The 2008 Presidential Race [Archive] - Page 13

Jujubees2

09-15-2008, 12:46 PM

Palin didn't say any of that.

Hillary said she was in sniper fire when CBS video tape proved otherwise, John Kerry wrote that he was in Cambodia at the time he was actually in Washington DC, and Al Gore was taken out of context when he said he invented the internet.

The personal attacks on Palin don't work, try attacking her on political issues.

For years the Democrats have only won on personality, while the Republicans lose on personality, the Democrats lose on issues, and the Republicans have won on issues.

Now the Republicans are trying to win on personality, so the Democrats have to adopt a new strategy.

What political issues? She spent her entire acceptance speech talking about hockey moms and belittling people who choose to help communities.

YourAmishDaddy

09-15-2008, 12:50 PM

ill take the rezko real estate windfall any day
obama made out real nice on that
he is just like the rest

What are you talking about?

Obama bought a house in which the entire lot was for sale. Rezko bought the remaining piece. Because he wanted a bigger area in his backyard he offered to buy part of the adjacent lot which belonged to Rezko. Which he paid market value for.

So please. When it gets to the point where the nonsense is so deep I have to defend Obama you know it's bad.

But that's what we get in this country. This nation is full of uninformed vegetable voters. Who look at 20 minutes of punditry passed off at news and think they actually know something.

K.C.

09-15-2008, 12:51 PM

What political issues? She spent her entire acceptance speech talking about hockey moms and belittling people who choose to help communities.

Plus, I don't think anyone's said anything more than she's hypocritical in her policy beliefs, and totally unqualified.

Those are pretty political issues.

And besides, I think the so called 'negative personal attacks' are working.

Her ratings have leveled off a bit in the past week.

YourAmishDaddy

09-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Sarah Palin is a joke.

She's George W Bush in a skirt with less talent.

CousinDave

09-15-2008, 01:35 PM

Which is why it's fair to attack everything like this Palin/Iraq story.

When you make your campaign almost solely about character, it's only smart for the opposition to discuss discrepences that challenges one's character.

That's why I said the Democrats have to come up with a new strategy, otherwise they'll just get sandbagged.

There is to much money at stake in the media/advertising establishment for the Obama campaign to collapse like its doing.

There are plenty of real issues, that actually affect people's lives, which McCain & Palin are vulnerable on, even to a weak Democrat candidate like Obama.

I never took the Obama candidacy for anything more than a joke, or at most just an attempt to make people feel good about themselves, and no honest person could take the Obama campaign seriously. Oh the professionals will pretend, for the benefit of bleeding the rubes dry who keep sending their hard earned money as well as the elitists who have money to burn to make themselves feel like they are making a difference, and contribut to the Obama campaign.

Now the Siena College poll (which has a pretty good track record) is showing NY to be in play for McCain. I would still bet on Obama carrying NY, but that means he'll have to spend more resources in NY than he planned to at the expense of states like PA, & MI. Obama's buddy Charlie Rangel isn't helping him in NY. Nancy Pelosi promised to have the most ethical congress ever, turns out to be more lip service from a politician, here Rangel is a big time tax cheat for over a decade, and Pelosi won't remove him from the committee that writes the tax laws - give me a break. Guess what this alone will probably get 2 or 3 more Republicans elected to the House of Representatives, that wouldn't have otherwise.

Now we have financial markets in a mess - guess what the Republicans are going to say this wouldn't have happened but for the Democrats taking control of the congress - not necessarily fair but the Republicans can probably make it stick.

I like divided government, when the government can't get anything done, they can't do any damage. Now the way the Democrats are going, McCain is going to be pushing 400 electoral votes, which will mean for all practical purposes a "mandate" at least that's the way it'll be taken, and the Republicans might just end up with the congress - FUCK! We've seen what happens when one party controls the two elected branches of govt - its a disaster, Clinton's first two years and Bush had what 4 years I think.

This is why the Democrats have Super Delegates, but they were afraid to do the right thing and give the nomination to a qualified candidate. If this race was Hillary & Richardson, I'd feel a lot better. There is still time for the Democrats to dump this zero that is Obama - the Peter Principle kicked in just before this guy went to Columbia - the school not the country.

I like John McCain (even though I'm voting for Bob Barr) and I want him to be President, I would have preferred if he won in 2000, but I just don't want him to have to the political capital to do whatever he wants once in office. While I hate the way the two party system has evolved, it does act as a form of checks and balances, but the Democrats are really screwing this up big time this year.

Zorro

09-15-2008, 01:48 PM

That's why I said the Democrats have to come up with a new strategy, otherwise they'll just get sandbagged.

There is to much money at stake in the media/advertising establishment for the Obama campaign to collapse like its doing.

There are plenty of real issues, that actually affect people's lives, which McCain & Palin are vulnerable on, even to a weak Democrat candidate like Obama.

I never took the Obama candidacy for anything more than a joke, or at most just an attempt to make people feel good about themselves, and no honest person could take the Obama campaign seriously. Oh the professionals will pretend, for the benefit of bleeding the rubes dry who keep sending their hard earned money as well as the elitists who have money to burn to make themselves feel like they are making a difference, and contribut to the Obama campaign.

Now the Siena College poll (which has a pretty good track record) is showing NY to be in play for McCain. I would still bet on Obama carrying NY, but that means he'll have to spend more resources in NY than he planned to at the expense of states like PA, & MI. Obama's buddy Charlie Rangel isn't helping him in NY. Nancy Pelosi promised to have the most ethical congress ever, turns out to be more lip service from a politician, here Rangel is a big time tax cheat for over a decade, and Pelosi won't remove him from the committee that writes the tax laws - give me a break. Guess what this alone will probably get 2 or 3 more Republicans elected to the House of Representatives, that wouldn't have otherwise.

Now we have financial markets in a mess - guess what the Republicans are going to say this wouldn't have happened but for the Democrats taking control of the congress - not necessarily fair but the Republicans can probably make it stick.

I like divided government, when the government can't get anything done, they can't do any damage. Now the way the Democrats are going, McCain is going to be pushing 400 electoral votes, which will mean for all practical purposes a "mandate" at least that's the way it'll be taken, and the Republicans might just end up with the congress - FUCK! We've seen what happens when one party controls the two elected branches of govt - its a disaster, Clinton's first two years and Bush had what 4 years I think.

This is why the Democrats have Super Delegates, but they were afraid to do the right thing and give the nomination to a qualified candidate. If this race was Hillary & Richardson, I'd feel a lot better. There is still time for the Democrats to dump this zero that is Obama - the Peter Principle kicked in just before this guy went to Columbia - the school not the country.

I like John McCain (even though I'm voting for Bob Barr) and I want him to be President, I would have preferred if he won in 2000, but I just don't want him to have to the political capital to do whatever he wants once in office. While I hate the way the two party system has evolved, it does act as a form of checks and balances, but the Democrats are really screwing this up big time this year.

You're voting for Bob Barr and calling other people rubes...Pot meet Kettle

K.C.

09-15-2008, 01:54 PM

Now the Siena College poll (which has a pretty good track record) is showing NY to be in play for McCain.

It's not in play. I can assure you of that.

I would still bet on Obama carrying NY, but that means he'll have to spend more resources in NY than he planned to at the expense of states like PA, & MI. Obama's buddy Charlie Rangel isn't helping him in NY.

He won't waste any resource in New York. Plenty of surrogates to do that.

Now we have financial markets in a mess - guess what the Republicans are going to say this wouldn't have happened but for the Democrats taking control of the congress - not necessarily fair but the Republicans can probably make it stick.

McCain has already said they need to deregulate more in response to today. De-regulate.

He's all ready lost that issue with the public if that's going to be his line.

And bad economic news does absolutely nothing to favor Republicans. They can't win this, or any election on economics, at least in the party's current incarnation.

McCain is going to be pushing 400 electoral votes,

There is no credibility in this statement, and it shows no knowledge of the electoral map.

If McCain wins (and that's a big IF), it would be impresssive if he cracked 300. He stands to pick up no state Kerry carried in 2004 right now.

epo

09-15-2008, 02:08 PM

There are plenty of real issues, that actually affect people's lives, which McCain & Palin are vulnerable on, even to a weak Democrat candidate like Obama.

So we're going to argue this again? Stop being an asshole.

It's the Democratic Party.
He is the nominee of the Democratic Party
We are democrats.
He is a democrat.

When referring to a member of the party as an individual they are a democrat. When you are referring to multiples, they are either Democrats or the Democratic Party.

I realize that showing a minor bit of respect for those that believe that government can do some good is hard for a Bob Barr voter, but I've asked you before to cut it with the backhanded slurs and quit being such a dick.

badmonkey

09-15-2008, 02:37 PM

So we're going to argue this again? Stop being an asshole.

It's the Democratic Party.
He is the nominee of the Democratic Party
We are democrats.
He is a democrat.

When referring to a member of the party as an individual they are a democrat. When you are referring to multiples, they are either Democrats or the Democratic Party.

I realize that showing a minor bit of respect for those that believe that government can do some good is hard for a Bob Barr voter, but I've asked you before to cut it with the backhanded slurs and quit being such a dick.

At least he didn't call him a "Community Organizer"

K.C.

09-15-2008, 02:55 PM

At least he didn't call him a "Community Organizer"

Obama's just.......a little too........COSMOPOLITAN.......for CousinDave

badmonkey

09-15-2008, 03:08 PM

Obama's just.......a little too........COSMOPOLITAN.......for CousinDave

do the worm on the accropolis
slamdance the cosmopolis
enlighten the populace

epo

09-17-2008, 06:10 PM

McCain needs better surrogates:

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26761964#26761964" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

scottinnj

09-21-2008, 05:50 PM

Obama Campaign Laying off Yard Signs and Bumper Stickers (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html)

Barack Obama’s organizers hate them. John McCain’s organizers hate them. It’s because yard signs don’t vote – but they do generate a ridiculous amount of complaining that must be patiently listened to. Until yard signs sprout little legs and go to the polls on Election Day, in a presidential election with universal name recognition they are just a nice little decoration.

They’re little feel good things, making you feel like you’re on the team. There is nothing wrong with that – that’s not the objection. The objection is that there is limited time for organizers to accomplish a wide array of prioritized tasks, and in this election they’ve chosen to prioritize identifying, registering, persuading and getting their voters to the polls. Yard signs cut into the organizer’s sleep time – literally.

A lot of people aren’t going to like hearing this truth, but organizers recognize that the majority of people who walk into offices for yard signs are, for volunteering purposes – and this is a technical term – useless. In the majority, these people are not going to knock, they’re not going to make phone calls. Instead, they are going to throw the organizer’s incredibly precious, sleep-deprived time down a bottomless abyss of irretrievability

NewYorkDragons80

09-21-2008, 07:01 PM

Obama Campaign Laying off Yard Signs and Bumper Stickers (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html)

On a similar note, I bought an "Arab-Americans for McCain" button off his website for the sheer irony of it.

epo

09-22-2008, 04:00 AM

Obama Campaign Laying off Yard Signs and Bumper Stickers (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html)

This is such a generational election in about a million ways and this is only the tip of the iceberg. I can't tell you how many older people I've heard bitch about yard signs and have had to redirect to the local office or to mybarackobama.com.

