Political Randomness Thread

[K-Box]

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

It's all about the money.

And even now, Democrats as a whole are out-fundraising Republicans, which is especially painful when you consider that the RNCC has been engaging in such an extreme degree of deficit spending that it's almost LITERALLY illegal.

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

The Health Care Reform Bill will hurt him as much as help him. Because a lot of people are not only pissed off about the bill, but about the way it was passed.

This assumes that everyone is pissed off about it for the same reasons, which is OBJECTIVELY untrue, since at least HALF the people are pissed off that Obama made too many COMPROMISES in passing it and didn't go far ENOUGH in its reforms (which is backed up by POLLING DATA, including from CONSERVATIVE pollsters like Rasmussen).

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

And people aren't looking at why the economy failed, they're not looking at the massive amounts of spending during the Bush Administration, they look at who has been in charge the last 4 years.

Except that, once again, when you look at ACTUAL POLLS asking this question -"Who do you blame?" - the MAJORITY of folks STILL blame Bush. And just in case anybody is likely to FORGET Bush, the REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES are proposing returning to the most infamously unpopular Bush-era economic policies, to the point of mentioning him BY NAME.

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

The Tea Party movement has the ability to throw the monkey wrench into the elections, yeah. Possibly named Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo (...)

I'm sorry, but the fact that you consider the Paul family ANYTHING like a threat is ABSURD, since a) Ron did absolutely NOTHING in terms of performance in the '08 election cycle, for all of his hype, and b) every time Rand has opened his mouth, it's HELPED HIS OPPONENT in the polls. You keep presuming this supposed tilt in the electorate that not even FOX NEWS can find the opinion polls to back up, or else they'd air the shit out of them.

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

(...) but people keep missing the real point about why the Tea Party is dangerous, and why having Palin as a spokes person is dangerous. They look good on TV.

HAHAHAHAHA. REALLY??? Is that why Sharron Angle, a dogged teabagger who by all rights should be walking all over a milquetoast loser like Harry Reid in a conservative state like Nevada, is now losing to him by DOUBLE-DIGITS in many polls? Is that why the Tea Party has had to PUBLICLY EXCOMMUNICATE at one of of their most prominent members over the backlash he generated by his accusing the NAACP of racism? Is that why even GLENN BECK acknowledged that Shirley Sherrod was misrepresented by teabagger Andrew Breitbart when he succeeded in getting her fired?

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

Everyone keeps saying Palin is a joke. But the fact of the matter is, she's beautiful and sexy and America responds to that crap. And anyone who doesn't believe me should go back and watch a CNN tape of of the Biden/Palin debate. It was 45 minutes before anyone began to realize she had no clue what she was talking about. Biden should have had her in tears. The first 45 minutes, every time that woman smiled, she gained ground.

Except that, if you watched ANY of the real-time polling that ANY of the news channels conducted during that debate, the exact OPPOSITE was true, and even if what you're saying WAS true, 45 minutes was the OUTER LIMIT of how sane she sounded, since even LIFELONG CONSERVATIVES like WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY'S SON crossed party lines to vote for Obama, and specifically CITED PALIN as one of their reasons for doing so. You say that people respond positively to her overall? I say the ELECTION proved you wrong, because even BEFORE McCain stumbled over the economy, Obama was regaining his lost bounce (which was a NORMAL POST-CONVENTION BOUNCE following the Republican nomination).

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

The Cons are better at Spin, Presentation and messing with America's collective heads. They're gearing up for 2012 already.

The Republicans of old were, yes. The Tea Party is such a walking clusterfuck that they make even MONDALE Democrats look slick, because they're so goddamned entitled that they ADMIT to being racist and not giving a shit about the working class before they even need to be ACCUSED of doing so.

Jul 21, 2010 22:18:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

The Dems are going to try to coast in on the HCR bill and find out not everyone is as happy with it as they would hope.

And the Republicans are going to run their campaigns on the basis of promising to REPEAL it, which even CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN campaign strategists ALL agree is a bad idea, because it's LITERALLY saying, "Hey, senior citizens, I want to REOPEN the donut hole in your Medicare payments."

[jarddavis]

And even now, Democrats as a whole are out-fundraising Republicans, which is especially painful when you consider that the RNCC has been engaging in such an extreme degree of deficit spending that it's almost LITERALLY illegal.

