Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[CARLHAYDEN]

Nice job Dave!

With respect to McCain:

First, as I have repeatedly tried to tell everyone, the supposed link between favoring amnesty for illegal aliens and getting support from legal hispanic voters in this country is spurious. 

Second, the support level from Republicans is near a historic low!

Third, the level of support from conservatives is lower than I have seem for any Republican party nominee for President is lower than I have seen it since such data has been collected.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Saturday 22 June, 2008

Obama - 46% (nc)
McCain - 44% (nc)

Cue Phil ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4

Gallup and Rasmussen seem to be back to their primary game of agreeing to disagree. When one has Obama's margin wide, the other has it narrow, and vice versa.

Uh,

Neither Gallup nor Rasmussen has had a "wide" margin for Obama (a wide margin would be on the order of the ludicrous Princeton Associates poll).

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have had Obama consistently in the lead by between two to six points.

The problem here is how you handle respondents who really haven't made up their minds.

If you look below the toplines you will find that the softness in McCain's support is rather high, especially when compared to Obama.

So, pushing "leaner's" at this point will result in better number for McCain than is actually the true story.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Saturday 22 June, 2008

Obama - 46% (nc)
McCain - 44% (nc)

Cue Phil ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4

Gallup and Rasmussen seem to be back to their primary game of agreeing to disagree. When one has Obama's margin wide, the other has it narrow, and vice versa.

Uh,

Neither Gallup nor Rasmussen has had a "wide" margin for Obama (a wide margin would be on the order of the ludicrous Princeton Associates poll).

Both Gallup and Rasmussen have had Obama consistently in the lead by between two to six points.

The problem here is how you handle respondents who really haven't made up their minds.

If you look below the toplines you will find that the softness in McCain's support is rather high, especially when compared to Obama.

So, pushing "leaner's" at this point will result in better number for McCain than is actually the true story.

I´ve also read somewhere that Obama is doing better among polls that include "Likely Voters" rather than "Registered Voters", compared with Kerry in 2004, who did better among "Registered Voters" ... I don´t know how much of this is true.

Well lets look at the actual polls,

Organization     Last polling date     Obama     McCain     Spread

                                                Registered voters

Gallup                        6/20                    46           44              2
Opinion Dynamics      6/18                    45           41              4
RTS (Cook)                 6/15                    44           40              4

Average                                                45           42              3

                                                    Likely voters

Gallup                         6/19                   50            44             6
Rasmussen                 6/21                   49            42             7
Zogby                         6/14                   47            42             5

Average                                                49            43             6

So, based on this information it would appear that Obama does indeed do better among likely voters.

A caveat is how the survey research firm determines "likely voters."  One method is historical, i.e. has the respondent participated in the past, a second method is "intensity," and a third method is a "blend" of the two methods.  In my experience, the "blend" method is best proved it gives more weight to historical than intensity.

Also, please note that (as expected) the undecided vote is smaller among likely voters than among registered voters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Election Enthusiasm Dips After Primaries [June 23, 2008]

Democrats maintain an edge over Republicans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108322/Election-Enthusiasm-Dips-After-Primaries.aspx#1

All registered voters

48% are more enthusiastic

37% are less enthusiastic

14% feel about the same

By Party Affiliation

61% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners are more enthusiastic

35% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are more enthusiastic

GALLUP POLL June 15-19

Dave

Let me amplify, by compring the data from March of 2004 with that of June 2008.

                    More enthusiastic     Less enthusiastic     Same
                    Rs          Ds               Rs          Ds               Rs          Ds

2008            35          61               51          32               13         13

2004            52          51               27          35               20         13

Change      -17        +10             +24          - 3              - 7           0

So, while there has been a modest increase in Democrat enthsiasm over the past four years based on this data, there has been a dramatic drop in Republican enthusiasm over the same period.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Obama Has Edge on Key Election Issues [June 24, 2008]

Better positioned than McCain on top two issues - gas prices and the economy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx

If you had to choose, who do you think would do a better job on [issue]. [ROTATED]?