It's a totally different way of doing business. I think the Obama people are right and eventually a line had to be draw. That being said...I'm not sure this was the election to do it as Obama's numbers with 60+ are the thing that is holding him back from ending this thing.

epo

09-22-2008, 05:43 PM

CNN Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/republicans-blamed-obama-gains-over-financial-crisis/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks — one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain in the race for the White House.

In the new survey, released Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned say Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market, with 24 percent saying Democrats are more responsible. One in five of those polled blame both parties equally, and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

scottinnj

09-22-2008, 06:59 PM

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

Honestly? Yes. Definetly.

Now ask me how do I feel about the next year or two.

Veeeerrrrrrryyyyyyy nervous.

And I know this is a bipartisan fiasco, and there is plenty to spread around. But this is a pretty damning piece (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/) from a fellow conservative regarding the Bush presidency:

The presidency of George W. Bush illustrates the point. In 2001, President Bush took command of a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, he has substantially increased the size of that apparatus, which during his tenure has displayed breathtaking ineptitude both at home and abroad. Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year. Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion.

Also this:

In the defining moment of his presidency, rather than summoning Americans to rally to their country, he validated conspicuous consumption as the core function of 21st-century citizenship

epo

09-22-2008, 07:04 PM

Honestly? Yes. Definetly.

Now ask me how do I feel about the next year or two.

Veeeerrrrrrryyyyyyy nervous.

And I know this is a bipartisan fiasco, and there is plenty to spread around. But this is a pretty damning piece (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/) from a fellow conservative regarding the Bush presidency:

There are plenty of people who do answer yes...but the issue for McCain is that many, many Americans aren't. At a time such as now must of America would honestly answer no to that question.

Most people our age would answer yes, but we are moving into newer levels of our careers...but if that had stagnated, it could be rough.

Unemployment up, housing mess, financial markets in chaos, personal & federal debt up, the dollar declining.

scottinnj

09-22-2008, 07:10 PM

Unemployment up, housing mess, financial markets in chaos, personal & federal debt up, the dollar declining.

There's the key. Not everyone is familiar with the sexy details on how OPEC and Big Oil have been gouging us and manipulating prices.

But everyone knows how a mortgage works, whether you own a house or not. And this country's biggest investment-housing-is going to shit and that frightens everyone!

Edit:
This housing/mortgage fiasco is different then the S & L scandal of the late 80s. If you have a mortgage, chances are your note has been sold at least once in the last 8 years. Back then, you saw the mess on TV, but it didn't affect you because your money was safe in your local bank.
Now you're seeing the mortgage company holding your deed and the insurance company covering your property going under due to very fatal business decisions-all at the behest of the federal government. And that shakes confidence in all aspects of the market.

thejives

09-22-2008, 07:34 PM

I know a one year old down's baby named after 70s hair band Van Halen desperately trying to tutor his brunette bombshell mom on separation of powers.

CousinDave

09-22-2008, 11:42 PM

CNN Poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/republicans-blamed-obama-gains-over-financial-crisis/)

Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

Very few people could honestly answer this question and say No, most people are better off now than they were 8 years ago, but because of higher energy prices, the occupation of Iraq, failure of govt agencies, recent economic turmoil, etc... people are answering no, even though their own lives are mostly unchanged, or changed for the better, very few are worse off - no more than would always be the case statistically.

The better questions that should be asked.

Is the country better off now than it was 8 years ago - the answer is No

Is the country better off now than it was 2 years ago - the answer is No.

Will the country be better off in 4 years if McCain is elected President? _________

Will the country be better off in 4 years if Obama is elected President? _________

I think Bush just being gone will be a good thing, the people lost confidence in him years ago.

GreatAmericanZero

09-23-2008, 04:25 AM

I think Bush just being gone will be a good thing, the people lost confidence in him years ago.

you can say that, but i believe that John McCain is just going to continue with the "Republican agenda". I think thats all Bush was doing, he isn't the smartest man, and he put republican people in charge of everything. McCain will choose the same type of people. His choice of Sarah Palin as VP shows this more than anything

And don't give me that "he will work with the other party bullshit". Remember Bush's "Im a uniter, not a divider" line of horseshit?

PhilDeez

09-23-2008, 04:46 AM

And don't give me that "he will work with the other party bullshit". Remember Bush's "Im a uniter, not a divider" line of horseshit?

McCain actually has a history of doing just that, so I don't think its fair to compare him to Bush in that regard.

epo

09-23-2008, 05:18 AM

McCain actually has a history of doing just that, so I don't think its fair to compare him to Bush in that regard.

That 91% voting record with Bush doesn't help McCain in this regard. Remember that the Obama campaign has done a very good job of crushing the "maverick" label and has made the name "McSame" partially stick.

foodcourtdruide

09-23-2008, 05:26 AM

McCain actually has a history of doing just that, so I don't think its fair to compare him to Bush in that regard.

Do you think there's a difference between pre-2004 John McCain and this current version?

A.J.

09-23-2008, 05:28 AM

"McSame"

Fucking starving. Is that a new McDonald's sandwich?

PhilDeez

09-23-2008, 06:24 PM

That 91% voting record with Bush doesn't help McCain in this regard. Remember that the Obama campaign has done a very good job of crushing the "maverick" label and has made the name "McSame" partially stick.

I agree, but on the same hand, Obama can not present himself any differently based on his voting record. All of this is fine if they both would just say this is how it is going to be, I am liberal or I am conservative. I fault them both for pandering to the middle. However, McCain, despite the 91% voting record with Bush, can actually state he has a record of going against his own party and working with the opposition over a long period of time. Obama can not do the same.

CousinDave

09-23-2008, 10:05 PM

Nov 5th will be an interesting day with the Clintons clean house. I have a feeling Howard Dean will have left the country before election, Bill Richardson is going to be the loneliest Democrat in America, Barack will still just be a joke. The Clintons will control the party for the rest of their lives.

epo

09-24-2008, 04:21 AM

AKA

09-24-2008, 06:56 AM

epo

09-28-2008, 07:29 AM

foodcourtdruide

09-29-2008, 05:57 AM

Next week's cover of Newsweek:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/COOL-1.jpg

I think it's interesting how the demeanor these candidates is so different. McCain by his nature seems to be a hothead and that can be good & bad.

I think the Obama level-headed thing is completely interesting because of the element of race. He seems to understand that is race is a problem, so he appears to be trying very hard not to be the "angry black guy".

During the debate on Friday I thought McCain tried to do a bit of prodding to attempt to piss Obama off and try to get him mad...but it didn't work.

This is why it always makes me laugh when people act like Obama somehow has it easy because he's black. I think not acknowledging Obama has had a difficult, admirable uphill battle to be where he is today is as idiotic as not acknowledging McCain's heroism during the Vietnam war.

AKA

09-29-2008, 11:33 AM

This is why it always makes me laugh when people act like Obama somehow has it easy because he's black. I think not acknowledging Obama has had a difficult, admirable uphill battle to be where he is today is as idiotic as not acknowledging McCain's heroism during the Vietnam war.

You would think McCain and the Bush people running his campaign would have taken away some lessons from Hillary Clinton during the primaries - it was much more than being about her being a woman - the real lesson should have been that thi sis a CHANGE year, and it's tough to pivot to that when you started the campaign off as the experience candidate.

After she got thumped in those early caucus votes, she immediately changed her tone from that of the presumptive nominee, to one who was just soooo honored to share a stage with Barack. Of course, when that didn't work, she flipped it back into trying to become the good ol' girl.

McCain, with his 13 cars and 5 houses, somehow has the Everyman thing down, but I think by the next debate we will (a) see Obama agreeing less with McCain and (b) McCain suddenly warmer and more gracious, and even happy to share the stage with this historic candidate. That's not going to work either, and by Debate Three it will be Blitzkrieg Negative Nancy McCain, which will be the tone until the very end.

I privately think this thing may now officially be over for him, but October isn't here yet and I'm sure someone has a surprise they are ready to share with us.

TooLowBrow

09-29-2008, 01:11 PM

I privately think this thing may now officially be over for him, but October isn't here yet and I'm sure someone has a surprise they are ready to share with us.

i think the republicans surprise will turn out to be this crashing economy. theyll try to paint the picture that a spending democrat is the worst thing for a country that needs to save and make money

scottinnj

09-29-2008, 01:21 PM

epo

09-29-2008, 03:56 PM

Today's financial crisis told me everything I need to know about these two candidates of ours. With the House mess going on here are the responses from the candidates via CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/obama-says-stay-calm-mccain-camp-slams-democrats/):

From Senator Obama:

Obama told voters at a campaign event in Denver, Colorado, that it's important to "stay calm, because things are never smooth in Congress."

"There are going to be some bumps and trials and tribulations and ups and downs before we get this rescue package done," he said. "I'm confident that we are going to get there, but it's going to be a little rocky."

From McCain's camp:

Earlier, McCain's campaign accused Obama and Democrats of injecting politics into the American economy.

"From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Sens. Obama and [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others.

.........................

"Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill. ... This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Holtz-Eakin said.

So at the end of the day...who has the level-head and who is the amateur? It sure in the hell looks like one of these two is ready to be a leader.

thejives

09-29-2008, 04:16 PM

The real lesson: McCain can't deliver votes. He's so much of a maverick his own party won't listen to its standard bearer. He can't lead.

celery

10-01-2008, 09:13 AM

My mom just sent this to me. I hate living in Virginia sometimes:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/conservative.liberty.university/index.html?iref=newssearch

starvingkids

10-01-2008, 10:34 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/30/pallone.obama.sign.cf13

A.J.

10-01-2008, 10:37 AM

My mom just sent this to me. I hate living in Virginia sometimes:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/conservative.liberty.university/index.html?iref=newssearch

Me too. But not just because of this story.

NewYorkDragons80

10-01-2008, 01:55 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/30/pallone.obama.sign.cf13

Some guy with a (possibly) racist misspelled 8x10 homemade sign on his lawn is news?

IMSlacker

10-01-2008, 02:22 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/30/pallone.obama.sign.cf13

I could swear that old guy said "look what he's doing to Paul Lynde!"

KnoxHarrington

10-01-2008, 03:09 PM

So the latest example of "gotcha journalism" that the McCain campaign is so up in arms about is the fact that Gwen Ifill, the moderator for tomorrow night's VP debate, has written a book about Barack Obama. They claim that they didn't know, and debate organizers should have told them.

They have a point. I mean, after all, they would have had to actually get on Amazon.com to find the book.

But one didn't have to go the lengths of oppo research to find out about a book that was hiding in plain sight on Amazon and the Random house website.

Not to mention, Ifill discussed it with Howard Kurtz last month in the Washington Post, in the only profile she's done before the debate. (And I'd imagine someone in the campaign should have read it).