Not THAT money. The other money. Our money. Joe Sixpack. Wondering why his gas still costs $2.50 per gallon.

This assumes that everyone is pissed off about it for the same reasons, which is OBJECTIVELY untrue, since at least HALF the people are pissed off that Obama made too many COMPROMISES in passing it and didn't go far ENOUGH in its reforms (which is backed up by POLLING DATA, including from CONSERVATIVE pollsters like Rasmussen).

And meanwhile, the conservatives are pissed because what the Dems did was pull one of their tricks and make a bunch of back ally deals to get it passed. Like the tax cuts under Bush. The Dems didn't need the votes, but they got them anyway. The Conservatives don't feel represented.

Except that, once again, when you look at ACTUAL POLLS asking this question -"Who do you blame?" - the MAJORITY of folks STILL blame Bush. And just in case anybody is likely to FORGET Bush, the REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES are proposing returning to the most infamously unpopular Bush-era economic policies, to the point of mentioning him BY NAME.

Never cite polls with me because quite frankly they're too easy to skewer depending on what language you use. Look closer at what people on the street are saying. A lot of people are buying in to the Republican spin job that Afghanistan is "Obama's war." They buy that he's a muslim. I had a conversation with a guy who swore up and down that Obama was a Muslim at the time Obama was having his problems during the election with his christian minister opening his trap. Swore it blind. Why? heard it on Limbaugh.

I'm sorry, but the fact that you consider the Paul family ANYTHING like a threat is ABSURD, since a) Ron did absolutely NOTHING in terms of performance in the '08 election cycle, for all of his hype, and b) every time Rand has opened his mouth, it's HELPED HIS OPPONENT in the polls. You keep presuming this supposed tilt in the electorate that not even FOX NEWS can find the opinion polls to back up, or else they'd air the shit out of them.

I don't. I think you're more likely to see A Romney type. But if you had asked me this far out prior to Shrub being elected I would have told you no one in the Republican party stood a chance. Especially not a failed businessman with a silver spoon in his mouth and a coke and alcohol addiction. Guess what? Not only did he win, but people loved him for his first six years in office.

HAHAHAHAHA. REALLY??? Is that why Sharron Angle, a dogged teabagger who by all rights should be walking all over a milquetoast loser like Harry Reid in a conservative state like Nevada, is now losing to him by DOUBLE-DIGITS in many polls? Is that why the Tea Party has had to PUBLICLY EXCOMMUNICATE at one of of their most prominent members over the backlash he generated by his accusing the NAACP of racism? Is that why even GLENN BECK acknowledged that Shirley Sherrod was misrepresented by teabagger Andrew Breitbart when he succeeded in getting her fired?

Yes. Because none of that really matters. Cheany shot someone in the face. Do you think anyone really cared? You know what matters? Arizona's passed a law that basically amounts to Apartheid. And People are not only supporting it THEY'RE JUSTIFYING IT. And while the court fights it, nine more states came out in public support of it. You know who's going to capitalize on that? Tancredo.
Who's his biggest affilation right now?

Except that, if you watched ANY of the real-time polling that ANY of the news channels conducted during that debate, the exact OPPOSITE was true, and even if what you're saying WAS true, 45 minutes was the OUTER LIMIT of how sane she sounded, since even LIFELONG CONSERVATIVES like WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY'S SON crossed party lines to vote for Obama, and specifically CITED PALIN as one of their reasons for doing so. You say that people respond positively to her overall? I say the ELECTION proved you wrong, because even BEFORE McCain stumbled over the economy, Obama was regaining his lost bounce (which was a NORMAL POST-CONVENTION BOUNCE following the Republican nomination).

Again you cite Polls. The problem is I know what I saw personally. And I watched the realtime graph on CNN spike every single time that woman smiled. At the same time, I saw it lower every single time Biden spoke, who's flared eyebrows gave him a somewhat satanic look. And it did that for 45 minutes despite the fact that she had zero clue what she was talking about.

You keep missing the point. One of the best vice Presidential debates in history was Quayle, Gore, Stockdale. And Stockdale who was funny and witty, looked old and frail and killed himself in the public eye by playing with his hearing aid. FDR would not be able to get elected President in modern day America. America does not elect cripples. She's vapid. She speaks in bullet points, she quit the only major elected post she's ever held after two years. Her entire teen celibacy platform was the biggest electoral joke in history given her daughter's situation. BUT SHE LOOKED GOOD ON TV. McCain's campaign didn't die because of her. It died for exactly the reason you said. He proclaimed the economy healthy, three hours later the market crashed. It had nothing to do with Palin who showed up on Saturday Night Live to prove that she could take a joke to America after they lambasted her for months.

