Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Here is an article about the poll workers. sm

Posted By: LVMT on 2008-01-09
In Reply to: holy moly! - Think Liberal

It is from the Boston Globe. They only give a brief description. There was more discussion on it in one of the grassroots forums.

Apparently,the poll workers did have permission to be there, and the NH GOP told them to stand their ground.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/obama_and_paul.html


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers. see article.

Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers


Date: Friday, April 14, 2006
By: Judge Greg Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com



Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America’s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.


At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they’ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country’s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive’s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker’s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent. 




Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company’s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.


It’s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won’t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.


Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker’s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker’s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.


As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.


---


Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.


Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached...see article







Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached
 

by David Swanson


 

http://www.opednews.com



Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq


By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.


The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.


The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:


If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.


44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.


Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.


The results of this poll are truly astonishing, said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House.


Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups


Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.


Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.


Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).


Support for Impeachment Surged Since June


The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June.  (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos.
























 

Ipsos 10/8-9
Zogby 6/27-29
Net Change
Support Impeachment
50%
42%
+8%
Oppose Impeachment
44%
50%
+6%
Impeachment Margin
+6%
-8%
+14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment was much higher than I expected. At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.


Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower


In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.


Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq


Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment.  Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of I don't know responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns. 


Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public before the war, and 57% say the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.


Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.


Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story


The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.


The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).


We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll, said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.  But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress.  Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war.  The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war.  We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.'  What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush.


The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the Ipsos poll. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.


AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.


Footnotes:


1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.


2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.


3. Zogby asked: If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment.


4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media.




Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Ask Media to Cover Public's Views on Impeachment


Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers


http://www.davidswanson.org


DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.


Contact Author


Contact Editor


Yesterday IBM laid off American workers but kept Indian workers, SM
and I'm sure they don't make chump change. Looks like we are becoming Zimbabwe! Thank O for that.
Okay, WORKERS.
30-40% of WORKERS don't pay income taxes. Is that better? And only recently has he started saying workers. No one was ever counting children or people who did not work. Of course, you realize, you are classifed as a "worker" if you work one day a year, right?

The same question...if he is going to give a tax cut or break or whatever he wants to call it for 95% of WORKERS...30-40% of whom do not pay federal income taxes NOW...HOW is he going to do that without cutting someone a check. How else is he going to get the money to them? Please explain.
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x
Especially the power workers

God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on.  They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.


On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them!  Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!


Instead of cutting the workers' pay, they should
cutting THEIR pay. After all, they're the ones who aren't doing their jobs very well (if at all). Same with AIG - they get the cash, and then give their company *pets* huge *retention* checks. (Yeah, right. Sounds like a big fat bonus, to me.) The big companies' CEOs just don't get it. They want more money, more money, more money, and no matter how you cut it, bailout or no bailout, the one who loses is the little guy. There's no way they're going to completely restructure and retool if they get the money, they'll just keep on doing like they're doing. The Big Three need to die a natural death, no more artificial life support or resuscitation measures - DNR, DNI !!! Then, let a NEW, leaner-meaner-greener American car industry be born in their place. Same goes for the banks. And the insurance companies. And healthcare (mis)management. Let the sick and the weak ones die, and healthier ones grow in their place. Kind of like the forests. If wildfires are prevented for too long a time, the forest gets choked with dead/sick trees and overcrowding, and when a fire finally does roar through (like at Yellowstone in the late 1980's), it's a WHOPPER. Same thing is happening in American business right now.
Union Workers

How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots?  That's quite audacious!


Todd Palin is a card-carrying union guy, too.


 