To the extent she can carve out any spare time, Ifill is working on a book called "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." She focuses on the Democratic nominee and such up-and-coming black politicians as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker.

"We're very lazy when we think about race in this country," Ifill says. "We try to put it in a box. It's Jesse versus Al, or Jesse and Al versus everyone else," she says, referring to Jackson and Sharpton. "We love simplistic conflict. There's a whole group of people who have Ivy League degrees and immense accomplishments who actually benefited from the things their parents were fighting for."

It's just another case of the McCain campaign trying to excuse a major fuck-up by attacking the media. Judging by the polls, though, it's not working.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081001/pl_politico/22742;_ylt=AoYDi4gIx0O7IRVcN1uJMaus0NUE

epo

10-01-2008, 03:15 PM

Tactically Ifill is a problem for McCain as her gender takes away a HUGE excuse for Palin sucking balls.

NewYorkDragons80

10-01-2008, 03:23 PM

If this debate goes south, Palin needs to claim the media attacks on her daughter and the affair allegations have damaged her family, and step aside for Bobby Jindal.

epo

10-01-2008, 03:51 PM

If this debate goes south, Palin needs to claim the media attacks on her daughter and the affair allegations have damaged her family, and step aside for Bobby Jindal.

My only question about that scenario would be about damaging Jindal. If the Republicans want to run Jindal in '12 or '16, then would you want him associated with this election?

My thought would be no.

epo

10-01-2008, 04:18 PM

A VP Drinking Game for those interested. (http://www.debatedrink.com/images/vpDebateLowres.pdf)

GreatAmericanZero

10-01-2008, 04:24 PM

A VP Drinking Game for those interested. (http://www.debatedrink.com/images/vpDebateLowres.pdf)

there will be another drinking/viewing thread for the VP debate. absolutely

KnoxHarrington

10-01-2008, 04:57 PM

Tactically Ifill is a problem for McCain as her gender takes away a HUGE excuse for Palin sucking balls.

Yeah, I'm guessing that's the real reason for this. It's hard to believe they didn't do any checking on her, so they probably sat on this nugget in case they decided she needed to go.

I mean, it's been interviews with women -- Katie Couric, especially, but Barbara Walters and the View panel as well -- that's really started to undo the Cult of Sarah.

epo

10-01-2008, 07:18 PM

There is some really intriguing data from the latest Time/CNN polling. Link here. (http://thepage.time.com/more-on-the-timecnn-polls/)

Long-story short, McCain has lost voters making less than $50K per year. The Republican Party has made a living off of those "blue-collar" voters for the last 30 years and they've finally lost them. This would explain why McCain & Palin mentioned the phrase "joe six-pack" at every turn today.

This situation isn't necessarily McCain's fault, but rather he just might be the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. He'll likely now pay for the sins of the Republican Party for the last 30 years.

The irony is that he might have been the only republican candidate who could have insulated himself from the destiny train if he had stayed true to the 2000-branded McCain. It's kind of a tragedy in many ways.

Edit: Here is an additional piece to this point. Bush's approval ratings have dropped to 22% in the latest ABC polling (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5920248&page=1). But here is the killer:

McCain's problem: Fifty-three percent of registered voters think he'd lead the country in the same direction as Bush, inching back up over a majority.

Sorry Senator McCain, but you are fucked.

Sinestro

10-01-2008, 07:42 PM

What are you talking about. No one messes with a maverick. He took on his own party, the democrats and he'll lay the smack down on all the naysayers putting country first.

epo

10-01-2008, 07:48 PM

What are you talking about. No one messes with a maverick. He took on his own party, the democrats and he'll lay the smack down on all the naysayers putting country first.

Do you smell what the Barack is cooking?

NewYorkDragons80

10-01-2008, 08:12 PM

My only question about that scenario would be about damaging Jindal. If the Republicans want to run Jindal in '12 or '16, then would you want him associated with this election?

My thought would be no.

Possibly. From Jindal's standpoint, the whole thing could be tainted at that point. However, Jindal could also say he did it for the good of his party and none of it was his fault. I just hope Palin can give straight answers tomorrow night and not do anything stupid. Then when McCain wins, Palin can make a graceful exit after a few months and Jindal can be groomed to run for President in '12 after McCain serves his term. More likely, however, would be for Lieberman, Bloomberg, or some other centrist to assume the VP after McCain wins. To answer your question, though, anybody who joins the McCain ticket at this point shouldn't and won't be blamed for what happened with Palin.

What Jindal should be worried about is 1) Catholic or not, his name is Piyush Jindal and he's trying to win over Republicans nationwide 2) He's an Ivy League grad and a Rhodes scholar and I hope I'm wrong to worry that that could breed resentment in my own party

scottinnj

10-01-2008, 08:18 PM

Do you smell what the Barack is cooking?

http://bigcrow.files.wordpress.com/2006/07/booo.gif

Sorry dude, usually you're on your game. But that one made me cringe.

scottinnj

10-01-2008, 08:21 PM

BTW:

If Obama wins, how many of you can make the inauguration ceremony? I'm probably going to take the day off and head down there with my kids-be present in one of the greatest historical moments in American history.

Who's with me? It'd be a great chance to meet, shake hands and place faces with our nutty board names.

thejives

10-01-2008, 08:22 PM

I know a folksy brunette typing "supreme court" into her yahoo search bar...

epo

10-01-2008, 08:27 PM

Sorry dude, usually you're on your game. But that one made me cringe.

But he taunted me with the "smack down" line!

Haha. Alright...it sucked.

epo

10-01-2008, 08:29 PM

NewYorkDragons80

10-01-2008, 08:29 PM

http://bigcrow.files.wordpress.com/2006/07/booo.gif

Sorry dude, usually you're on your game. But that one made me cringe.

I couldn't make eye contact with my computer screen after reading it

scottinnj

10-01-2008, 08:46 PM

Gotta win the thing first......

Just looking ahead, and hoping for an excuse in January to take a personal day or two.

scottinnj

10-01-2008, 08:50 PM

Possibly. From Jindal's standpoint, the whole thing could be tainted at that point. However, Jindal could also say he did it for the good of his party and none of it was his fault. I just hope Palin can give straight answers tomorrow night and not do anything stupid. Then when McCain wins, Palin can make a graceful exit after a few months and Jindal can be groomed to run for President in '12 after McCain serves his term. More likely, however, would be for Lieberman, Bloomberg, or some other centrist to assume the VP after McCain wins. To answer your question, though, anybody who joins the McCain ticket at this point shouldn't and won't be blamed for what happened with Palin.

What Jindal should be worried about is 1) Catholic or not, his name is Piyush Jindal and he's trying to win over Republicans nationwide 2) He's an Ivy League grad and a Rhodes scholar and I hope I'm wrong to worry that that could breed resentment in my own party

Right now, Jindal would be a great replacement for McCain's sake if Palin drags the campaign down any further with the VP debate. But for Jindal's sake, I hope if the scenario does play through, he says "no" for his own credibility for future possible White House runs.

scottinnj

10-01-2008, 09:03 PM

But he taunted me with the "smack down" line!

Haha. Alright...it sucked.

Don't mess with the bombs. Only trained EOD personnel have the qualifications to defuse a stinker like the one Sinestro dropped on us.

http://www.popamericana.com/!/Bombs%20Away.jpg

And if you ever see her running, catch up.

NewYorkDragons80

10-02-2008, 03:29 AM

Don't mess with the bombs. Only trained EOD personnel have the qualifications to defuse a stinker like the one Sinestro dropped on us.

http://www.popamericana.com/!/Bombs%20Away.jpg

And if you ever see her running, catch up.

For every one of her, there are 50 that look like Judy Greer's military escort at the beginning of Three Kings

foodcourtdruide

10-02-2008, 05:39 AM

2) He's an Ivy League grad and a Rhodes scholar and I hope I'm wrong to worry that that could breed resentment in my own party

How could you not be embarrassed to be a republican after making this statement? How on Earth is education a bad thing?!

NewYorkDragons80

10-02-2008, 07:15 AM

How could you not be embarrassed to be a republican after making this statement? How on Earth is education a bad thing?!

I don't think education is a bad thing. I see a Rhodes scholarship as an asset, but there's an issue of the ability to connect with some voters that I recognize. It's not too big of a leap from attacking urbanites as "elite" or counting houses and cars. I agree with most Republicans tenets, but I acknowledge that people who vote the same way I do might be voting for somebody for completely different reasons than I am. I don't think a coal miner in PA is voting for Obama because of his stance on gay rights.

GreatAmericanZero

10-02-2008, 04:28 PM

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38597

check out this clip from the simpsons halloween! funny shit

epo

10-03-2008, 11:52 AM

The state of the race is getting bad for Camp McCain as today's employment reports came out and they are bleak (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/obama-seizes-on-bleak-jobs-report/).

The news was bad. The economy lost 159,000 jobs in September, more than double the losses in August and July and the worst monthly drop in five years, according to the Labor Department. It was also the ninth straight month of job losses.

The Obama campaign is of course cashing in:

“I wonder if she turned on the news this morning,” Mr. Obama said, improvising from his prepared remarks at a rally here in Abington, north of Philadelphia.

“So when Senator McCain and his running mate talk about job killing, that’s something they know a thing or two about,” Mr. Obama said. “Because the policies they’ve supported and are supporting are killing jobs every single day.”

As the infamous James Carville told us, "Its about the economy, stupid." Unless we've got a serious "October surprise" on the horizon, this race is just about over.

KnoxHarrington

10-04-2008, 11:10 AM

Jesus, how desperate are McCain supporters getting?

One of the most stinging lines from Thursday's debate was from Biden, who called Cheney the most dangerous VP in American history. So the rebuttal?

Don't forget Aaron Burr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_burr) He actually did kill a dude!

I wish I was making this up, but here you go:

The New York Post reviews "The Lies Biden Told" in Thursday's debate. It's not a complete list, but it's a good summary of Biden's main fibs. Most entertaining, though, is the Post's history lesson:

For all the focus on Sarah Palin's graceful performance in Thursday's vice presidential showdown, a more significant spectacle was taking place behind the other rostrum.

That's where Joe Biden, speaking with the pompus self-importance befitting his 36 years in the Senate, told one baffling fib after another.

Some, of course, were just Biden being Biden. He smeared Dick Cheney as "the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history."

To which we must take specific offense: After all, the founder of this newspaper, Alexander Hamilton, was killed in a duel by then-Vice President Aaron Burr. (Certainly Burr was a better shot than Cheney.)

I'll include the link in case you think I must be shitting you, but I ask you not give the piece of shit site this comes from a click.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021686.php

NewYorkDragons80

10-04-2008, 01:23 PM

thejives

10-04-2008, 03:16 PM

Democrats overusing superlatives is part of what kept Bush's base at his beckoning call for 8 years, so you should be careful of overdoing it.

Or how about this.

How about supposed "Bull Moose" republicans speak out against a VP nominee who wants more power than Cheney.

