The VP Gaffe Over & Under


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

The VP Gaffe Over & Under

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:36 pm

The media piranha are working themselves into a feeding frenzy thinking they smell blood in the water tonight. Who will commit the first blunder, and how soon will they do it? Will it be Biden patronizing Palin, or will it be Palin randomly blurting out all the extraneous facts that have been crammed into her head in the last few days? Biden has a history of hoof-in-mouth disease, and Palin has committed hari-Couric lately, so who implodes first?

This has nothing to do with politics, just the tragi-comedy that the media insists on creating. Personally, I think both of them will embarrass themselves, and we'll be treated to endless youtube moments, wherein each side lambastes the other for its cluelessness. :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:21 pm

I think that the rule changes help both candidates.

Biden tends to run on and on until he puts folks to sleep or wakes them up with some boneheaded remark ("When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'")

Palin, if her interviews with Couric and others since her VP announcement are to be believed, apparently has so little experience even thinking about national and international issues that in unscripted discourse she discusses these issues in ways that are barely more intelligible than a four year old. Ferchristsakes, she couldn't even come up with the name of one single newspaper or magazine that helped her formulate ideas in these areas.

I predict two boneheads by Biden, and at least ten instances where Palin leaves folks wishing for the good ol' days of Dan Quayle.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Jack Slocombe » Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:32 pm

I've been pardoned.

Aren't you glad to have such wonderful choices?
Jack Slocombe
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Groveland & Sunnyvale CA, & Poulsbo, WA

Postby jhc68 » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:09 pm

Seems to be working out both ways... Biden insists on flashing a patronizing, bemused smile while Palin talks. Palin spews random words totally unrelated to the topic that Gwen Ifill presents. Worst thing, though, is Palin winking at the camera. Ugh.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:36 pm

Yay! I liked that better than the Prez debate. They were cordial and both acquitted themselves well. :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby guru » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:39 pm

Marlow wrote:They were cordial and both acquitted themselves well.


I agree. Definately more interaction post-debate than between Obama and McCain.

Republicans have to be breathing a huge sigh of relief.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Flumpy » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:03 pm

jhc68 wrote: Worst thing, though, is Palin winking at the camera. Ugh.


Not only that but she gave a 'shout out'!!! :x
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:08 pm

I quite enjoyed watching the debate. I thought all parties involved put their best foot forward, and represented their positions well. I don't think anything changed in the greater scheme of things, but it was fun to watch (as a political junkie). Sarah did well, all things considered, and Joe kept looking as if he wanted to suggest a pitcher of margaritas and a secluded beach somewhere.
Or was that just in my mind? :wink:
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby JRM » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:08 pm

Go Joe B.! Let's hear it for the Delaware Valley! :)
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:44 pm

guru wrote:
Marlow wrote:They were cordial and both acquitted themselves well.

I agree. Definately more interaction post-debate than between Obama and McCain.
Republicans have to be breathing a huge sigh of relief.

I agree. Palin did not implode - instead she was programmed very well. Biden did as expected.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:33 pm

Considering that this is a fight for the undecided voters, I wonder about the wisdom of using phrases like "White Flag of Surrender". That's something you might say at the Republican National Convention, not when you're trying to win over moderates.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:39 pm

bad hammy wrote:
guru wrote:
Marlow wrote:They were cordial and both acquitted themselves well.

I agree. Definately more interaction post-debate than between Obama and McCain.
Republicans have to be breathing a huge sigh of relief.

I agree. Palin did not implode - instead she was programmed very well. Biden did as expected.