Healthcare (41%)*: Obama 51%; McCain 26%
The economy (49%): Obama 48%; McCain 32%
Energy, including gas prices (51%): Obama 47%; McCain 28%
Taxes (34%): Obama 44%; McCain 35%
The situation in Iraq (44%): Obama 43%; McCain 43%
Moral values (34%): Obama 40%; McCain 39%
Illegal immigration (27%): Obama 34%; McCain 36%
Terrorism (41%): Obama 33%; McCain 52%

* % citing issue as being extremely important in influencing their vote

USA Today/Gallup, June 15-19, 2008

Dave

On "Illegal Immigration," 19% say "neither," which is both higher than any of the others, and more than half that of either candidate.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Look closely at the numbers!

In only three of the categories did Obama break 50%, and that just barely with his highest being 54%!

The truth is that McCain has real low numbers, which he has earned!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Again, a valuable post.

Please note that the so-called "swing" voters have a much more negative view of both McCain and Obama than the committed voters!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Obama - 46% (-1)
McCain - 43% (nc)

Today marks the 14th straight Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which 46% to 48% of voters favor Obama, and between 42% and 44% favor McCain. This narrow zone has given Obama a continuous, but fairly slim, lead over the two-week period.

Obama also held a slim lead for most of June (averaging three percentage points), although he led by a six to seven point margin for three days at the start of June. The two candidates were tied for a brief period in late June, but the last time McCain held a significant lead over Obama was in early May.

First, the element of time is all too often underestimated in political calculations.

A candidate who trails for an extended period of time tends to find his financial resources stunted, his workers dispirited, and himself depressed (and more likely to do something stupid).

Second, the Gallup poll you are using is a "registered voter" poll, and as such understates the real Obama lead as "likely" voters are more likely to favor Obama over McCain than registered voters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Second, the Gallup poll you are using is a "registered voter" poll, and as such understates the real Obama lead as "likely" voters are more likely to favor Obama over McCain than registered voters.

Now this is just blantaly false spin. McCain would lead if they used a likely voter format because Obama's supporters(blacks and kids) are less likely to vote than McCain supporters(conservatives and seniors).

You really need to look at the facts!

While, in most elections, Republican candidates typically perform better among "likely voters" than among "registered voters," McCain is an exception.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Second, the Gallup poll you are using is a "registered voter" poll, and as such understates the real Obama lead as "likely" voters are more likely to favor Obama over McCain than registered voters.

Now this is just blantaly false spin. McCain would lead if they used a likely voter format because Obama's supporters(blacks and kids) are less likely to vote than McCain supporters(conservatives and seniors).

Not spin, simple fact.

While it is true that Republican candidates typically do better among likely voters than among registered voters, McCain is an exception.

While I could cite several polls, different dates and methodologies could be used to explain the discrepencies, so, I cite Gallup, who had both likely and registered results in the June 19, 2008 poll.  Here are the results:

        Registered Voters                                Likely Voters
McCain     Obama     Difference         McCain     Obama     Difference

  44%         46%            3%                44%         50%            6%

Now, if you look at a variety of polls, you will see that there is a drastic difference in the enthusiasm of the supporters of Obama versus McCain.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Obama is building up a huge campaign infrastructure in the swing states while you guys dither about making sarcastic remarks about states that most likely won't flip.

Good thing I'm not in charge of running McCain's campaign. 

That does remind me though...I'll start doing my part to help McCain get elected tomorrow. The Philadelphia HQs opens tomorrow afternoon and it's only ten minutes from my house. It's based right in the middle of one of those swing blue collar areas that happened to be Hillary's base in the city.

Lucky. Our County HQ hasn't opened yet so I'm forced to go to the part-time one in Sagnasty, I mean Saginaw, and they force me to do Voter Reg. in the ghetto.

Well, my real volunteer work won't start tomorrow. I'm just going to check out the place and pick up a few things which means I have to help out a bit. I know a few of the guys running the show for McCain in SE PA so I get all the local e-mail updates. They mentioned a bunch of things to do tomorrow including putting together some lawn signs. The fact of the matter is that I need a few signs for myself and some others but can't just be an asshole, walk in, pick them up and leave. 

When you go in, don't tell them you're a Republican (or a sort of conservative), or they'll probably tell you to leave.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why are the tracking polls showing a closer race than the one-time polls that have Obama up by 6-7%? Which one's should we trust?

Truthfully, the tracking polls, simply because they are going to be less subject to bad samples (and the bad samples will exit the actual result over time).

But at this point in the campaign, it's fair enough to believe whatever you want. 

