central Washington: The only major town of note here is Bellingham, a modest college town. The rest of the district is sparsely populated, like most of the outlying regions of the state. Rick Larsen is a four term democratic congressman who was last elected here with nearly 65% of the vote, so I suspect that the student vote tends to outweigh the farm vote here.

3- Southwestern Washington: Again, this area is pretty rural, but it has two major democratic centers. First, most of Olympia lies in this district, and always votes heaviily democratic. Second, and equally influential, is Vancouver, which lies on the southern border of the state and is a large suburb of Portland. Much like in district 2 I expect that the townies will outweigh the farmbies.

4- Central Washington: Yakima is here, and some wheat fields. Mountains too. Offsetting this vast expanse of nothingness is Ellensburg, a small college town. Will probably go heavily for McCain, though a strong student turnout could make it go slightly less heavily for McCain.

5- Eastern Washington: Spokane is a fairly large town in this district, and Pullman is home to 'that other university'. Nonetheless, cows outnumber democrats about 1000 to 1, so I would be shocked- SHOCKED- to see anything other than a McCain landslide here.

6- Kitsap Peninsula: The Kitsap peninsula is, if possible, even more sparsely populated than eastern washington. This is probably owing to the fact that there's a giant mountain range (with glaciers!) taking up most of it. However, the district does extend across Puget Sound to encompass Tacoma, the second largest city in the state. Obama should win here easily.

7- Seattle: This is democrat territory. Dino Rossi is running for governer on the slogan "Don't let Seattle steal the election again" and, while he's ignoring the democratic bend of the rest of Western Washington, there is some merit to it; the state's smallest legislative district houses approximately 20% of the state's electorate, and the core of the state's democratic institution. A 50% margin of victory here would not be the slightest bit surprising.

8- "The Eastside": District 8 is an odd one. This district comprises the eastern suburbs of both Tacoma and Seattle, and is the only swing district in the state. In the south end, areas like Auburn, Kent, Maple Valley, and Puyallup make up the only highly populated conservative center west of the cascades. Up north lie Renton, Bellevue, Issaquah, and Redmond. This is the state's technological center, and it votes heavily democratic. Republican congressman Dave Reichert barely hung on to his seat in 2006 when challenged by Darcy Burner, an unknown Microsoft manager with little funding. This year the DCCC is putting a lot of time and money into the rematch, and the benefits of this extra attention are likely to travel upticket as well, drawing in more Obama votes.

9- Everything else: District 9 is a mish-mash of what was left after the other districts chose teams. It's that kid no one wants to pick, but someone has to. The part of Olympia that isn't in district 3 is here, the suburban sprawl between Olympia and Tacoma, a narrow strip of eastern Tacoma suburbs, and the sprawl between Tacoma and Seattle. It's heavily democratic, like the rest of the area, but no one cares.

In the primary, for what it's worth, Obama took every county in the state over Clinton. In the general election he should win district 8 even though it has a slight republican lean. 2 and 3 will go for Obama by a modest margin, and 1, 6, 7, and 9 will be a complete blowout. Districts 4 and 5 will probably go heavily for McCain, for all those 10 votes are worth.

All in all I wouldn't be shocked to see a 20-point spread out of the Evergreen State.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 1:27 pm

I thought the 'Couv was more hillbilly? That is where I buy fireworks.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » October 2, 2008, 1:38 pm

If you head up I-5 a few miles towards Longview/Kelso it gets pretty hickish, but Vancouver itself is made up mostly of Portland commuters.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 2:27 pm

Ohhh, I was thinking of Washougal. Correct, Couv is mostly commuters.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 2, 2008, 3:46 pm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... he-iphone/

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama, who has made his virtual campaign as much of a priority as its real-world counterpart, is making a play for iPhone users.

Over the weekend, the campaign launched a volunteer-developed application that iPhoners can download. "Obama '08″, which is free through the Apple.com iTunes store, features several options aimed at supporters and undecided voters.

– The "Call Friends" tab allows users to use their electronic phonebook to call contacts, with top priority given to contacts in local and battleground states. The application tells users no personal data or contacts will be uploaded or stored — though the number of calls made will be “uploaded anonymously."

– The "Get Involved" option gives iPhoners the phone numbers to Obama campaign
headquarters around the country, depending on where the user is located; they can also find out about “Local Events.” Both functions are based on the GPS feature of the phone.

– iPhone users can "Receive Updates" through e-mail and text message alerts.

– "News" features statements put out by the Obama campaign, separated by national and local categories; "Media" features links to YouTube videos put out by the campaign; Users are able to directly watch the video, as well as e-mail it out.

Drolgin Steingrinder · October 2, 2008, 4:41 pm

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0
Presidential campaigning meets french revolutionary musical: Les Misbarack.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 2, 2008, 4:42 pm

Scroll up!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 2, 2008, 5:10 pm

McCain pulling out of Michigan

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -michigan/

Drolgin Steingrinder · October 2, 2008, 5:30 pm

Spang wrote:Scroll up!

ya i figured it'd been posted but was too lazy to check.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 2, 2008, 6:03 pm

You lazy miserable!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 6:07 pm

Jeg er [lazy] dansker.