Should we have expected any less from Joe Biden with 30+ years of weekly debating before national cameras, 20+ years of answering national reporters questions in front of hot lights and live cameras. I thought he was marvelous but never expected otherwise. He not only is a Senator, he plays one on TV. Biden is a personality that if he were not in government would be a multimillionaire in any business of his choice. I give him an A. Palin did well but if this were judged by 19th century debating standards she lost. Of course if this were the 19th century neither Palin nor Biden would be at center stage, but we would be forced to listen to well informed statesman, which would get quite boring to ears trained on speeches by Barbara Boxer. By 21century (Couric/theView) standards Ill give her at least a B. Which given the expectations game, the target audience, the century we are in, she wins.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby TrakFan » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:46 pm

I'm sure SNL's rating will go through the roof due to indivduals being tuned in from the beginning and simply hoping for some type of spoof of the candidates.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby Jack Slocombe » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:31 pm

Palin has better legs, hence she wins.

I understand B. Clinton is thinking about becoming a republican.
Jack Slocombe
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Groveland & Sunnyvale CA, & Poulsbo, WA

Postby rasb » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:35 pm

Jack Slocombe wrote:Palin has better legs, hence she wins.

I understand B. Clinton is thinking about becoming a republican.


That's really not fair --- have you even seen Joe's legs?
Please don't answer in the affirmative :)
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Brian » Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:15 pm

Marlow wrote:Yay! I liked that better than the Prez debate. They were cordial and both acquitted themselves well. :D



If I don't get axed...

Both accomplished what they wanted and needed to achieve. Biden needed to be short and sweet; Palin to be credible. Beyond that, Biden wanted to take the fight to McCain and Palin wanted to again show that personal charm that some love so much. Both succeeded. The Obama-Biden ticket ended up with the Big Picture advantage, though, because of the need for Palin to "shore up" her credentials rather than focus solely on the opposition. Advantage Biden regarding the undecideds (who should always be the target this late into it)

Many people underestimate Palin: she is inexperienced (what is it, 5 weeks, now?), true, but she is shrewd and ambitious, and a quick learner. As far as the debate, she is extremely comfortable in front of the cameras, as is to be expected from someone who once worked as a sportscaster. And listened to her coaches well: Besides acknowledging Biden by occasionally looking/speaking in his direction, she looked directly into the camera when giving her party/ticket message (sometimes straining to spin the question around to what she wanted to repeatedly get out there). And how many caught that sweet "Can I call you Joe?" during introductions that was a set-up for the "Say it 'aint so, Joe" line later on (which would probably have backfired as disrespectful without the initial permission to use informality)? Even if it was written for her, she pulled it off without a hitch, and it was a line all the "Joe Sixpacks" of her public loved.


All in all, based on what they needed and beyond that need wanted to accomplish, Biden probably got an "A" and Palin an "A-".

Palin held her own, the rest is up to McCain, as it always should be in these things.
Last edited by Brian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:20 pm

Debates are not won on debating rules or styles, whatever that is. Debates are won by the results in influencing voters.
I seriously doubt if anyone, despite the entertainment value, changed their mind about the candidates after the Palin/Biden debate.
The staged post-debate querys of a focus groups are about as worthless as a bucket of warm spit.
I simply cannot understand how anyone at this stage, specific issues aside, cannot discern the fundamental differences in the two major candidates.
People tend to ignore, not recognize or forgive gaffes by the candidate of their political persuasion, no matter how egregious and sieze on any misstatement, no matter how etheral , by the other side.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Brian » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:04 pm

Brian wrote:[Palin held her own, the rest is up to McCain, as it always should be in these things.



Now for some put-it-out-there fun (which is why I separated this from the above).


Even one year ago, the (only half-joking) idea was that if you wanted to get elected president in 2008, just be a Democratic party candidate. That was before McCain's nomination, before all the financial mess, etc.

Now, even before the debates and any resultant poll numbers, voter registration rates in the so-called swing states were very high on the Democrat side (the hope has always been that Republican voters will charge en masse late in the campaign). This means one thing: lots of Democrats are ready to vote, and higher voter turnout has usually meant a Dem victory in the past.