The Republicans of old were, yes. The Tea Party is such a walking clusterfuck that they make even MONDALE Democrats look slick, because they're so goddamned entitled that they ADMIT to being racist and not giving a shit about the working class before they even need to be ACCUSED of doing so.

The Republicans STILL are. Because the Democrats lost any spine when the Clintons left. And the way I can prove that is Nancy Pelosi getting up and telling people Impeachment was not on the table.

And the Republicans are going to run their campaigns on the basis of promising to REPEAL it, which even CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN campaign strategists ALL agree is a bad idea, because it's LITERALLY saying, "Hey, senior citizens, I want to REOPEN the donut hole in your Medicare payments."

And if they do that, yes, I agree, they'll lose. But I excpet the biggest campaign issue in the upcoming election will not, in fact be, the HCR.

It'll be Illeagal Immigration.

[Anders]

Jul 22, 2010 19:43:45 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

Never cite polls with me because quite frankly they're too easy to skewer depending on what language you use.

Which is why you look at the questions and not just the results.

Saying all polls are worthless because some polls are skewed is just stupid.

Jul 22, 2010 19:43:45 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

Look closer at what people on the street are saying.

Yeah, because that sample isn't skewed at all.

[jarddavis]

Mike, find me a poll that tells us how many Americans actually look at the question posed to those polled in a national poll, and not what the responses are. Then we'll talk. (Thank you Dr. Seuss.)

I'm not saying polls are worthless. Just that I think they're easily manipulated.

And that's what the media does. It manipulates the news. It makes you care about things that really aren't all that important when there are bigger issues to deal with. For example, see the recent LeBron James spectacle and how America started to care more about where a basketball player played at, vice the fact that the Gulf Of Mexico is dying.

There are all sorts of reasons why I don't like polls. One of the biggest was something I I said in my response to Kirk. Don't tell me what the poll says, I know what I saw with my own two eyes.

Another is something else Kirk said. Obama's polling higher than either Clinton or Reagan at this point in his their Presidencies. Maybe so. But that still doesn't change the fact that he's approval rating is pretty low at the moment. So while Kirk is technically correct and can use that as an debating point, if Obama was running against a decent candidate this week, he'd probably be losing.

[michaelpaciocco]

Jul 24, 2010 4:55:07 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

Mike, find me a poll that tells us how many Americans actually look at the question posed to those polled in a national poll, and not what the responses are. Then we'll talk. (Thank you Dr. Seuss.)

I'm not saying polls are worthless. Just that I think they're easily manipulated.

And that's what the media does. It manipulates the news. It makes you care about things that really aren't all that important when there are bigger issues to deal with. For example, see the recent LeBron James spectacle and how America started to care more about where a basketball player played at, vice the fact that the Gulf Of Mexico is dying.

There are all sorts of reasons why I don't like polls. One of the biggest was something I I said in my response to Kirk. Don't tell me what the poll says, I know what I saw with my own two eyes.

Another is something else Kirk said. Obama's polling higher than either Clinton or Reagan at this point in his their Presidencies. Maybe so. But that still doesn't change the fact that he's approval rating is pretty low at the moment. So while Kirk is technically correct and can use that as an debating point, if Obama was running against a decent candidate this week, he'd probably be losing.

1) I think you meant to address this to Anders, not me. Unlike Kirk and Anders, I agree with your belief that Palin will be a powerhouse in the Republican party for the exact reasons you state.

2) Yes, the media can and does manipulate - this is why a certain degree of media awareness is a virtue. However, I think you are bordering on the level of media paranoia here. Yes Celeb scandals are terrible, but who shouts them down? And who are you supporting to change the way the media operates?

3) RE: Polling. The "I trust my eyes more than the data" is so NOT VALID. Sorry, but that's becoming a defacto conservative talking point here in Canada thanks to our Conservative government doing it's level best to dismantle anything akin to objective data collection. See here for more;

www.themarknews.com/articles/1907-when-smart-parties-make-stupid-decisions


In Short - the point at which you start believing that "I trust my eyes more than the data" you're heading straight into a trap where every platform is faith-based. Yeah, that's a system that'll work well.