AKA

10-04-2008, 05:32 PM

That hasn't happened in awhile...!:drunk::drunk:

AKA

10-04-2008, 05:36 PM

Democrats overusing superlatives is part of what kept Bush's base at his beckoning call for 8 years, so you should be careful of overdoing it.

Yeah, thank God Republicans never, ever, ever do that...

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee294/sss1977/15.jpg

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/87/7c/b16a7220eca0ad34708d9010._AA240_.L.jpg

http://www.thecommentary.ca/images/books/Coulter.jpg

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/09/11/283930/LUMBfrontcoversmall.jpg

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/anncgodless2.jpg

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/hetu/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/jonah1.jpg

But, seriously - I can think of about 20 different reasons why the GOP fell into line with Bush before I got to blaming the Democrats overusing superlatives. Republicans need to nut-up and own their fucking mistake instead of throwing their hands up like they had no brain - it's as limp dicked as the responses from the House Republicans that Nancy Pilosi hurt their feelings.

scottinnj

10-04-2008, 06:56 PM

Don't forget Aaron Burr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_burr) He actually did kill a dude!

Well, by a caliber comparison, I guess you could go with Burr. He used a Wogdon & Barton .58 caliber flintlock pistol.

Cheney used birdshot.

At 20 paces, I'd rather get hit by birdshot.

Therefore, Burr is more dangerous.

high fly

10-04-2008, 09:19 PM

Jesus, how desperate are McCain supporters getting?

One of the most stinging lines from Thursday's debate was from Biden, who called Cheney the most dangerous VP in American history. So the rebuttal?

Don't forget Aaron Burr! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_burr) He actually did kill a dude!

Yeah, but Burr didn't like the guy he shot.
Cheney shot his friend!

Have you read the exerpts from the upcoming book, Angler in the Washington Post?

"Whatta" Dick Cheney was sneaking around, setting interrogation policy which abrogated the law for months before Bush found out, and that was when he had a bunch of top people at Justice about to reign in protest.
I heard the author interviewd the other night, and he said Cheney brought in "Tiny" Dick Armey for a secret briefing on Iraq to get Armey to change his mind and support the invasion.
Armey told him that Cheney said Saddam had family tes with al Qaeda, and was well on the way to developing suitcase nukes, so Armey flip-flopped and supported the "cakewalk."

epo

10-10-2008, 05:43 PM

Thank God Betty White of all people can add a bit of levity to this year's race:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TxL7MKsGoPo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TxL7MKsGoPo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

celery

10-17-2008, 10:44 AM

epo

10-17-2008, 10:56 AM

Barack Obama for President (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html)
Isn't it strange that newspapers officially endorse presidential candidates? How can they do this and still claim to impartially report the news? I've never understood this.

The thought is that the endorsement of a candidate or issue is done by the editorial staff of the paper, not the reporting staff.

If the wall exists, then the endorsement is still seen as impartial. Hence the reason the endorsement appears on the opinion page.

IMSlacker

10-17-2008, 12:25 PM

The Chicago Tribune endorses a Democrat for president (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story) for the first time ever.

GreatAmericanZero

10-17-2008, 12:44 PM

scottinnj

10-17-2008, 01:28 PM

The Chicago Tribune endorses a Democrat for president (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story) for the first time ever.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008.

The Tribune and I seem to think alike. I like this endorsement and love the call to GOP roots of controlled spending and equality The Tribune seems to be telling Republicans to return to.

scottinnj

10-17-2008, 01:30 PM

The thought is that the endorsement of a candidate or issue is done by the editorial staff of the paper, not the reporting staff.

If the wall exists, then the endorsement is still seen as impartial. Hence the reason the endorsement appears on the opinion page.

Agreed. My paper's endorsement, while it has never affected my vote, is very important for me to know.

TheMojoPin

10-17-2008, 08:24 PM

Barack Obama for President (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html)

Isn't it strange that newspapers officially endorse presidential candidates? How can they do this and still claim to impartially report the news? I've never understood this.

American newspapers have been endorsing political candidates since literally day one of this nation's existence. How it's done now is incredibly restrained and tame compared to back in the day.

Ritalin

10-17-2008, 09:11 PM

The Chicago Tribune endorses a Democrat for president (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story) for the first time ever.

yeah but hes from chicago so its not surprising...

You could say that but it's not really the case. Again, the Trib hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President ever.

If anybody knows about Ayers, ACORN, votes in his state legislature and whatever other nonsense you'd like to dig, they would know it first hand.

Willmore

10-17-2008, 09:12 PM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-western-pennsylvania.html

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

Hillarious. By the way, fivethirtyeight.com is the best site for poll number analysis and projections.

TheMojoPin

10-17-2008, 09:21 PM

You could say that but it's not really the case. Again, the Trib hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President ever.

If anybody knows about Ayers, ACORN, votes in his state legislature and whatever other nonsense you'd like to dig, they would know it first hand.

And both the Trib and the Sun-Times have been trying hard to find anything to stick to Obama for the last 4 years. Papers want the juicy, scandalous stuff because it sells.

GreatAmericanZero

10-17-2008, 09:25 PM

You could say that but it's not really the case. Again, the Trib hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President ever.

thats why i question "the liberal media"

every city i ever heard of has the liberal paper and the conservative paper

NY has the NY times (liberal) and the NY Post and Newday (conservative)

DC has the Washington Post (Liberal) and the Washington times (conservative)

Chicago has the Chicago Sun-Times (liberal) and Chicago Tribune (conservative)

the choice seems to be there for whatever americans choose

TooLowBrow

10-17-2008, 09:28 PM

GreatAmericanZero

10-17-2008, 09:30 PM

the ny post and newsday are written like scholastic for kids

perhaps...but im a college graduate and i'm bored out of my mind reading the NY Times. Plus, i can't figure out how to fold it, and its so annoying to read that paper that i pick up the NY post over it all the time

both have its negative and positives...but the choice has always been there to the consumer

TooLowBrow

10-17-2008, 09:32 PM

perhaps...but im a college graduate and i'm bored out of my mind reading the NY Times. Plus, i can't figure out how to fold it, and its so annoying to read that paper that i pick up the NY post over it all the time

both have its negative and positives...but the choice has always been there to the consumer

i love the post! its like a comic book of off the wall stories, then... the EDITORIALS!!! ah, heaven

Jujubees2

10-18-2008, 03:58 AM

the ny post and newsday are written like scholastic for kids

Yeah, but Newsday has color comics every day!

NewYorkDragons80

10-18-2008, 05:09 AM

By the way, since when is Newsday conservative?

I read the Times because it's the only American paper with an international section worth mentioning. I liked the Sun too, but they have sadly gone belly up in recent weeks.

NewYorkDragons80

10-18-2008, 05:27 AM

thats why i question "the liberal media"

every city i ever heard of has the liberal paper and the conservative paper

NY has the NY times (liberal) and the NY Post and Newday (conservative)

DC has the Washington Post (Liberal) and the Washington times (conservative)

Chicago has the Chicago Sun-Times (liberal) and Chicago Tribune (conservative)

the choice seems to be there for whatever americans choose

Also, look at the papers you list in each city. The NY Post and Wash Times are tabloids for children, 800 lb sports fanatics, and celebrity hounds. The only redeeming quality at the Post is that they sometimes have managed to get decent editorial writers, but not reliably.

GreatAmericanZero

10-18-2008, 05:57 AM

Also, look at the papers you list in each city. The NY Post and Wash Times are tabloids for children, 800 lb sports fanatics, and celebrity hounds. The only redeeming quality at the Post is that they sometimes have managed to get decent editorial writers, but not reliably.

didn't i answer this already?

but to add to it...i think the papers would do whatever sells the best for them. I think the whole "political affiliation dominates media" argument is a "grass is greener" type thing, things people disagree with sticks out more in their mind, so whatever side they are on they complain because they only focus on the other side. But both opinions are out there and have always been out there

foodcourtdruide

10-18-2008, 06:51 AM

didn't i answer this already?

but to add to it...i think the papers would do whatever sells the best for them. I think the whole "political affiliation dominates media" argument is a "grass is greener" type thing, things people disagree with sticks out more in their mind, so whatever side they are on they complain because they only focus on the other side. But both opinions are out there and have always been out there

Your "grass is greener" analogy is pretty awesome.

Ritalin

10-18-2008, 10:19 AM

Willmore

10-18-2008, 10:49 AM

I think that the discussion and dissection of the media is a distraction given what we as a country should be concentrating on. Newspapers have always been house organs for political parties, historically, and debating whether or not The NY Times is liberal or Fox News is conservative is a waste of effort.

I think you just have to decide whether or not the news you get passes the smell test. Is it researched and substantiated? Is it newsworthy? A good example of that is the Cindy McCain story in today's Times is embarrassing for the paper and serves absolutely no purpose.

The vetting of newspapers take thought and that is a luxury few Americans possess. We live in a country where it's much easier to accept the dogma of your favourite pundit, rather than make up your own mind. It's much easier to accept whatever the newspaper is writing as fact, rather than think about what's written and if it makes sense or not.

Humans are a lazy bunch, given an option between accepting someone else's point of view and coming up with one of your own, we generally choose to be the sheep, not the shepherd.

K.C.

10-19-2008, 08:45 AM

It's shocking how accurately he nailed this in October 2000.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fb639872ce36ba/4741e3c5156499a7/58c1cc4f/-cpid/43bf9e1ea504dc6" id="W4727a250e66f972348fb639872ce36ba" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48fb639872ce36ba/4741e3c5156499a7/58c1cc4f/-cpid/43bf9e1ea504dc6" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>

Tall_James

10-20-2008, 11:03 AM

Wait for it.....

<div align='center'><a href='http://www.kontraband.com/videos/14233/Sarah-Palin-Id-Hit-It/'>Sarah Palin - I'd Hit It !</a><br><div align='center'><embed src="http://www.kontraband.com/show/flvplayer.swf" width="480" height="380" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="width=480&height=360&file=http://208.116.9.205/10/content/14233/450.flv&backcolor=0x000000&frontcolor=0xFFFFFF&lightcolor=0xFF6600&overstretch=true&autostart=true&shuffle=false" /></div><br><a href='http://www.kontraband.com/videos'>See more like this on kontraband.com</a></div>

Gritty

10-21-2008, 06:21 AM

Bluewater Productions announces a biographical title based on the life of current Republican vice-presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/081020-sarah-palin-comic.html

celery

10-23-2008, 08:27 AM

HBox

10-23-2008, 08:32 AM

lovely...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

God, that image in the player before you press play is frightening.

"He knows what the right decision is."

He sure does.

http://www.bradfitzpatrick.com/store/images/products/preview/bo010-divorce-papers.jpg

Jujubees2

10-23-2008, 08:39 AM

lovely...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I pray for that guy too. He has to sleep with THAT every night!

sr71blackbird

10-23-2008, 09:26 AM

AKA

10-23-2008, 10:36 AM

Furtherman

10-23-2008, 10:40 AM

lovely...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UwjlUMoLVvA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's embarrassing there are people like that, not only in the United States, but in the world today.

booster11373

10-23-2008, 10:57 AM

"All religious people believe crazy shit" -Ron Bennington

epo

10-26-2008, 07:38 AM

Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic Monthly started doing podcasts on the Atlantic.com website. It's an interesting watch as Sullivan and Ambinder are two very, very good writers.