I'd agree with your first statement, but, regarding the second statement, if someone "believes" McCain is going to carry the District of Columbia, or Obama will carry Utah, they really need a reality check.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, I have an honest question: Are national polls necessarily more immune from bad samples?  Or do little pockets of weakness (cell-only, non-response, multiple landlines etc.) expose themselves more in a national poll?

Not necessarily.

Also, unrepresentative samples aren't the only, nor the most serious problem.

The thing is that some state polls are really terrible, especially those done by some media outlets.

What I believe you are getting at is that larger sample sizes in most national polls tend to dilute the tendency to badly skewed samples.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Over the last coupld of weeks there has been a mild (and slow) thightening of the race.

As tracking polls tended to go up and down on a daily basis, and the changes were over the long term relatively small, it took some time to determine that the tightening was real, and not just "noise,"

As to the reason(s) for the tightening, there are several which are potential factors, but one which seems to pretty definitely be a factor, i.e. the difference in the candidates current position on energy production.

The Senate Democrats seem to largely have understood that the position of opposing increases in energy production is untenable, while Obama and Pelsi are resolution in there determination that Americans lower their standard of living.

How long will it take Obama to realize that he needs to abandon his 'hairshirt' approach to energy production is likely to harm his candidacy, and change his policy?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Can Conservatives please explain why an all American war hero is losing in the polls to a man with a middle name Hussein?

Believe me, Alcon is NOT a conservative!

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What controversy?  I want to know what you are talking about because I really don't know how you came up with that retort.

I enjoyed Garfield, as I had a cat (or more accurately, I was his valet in his opinion) who knew what time it was for me to come home from work, and that I preferred entering through the kitchen, and would get on top of the refrigerator, and pounce on me when I entered.

Oh, and he was an all black cat that I got as a kitten, who named himself (Zorro) by leaving his mark.

I still miss him.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While there has been some notice that summer polls tend to be substandard, the real wacky ones tend to come from August.

So, expect some really strange polls the next couple of weeks.

Oh, how I really miss Mason-Dixon.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!

[CARLHAYDEN]

.[/quote]

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.
[/quote]

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!
[/quote]

Kinda funny because I worked at Hudson, which is not known as a stronghold of leftist thought. It was mostly people who actually knew facts

A. About the situation, other than "OMG a country has Russian troops marching in, Hitler has come back from the dead, appeasement, Chamblerain, look how smart I am, I am making reference to historical events I don't understand"

B. About our military options and lack thereof

C. The position of every other country in the world which thought that the Georgians started it and would not have backed a President McCain in support of Georgia.

I'm not an advocate for appeasement. There is however a time and place to fight and a time and place not to. As a practical matter there is nothing the US can do about Georgia. It is within Russia's sphere of influence, and if Russia wants to occupy there is nothing we can do. Should we have threatened nuclear war with Russia when they moved into Hungary in 1956? Was Eisenhower engaging in appeasement when he stood back? If McCain had been President during the Cold War we might have stood against aggression all cases, but you and I would be dead right now because McCain would have blown the world to kingdom come over Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, or Cuba.

For a President I have something I call the Cuban Missile Crisis test. The question is if blank were President in 1962, would we be dead, red, or safe in bed. With McCain, he seems determined to prove to me and everyone else that we would end up dead. With Obama, he strikes me as the person who would talk to Khrushchev and realize that this crisis is not worth destroying the planet.

 Furthermore, McCain has no idea of how he would actually go about standing up to aggression. Notice he talks about how we have to stand up, but he has no suggestions on how we actually could have done anything. All he suggests is that kick Russia out of the G8. First of all that would never happen because Europe would not go along. Second, if McCain succeeded, all he would do is destroy the G8, which is influential because it includes the world's major powers.

CarlHayden, not to mean any offense, but how would you have "stood up against aggression" in this case? We have heard a lot of posters urging us to do so, and a lot of attacks on those of us who feel this is domestic posturing as appeasers, so what actions would you recommend us taking.

And if we are not actually able to take any effective action, wouldn't John McCain's ultimatum to Russia end up humiliating the United States if McCain talked a big game but then had to back down because he was incapable of doing anything?
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

 
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.


[/quote]
[/quote]
Did any of those Eastern European nations actually do anything? No. And quite frankly, the fact that we were arming Georgia is a major reason why Putin felt the need to punish them. There is no amount of armerments short of nukes that we could give to Georgia that would stop Russia from doing what it likes with them if it really wanted to. If Georgia had had 500 tanks instead of 200 it would might have let them hang on for another day against Russia's 6000. I have thought through this suggestion, and I have taken into account matters of scale, something that none of its proponents have done.