Taking this stuff into account, let's have some fun with the vice-presidental debate:

Biden inarguably spoke solely for the ticket. Palin spoke for herself, to help her ticket by trying to remove possible doubts about her in the VP position. Let's say the GOP strategists hope to win this time around--will continue working hard for that outcome, hoping for a last-minute gaffe by Obama--but don't really believe they will win without that gaffe. If you acknowledge a possible loss this time around, what else is there to do but beginning the plan to "re-take" the White House in 2012...?

Knocking an incumbent president out of office isn't easy--historically, nearly impossible, in fact, when things are going at all smoothly. For success, two things must be present: 1. Things aren't going smoothly: the people have to believe the party in power hasn't gotten the job done or done correctly; 2. You, as an alternate party, can offer the promise of something perceived to be better, something that gets the voters excited about change so they switch to you.

To get the first you have to attempt to undermine the efforts of the party in power. This is automatic--both sides do it: nip at the heels and throw hurdles in the way so they can't get running at full speed.

Now regarding the second, what could possibly promise more "change" than the Republican party--that bastion of progressiveness--running a woman for president in 2012...?

And what better woman than one who is shrewd and ambitious, and a quick learner---one who has already demonstrated an appeal to the base voter on core issues, and (ignore this at your own risk, Dems!) has the communicative skills of Ronald Reagan and the likeability of George W. Bush...?


It has already been proven that with the right strategy and the right message at the right time a relatively inexperienced person can be elected president. Give Palin more experience and...2012? Or better yet: a same-gender answer to Hillary Clinton in 2016?

I think Palin was told before the debate her performance was important for more reasons than merely what happens in November, 2008.



This is just me having fun, of course. But if I were advising the Democrats, I would caution them to avoid their usual folly of underestimating their opponents in regard to this woman: many "common" people and the GOP heirarchy like her and see potential, at least right now. Let up on "Troopergate" after winning in November at your peril; you're going to need something to use to fight her in the future...
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:36 pm

lonewolf wrote:Debates are not won on debating rules or styles, whatever that is. Debates are won by the results in influencing voters.
I seriously doubt if anyone, despite the entertainment value, changed their mind about the candidates after the Palin/Biden debate.
The staged post-debate querys of a focus groups are about as worthless as a bucket of warm spit.
I simply cannot understand how anyone at this stage, specific issues aside, cannot discern the fundamental differences in the two major candidates.
People tend to ignore, not recognize or forgive gaffes by the candidate of their political persuasion, no matter how egregious and sieze on any misstatement, no matter how etheral , by the other side.


You have stated that you cannot understand how voters haven't made up their minds, and I believe you first stated that about a month ago. You were wrong. The polls, for whatever they are worth, have shown a considerable shift over that time period, and significant changes within the past week.
There are some obvious major forces at work here, such as economic issues, and the VP debate, but I think you under-estimate the number of
"moderately centrist" voters, who are neither life-time Dems. or Reps., and
can see areas in both platforms that they may agree with.
And I don't understand your statement "specific issues aside", in determining fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How many specific issues - a few?, many?, dozens? Isn't that how a voter trying to make an informed decision arrives at a conclusion - i.e., by assessing how a candidate, and the party they represent, stands on what they see as important "specific issues"?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:25 pm

If Obama is elected, forget about the "warm bucket of piss" analogy, Joe Biden will be a major player in his administration, sort of like his consigliere. I've heard pundits say as far back as March, that Obama really wanted Biden, and that the only thing that would stop him from choosing him would be if the Democrat powerbrokers forced Billary on him or if his advisors convinced him to put electoral politics first by picking Evan Byah, Tom Kaine or Ed Rebdell.