This week they discussed "Fair and Balanced". Its about where the line is for reporters to "balance things out" and whether that is intellectually honest.

If you are interested click here. (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1460906593/bctid1875312745)

AKA

10-26-2008, 08:07 AM

John McCain's appearance on MEET THE PRESS this morning was just sad and pathetic - even he wants this mess over with.

mikeyboy

10-26-2008, 09:04 AM

John McCain's appearance on MEET THE PRESS this morning was just sad and pathetic - even he wants this mess over with.

some clips are up now.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDPPnMYlYR0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDPPnMYlYR0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/09fK21FE7-4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/09fK21FE7-4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oWzaioeTT0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oWzaioeTT0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

brettmojo

10-26-2008, 09:24 AM

some clips are up now.

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDPPnMYlYR0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/09fK21FE7-4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0oWzaioeTT0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
I really do feel bad for McCain only because you know he began his campaign with the same mindset probably that he had in 2000 when he was running against Bush and he didn't want to be "the republican candidate" he wanted to be a candidate for the president of the United States... Somewhere along the line he let his campaign get away from himself and the people, like the ones responsible for Sarah Palin, fucked him over.

He just sound like he wants it to be over with.

celery

10-27-2008, 11:13 AM

http://www.cagle.com/working/081025/cagle00.gif

keithy_19

10-28-2008, 03:37 PM

I'm calling it right now.

Nader will be the next president of the United States of America.

You heard it hear first.

Jujubees2

10-28-2008, 03:59 PM

I'm calling it right now.

Nader will be the next president of the United States of America.

You heard it hear first.

From your keyboard to God's ear...

celery

10-29-2008, 09:09 AM

http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_synchronized_presidentia_9857.php

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 09:15 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html

celery

10-29-2008, 09:22 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html

Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communication's director, said that "no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like 'A for You,' 'Adorable Manabat,' 'The Gun Shop,' and 'Jesus II' and hundreds of anonymous donors."

^^^

IMSlacker

10-29-2008, 09:25 AM

Adorable Manabat is legit.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 09:27 AM

^^^

But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee's fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was "flabbergasted" to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

this is about the forth major report about Obama. He has taken foreign donations as well as stolen credit cards and did nothing until it was reported in the news.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 09:45 AM

this is about the forth major report about Obama. He has taken foreign donations as well as stolen credit cards and did nothing until it was reported in the news.

Link-link-link.

The article you just posted doesn't actually show the prepaid cards as definitively coming from "shady" sources. Yes, they COULD be...just like any donation COULD be from, say, a made up alias. If it's shady, prove it.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 09:51 AM

Link-link-link.

The article you just posted doesn't actually show the prepaid cards as definitively coming from "shady" sources. Yes, they COULD be...just like any donation COULD be from, say, a made up alias. If it's shady, prove it.

NYT Reported on it, here is a blog post which is pretty good about detailing it. It isnt that the Obama camp in intentionally soliciting illegal donations online, its the fact that they have repeatedly ignored security measures.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/24/obama-online-campaign-facilitating-fraud.php

I like Fake Obama better.

razorboy

10-29-2008, 09:51 AM

I really do feel bad for McCain only because you know he began his campaign with the same mindset probably that he had in 2000 when he was running against Bush and he didn't want to be "the republican candidate" he wanted to be a candidate for the president of the United States... Somewhere along the line he let his campaign get away from himself and the people, like the ones responsible for Sarah Palin, fucked him over.

He just sound like he wants it to be over with.

I have no problem blaming most things in life on Dick Morris. There are few people in this world I despise more.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 09:52 AM

I have no problem blaming most things in life on Dick Morris. There are few people in this world I despise more.

Amen

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 10:00 AM

NYT Reported on it, here is a blog post which is pretty good about detailing it. It isnt that the Obama camp in intentionally soliciting illegal donations online, its the fact that they have repeatedly ignored security measures.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/24/obama-online-campaign-facilitating-fraud.php

I like Fake Obama better.

That blog just circles around the desperate talking point of acting like the unreleased list of small donors (under $200) is somehow hiding massive donation fraud, which is ridiculous. If there's large scale donation fraud, it's likely to be found in larger donations, which the information has been provided for. The GOP wants the small donor lists because that's where you tend to find the nutjobs and kooks if you peruse closely enough because there's less scruitiny than the larger donations, and that is true for BOTH the parties. The Republicans want the list because Obama has raised so much more money than anyone else from so many more people that there's inherrently going to be more "questionable" smaller donors that they can try and freak people out over.

On the lighter side of things, I have printed this out and put it in my window just in the hopes JerseySean walks by and flips out. (http://iulsaihbhoiarl.ytmnd.com/)

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:04 AM

That blog just circles around the desperate talking point of acting like the unreleased list of small donors (under $200) is somehow hiding massive donation fraud, which is ridiculous. If there's large scale donation fraud, it's likely to be found in larger donations, which the information has been provided for.

No!! Most of Obama's money has been in small dollar donations. If there were a fraud, that is where it would be perpetuated. Where no donor information is necessary.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 10:08 AM

No!! Most of Obama's money has been in small dollar donations. If there were a fraud, that is where it would be perpetuated. Where no donor information is necessary.

Yes, on an indivually smaller scale because he's raised so much money from so much more people than any other candidate in history. People trying to get to him and trying to make it sound like within the small donors are hidden large scale fraud by singular "bad" donors trying to spread it out under numerous individual false fronts. Neither party is equipped or wants to heavily check small donors because too often they'll hae to say no if they want to play it totally safe and these guys want all the money they can get. McCain and the GOP are guilty of the exact same thing, just on a much scaller scale. This is essentially sour grapes over how much more money Obama has made. "Hey, he's using/abusing the same system that we are, but he's getting much more out of it! NO FAIR!!!"

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:08 AM

On the lighter side of things, I have printed this out and put it in my window just in the hopes JerseySean walks by and flips out. (http://iulsaihbhoiarl.ytmnd.com/)

http://images.cafepress.com/product/304205585v4_150x150_Front.JPG

I meant to your house

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 10:09 AM

Im on my way to Chicago with a molotov cocktail...

Uhhhhhhh...

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:14 AM

Yes, on an indivually smaller scale because he's raised so much money from so much more people than any other candidate in history. People trying to get to him and trying to make it sound like within the small donors are hidden large scale fraud by singular "bad" donors trying to spread it out under numerous individual false fronts. Neither party is equipped or wants to heavily check small donors because too often they'll hae to say no if they want to play it totally safe and these guys want all the money they can get. McCain and the GOP are guilty of the exact same thing, just on a much scaller scale. This is essentially sour grapes over how much more money Obama has made. "Hey, he's using/abusing the same system that we are, but he's getting much more out of it! NO FAIR!!!"

MCcain's security measures are much stronger than Obama's and that has been documented by the RNC and I think a reuters article from the beginning of the month which I cant seem to find.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 10:15 AM

MCcain's security measures are much stronger than Obama's and that has been documented by the RNC and I think a reuters article from the beginning of the month which I cant seem to find.

Wow, the RNC said their own security measures are stronger than that of their opponents? Man, I can't argue with that ironclad evidence.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:18 AM

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Obama on Guns

epo

10-29-2008, 10:21 AM

Wow, the RNC said their own security measures are stronger than that of their opponents? Man, I can't argue with that ironclad evidence.

Wait. You are claiming at a partisan group claims that they are right and their opposition with an advantage is wrong?

Shut up!

I've never heard of such a thing without proof!

celery

10-29-2008, 10:22 AM

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:24 AM

Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.

The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign “turned off” many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.

and on and on and on

K.C.

10-29-2008, 10:33 AM

Obama will lose PA for preempting the start of the World Series tonight

I don't think he understands what exactly what he's messing with up there...these people are crazy right now.

When they tune in to see Game 5, and they see Obama, they're going to lose their minds.

(Editor's Note: I think I'm kidding about this...but you can never quite put anything past some of these Pennsylvanians).

epo

10-29-2008, 10:34 AM

and on and on and on

From your quote:

Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts.

If the rules allow a campaign to NOT disclose contributors under $200, then why would they release the names just because the RNC wants it? That's just fucking crazytalk.

IMSlacker

10-29-2008, 10:35 AM

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:38 AM

From your quote:

If the rules allow a campaign to NOT disclose contributors under $200, then why would they release the names just because the RNC wants it? That's just fucking crazytalk.

Please see above. The OBAMA CAMPAIGN intentionally dropped security measures. Why would they do that?

epo

10-29-2008, 10:38 AM

Except, he's not actually delaying the start of the game, he's preempting the Fox pregame show. Who could possibly be upset by that?

I would think his numbers would go up for minimizing Joe Buck.

K.C.

10-29-2008, 10:38 AM

Except, he's not actually delaying the start of the game, he's preempting the Fox pregame show. Who could possibly be upset by that?

Attempting to apply logic to people who have been waiting a combined 100 seasons for a national sports championship is futile.

And they'll be extra pissed if they lose tonight.

They may confuse their hatred of Bud Selig with a new found hatred of Obama.

celery

10-29-2008, 10:42 AM

and on and on and on

AGAIN, quoting an editorial from a conservative magazine (Newsmax) isn't proof of anything, other than the fact that someone else shared your opinion.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:45 AM

AGAIN, quoting an editorial from a conservative magazine (Newsmax) isn't proof of anything, other than the fact that someone else shared your opinion.

That is a fact. because Newsmax reported it, doent make it untrue

epo

10-29-2008, 10:50 AM

That is a fact. because Newsmax reported it, doent make it untrue

Maybe that makes it Truthiness?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/ap_Stephen_Colbert_071227_ssv.jpg

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 10:51 AM

al Gore now has his own XM channel on 134

epo

10-29-2008, 10:54 AM

al Gore now has his own XM channel on 134

Almost.

XM134....the "Gore" holiday channel.....Skeery!

Jujubees2

10-29-2008, 10:54 AM

al Gore now has his own XM channel on 134

Damn, it's about time!

celery

10-29-2008, 11:00 AM

Almost.

XM134....the "Gore" holiday channel.....Skeery!

chilling

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 11:01 AM

chilling

Well done

epo

10-29-2008, 11:01 AM

chilling

I'll be carving Al Gore pumpkins tonight for the neighborhood kids!

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 11:10 AM

I'll be carving Al Gore pumpkins tonight for the neighborhood kids!

go with 2001-02 Gore. Beard and all.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 11:17 AM

epo

10-29-2008, 11:19 AM

yojimbo7248

10-29-2008, 11:23 AM

I dont understand why McCain isnt running a 30 minute ad on networks as well. The cost is only $5 million. I have to assume the RNC could raise that is seconds if they wanted to put McCain up. this is weird to me.