As to your point that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. It is not right, it is not moral, and is not something we should be happy about, but Russia can pretty much do whatever it likes in the Caucuses and we can't do damn thing about it if they really want to.

If Russia had moved against the Ukraine or Poland the situation would be different. Both could be armed to the point where they could resist Russian aggression. But arguing that we could arm Georgia to that point is like arguing that the Soviet Union could have armed Grenada to the point where it could have resisted a US attack. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviets could have caused trouble elseware(ie. Berlin) but they concluded(correctly) that it was not worth it. Would you have argued that Soviets stand up to US aggression in Grenada in 1983? Of Course not because there was nothing they could reasonably do. Ditto for us.

Secondly, appeasement is a meaningless word, thrown around by people who just want to score political points or lack the capcity for critical thought. The problem with what Chamberlain did was not sitting down with his enemy per se, but sitting down with an enemy who was irrational and could not be reasoned with. He made the same mistake you are making, and McCain is making. He fought the last war.

The greatest experience of Chamberlain's life had been the first world war where one fourth of the youth of England had been slaughtered for no reason. Had Prime Minister Asquith proposed a conference of European Heads of State in Munich in August of 1914, 20 million lives would have been saved. What Chamberlain did not grasp was that what was the right policy in 1914 was the wrong policy in 1938, and people couldn't reason with Hitler.

Putin is not Hitler. He is doing nothing in Georgia that no other rational Russian leader would do. Any Russian leader is going to view Georgia as being within their sphere of influence, and is not going to take kindly to Georgia allying with Russia's enemies and arming itself. Putin has no desire to conquer or run Georgia. He simply wants Georgia to act like a small country on Russia's borders. The US giving them arms, as you have suggested they do, only forces Putin, or any other Russian leader to make an example of them.

Without a doubt, Austria-Hungary was the agressor against Serbia and started World War I. But to say that the Serbs had their own house in order is insane. They did a whole lot to provoke what they got. Yeah, they had legitimate nationalist motives for wanting to retake Bosnia, but it was still provocation. And Saashkivali is not some paragon of virtue. He rigged his last election, throws journalists in prison, and shut down all the independent TV stations in his country. In fact he is a mirror image of Putin domestically.
[/quote]

First, did the nations which I (and now you, cited) oh yes, you previously said the did not exist, have the missles to provide to Georgia?  Since they did not, could that explain why they acted as they did?  Or it that concept to difficult for you, an advocate of appeasement? 

Oh, and thanks for finally admitting you are an advocate of appeasement.

Now, apparently you are grossly ignorant of Russian combat capabilities, and have a mistaken notion that short of nuclear war they are unstoppable.  The truth is that with the antitank and antiaircraft missles I have repeatedly cited, the Russians could not have sucessfully conquired Georgia, which is what they are doing right now!

Finally, your defense of Putin is not unexpected!  Let me hear your defense of the bank robbery by the Russians covered by The Sun as another example of what you approve and defend.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am advocate of treating every situation on its own merits, which is something so-called Hawks are incapable of. If suggesting that it might have made sense for the Kaiser, Asquith, Franz Josef and the Czar to sit down in 1914 so the senseless slaughter of millions, and the holocaust and other slaughters that emanated from that one did not happen, is appeasement then appeasement in certain cases is the only policy a rational human being could support. Why, because you presume that every fight has an aggressor to be resisted, which is far from true.

Second, no amount of anti-tank missiles is going to allow 18,000 Georgians stand up against 200,000 Russians. The numbers are far too skewed. In fact, the 18,000 Georgians are armed with top of the line Israeli weaponry, and that was how they did last as long as they did. The Russians are not unstoppable, they are unstoppable by Georgia alone, just as in 1940, the Germans were unstoppable by Denmark. And really, the net result of allowing them to slow down tank forces would simply have been increased Russian airstrikes. Finally the Georgians were at a disadvantage because the local people supported Russia and hitting them from the rear.

As to my defense of Putin if you can call it that, you Carlhayden, if you were Russian, would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia. Why? because it is the natural position of any Russian leader not to tolerate small countries on your borders aligning with your enemies. We joined World War I because Germany was playing games in Mexico. Was our invasion of Mexico in 1916 an aggression to be resisted. Rather than thinking seriously about any of this you gives us the same chicken hawk platitudes about "appeasement" or "resisting aggression" that we get from people who know nothing about the conflict or war in general.

