No wonder Obama draws large crowds to his rallys
 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ly&btnG=Search

Just google that.

-S

PS. This means that McCain draws way more people simply wanting to hear his speeches.

heeere we go again....

Your ability to extrapolate such a conclusion apparently out of thin air astounds me. :o

Is this such an important electoral issue for you this November? By this I mean, is it important how many people the POTUS can pull at a rally or speech? Are issues such as jobs, retirement pensions, healthcare, security, energy and so on way down the pecking order?

I give you 10/10 for persistence and tenacity :lol:

If you think about it a little bit, this kind of tactic can influence peoples opinions of how popular a candidate is (especially if coverage of the "events" makes no mention of the free concerts). What's really important is, does it influence voters to see thousands of people coming to see the "savior of our nation". Unfortunately, the answer to that is yes, it would influence thousands of ignorant voters into thinking that he must be good since so many people come to see him.

Or simply because he is black as evidenced by this persons candid admission in a UK Times piece today:

Exactly Mikhayl. :yep:

My point wasn't that tactics like this are only used by one side, just that calling the conclusion (and the practice) non-meaningful (i.e. posts 2 and 3) is not valid.

BTW : That voting because of race can be used both ways, both for and against.

I was actually questioning Subman's conclusion when he said "PS. This means that McCain draws way more people simply wanting to hear his speeches." I neither said nor implied that the whole crowd thing was non-meaningful.

Indeed. :yep: I'm sure that there are some African American voters out there voting for Obama simply because he is black.

There does seem to be a recurring theme here. I think 10/10 is on the money.

@Konavolov My apologies if I misunderstood the intention of your post. It did seem to imply that the concept that Subman espoused was incorrect. Was that not the intention? If one event includes a free concert and another doesn't, is it not reasonable to conclude that at least a percentage (probably a higher percentage than one would assume because of the age of Obamas followers) of the attendance of the event with a concert would be there simply for the free concert? If so, then Subman's conclusion isn't so unreasonable and certainly isn't pulled out of thin air (especially if you interpret "way more people" to mean a higher percentage).

As for whether it's important or not, that's whole different story.

Reminds me of this saying back in the 60's as to why most anti-war rallies were over by 5pm. Because it gave everyone a chance to get home in time to see themselves on the 6pm news...

That sums it up pretty well. We all know that concerts, especially free ones (I might even go myself to see a free concert!) draw in people.

What I do find funny is that people here are denying it! I mean seriously! I guess people think the moon is made out of cheese too. :D

-S

Well where else would blue cheese, and blue cheese dressing come from!!!!!!!!?????????????:lol:

Maybe so....

But, then again we elected W twice....so who are we to judge??

As my momma always says, "ignorant is as ignorant does." :oops:

Obama will be the next president. We are voting anything in office that isn't a republican. Black, Asian, it doesn't matter. We would vote in a cardboard cutout of William Shatner as long as he wasn't a republican.

I think the republicans should be happy about this. They can blame the disastrous Bush policies all on Obama.