What are your guesses for why the RNC isn't giving McCain his own 30 minute ad? Do they think Obama is making a mistake by doing, the money could be better spent in other ways, or do you think there is some other reason?
By the way, I have found it very interesting reading your posts during the campaigns. It has been useful reading your discussions/arguments/interaction with Mojo and Epo.

yojimbo7248

10-29-2008, 11:24 AM

They are shifting their resources out of McCain and into the Senate races.

that's the best explanation that I have heard.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 11:35 AM

that's the best explanation that I have heard.

Except for the fact that McCain's number DIRECTLY effects close races. If McCain does better so do the Senate races. I honestly have no explanation. epo is wrong on this because to drive the top of the ticket and the values of the Republican Party or at least the McCain/Palin message will help out others. Im baffled here.

Furtherman

10-29-2008, 11:49 AM

Im baffled here.

What.... no explanation from a far right blog to blame it on "liberals" or Obama?

Have you run out of them?

Friday

10-29-2008, 12:15 PM

Received this today from one of our real estate brokers in Florida.

oh boy....

No jokes here. Just where we stand on this election and why we're not voting for Obama.

We're not saying McCain is perfect just the lesser of two evils at this point in time. Food for thought for our friends and family…..

1. We think Obama is being dishonest about his associations with the likes of local terrorist Bill Ayers and radicals such as Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan. These are sick people.

2. Obama is clearly tied to the radical group ACORN yet denies any wrong doings with regards to voter registration fraud.

3. Obama’s own state of Illinois has the worst economy, highest crime rate, highest tax rate, and most social programs in the nation. We don’t want this for the rest of our country.

4. We strongly disagree with Obama’s wealth redistribution policies. You work hard, you earn money, and you get ahead in life, period. No more hand outs.

5. Obama wants to give driver’s licenses and government benefits to illegal aliens. No way.

6. Under Obama’s plan when we sell our town home we’ll have to give the government 28% of ours gains. So let’s say we clear $250K….. stroke a check for $70K to our deadbeat partner. No thanks.

7. Taxes on our other investments under Obama’s plan will almost double.

8. We are clearly pro-gun. Under Obama’s plan he wants to repeal concealed weapons permits, institute a tax of $5 per bullet, and make it a felony for someone to defend their own life with a gun.

9. Obama will not disclose his foreign contributors under $200 even though many have donated tens of thousands of times. Who and what is he hiding? McCain proudly declares all of his contributors.

10. Obama openly admits wanting to “socialize” America’s healthcare and education systems, a clear first step towards overall Socialism. No thanks.

11. We need to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and stop sending $ to terrorist nations. We need to drill immediately in the U.S. and quickly develop alternatives sooner than later like Obama’s plan. If we don’t plan for our energy independence very soon we will be in big trouble as a society when the oil imports start to decrease! Obama is weak on this issue.

12. We need smaller government and decreased spending not the opposite like Obama’s trillion dollar spending plan.

13. Obama makes light of his association with another low-life, criminal, individual Tony Rezko. Corruption, bribery, kickbacks, fraud…. Oh my! If it wasn’t for contributions derived by Rezko Obama would not be in this race.

Furtherman

10-29-2008, 12:18 PM

Write back and ask "HOW?" after each question... see what you get back.

But.. but... he said socalize..... that sounds like socialism!!!

NewYorkDragons80

10-29-2008, 01:42 PM

No!! Most of Obama's money has been in small dollar donations. If there were a fraud, that is where it would be perpetuated. Where no donor information is necessary.

There is no doubt that Obama accepted shady donations, and of all the shady donations in this election, I'll bet they overwhelmingly favor Obama. However, I sincerely doubt that either campaign has willfully tried to circumvent campaign laws. Also, I've given to McCain in increments of $20, $50 and $100 and I've ALWAYS been asked my occupation, etc. Finally, of all of Obama's finances, this is a drop in the bucket. Why is everything here a gotcha youtube clip or blog post or an attack on the other guy?

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 01:46 PM

Except for the fact that McCain's number DIRECTLY effects close races. If McCain does better so do the Senate races. I honestly have no explanation. epo is wrong on this because to drive the top of the ticket and the values of the Republican Party or at least the McCain/Palin message will help out others. Im baffled here.

Republican pundits left and right and insiders from the GOP istself have been talking and whispering over the last 1-2 weeks about how McCain's campagn is a disaster tha very well could be detrimental to the senate races. Why are they going to sink money into something that's just going to highlight that failure even more and possibly torpedo more senate races? It would take an unprecedented electoral miracle for McCain to win at this point.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 01:48 PM

There is no doubt that Obama accepted shady donations, and of all the shady donations in this election, I'll bet they overwhelmingly favor Obama. However, I sincerely doubt that either campaign has willfully tried to circumvent campaign laws. Also, I've given to McCain in increments of $20, $50 and $100 and I've ALWAYS been asked my occupation, etc. Finally, of all of Obama's finances, this is a drop in the bucket. Why is everything here a gotcha youtube clip or blog post or an attack on the other guy?

Like I said, the Republicans are scrambling to try and capitalize on Obama having raised money from more people than any candidate in history. That automatically means more of the shady/crazy money that both sides always get than anyone in history. Simple diversion.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 01:52 PM

Attempting to apply logic to people who have been waiting a combined 100 seasons for a national sports championship is futile.

And they'll be extra pissed if they lose tonight.

They may confuse their hatred of Bud Selig with a new found hatred of Obama.

What if he comes out and beats up Selig using Joe Morgan as a human beating stick? He'd end up winning about 99.9% of the national vote.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 02:17 PM

Republican pundits left and right and insiders from the GOP istself have been talking and whispering over the last 1-2 weeks about how McCain's campagn is a disaster tha very well could be detrimental to the senate races. Why are they going to sink money into something that's just going to highlight that failure even more and possibly torpedo more senate races? It would take an unprecedented electoral miracle for McCain to win at this point.

As I said, you need to move the national mood towards McCain to win some of these close Senate races. You wont shift the sour mood, but you need to nudge it a lot. All of those whispers are coming from a rogue factyion of the McCain camp who has been shut out. There are other factions within the campaign who arent leaking shit. It is a matter of ego and credibility with the press.

No it wouldnt take an unprecented miracle....It would take a Gore type of comeback in 2000 with a Bush electoral count which is still possible or Reagan 80. The problem for Barry is that he hasnt broke these undecideds like he should. Tonight may go a LONG way in doing that and seal the deal. If it doesnt he is in trouble.

The bottom line is that it is a dumb move not to put McCain up on network like Obama is. It would help all of the Senate races and it would move numbers. He would be able to differentiate himself from Bush and at the same time help the down ballots. This is honestly puzzling.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 02:18 PM

Like I said, the Republicans are scrambling to try and capitalize on Obama having raised money from more people than any candidate in history. That automatically means more of the shady/crazy money that both sides always get than anyone in history. Simple diversion.

No its a matter of intentionally lax security and drops in security. The McCain camp has security measures in place, Obama doesnt

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 02:20 PM

As I said, you need to move the national mood towards McCain to win some of these close Senate races. You wont shift the sour mood, but you need to nudge it a lot. All of those whispers are coming from a rogue factyion of the McCain camp who has been shut out. There are other factions within the campaign who arent leaking shit. It is a matter of ego and credibility with the press.

No it wouldnt take an unprecented miracle....It would take a Gore type of comeback in 2000 with a Bush electoral count which is still possible or Reagan 80. The problem for Barry is that he hasnt broke these undecideds like he should. Tonight may go a LONG way in doing that and seal the deal. If it doesnt he is in trouble.

The bottom line is that it is a dumb move not to put McCain up on network like Obama is. It would help all of the Senate races and it would move numbers. He would be able to differentiate himself from Bush and at the same time help the down ballots. This is honestly puzzling.

Why would pushing McCain help the senate races if his campaign is arguably hurting the senate races? He's not a plus or a boon at this point.

And yes, McCain winning the election now with here he is at this point in time would be unprecedented. There's nothing like it in US history. And no, Dewey vs. Truman doesn't count since there were essentially no polls for the last month of that election. That's the only reason that was a "surprise."

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 02:23 PM

No its a matter of intentionally lax security and drops in security. The McCain camp has security measures in place, Obama doesnt

McCain has his share of dirty/crazy money. Every candidate does. Obama just has more because he has more money. It's tougher to screen because there's so much of it. They don't even catch it all when a candidate raises FAR less money...why would the Obama campaign be the exception when they have so much more to keep track of? It's spinning how the Democrats have raised so much more than the Republicans.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:00 PM

McCain has his share of dirty/crazy money. Every candidate does. Obama just has more because he has more money. It's tougher to screen because there's so much of it. They don't even catch it all when a candidate raises FAR less money...why would the Obama campaign be the exception when they have so much more to keep track of? It's spinning how the Democrats have raised so much more than the Republicans.

Please read the article fully. Obama INTENTIONALLY dropped security.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited

Cant spin that

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:02 PM

Why would pushing McCain help the senate races if his campaign is arguably hurting the senate races? He's not a plus or a boon at this point.

And yes, McCain winning the election now with here he is at this point in time would be unprecedented. There's nothing like it in US history. And no, Dewey vs. Truman doesn't count since there were essentially no polls for the last month of that election. That's the only reason that was a "surprise."

Because, McCain is the face of the Republican Party. They need to push him to hope for an increased bump underneath him on the ballot. If he is "hurting", then as he gets a bump, he will "help". Its simple. I think its a tactical error by the RNC and McCain camp.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:21 PM

And no, Dewey vs. Truman doesn't count since there were essentially no polls for the last month of that election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803675_pf.html

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:31 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803675_pf.html

So having polls is less accurate than having no polls?

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:32 PM

Because, McCain is the face of the Republican Party. They need to push him to hope for an increased bump underneath him on the ballot. If he is "hurting", then as he gets a bump, he will "help". Its simple. I think its a tactical error by the RNC and McCain camp.

If he's the face of the party they're screwed as a whole.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:34 PM

So having polls is less accurate tha having no polls?

Im just offering that article as an example of how these polls seems to be screwy. Im not saying that means a McCain win or loass, Im just saying they are wrong. Moreover,. last week somewhere in one of these threads I said that early voting was off what people thought it would be.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/33494194.html

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:35 PM

If he's the face of the party they're screwed as a whole.

Now you're diverting from the intitial argument. Dont cash the check yet.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:36 PM

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Cant spin that

No need to. It said exactly what I did...campaigns as they're typically structured can't handle the extraordinary influx of cash tha this campaign is getting, so they lax the security on smaller donations to get the money in there. Any Republican campagin would do the same. Why? Because in the big picture it's not worth wasting time and money weeding out the relatively very few sources of shady/crazy money. What they're doing to do something is the same thing campaigns have always done...review it after the fact and return anything that's potentially damaging, as the bolded part of the quote you provided shows.

McCain's ship is technically "tighter" because they have much less money to deal with.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:37 PM

Im just offering that article as an example of how these polls seems to be screwy. Im not saying that means a McCain win or loass, Im just saying they are wrong. Moreover,. last week somewhere in one of these threads I said that early voting was off what people thought it would be.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/33494194.html

The polls really aren't that "screwy." If you actually used 538 you'd realize that.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:38 PM

Now you're diverting from the intitial argument. Dont cash the check yet.