What is Danish word for lazy?

Drolgin Steingrinder · October 2, 2008, 7:01 pm

doven. [a lazy] = en doven.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 7:22 pm

Tak. Favel.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 4, 2008, 5:01 am

Homer Simpson Tries to Vote for Obama:

http://www.opinionazi.com/Opinionazi/Bl ... Obama.html

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 5, 2008, 8:59 pm

Something's fishy!

No paragraphs for you!

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'. Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East? And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he make a mistake'. Some mistake!All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 5, 2008, 9:42 pm

Hahahahahahahaha

what the hell is that?

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » October 6, 2008, 11:22 am

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!

the true enemy within is the irrational fear in the minds of the weak. created by our enemies without. people like this are why terror works.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 6, 2008, 11:29 am

I bet half of Winnow's political beliefs could be traced by Snopes.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » October 6, 2008, 8:01 pm

Most of you are going to be moved to tears when Obama is defeated next month.

Never trust a poll. Never trust the media. They don't ask the correct questions because they are blinded by their own prejudices.

People are telling pollsters they support Obama because they are displeased with the condition of the country. It's like a protest vote. Yet, many of these people truly know that Obama is just another politician who is lying to them.

When they walk up to the voting machine they aren't going to hand the reins over to a man who hates|despises|disrespects|misunderstands Americans. The truth is finally making itself known. Obama is nothing more than a shot of ambition in a flute of Marxist whine.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 6, 2008, 8:10 pm

Hai Metanis!!!!!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 6, 2008, 8:11 pm

I'm sad that this is my most active topic

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 6, 2008, 11:45 pm

Metanis wrote:Most of you are going to be moved to tears when Obama is defeated next month.

Never trust a poll. Never trust the media. They don't ask the correct questions because they are blinded by their own prejudices.

People are telling pollsters they support Obama because they are displeased with the condition of the country. It's like a protest vote. Yet, many of these people truly know that Obama is just another politician who is lying to them.

When they walk up to the voting machine they aren't going to hand the reins over to a man who hates|despises|disrespects|misunderstands Americans. The truth is finally making itself known. Obama is nothing more than a shot of ambition in a flute of Marxist whine.

Maybe you don't understand how polling works, or maybe you've never canvassed or been involved in a voter registration drive. Maybe you simply don't recognize that you are contradicting yourself, or maybe you are deluded enough to think that your party has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the White House this year. We could have put Ru Paul up there and she/he/it would've beaten John McCain, but instead we put the most talented politician since Ronald Reagan on our ticket and you spout this nonsense. You bring disgrace to the word ignorant.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 8, 2008, 12:16 am

Intrade numbers really on the move immediately following the debate:

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 13, 2008, 8:18 pm

Betty White supports Barack Obama.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 14, 2008, 3:50 am

eep

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has a sizeable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.

The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.

Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat confidentially thought it would be an early election night.

But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.

The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.

"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.

The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead."

According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.

Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.

"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.

But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.

"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.

Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.

Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.

"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around."

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.

Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4."

In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 14, 2008, 10:43 am

No need to worry. The Winnow Curse trumps The Bradley Effect.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 14, 2008, 11:21 am

Racial tolerance has come a long way in 26 years.

Kwonryu DragonFist · October 14, 2008, 12:11 pm

Obama denied by McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » October 14, 2008, 6:42 pm

Son of William F. Buckley goes for Obama, forced out of National Review.

http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stor ... -for-obama

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 14, 2008, 7:00 pm

Didn't really see anything about being forced out of NR. More like he didn't want a bunch of hate mail so decided not to publish it there.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » October 14, 2008, 7:18 pm

Sorry, I forgot that that info was in the article that linked me there. Looks like he resigned actually.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... opher.html

Christopher Buckley, author and son of late conservative icon William F. Buckley, last week surprised readers of the magazine his father founded, the National Review: “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama” was the headline on The Daily Beast blog.

Tuesday in a phone interview with the Austin American-Statesman he revealed another surprise: After NR readers raised holy heck over his perceived betrayal of the right, he offered to resign his column - and it was accepted.

“It upset a great number of people - a huge number of canceled subscriptions, apostasy, the whole thing,” he said from Washington.

When he offered his resignation to the magazine’s editors, “I was sort of hoping for, ‘Well, let’s think about it,’ ” Buckley said. “But to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.”

Buckley, the author of numerous humorous political novels, most recently “Supreme Courtship,” is booked to appear at the Texas Book Festival in Austin Nov. 1. “It’s too bad,” Buckley said. “I’m not looking to crap all over NR, but it’s too bad.”

To read the post that cost Buckley his gig, go here.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » October 14, 2008, 7:46 pm

He was on Hardball earlier, and said basically the same thing. He seemed as if he was actually surprised that his resignation from his position as a columnist was accepted, as he was offering it primarily as a gesture. From what was said on the show, he still owns a big chunk of the magazine, so it's not like he's totally out. It's kind of funny to watch the right wingers turn on their own just for criticizing their ticket, let alone when one declares that he'll vote for the opposition.

One of the funniest things I've heard all week is McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer accusing Bill Kristol of buying into Obama's party line. It's laughably insane.