Is polling perfect? No, never. But you have to give it some credence, or you're basically saying that any kind of statistics is invalid.

And that's just not scientific or rational.

[Anders]

Just to add the minor point that I don't have an opinion on whether Palin would be a viable candidate or not. I was just talking about the polls per se.

[michaelpaciocco]

So noted. My apologies.

[Anders]

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to clarify.

[jarddavis]

You're right, should have addressed it to Anders. Chalk it down to still being half asleep.

3) RE: Polling. The "I trust my eyes more than the data" is so NOT VALID. Sorry, but that's becoming a defacto conservative talking point here in Canada thanks to our Conservative government doing it's level best to dismantle anything akin to objective data collection. See here for more;

It's perfectly valid, because it's part of the data itself. You're arguing a null point here. Should I take Kirk's word (although to be fairly honest, I'm sure with a little Googling I could support his claim) regarding an occurrence, or should I trust my own actual perceptions of the occurrence at the time? Or, could I choose to do both? It's not a binary equation.

2) Yes, the media can and does manipulate - this is why a certain degree of media awareness is a virtue. However, I think you are bordering on the level of media paranoia here. Yes Celeb scandals are terrible, but who shouts them down? And who are you supporting to change the way the media operates?

Well yes. But the general public doesn't care about media awareness unless it's something that personally offends them. You just pointed it out. Celeb scandals are big news, but who shouts them down? Exactly. Bread and Circuses. So in trying to refute my point, you agreed with it.

See what I mean?

It's naive to think that just because someone comes up with a Poll that someone agrees with, doesn't mean that someone can't come up with a poll that disagrees with the first poll entirely.

[Anders]

Jul 24, 2010 7:32:03 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

It's naive to think that just because someone comes up with a Poll that someone agrees with, doesn't mean that someone can't come up with a poll that disagrees with the first poll entirely.

And it's just willful ignorance to claim that because of that no poll has any value. Polls can be better or worse constructed and it's not impossible to find out which is which. Your position seems to be that all polls are worthless which is just not true. The only point of such a position is to be able to ignore all data you dislike so you don't have to change your mind about anything.

[jarddavis]

Again, no, my position is not that they are worthless. My position is that they are easily manipulated. And because of that, suspect.

I'll say it again. Kirk brought up the point that Obama's polling higher then either Regan and Clinton at this point in their presidency. And I pointed out his approval rating is still pretty low.

If that poll is accurate, and I have no reason to suspect that it isn't, it does not guarantee a re-election for Obama in any way, shape, or form. All it says is that his numbers are higher than Reagan or Clinton's at this point in their presidency.

Based on his current approval rating, if the election was in November, he would more than likely lose. (Which, by the way, is another poll. Interestingly, no one has thought to bring this up in the discussion so far. )

So, again, the poll has not, in fact, supported Kirk's rebuttal of my statement that Obama is going to lose.

Which was kind of what my point was all about.

[Anders]

Jul 24, 2010 16:15:14 GMT -8 jarddavis said:

If that poll is accurate, and I have no reason to suspect that it isn't, it does not guarantee a re-election for Obama in any way, shape, or form. All it says is that his numbers are higher than Reagan or Clinton's at this point in their presidency.

On that, at least, we are in agreement. Sorry for harping on about the issue, but I understood your position differently which was my mistake.

[jessebaker]

Some random thoughts on the current discussions:

1. Even with the current fear of Republican gains this fall, no fucking way will Obama not run in 2012. The Republicans are running on the batshit crazy, fuck humanity platform and much like in 1994's gains ended up backfiring on them and costing them the 1996 election, it's going to backfire on them in 2012.Even with everything going on, it's Obama's race to lose since the GOP has NO ONE lined up to run against him that isn't damaged goods.

If the GOP take over the House and Senate, give them a month before the Tea Party racists and the rest of the Monster Society fuck things up (refusing to pass ANY legislation to help the country, let alone a thousand witch-hunts to try and crucify Obama ala Bill Clinton) that EVERYONE will be calling for EVERYONE to band together to drive the GOP out of power in 2012 and re-elect Obama.