And why did the union workers
walk off the job?  That's right.  For better benefits, health care, retirement and working conditions which ALSO benefited non-union workers, even those scabs who went in and did the jobs.  Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great (NOT!) the unions have lost their teeth in the ability to even strike and thus to bargain.  Ole Ronnie got employers the "right to permanently replace workers."   Read up on the history of unions.  Ever watch the movie "Jimmy Hoffa?"  Yes he made deals with criminals i.e. the mafia but he did much to help workers too.  Ultimately he paid with his life.  Union/non-union is sort of like arguing democrat/republican.  Those for/against don't want to hear any side other than their own.
What? The workers work for nothing?
That's news to me. I thought the workers got paid.
But you see which auto workers are
handouts, and the workers are not complaining about their jobs. I am talking about the ones mentioned recently in the news here in the Southeastern US. Those workers are making(including all their benefits) around $35 an hour. The unionized big 3 workers making $70+ an hour for the same work. Is that contract worth that much?
I took it as we are unskilled workers
sent overseas and basically there is nothing that can be done about it. This has been going on for years, but to be called unskilled? We need to now be better educated for other work opportunities in the United States. So I might as well pack it in and go back to school to do something else, even though I have an AA degree with Medical Transcription skills and schooling.
AAMT is not a workers' union.
x
I might have to if your man gets elected. Maybe we'll be co workers nm
x
Here's hoping Chicago workers' sit-in and

good things to come.  As Bank of America acquires Merrill-Lynch (whose CEO has the utter gall to request a $10 million bonus pay-out after the ML sell-out) they are refusing credit to Republic Windows and Doors out of Chicago after receiving $15 billion in TARP funds.  The workers are fighting back to recover the pay and benefits they have already earned and their governor is backing them up.  Now that's what I'm talkin' about !


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw5QzWC86Vl8&refer=home


not 95% of Americans - 95% of American WORKERS -
From Barackobama.com/taxes:

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of WORKERS and their families with a tax cut of $500 for WORKERS or $1,000 for WORKING couples.

Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

unemployed auto workers' pay
per their contract, if unemployed they receive FULL pay. The loss would be benefits, but they get full pay for not working if they are laid off. That should give them time for re-education.
Most employers are cutting workers because they want
Money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money-
money-money-money-money-money-money-money-money!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Maybe they should tax offshore workers doing OUR work.

Right on! If we workers made more money, we'd

I think you misunderstand government workers
The people who are getting the benefits are not really the people with constituents (they're not members of congress). These are the ones who work for the federal government, like people who work for the dept of agriculture, for the VA, for the dept of state, etc.
NYC using fed millions to fight sick WTC workers. sm
Shame on them. Looks like the articles by the Daily News is finally getting them some much needed attention.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/438101p-369136c.html
she said her experience was w/ minimum wage workers
she said it herself what they were paid - minimum wage -duh
then why were you referring to "minimum wage" workers
I never said I'm for giving them a handout...don't know where that's coming from. I was just pointing out the quality of employee you get when you pay minimum wage...why would you refer to minimum wage if you paid them well and didn't pay min wage? I wouldn't expect to get the most reliable people if I were paying minimum.
I said typical minimimum wage workers

I paid well above minimum wage...I guess reading my post it looks like I paid minimum.  That was my mistake.


I refer to minimum wage workers because...
This type of work normally paid minimum wage.  I, however, did not...
Please comment on the OP...about minimum wage workers
x
By all means give the union workers a pay cut S/M

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_05092008.htm 


Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour.  This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers.  Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs.  I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.


The practices of healthcare workers do need work - sm

Healthcare workers fail to take the time with patients to discuss disease prevention and health promotion.   


If you are going to give money to re-educate the auto workers....... sm
then it would follow that money should be given to sustain and re-educate the people in other industries (MT comes to mind) that are suffering because of big suit mismanagement and jobs going overseas. What about the thousands upon thousands of other displaced workers in the public sector that have lost their jobs? Will they need to be re-educated as well? Will there be jobs available to them, even if they are re-educated?

Maybe that's what all those re-education centers all over America are for. hmmmmmmm
Workers walk off job rather than read McCain script.
Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/dozens_of_call_center_workers.php
For crying out loud. His target group IS workers
are so low that they come up not owing tax at the end of the year, then it would not be possible to give them a tax cut or a tax credit, unless it is a refundable tax credit. So far, you have not provided any evidence that Obama is proposing a REFUNDABLE tax credit. As a matter of fact, why do you supposed he call this tax credit "Making WORK pay." The credit will zero out at zero tax liability unless it is a refundable tax credit. Again, it seems like you cannot produce any evidence that this is the case. Or can you? What about the socialist question with regard to progressive tax reform proposals only being socialist at Obama's hands, an no other president in history since 1913, including the 7 republicans who raise the top income bracket rates to as high as 63% to 94%, as opposed to Obama, whose intent is to restore that rate back to 39.6% as it was in 2000 when Bush took office?
proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

That statement jumped out at me.