As for McCain, it's been widely reported that he really wanted Joe Lieberman, but the Republican powerbrokers wouldn't allow it. However, maybe Sarah Palin would make a good consigliere for McCain since he said that he's turned to her for foreign policy advice many times in the past. :?
I've turned to her (foreign policy) advice many times in the past.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=95240063
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:17 pm

I think one of the "great stories" of this cycle as been the underwhelming support that the Clintons have provided Obama. She didnt pull out of the primary until she had done maximal damage to him in those key blue collar states. Bill stirs up trouble every other week through it all...Then after she bows out, a prolonged month or two of chatter about her aggrevieved campaign, Then the preconvention tension that did not die down until the very day she delivers a marvelous speech (which by that point did her more good than Obama) .. then once she and Bill leave the convention it is back to work as underwhelming supporters. For every good word about Barack there is one about his opponent, McCain.

I have to believe that Obama would be marvelously ahead by now had not the Clintons been so fully focused on staying atop of the Democrat party.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby lonewolf » Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:28 pm

rasb wrote: You have stated that you cannot understand how voters haven't made up their minds, and I believe you first stated that about a month ago. You were wrong. The polls, for whatever they are worth, have shown a considerable shift over that time period,


And I don't understand your statement "specific issues aside", in determining fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How many specific issues - a few?, many?, dozens?


My statement stands. That polls bounce around depending on who is asking who the questions doesn't increase my understanding, it further befuddles me..

Sorry, I should have said "all political issues aside" . Despite the possibility/threat they might actually deliver, to believe any politician's promises, most of which he/she cannot deliver and which change with his/her audience, is folly. Look at their record and character. That is what I am saying should be evident by now.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:50 am

paulthefan wrote:I think one of the "great stories" of this cycle as been the underwhelming support that the Clintons have provided Obama. She didnt pull out of the primary until she had done maximal damage to him in those key blue collar states. Bill stirs up trouble every other week through it all...Then after she bows out, a prolonged month or two of chatter about her aggrevieved campaign, Then the preconvention tension that did not die down until the very day she delivers a marvelous speech (which by that point did her more good than Obama) .. then once she and Bill leave the convention it is back to work as underwhelming supporters. For every good word about Barack there is one about his opponent, McCain.

I have to believe that Obama would be marvelously ahead by now had not the Clintons been so fully focused on staying atop of the Democrat party.

If Obama loses, the Clintons will be in for a rude awakening in 2012, because it will be awfully hard for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination if Blacks throw all of their support to a single White Democrat such as Joe Biden, Kathleen Sibelius or Jim Webb, and Obama would be in a position to make that happen.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:58 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
paulthefan wrote:I think one of the "great stories" of this cycle as been the underwhelming support that the Clintons have provided Obama.

I have to believe that Obama would be marvelously ahead by now had not the Clintons been so fully focused on staying atop of the Democrat party.



If Obama loses, the Clintons will be in for a rude awakening in 2012, because it will be awfully hard for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination if Blacks throw all of their support to a single White Democrat such as Joe Biden, Kathleen Sibelius or Jim Webb, and Obama would be in a position to make that happen.


You could be right, it certainly seems that the congressional democrats are 4 square behind Obama. From Reid to Pelosi and under there seems to be noone that is making even the slightest audible tremor of dissatisfaction. The Clintons appear for the moment to be "leaders in exile", but once Nov. is over, the deck gets shuffled and all bets are off. I would not be so optimistic that Hillary is done in the party if Obama loses. Having said that if I had to rate her as a candidate I would give her a C- to a D+... she just does not come across well on TV. And her face is not hard to look at, so it is a fundamental flaw/quirk in her personality that is the wrinkle.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby rasb » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:50 pm

lonewolf wrote:
rasb wrote: You have stated that you cannot understand how voters haven't made up their minds, and I believe you first stated that about a month ago. You were wrong. The polls, for whatever they are worth, have shown a considerable shift over that time period,


And I don't understand your statement "specific issues aside", in determining fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How many specific issues - a few?, many?, dozens?


My statement stands. That polls bounce around depending on who is asking who the questions doesn't increase my understanding, it further befuddles me..