In regards to your herring about Russian troops, I will no more defend the behavior of drunken Russian conscripts in Georgia than I will defend the raping and killings carried out by professional American trained Georgian troops in South Ossetia. Bad stuff happens in war, especially when ethnic hatred is involved.

Please watch this video to get an idea of how unclear it is who the aggressors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

First, you have the same solution to all situations of agression, i.e. appeasement.

Second, you invariably look hard to find any flaw in the victims of agression, even if manufactured propaganda, to find an excuse to sanction the agression. 

Third, since you are a self-proclaimed expert in military capabilities, perhaps you will be so kind as to provide a brief explanation of your military service.

Fourth, you engage in another liberal stupdity when you proclaim that "of you were a Russain (you) would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia."  Do you get to this conclusion from "channeling" a la Edwards, or simply make it up, as seems to be the case with so much you post.

Fifth, did you fail to note that in addition to antitank missles, I also specified SAMs, or did you decide to omit that when asserting that stopping the Russian tanks would allow you to assert they would simply use aircraft.  Oh, and perhaps you haven't heard, but, they are using aircraft for strikes, even with the tanks.

Sixth, again you fail to comprehend the armament possessed by the Georgians.  Excellent small arms does not equate high quality antitank and SAMs.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and to correct the false claims of the appeasement advocates here, I suggest reading the following:

The Pain Game
A military response to Russia's aggression?
by Stuart Koehl
08/14/2008 8:15:00 PM

Conventional wisdom has rapidly hardened around the proposition that there is no practical military response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In fact, if the Georgians were inclined to fight, there is quite a lot they could do militarily, and in a way that would not directly involve U.S. or NATO forces. To understand how this military option would work, some background is required.

Most people have been grossly exaggerating Russian military strength and prowess in this exercise, obviously one long in the planning, and actually involving relatively small forces. By all accounts, the Russian "58th Army" has invaded Georgian territory with about 500 tanks and an equal number of infantry fighting vehicles--the equivalent of roughly two armored divisions. That's pretty small beer, really, but adequate to handle a smaller Georgian army largely dispersed to deal with counter-guerrilla operations.

A close examination of video and photos of the Russian force also reveals top of the line equipment--late model T-80 and T-90 main battle tanks, and BMP-2 IFVs. Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for  this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).

From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick. (It should be noted that Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, has been scathing in his assessment of the Russian army's performance in Georgia, so by Western standards even the best of the Russian army would be considered rather mediocre).

The question is how to wear it down. Georgia is a mountainous country, with few good roads and many choke points. A dismounted guerrilla or light infantry force can hold up a road-bound armored force and inflict disproportionate casualties, if properly equipped and led. Unfortunately, the Georgian Army was neither, in this particular instance. Rather, it was trained and equipped the fight the war it had--an insurgency by separatist guerrillas, requiring mostly infantry and small arms. Confronted by tanks and close support aircraft and helicopters, the Georgian forces had little choice but to run.


 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, facts and logic mean nothing to you.

Your answer to all situations is appeasement.

According to you, opposing aggressors will only make them more aggressive.

According to you, aggressors will always win.

Yes, your adoration of Putin and his thugs is clear.

Oh, and yes, or course, lets see, the Georgians were bayoneting babies (um, that was the British propaganda in WWI).  You will believe anything bad about the Georgians, and dismiss any atrocity by the Russians.

You have indicated absolutely no credentials other than being an unthinking proponent of appeasement.

You have offered no facts, just your misguided opinions.

I expect next you will produce Russian propaganda alledging the Georgians invaded Moscow.

Have you no shame?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You are the most incredibly stupid and ignorant person I have ever encountered on this forum.

You have NO knowledge whatsoever of the facts of the situation, no comprehension of the forces involved, nor any reading comprehension.

I have cited numerous sources, you have cited Utube.

The failure of the west to oppose Russian aggression will open an entirely more dangerous world.

The Chinese now see Russia as a threat which they may have to deal with themselves.

Yes, I know you always apologize for the Russians and always advocate appeasement as a response to their aggression.

Fortunately, the Chinese have a different solution.

So, when war comes, people like you invited it!