 


New Bush rule makes it easier to hire foreign workers

Dec 10, 8:43 PM EST


Administration changes to farm worker hiring afoot


By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.


Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.


Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.


The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.


Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.


"The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.


The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.


But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.


Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.


"My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.


The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.


The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.


"We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.


Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.


So does someone's comment at the end of the article, discredit the whole article??
Unbelievable. 
I took the poll...sm
Sounds like Lewis needs to stay in the house unless the owner is with him. That should solve the problem.
Poll
It is
50 for Obama
43 for McCain
how about the AP poll...
Which shows the two candidates dead even? and if the polls are accurate, how come every one of them has different numbers? And furthermore, they only show the people who responded; I know I got several calls and I don't tell any stranger on the phone who I am voting for. This is my business and only mine. so don't be naive enough to think the polls are the be-all and end-all. look at how many times the polls have shown one candidate as a clear frontrunner who then went on to lose the election.
there was a poll on here
not too long ago and if I remember correctly, at least at the time I saw it, the majority on here seemed to be with McCain; of course I don't take polls too seriously either. TATA... Enjoy your week!!! :)
How about a poll?
Some of us who choose Obama have posted our reasons for doing so.  How about you pubs posting your REAL reasons for voting for McCain.  What do you think (or hope) McCain will do for you and all of us?
poll
You asked for whom we were voting for. I didn't realize my choice wasn't sincere since I didn't give an explanation in the post. I've stated my reasons enough on this board. Also, I'm not Republican, rather Independent.

I'm not being snippy in this post. I just wanted to state why I didn't post my reason under my vote. :)

I'm voting for McCain, but I think Obama is going to win in all honestly.
The man at the poll said
I just wore jeans, orange top with lighter orange sweater. The guy helping at the poll had to pull the top part of my ballot off before I stuck it in the machine. He said: "Now I've just got to rip your top off ... I mean the top of your ballot." :)

Gorgeous here today!! Low 70s, I think. (Michigan)

Sorry - that was not my poll -
I did not post a poll before that I remember. And in case you have not been reading my posts for the last months, I voted for Obama the first day my county would allow me to vote...
Particularly a CNN poll.
x
This poll truly makes me ill....sm
85% Of Troops In Iraq Think Saddam Was Involved In 9/11, 77% Think Supported Al-Qaeda.

You can't blame them either. I cannot imagine what it be like to know what they are doing over there is all connected to nothing but BS. The cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.

Re: Poll/Survey sm
There are a lot of concerns and issues facing the nation at this time and for some reason my gut tells me substance will be the major factor in the next election, at least I hope so. Thus far the two candidates that have caught my attention are Obama and Romney, but the election is quite a ways off and I need to do more research. Anyway I hope that religion/hairstyles/past lovers, etc., take a back seat to substance/ability/issues in the next election.
depends on what poll you are looking at
I've seen recent polls that put both Clinton and Obama about even with McCain when matched up together and others that show both of them come out ahead of McCain 5-10 points. Others then show McCain ahead. Polls are so subjective that you have to take them with a grain of salt. The most telling thing to me is that Democratic vote turnout has been twice that of Republican turnout in some areas, so no matter what people are saying in the polls, getting them to the voting booths in November is a different matter. The Democrats are energized and enthusiastic, flocking to the polls. The Republicans overall are leukwarm on McCain (and the party in general) and it's showing in unenthusiastic turnouts. This will play very well for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November.
You might want to check your poll
.
USA Today poll

9/5 - 9/7


McCain 54


Obama 44


 


Actually....this is the actual poll...
While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party’s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.

These are unaffiliated voters....37% of which say she has more experience to be President. That is just a 5% difference...not 61%.

Ahem.
Every poll is a sample of what is to come...this is no different...sm
from the polls out there now. I would guess the ones that didn't contribute are physically incapacitated in some way due to the effects of fighting the WRONG war. We went after the WRONG people just to try and make a war hero out of a president who ran his companies down to the ground and now he did the same with our country and his best friend McSame will do the same. He can't even decide which mantra to go by for his campaign...first it was experience, then country first and now change...he's trying to copy Obama because he knows Obama is right.