Sorry, I should have said "all political issues aside" . Despite the possibility/threat they might actually deliver, to believe any politician's promises, most of which he/she cannot deliver and which change with his/her audience, is folly. Look at their record and character. That is what I am saying should be evident by now.


Fair enough, lonewolf. Now I understand where you were going with that.
I don't think anyone in here is foolish enough to either a) believe all the polls, or b) believe all the promises. But it does seem possible to cross-reference current promises with past record/character, as you suggest.
And although the number of "undecideds" seems to be shrinking quickly, I would guess there is still time for the final vote to move +/- 5-10 % in either direction.
And ptf, I think it's a bit early to be counting out the Clintons in this campaign. Agreed, they seem to be on the back burner at the moment, but perhaps looking to target their energy where most needed, as we get closer? If I were
a Dem. strategist, that would be my plan.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:07 pm

rasb wrote:And ptf, I think it's a bit early to be counting out the Clintons in this campaign. Agreed, they seem to be on the back burner at the moment, but perhaps looking to target their energy where most needed, as we get closer? If I were
a Dem. strategist, that would be my plan.


are you suggesting that they are going to pull out the long knives on Obama at the very week of the election, even I didnt think they would be that brazen in their self service.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby rasb » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:17 pm

paulthefan wrote:
rasb wrote:And ptf, I think it's a bit early to be counting out the Clintons in this campaign. Agreed, they seem to be on the back burner at the moment, but perhaps looking to target their energy where most needed, as we get closer? If I were
a Dem. strategist, that would be my plan.


are you suggesting that they are going to pull out the long knives on Obama at the very week of the election, even I didnt think they would be that brazen in their self service.


:) Nice try, paultheconservative fan,
As you are perhaps aware, I was thinking more along the lines of showing up in key "battleground" states over the next few weeks, and rallying the troops.
But who knows what can yet transpire ? I am only slightly nervous that some of the extreme wackos don't hit the panic button, if or when they see a "person of colour" leading in the polls going into the election. I am also slightly nervous that another group of almost-as-extreme wackos don't up the war/fear-mongering ante in the next little while.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:28 pm

rasb wrote:
paulthefan wrote:
rasb wrote:And ptf, I think it's a bit early to be counting out the Clintons in this campaign. Agreed, they seem to be on the back burner at the moment, but perhaps looking to target their energy where most needed, as we get closer? If I were
a Dem. strategist, that would be my plan.


are you suggesting that they are going to pull out the long knives on Obama at the very week of the election, even I didnt think they would be that brazen in their self service.


:) Nice try, paultheconservative fan,
As you are perhaps aware, I was thinking more along the lines of showing up in key "battleground" states over the next few weeks, and rallying the troops.
But who knows what can yet transpire ? I am only slightly nervous that some of the extreme wackos don't hit the panic button, if or when they see a "person of colour" leading in the polls going into the election. I am also slightly nervous that another group of almost-as-extreme wackos don't up the war/fear-mongering ante in the next little while.



Are you suggesting that you cant see the damage the clintons have purposefully done to the Obama candidacy as being far greater than any GOP operative could ever have worked ?
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm

Who here, besides me, thinks that

a. debates
b. TV ads
c. bumper stickers
d. billboards
e. polls
f. campaign travels/speeches
g. etc.

do absolutely NOTHING at all. 85% of the voters (who will actually vote) are locked in already. Of the remaining 15% who think that they are 'undecided' really do already know and just like to delude themselves into thinking they still have an open mind. Unless there is last-minute buffoonery, this baby's over already. I predict a 52% - 47% (1% will always vote for Elmer Fudd) win for . . . :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:34 pm

Marlow wrote:85% of the voters (who will actually vote) are locked in already. Of the remaining 15% who think that they are 'undecided' really do already know and just like to delude themselves into thinking they still have an open mind. Unless there is last-minute buffoonery, this baby's over already.