2. Sarah Palin, if she's smart and has better handlers, WILL NOT run in 2012. 2016, YES, but not 2012. Sarah, despite being hot, proved herself to be an ignorant cunt in the 2008 election and has only salted the Earth even MORESO since then with her vileness, evil "Death-Panel" shit, and other things that only show her as being the Anti-Christ. Oh and quitting the job as governor won't help either.

She'd be better served running for Senate in 2012 or going away and having her handlers try and make her seem less ignorant and shit.

3. To the comment about the VP debate; Biden didn't reduce Sarah to tears because he didn't have to. He just let the bitch bury herself with her own stupidity and ignorance. Making her cry would have been counter-product AND WORSE, as far as inviting the media to go into hype remorse as far as Sarah being able to play the victim card and make Biden and Obama look bad for treating Palin that cruelly in order to expose her ignorance.

[jarddavis]

If the GOP take over the House and Senate, give them a month before the Tea Party racists and the rest of the Monster Society fuck things up (refusing to pass ANY legislation to help the country, let alone a thousand witch-hunts to try and crucify Obama ala Bill Clinton) that EVERYONE will be calling for EVERYONE to band together to drive the GOP out of power in 2012 and re-elect Obama.

More than likely you're going to see some of what just happened here in Colorado last week. Our current governor, Bill Ritter, is not running for re-election. (Thank God. Man's an idiot.) Putting the Dem nom in Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who's really damn popular. The main Rep candidate is Scott McInnis, who is gaining ground outside of the Denver/Boulder area as to be expected. McInnis however has now been hit accusations of plagiarism. Dan Maes the other front runner for the GOP nom, has been hit by Ethics violations accusations.

Enter Tom Tancredo. www.gjfreepress.com/article/20100722/COMMUNITY_NEWS/100729957/1076&ParentProfile=1059

To the comment about the VP debate; Biden didn't reduce Sarah to tears because he didn't have to. He just let the bitch bury herself with her own stupidity and ignorance. Making her cry would have been counter-product AND WORSE, as far as inviting the media to go into hype remorse as far as Sarah being able to play the victim card and make Biden and Obama look bad for treating Palin that cruelly in order to expose her ignorance.

That was just a figure of speech. What I was going for is that we expected a more one sided debate. What we got was Palin looking like Mary Sunshine and Biden resembling the devil, and it was 45 minutes before anyone really actually started break Hypnotoad Palin's smile.

[paulpogue]

Biden floundered a bit for the first half of the debate, but I tend to take the side that Palin hurt herself more than anything with moronic platitudes, not saying anything of substance -- and this is by the low standards of vice presidential debates! -- and the goofy winks.

It is not a coincidence that the single most unscripted moment of the entire debate, if not campaign season -- Biden momentarily losing it over his son -- completely turned things in his favor. People crave authenticity in their politicians, even if they don't admit it, even if they don't even know it, and on some primal level, they understood that Sarah Palin was not capable of summoning that level of emotion about ANYTHING in the world, except possibly bitterness towards Levi Johnston.

Authenticity -- and at this point I'm just rambling -- is a damned hard thing to fake and an even harder thing to measure. The legendary "Bush is the guy I'd like to have a beer with" factor is based on that -- and it is not inconsiderable. Clinton had a certain authenticity that shone through even his biggest faker moments -- OF COURSE we all knew he was a cheeseburger-eatin' good ol' boy with a weakness for the ladies, and in a way that was a big part of his appeal. McCain in 2000 was a goddamn juggernaut of authenticity, and was only brought low by the deepest bag of dirty tricks Karl Rove could muster. If he'd pulled off South Carolina, McCain would have smoked the general election -- for that matter, McCain 2000 would have totally smoked Obama 2008. Obama has his own authenticity issue, but was helped by the fact that most of his major opponents were even worse. It's why Romney and John Edwards (pre-scandal) never had a real chance -- they both look like they've been cloned from vats or carved out of wax, despite having strong talking points and good resumes. It's why Mike Huckabee, who just drips authenticity, can put up a good show of being the most reasonable guy in the room despite being possibly the most lunatic insane dude in the Republican party this side of Ron Paul.

I never liked the "guy you can have a beer with" analogy, but Mike Huckabee had a very elegant updating: "I look like the guy at the bar you're having a drink with after you both got laid off. Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who just laid off eight hundred people and is happy about the bonus he's going to get over it." THAT'S authenticity.