No I'm not. It's that perception that is leading parts of the GOP to pull the plug on aspects of the campagin and shift away from McCain and company.

Jujubees2

10-29-2008, 03:38 PM

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:39 PM

No need to. It said exactly what I did...campaigns as they're typically structured can't handle the extraordinary influx of cash tha this campaign is getting, so they lax the security on smaller donations to get the money in there. Any Republican campagin would do the same. Why? Because in the big picture it's not worth wasting time and money weeding out the relatively very few sources of shady/crazy money. What they're doing to do something is the same thing campaigns have always done...review it after the fact and return anything that's potentially damaging, as the bolded part of the quote you provided shows.

McCain's ship is technically "tighter" because they have much less money to deal with.

The difference in taking the money and declining the intial money is HUGE. If Obama ends up winning and had $50 million in bad donations, no problem, raise the money to give a refund. If he loses, well then no need to refund it, he has lost and who cares at that point. the point is that he is taking the money and using it. It is clearly a corrupt practice.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:41 PM

No I'm not. It's that perception that is leading parts of the GOP to pull the plug on aspects of the campagin and shift away from McCain and company.

Right but that perception is wrong because Mccain a plus for McCain means a plkus for Senate candidates. A minus for McCain is a minus for Senate candidates

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:42 PM

The difference in taking the money and declining the intial money is HUGE.

Yes, but because of the volume of money things would be tied up for much longer than usual. They need the money and gambling that most of the shady/crazy cash at tha level, as per usual, comes from ultimately insignificant sources.

If Obama ends up winning and had $50 million in bad donations, no problem, raise the money to give a refund. If he loses, well then no need to refund it, he has lost and who cares at that point. the point is that he is taking the money and using it. It is clearly a corrupt practice.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it's business as usual bt on a bigger scale. It must be killing McCain to not be able to use this to point out the hypocracy of demanding change when fullfilling so much of our political stereotypes, but he can't because it's the same tricks the Republicans have no problem pulling.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:45 PM

Yes, but because of the volume of money things would be tied up for much longer than usual. They need the money and gambling that most of the shady/crazy cash at tha level, as per usual, comes from ultimately insignificant sources.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying it's business as usual bt on a bigger scale. It must be killing McCain to not be able to use this to point out the hypocracy of demanding change when fullfilling so much of our political stereotypes, but he can't because it's the same tricks the Republicans have no problem pulling.

McCain has security in the places that Obama does not. Dont kid yourself, this is a Chi-town style corrupt fundraising process. Please show me where the Republicans pulled this. When it threatens to violate laws, you should have security measures like McCain and the RNC does. Otherwise, you are knowingly violating the law and looking the other way.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:45 PM

Right but that perception is wrong because Mccain a plus for McCain means a plkus for Senate candidates. A minus for McCain is a minus for Senate candidates

This makes no sense given the generally negative perception the campaign, and by default, McCain has right now. The GOP is hoping that they can allay the damage already caused by the campaign and shift local races away from it. Making significant "pluses" for McCain is all but a lost cause at this point and potentially deadly when it comes to the local races. They have less than a week to go with a candidate who has less than a 4% chance of winning...why are they going to throw everything into THAT mess as opposed to working local and trying to salvage seats as much as possible? They'd need impossibe "pluses" in a matter of days to make McCain the savior of the local races.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:47 PM

McCain has security in the places that Obama does not. Dont kid yourself, this is a Chi-town style corrupt fundraising process. Please show me where the Republicans pulled this. When it threatens to violate laws, you should have security measures like McCain and the RNC does. Otherwise, you are knowingly violating the law and looking the other way.

Yes, both sides always "stretch" the law when it comes to fundraising. This is nothing new. It's flying by the seat of your pants and hopping everything works out in the end so you can use the money ASAP. Look back over our electoral history on state and federal levels and look how often over the years you hear about candidates giving back money after the fact. If they had the locked down security you assume the Republicans have simply because they claim they do(!), that would never happen, or at least rarely happen.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:48 PM

This makes no sense given the generally negative perception the campaign, and by default, McCain has right now. The GOP is hoping that they can allay the damage already caused by the campaign and shift local races away from it. Making significant "pluses" for McCain is all but a lost cause at this point and potentially deadly when it comes to the local races. They have less than a week to go with a candidate who has less than a 4% chance of winning...why are they going to throw everything into THAT mess as opposed to working local and trying to salvage seats as much as possible? They'd need impossibe "pluses" in a matter of days to make McCain the savior of the local races.

Because, McCain isnt poisonous. He isnt radioactive like Bush. The only way to save down ballot is to strenghten the top. In a Presidential year where the top of the ticket drives turnout, you need to keep the 1 of 4 swing voters from going Obama and down the line for Democrats. You need to motivate people for the top in order to avoid catastrophe at the bottom.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 03:50 PM

Because, McCain isnt poisonous. He isnt radioactive like Bush. The only way to save down ballot is to strenghten the top. In a Presidential year where the top of the ticket drives turnout, you need to keep the 1 of 4 swing voters from going Obama and down the line for Democrats. You need to motivate people for the top in order to avoid catastrophe at the bottom.

A loser is radioactive, and McCain is the biggest loser they have right now. He's getting crushed and the public perception is that he's getting beat. What i possibly going to chage that significantly in the next 5 days?

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:52 PM

Yes, both sides always "stretch" the law when it comes to fundraising. This is nothing new. It's flying by the seat of your pants and hopping everything works out in the end so you can use the money ASAP. Look back over our electoral history on state and federal levels and look how often over the years you hear about candidates giving back money after the fact. If they had the locked down security you assume the Republicans have simply because they claim they do(!), that would never happen, or at least rarely happen.

You said that the Republican do this, please show me where. I've raised money for candidates before and any dollar that we didnt know where it came from. I have personally vetted over $15 million of political money and I would INSIST on some sort of standard be ion place and no questionable money be deposited without proper vetting of the source. I know this is bigger than ANYTHING I have ever done, but you also have more staff and the procedures come from the top down. Vetting money is easy if you have people to do the work. This is a clearly corrupt practice and lets hope Barry doesnt govern this way.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 03:56 PM

A loser is radioactive, and McCain is the biggest loser they have right now. He's getting crushed and the public perception is that he's getting beat. What i possibly going to chage that significantly in the next 5 days?

A loser isnt radioactive. A 20 point loser is. Yes McCain can stage a comeback in the next 5 days. I know for a fact that public state polls in Florida, PA, OH and NV are wrong. Even the ones in NJ are wrong. I know for a fact -that Barry's early voting wish list hasnt been granted and those models are fucked up for him. Dont be shocked if he loses the electoral college vote. He wont top 300.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:22 PM

A loser isnt radioactive. A 20 point loser is. Yes McCain can stage a comeback in the next 5 days. I know for a fact that public state polls in Florida, PA, OH and NV are wrong. Even the ones in NJ are wrong. I know for a fact -that Barry's early voting wish list hasnt been granted and those models are fucked up for him. Dont be shocked if he loses the electoral college vote. He wont top 300.

It would be insane if we had an acclaimed source of poll tracking that has been remarkably accurate this election season.

Oh, crap, WE DO. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

Seriously, why do not even give 538 the time of day?

KnoxHarrington

10-29-2008, 04:24 PM

It would be insane if we had an acclaimed source of poll tracking that has been remarkably accurate this election season.

Oh, crap, WE DO. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

Seriously, why do not even give 538 the time of day?

Because he knows better! The voices in his head tell him McCain's going to win!

Seriously, how anyone can see the floods of early voters and then claim that "Barry" (please, knock that the fuck off) isn't "getting what he wants" is beyond me.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:26 PM

You said that the Republican do this, please show me where. I've raised money for candidates before and any dollar that we didnt know where it came from. I have personally vetted over $15 million of political money and I would INSIST on some sort of standard be ion place and no questionable money be deposited without proper vetting of the source. I know this is bigger than ANYTHING I have ever done, but you also have more staff and the procedures come from the top down. Vetting money is easy if you have people to do the work. This is a clearly corrupt practice and lets hope Barry doesnt govern this way.

Well, kudos to you. You're unfortunately not the model. Money in politics is always going to be fishy. As I've said, they're basically gambling that this insane volume of money is still going to reflect the typical donation patterns of the under $200 donors. Is it ideal? Of course not...but you can't seriously be thinking that any kind of significant portion of the donors that small are from illegal sources. It's just not logical.

thejives

10-29-2008, 04:26 PM

Seriously you guys.
Enough with this troll.

He's the cancer of the politics board the way Palin is a cancer in the Republican party.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:27 PM

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:27 PM

"Barry" (please, knock that the fuck off)

HEY, CALM DOWN. STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE AND FREAKING OUT AND STUFF.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:27 PM

Well, kudos to you. You're unfortunately not the model. Money in politics is always going to be fishy. As I've said, they're basically gambling that this insane volume of money is still going to reflect the typical donation patterns of the under $200 donors. Is it ideal? Of course not...but you can't seriously be thinking that any kind of significant portion of the donors that small are from illegal sources. It's just not logical.

At least 1%, that is 6 million dollars. Illegal money paid for his ad tonight.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:28 PM

HEY, CALM DOWN. STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE AND FREAKING OUT AND STUFF.

At least I didnt have to say it. See Im bringing you to my side.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:28 PM

I prefer RCP. I am telling you for a fact that early voting models show an even race.

Oh my God...it's not a matter of preference. People from all parts of the political spectrum on ALL levels are flocking to 538 and reccomending it to people because it has been so remarkably accurate so far. It's goofy to say you prefer something that's been less accurate.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:29 PM

At least 1%, that is 6 million dollars. Illegal money paid for his ad tonight.

1% is your hypothetical. You're going to honestly say that you know for a fact that nowhere even near of 1% of McCain's campaign finances have come from questionable sources?

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:30 PM

Oh my God...it's not a matter of preference. P[eople from all parts of the political spectrum on ALL levels are flocking to 538 and reccomending it to people because it has been so remarkably accurate so far. It's goofy to say you prefer something that's been less accurate.

they've been accurate poll trackers, not pollsters. I just like the RCP layout better. Im telling you polling is wrong and McCain isnt out of this thing.

celery

10-29-2008, 04:31 PM

It would be insane if we had an acclaimed source of poll tracking that has been remarkably accurate this election season.

Oh, crap, WE DO. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

Seriously, why do not even give 538 the time of day?

Whatever, we have JerseySean.com.

I know for a fact that public state polls in Florida, PA, OH and NV are wrong.

I know for a fact -that Barry's early voting wish list hasnt been granted and those models are fucked up for him.

Even 538 doesn't claim to know things for a fact, so clearly Sean has done more research and is the better source.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:32 PM

1% is your hypothetical. You're going to honestly say that you know for a fact that nowhere even near of 1% of McCain's campaign finances have come from questionable sources?

Im ttelling you that McCain has safeguards in place which Obama ignores. 1% is what the Obama campaign said it was. Look at the articles it is in one of them

CofyCrakCocaine

10-29-2008, 04:33 PM

Why are you guys even trying to argue with Osama Bin Sean?

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:34 PM

Im ttelling you that McCain has safeguards in place which Obama ignores. 1% is what the Obama campaign said it was. Look at the articles it is in one of them

OK, so let's say 1%. The Republican "safeguards" are assured only by the Republicans themselves. That's good enough for you to say without a doubt that McCain hasn't taken 1% of questionable funding?

brettmojo

10-29-2008, 04:50 PM

Vetting money is easy if you have people to do the work.
Not as easy as vetting vice presidential candidates though apparently.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:52 PM

OK, so let's say 1%. The Republican "saeguards" are assured only by the Republicans themselves. That's good enough for you to say without a doubt that McCain hasn't taken 1% of questionable funding?

No not at all. What I am saying is that I would bet that he has less tainted money than Obama (percentage). McCain has certainly not been intentionally neglectful about that. Obama "Intentionally" removed security safeguards. Barry is guilty of conspiracy or at least his campaign is.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 04:58 PM

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 04:59 PM

But they're still reviewing the money after the fact. You're trying to paint it like they've done nothing.

After the fact is meaningless. If they were genuine about trying to stop it, they would have put other safeguards in place "before" the crime was committed.

celery

10-29-2008, 05:08 PM

After the fact is meaningless. If they were genuine about trying to stop it, they would have put other safeguards in place "before" the crime was committed.

From the original Washington Post article you posted today:

Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 05:50 PM

From the original Washington Post article you posted today:

Agreed, but it is an ethical question on how you do this. The intent is clear. Take the money, spend it, then if its bad give it back if we win and who cares if we lose? Typical corrupt chicago politics.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 05:58 PM

Agreed, but it is an ethical question on how you do this. The intent is clear. Take the money, spend it, then if its bad give it back if we win and who cares if we lose? Typical politics.

Fixed.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 06:00 PM

Fixed.

Not the way McCain plays it. But hey, he is a gentleman

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 06:03 PM

Not the way McCain plays it. But hey, he is a gentleman

Yeah, right.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 06:04 PM

Fixed.

Politics as usual from Barack Hussein Obama

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 06:07 PM

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:40klcb31J65dYM:http://bp3.blogger.com/_aUaaLlvD14Y/RpsEfsUAqmI/AAAAAAAAAHc/O06Ve-7-lns/s400/415160~Tug-McGraw-1980-World-Series-Celebration-Posters.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:eImd0LGqIDF1wM:http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/reagan-at-durenberger-rally.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:jwPnuAICqrDBCM:http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/uploaded_images/phillies6-732752.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:eRRX7UQXs87YIM:http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/john_mccain-pres.jpg

mikeyboy

10-29-2008, 06:10 PM

Not the way McCain plays it. But hey, he is a gentleman

You make it very hard to take you seriously.

JerseySean

10-29-2008, 06:13 PM

You make it very hard to take you seriously.

Are you disputing that he is?

epo

10-29-2008, 06:17 PM

Agreed, but it is an ethical question on how you do this. The intent is clear. Take the money, spend it, then if its bad give it back if we win and who cares if we lose? Typical corrupt chicago politics.

So a politician is supposed to sit on the money?

Come on, that's just crazytalk.

hammersavage

10-29-2008, 06:24 PM

I can't take 5 more days of this. Had to watch the Phillies win and, as god as my witness, if McCain wins it'll push me over the edge. I swear it.

razorboy

10-29-2008, 06:36 PM

I can't take 5 more days of this. Had to watch the Phillies win and, as god as my witness, if McCain wins it'll push me over the edge. I swear it.

Suicide, mass murder or both?

hammersavage

10-29-2008, 06:46 PM

If its both, gotta make sure I do them in the right order.

razorboy

10-29-2008, 06:48 PM

If its both, gotta make sure I do them in the right order.

W couldn't figure out how do things in the right order, so I suppose that'll be an improvement.

TheMojoPin

10-29-2008, 07:01 PM

Are you disputing that he is?

What an inane, unprovable question/challenge. Who cares?

celery

10-30-2008, 08:56 AM

No not at all. What I am saying is that I would bet that he has less tainted money than Obama (percentage). McCain has certainly not been intentionally neglectful about that. Obama "Intentionally" removed security safeguards. Barry is guilty of conspiracy or at least his campaign is.

After the fact is meaningless. If they were genuine about trying to stop it, they would have put other safeguards in place "before" the crime was committed.

Agreed, but it is an ethical question on how you do this. The intent is clear. Take the money, spend it, then if its bad give it back if we win and who cares if we lose? Typical corrupt chicago politics.

OK, let me get this straight.

You agree that he's adhering to the FEC's standards and that this is an ethical issue but you still accuse him of conspiracy and committing a crime.

And I love how you declare Obama and his campaign "guilty" before any investigation has gone on.

Not the way McCain plays it. But hey, he is a gentleman

Oh yeah? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/fec_queries_mccain_campaign_on.html)

Ooops... (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/20/mccain_solicits_russian_un_amb.html)

JerseySean

10-30-2008, 09:51 AM

OK, let me get this straight.

You agree that he's adhering to the FEC's standards and that this is an ethical issue but you still accuse him of conspiracy and committing a crime.

And I love how you declare Obama and his campaign "guilty" before any investigation has gone on.

Oh yeah? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/fec_queries_mccain_campaign_on.html)

Ooops... (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/20/mccain_solicits_russian_un_amb.html)

I have no problem with an investigation. They should ask for one today if the Obama campaign is genuine.

hammersavage

10-30-2008, 12:20 PM

Ok, now I want this election to end so I can stop wasting my time debunking myths to people who clearly don't want to listen. It's not political discourse, its racism/political fascism and there really isn't any reasoning with it so I should stop wasting my breath.

topless_mike

10-31-2008, 07:40 AM

'Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

' On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi'
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

ChrisTheCop

10-31-2008, 08:35 AM

So in a topless world, we have to vote tomorrow?

Dougie Brootal

10-31-2008, 09:06 AM

i used to like you.

scottinnj

10-31-2008, 03:12 PM

'Twas the night before elections
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

I don't get it.

mikeyboy

10-31-2008, 03:39 PM

I don't get it.

The smelly plane?

scottinnj

10-31-2008, 07:51 PM

After Millions of Votes, Democrats Outnumber GOP (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/early.voting/index.html)

Both candidates are hoping to reap the lion's share of more than 23 million votes that have been cast nationwide. They're targeting states where polls remain open through the weekend -- and, in some cases, into Monday.

Calculations by CNN and other news organizations indicate that many, if not most, of the early votes in more than 30 states are being cast by registered Democrats, although it's unknown who voted for which candidate.

epo

10-31-2008, 08:04 PM

After Millions of Votes, Democrats Outnumber GOP (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/early.voting/index.html)

I can say that internally the push has been to have our members vote early to ease the "same day" vote for others, hence encouraging more people to come to the polls.

Dude!

10-31-2008, 08:10 PM

IMSlacker

10-31-2008, 08:15 PM

at least zogby poll says so
i find it had to believe
but not impossible

"ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all... "

Zogby's poll is for shit.

From FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/trick-or-treat.html)

Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.

Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.

Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.

Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).

epo

10-31-2008, 08:16 PM

Dude!

10-31-2008, 08:42 PM

Wait....no link?

Let me guess....the Drudge Report?

yes...like you didnt know that

does it matter whether the reference to a zogby poll comes from drudge or from huffington

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 08:48 PM

Wait....no link?

Let me guess....the Drudge Report?

Rasmussen has it pretty tight too.

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 08:54 PM

I can say that internally the push has been to have our members vote early to ease the "same day" vote for others, hence encouraging more people to come to the polls.

You think that is smart? You really think that is a good strategy?

epo

10-31-2008, 08:55 PM

You think that is smart? You really think that is a good strategy?

Why wouldn't it be smart?

See we in the Democratic Party want MORE people to vote.

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 08:57 PM

Why wouldn't it be smart?

See we in the Democratic Party want MORE people to vote.

Ok so let me ask you this....If you are targeting strong Democrats for early voting and absentee, is that really smart? Think hard, son. Ill school you a bit here.

epo

10-31-2008, 08:59 PM

Ok so let me ask you this....If you are targeting strong Democrats for early voting and absentee, is that really smart? Think hard, son. Ill school you a bit here.

I'm semi-intoxicated and ready to go to bed, but entertainment me: tell me why encouraging more people to vote early, to diminish day-of lines and encourage more people to vote is a problem.......

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 09:00 PM

I'm semi-intoxicated and ready to go to bed, but entertainment me: tell me why encouraging more people to vote early, to diminish day-of lines and encourage more people to vote is a problem.......

Its not encouraging more people to vote early it is who is voting early. You guys are targeting strong Dems right?

IMSlacker

10-31-2008, 09:00 PM

Ooh! epo is about to get schooled a bit. This should be good.

epo

10-31-2008, 09:02 PM

Its not encouraging more people to vote early it is who is voting early. You guys are targeting strong Dems right?

Actually we are encouraging strong dems & everyone. The point is to diminish lines on Tuesday as to not discourage voters.

You know....encouraging democracy.

epo

10-31-2008, 09:05 PM

Ooh! epo is about to get schooled a bit. This should be good.

I'm sure it will be awesome, either way I'm going to bed.

I'll deal with Jersey Sean in the morning.

mikeyboy

10-31-2008, 09:06 PM

entertainment me

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zxk_P3PNuZU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zxk_P3PNuZU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 09:06 PM

Actually we are encouraging strong dems & everyone. The point is to diminish lines on Tuesday as to not discourage voters.

You know....encouraging democracy.

yea whatever....So lets say you have 11 people voting in an election. 3 are strong Dems, 2 strong Republicans. 2 are weak Dems and 1 is a weak Republican. You have 1 independant swing voter who could go either way and will definately vote. Then of the other 2 left, they could vote either way, but you arent sure if they will go and vote. Who do you target on early voting, and who do you target for election day. You have limited resources to heavily target 3 voters, who are the 3 that you target?

JerseySean

10-31-2008, 09:07 PM

I'll deal with Jersey Sean in the morning.

Fuck that shit.....you deal with me now.

IMSlacker

10-31-2008, 09:08 PM

I'm sure it will be awesome

I hope he mentions volatilities.

mikeyboy

10-31-2008, 09:09 PM

yea whatever....So lets say you have 11 people voting in an election. 3 are strong Dems, 2 strong Republicans. 2 are weak Dems and 1 is a weak Republican. You have 1 independant swing voter who could go either way and will definately vote. Then of the other 2 left, they could vote either way, but you arent sure if they will go and vote. Who do you target on early voting, and who do you target for election day. You have limited resources to heavily target 3 voters, who are the 3 that you target?

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/speed_movie_dennis_hopper.jpg

Pop quiz, hotshot. WHO...DO...YOU...TARGET?