OK, I regularly give you a hard time when you are naive or just plain dumb, so I want to say that this post of yours actually makes sense. I'm with you and lonewolf and others - the idea of 'undecideds' at this point in this election makes no sense. And when looking at poll numbers remember the Bradley effect - it is definitely in play this time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:57 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:85% of the voters (who will actually vote) are locked in already. Of the remaining 15% who think that they are 'undecided' really do already know and just like to delude themselves into thinking they still have an open mind. Unless there is last-minute buffoonery, this baby's over already.

OK, I regularly give you a hard time when you are naive or just plain dumb, so I want to say that this post of yours actually makes sense. I'm with you and lonewolf and others - the idea of 'undecideds' at this point in this election makes no sense. And when looking at poll numbers remember the Bradley effect - it is definitely in play this time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

I've heard people on both the right and left say that the Bradley effect is alive and well. Rush Limbaugh recently said that he believes that if Obama is not ahead by more than 10% in the polls on the day before the election, he's in trouble. Kathleen Sebelius has also said that she's suspicious of the polls showing Obama ahead and Ed Rendell has said that race will cost Obama 5%. Here's a pretty good article from the L.A. Times about how race is playing out in southwestern Virginia.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:03 pm

From my observation post on your northern frontier, excepting your border with Russia of course, I think most of the Clinton damage to the Obama campaign took place prior to Obama's nomination. So a good General might call that collateral damage or friendly fire. We'll see what happens, but I think they might yet swing a State or so, if needed.
As for the undecided vote, I still think there is a swing possibility of x %, depending on possibly unforeseen events between now and then, x being a number more than zero and less than 10. The poll of polls certainly indicates a major shift in some key States within the past 10 days.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:24 pm

bad hammy wrote:OK, I regularly give you a hard time when you are naive or just plain dumb, so I want to say that this post of yours actually makes sense.

It's nice to see the anti-hallucinatory meds are finally kicking in! 8-)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:30 pm

Marlow wrote:It's nice to see the anti-hallucinatory meds are finally kicking in! 8-)

Yes, your's apparently finally are . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:43 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:It's nice to see the anti-hallucinatory meds are finally kicking in! 8-)

Yes, your's apparently finally are . . .

Really? That's all ya got - 'I know you but what am I'? :roll: :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:46 pm

I said something nice about you up there a few posts ago - don't push it . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:01 pm

bad hammy wrote:I said something nice about you up there a few posts ago - don't push it . . .

Sorry :oops:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
I've heard people on both the right and left say that the Bradley effect is alive and well. Rush Limbaugh recently said that he believes that if Obama is not ahead by more than 10% in the polls on the day before the election, he's in trouble. Kathleen Sebelius has also said that she's suspicious of the polls showing Obama ahead and Ed Rendell has said that race will cost Obama 5%. Here's a pretty good article from the L.A. Times about how race is playing out in southwestern Virginia.



except that SW VA is neither representative of the US demographically (rural, independent minded and not a great deal of wealth) nor ideologically; not many liberals. Chances are that folks wont be voting for Obama in SW VA for countless reasons that have nothing to do with race, though some might argue that as shibboleths go it does the trick.

Id be surprized if race costs Obama 5%. There are far more whites that are very eager to vote for Obama based on race with the college aged folks very much in that fold. All the present talk of race costing Obama is smart leverage to ensure that it actually helps him. Obama's black percentage may well go from 90% (garden variety dems get that) to 95% with as much as a 10% increase in turnout. On the whole Obama may get a net +. The truth is that he is running a rock solid campaign and seems to know how to avoid mistakes, he is now more than free to reach out to the middle while McCain makes whopper after whopper (postponing ones campaign to help bring dems and repubs together to bail out wall street?... only a quintessential washington insider could have dreamed that one up!)
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby DrJay » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:56 pm

Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Postby malmo » Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:31 am

DrJay wrote:Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/


Where are you going on your vacation, Dr Jay?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest