Not at all surprising to see the Republicans largely supporting Palin and the Democrat’s largely supporting Biden.
I’m more interested in the independent vote which also entirely went for Biden. But expectations were ‘lowered’ for Palin so I guess that means it’s still a tie in spin-speak.
All the while Obama’s opened a wider lead against McCain nationally. It’s heartening at least, but I still can’t help but think of how colossally the Dems would need to screw it up at this point to lose.
Oh, please. That article acts like the author has a psychology degree and makes assertions based on assertions and an obvious bias. It has no credibiity or weight unless they wrote an article just as nasty and dismissive about Barack Obama.
Well, first off, your quoting the Huffington Post. -__- Mrs. Huffington was a real nice lady when I met her, but her site is just an biased as she is. That’s part of the reason why this miniscule statement could be found there in the first place. If I go to the National Review and I’m sure I’ll find an article just like that, better written, concerning Obama, but just as irrelevant in the big picture.
I really think your overthinking it. The way I interpreted it, she was just being jocular. It wasn’t a dare so much as just an extra line made to appeal to the people she was speaking too. Obama’s “bitter” comments were made to a San Francisco audience that would appeal to them. Palin’s were made to an audience that would enjoy just a jab at the media.
I don’t really buy the “gotcha” journalism argument. It was a bad interview. But it doesn’t matter, the debate succeeded in getting the Couric interview off the television screen. Misson Accomplished. Biden was able to beat up McCain while McCain wasn’t there to refute his argument. Fine, it wasn’t Palin’s job to refute those arguments, she needed to take care of herself.
At least in the eyes of conservatives, Palin has been rehabilitated. Now, she can fulfill the real part of the VP in a campaign; attack dog. Biden’s been doing it very well, it’s only right for Palin to do the same thing. The only problem is, the inexperience argument and the McCain campaign’s ability to define Obama has been derailed as a result of the economy.
You noted Bill Ayers. It’s a good idea for Palin to use that association. People hate negative campaigning but negative campaigning works. Maybe if people were better we’d have better campaign ads. Too bad. Obama’s playing the same game with the Keatng Five ad he’s unveiled (granted, it was after Ayers started being used by Palin) and it’s not like Obama and Biden haven’t been twisting facts. Biden outright lied when he stated Obama had never said he would meet with those foreign leaders. That association with Rush Limbaugh and McCain Obama tried to prop up was laughable; Limbaugh has never been a great crusader for McCain. Ever.
Dukakis had sixteen points ahead in the polls after his convention back in 1988. Lee Atwater convinced Bush '41 that he needed to let him take the gloves off in order to win the election. Bush relented. We got the Willie Horton ad. We got theDukakis in a tankad. There’s some people who say these ads have some real false statements in them. I don’t know about that. I do know Dukakis lost and that’s all that really matters.
Tomorrow, the town hall debate happens. John McCain has been doing those for quite a while longer than Obama, and there’s a reason why Obama decided not to agree to the ten town hall debates McCain proposed; it’s because he didn’t need to and because it’s not his area of expertise. McCain needs to connect with the audience. Rick Davis was right when he said that the qualities of the candidates will net them the votes, not the issues. Everyone here has already decided who they’re voting for and will see reality through the prism they wish, what’s going to net those undecided voters is a connection with them.
We’re going to lose this election unless McCain establishes a connection and a sense of honesty in that town hall debate - which he can do, easily (that’s the benefit of experience). What he also needs to do is come out with an economic plan. There are major differences between these two and Biden was right that McCain needs to make those differences known. It was McCain that advocated reform in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, so say that Senator McCain and explain to us how you’re going to make that reform happen. The problem is, the McCain campaign already stated that this isn’t going to be about the economy, they want to “turn the page” and make the campaign about defining Barack Obama again without realizing it’s giving Obama time to define McCain…
Considering your seeming inability to differentiate between homonyms and your lack of conjunctions in very obvious places for them, I don’t know if it’s really fair to say it’s “better written,” in such a tone as to indicate you had any form of credibility on the subject. You might have meant to type “that agrees with me, so I like it better,” and instead typed “better written,” though, it’s a mistake many people make.
I’m pretty sure this is no time to glib or jocular.
Hah, so they think they can point it out when I blatantly lie or contradict myself? I’ll show them what trying to inform people is!
In the eyes of people-who-weren’t-already-going-to-vote-Republican-anyhow, however, the last numbers I saw cited 34% more independants picked Biden over her, and anything from a 15-22% gap in the overall vote. McCain isn’t doing well, at all. Palin is dying in the eyes of everybody but the people who think the same way she does a
Yeah, it’s really their best chance of winning this, I’d say. In all seriousness, the traditional dress picture of Obama, too.
As for the article about McCain having a completely mythical life and not really being much of a Maverick at all, I don’t really see where one can fault it so much. People who actually know him pretty well don’t think he is a Maverick. The Lincoln Chafee comment pretty much explains it perfectly. I mean, if anyone would know about being a Maverick Republican, it’s him. As for his life, a bunch of the narrative is taken out of McCain’s own book.
When your doing a stump speech, candidates adopt an “anything goes” stance. You can be glib or jocular in that instance, Obama’s done it, certainly. If we’re talking about serious isues and nuanced approaches a stump speech isn’t where you do it.
Your not an independent Arac; or at least, I doubt there was anything the Republican party could have done to get your vote. Let the independents think lowly of Palin. Bush’s campaign was in worse trouble back when Dan Quayle was proclaimed to be “no Jack Kennedy”. Those ads against him were scathing. Bush still won. Why? Because people don’t vote for the Vice President, at the end of the day, they vote for the President.
The only time in recent memory that the selection of a Vice President really hurt a campaign was way back in 1972, when McGovern selected Eagleton. Luckily, Palin hasn’t had shock treatments for depression like Eagleton, so I think the chances of her being dropped from the ticket like him are close to nil. The only reason why Eagleton hurt McGovern’s campaign so badly is because it went to his judgment. It gave an aura that his campaign didn’t know what it was doing, even among the party faithful.
Now, conservative editorialists like Kathleen Parker have stopped being as harsh on Palin as before and Palin can remain in the background like a VP should. Like Quayle, all Palin has to do on the campaign trail is achieve her primary objective; which is being a conduit for attacks against Obama, as well as uniting the party. In the same manner that Wesley Clark was able to attack McCain’s war record and then washed off the hands of the Obama campaign, Palin is going to be used the same way.
The narrative of that story is fine. It’s the analysis that’s unbalanced and biased to me. Once again though, it hardly matters. That article isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
I think your wrong about it being their best shot. It was working back in the summer. Nixon was able to define McGovern as the Triple AAA candidate (Acid, Amnesty, and abortion) and McGovern was on the defensive the whole time. The economy has destroyed that. Defining Obama comes second to a coherent reaction to the marketplace. Explain what those middle-class tax cuts by Obama would do to small business. Then, explain what you would do. Go back to your declaration two years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in need of regulation. Make people understand that you did so despite Republican opposition and the chagrin of President Bush.
Tell the people what an Obama Administration would result in if we are essentially pragmatic about this. We’ll have a Democratic House, a Democractic Senate with a Democratic President. There will be no loyal opposition; the Congress might lose even more Republican seats, in which case Republicans will also be unable to filibuster. This didn’t work well when the Republicans dominated the government with few checks to their power, it won’t work well with the Democrats either. What you, the American people want, is a measure of safety to the abuses of power inherent in each party once they claim more power than they need to ensure your best interests. I think it’s an excellent approach, so does Peggy Noonan, so does the National Review and I think it has a lot more substance than Bill Ayers being the main method of attack.
I know, I just thought it was a funny defense to use after lambasting us for being glib.
Actually, I generally am an independent; I’m not any more fond of the Democrats than the Republicans for the most part. While it’s probably true that there isn’t much John McCain could do to get my vote (a racist, misogynist, militarist prick who’s far less intelligent than me, yet delusions of importance leading him to try and rule a country? I’ll pass), if someone more along the lines of Lincoln Chafee had been the GOP candidate, I would’ve probably supported them over most democratic possibilities.
While it’s true that people do not vote for a Vice President, I think there are a good number of people who might end up rather than voting for Obama to vote against Palin. Especially given the oft-mentioned possible fragility of an old guy who isn’t exactly looking too fit and has had cancer more than once in the past, a decent number of Americans are thinking that they may, in fact, be voting in Palin for President.
While Palin was able to win back the party line by spouting meaningless conservative rhetoric (which is not to say this is in any way unusual, since Obama got himself the nomination by spouting meaningless conservative rhetoric with a little bit of liberal rhetoric and the word “change” in front of it), I think the ridiculous margins of independents who preferred Biden shows that a lot of people really absolutely aren’t down for Palin. McCain’s been taking a hit, too, recently, and I think they’re related. A lot of people probably did lose some confidence in him, as well.
It’s, uh, kinda hard to wash your hands of the Vice President. There is also the fact that Palin is sort of a liability, in addition to an attack dog.
I didn’t notice too much analysis, other than the whole “See how this guy who has known him for a long-ass time says he’s not as he portrays himself, and then he even admits to a lot of that in his auto-biography? Maybe he is not exactly how he portrays himself,” which is just needless, since it sort of goes without saying that when a lot of your old friends call you a fake or a liar, it’s kind of assumed that they have a good chance of knowing. I disagree with that last part, too, it’s bringing up a lot of things people don’t really know about him that could, at least, hurt him with picking up independents. I don’t know how thrilled women will be reading about how literally like half of his life was spent using women as sex objects, for instance, regardless of party.
. . . I guess, what I’m trying to say is, McCain is like a really lame Vlad Putin. Like, he doesn’t respect the massive number of women he seduces, did school wrestling (way less intense than being a fucking eighth dan in Judo), and is a shitty pilot. Also, I don’t think he has tranquilized many tigers, especially not just for publicity stunts.
Why I think the attacks are the way for them to go is specifically because of the economy. McCain, looking at the numbers, does himself more harm than good on the subject, usually. It’s not one of his strong suits; he’s spent his time playing up being an insider and foreign policy expert, and it now reminds people that he was here when this problem got started, gave it opposition only very recently, and knows way better what he’s doing fighting other countries than dealing with our own. McCain should stop trying to make a strength out of what has so far been a weakness. Simply put, he is not smart enough to do it. His main strength is experience and charisma, which can both go out full force in attack adds. It’s not like Obama doesn’t have enough shit to attack.
You know Iliked both guys, but McCain really seems to be dropping the ball.
Also: if you disagree with the notion of negative campaigning, but resign yourself to it as an incurable trait of the political system, you doom yourself to forever be the victim to it. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Stop trying to pussyfoot around it. If a person wins a campaign based solely on lies about their opponent, they don’t deserve to win.
Fuck, how can you possibly suggest that’s an okay tactic?
It works. If something works, people are going to do it. Negative campaiging is intrinsic in this system. It’s been around since the year 1800 in American politics, whether I dislike it or not doesn’t matter if people are willing to buy into most of it.
It’s a fact that if you can define your opponent in unflattering terms you’ve won on multiple fronts. You’re going to have people who are convinced the accusations are true and the opposition now has to to go on the defensive and respond.
There’s a story about LBJ telling his staffers when he was running for office (not the Presidency, maybe it was when he was going for Texas Senate) to say that his opponent had never denied screwing a pig. So they did. His opponent had to waste time saying that he didn’t screw a pig. But does anyone really know anymore? I mean, if he did, he would never say he did, would he? Maybe he’s not so trustworthy…
The way to end negative campaigning is to have an informed populace, but that only happens if the populace is willing to be informed. That’s the problem.
If no-one takes a stand, nothing ever changes. If you disagree with it, that implies you want it to change. So take a stand. Even if that stand is simply to start discussing this at minor meetings, take it. Don’t let tradition hold you back, we were using healing by bloodloss for hundreds of years too, that didn’t stop us changing it once we realised how retarded it was.
Stand up for what you believe in already.
Edit: And it’s not intrinsic to the system. That’s stupid. It’s used, but not necessary for elections to take place. This makes no sense.
Just because I’m resigned to the fact that negative campaigning is going to outlast us all doesn’t mean I agree with it being used. When I heard someone saying that it’s great we’re having a Muslim running for President, I told them we don’t have a Muslim running because Barack Obama isn’t a Muslim. They didn’t believe me, or I doubt they did, but I still told them the truth. When i went to the Republican Convention I told people that maybe we should hold off on what we heard on the Internet about Obama until we know for sure.
I didn’t gain any votes for Senator McCain by doing these things, but it was the right thing to do. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a drop in the bucket. There are people who will always believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Those people aren’t unreasonable folks, in every other area they’re fine people. But as long as campaign managers know they can convince people so easily about what the truth is, integrity is always going to be in check.
It’s still in no way intrinsic to the system.
The current conversation means nothing anymore. Why? Because right now, I’m so mad I could spit.
What the hell was that? If your going to all the way with attacking Obama, do it the right way, Senator. If Obama is elected everything we’ve sacrified and everything we went through will be for nothing in just sixteen months. You did fine, Senator, you played it safe. We can’t afford to play it safe right now.
We needed specifics. We needed an economic plan that would point out just how unprepared Obama is for the Presidency and how he doesn’t have any expertise on Iraq or the economy. What I got was a standard reboot of stump speeches. I know the stump speeches of both Senators, and I understand that most Americans don’t. Obama can sit on his lead and repeat all his talking points again and again. You can’t afford to do the same thing, Senator.
We need a mixture of extreme substance to counter Obama and instead you tinged it with too much negativity. There wasn’t enough nuance to keep it from being petty.
Damn it. Damn it.
Maybe that’s because once you strip away his POW shield, McCain doesn’t really have much substance.
Great. You seem to be as full of asinine talking points as the candidates. Maybe you should be running for office.
I don’t have time to deal with bull like that and neither does McCain. The POW status doesn’t matter and it was never meant to be a crutch for his campaign; it’s the twenty years of experience and it’s the record he has. That experience and that record is supposed to be used in instances like these. Neither of these candidates were chosen on the basis of the economy. They were chosen on the basis of their positions on the Iraq War. Had this crisis happened a few months earlier this would have been Romney and Clinton on the stage.
Obama knows less about the economy than you. He knows less about the world than you. He shouldn’t be looking presidental and he shouldn’t be the one who might take the White House and destory everything we’ve sacrificed for. Everything. We need to remind the people that this change is a farce if its agent is Barack Obama and we can only do that with substance by the presidential nominees with the VP’s shoring up the jabs against the opposing sides. This was your moment Senator McCain. I should be celebrating how well you took the stage and hearing folks wondering why they considered you the underdog. You sounded like a typical politicain instead of the Straight Talk Express. I needed to see that fire. You framed each argument with a problem of Barack Obama instead of a solution. You need to flip those priorities.
Originally Posted by Mullenkamp
Great. You seem to be as full of asinine talking points as the candidates. Maybe you should be running for office.
If it’s any consolation both candidates have shitty foreign policies that makes me want to stay home on election day.
Teh US r teh g00d 9uyz whil3 Russia’s 3vi1z 5upp0rtingz teh t3rr0i5tz whil3 thr3@t3ning Georgia and Poland. W3 must r0x0rz th3m int0 5ubmi55i0n.
I swear to god it came that close to that level of pandering. I just hope at least one of them was lying out of their ass at this point. 
One could say this about McCain’s polices and voting record and not just his public speaking.
Seeing as how Obama has almost no record to speak of when compared to McCain, I think it’s impossible for McCain to do the same thing. But really, do you guys want to talk about the debate, or just espouse how much you dislike McCain?
Foreign policy doesn’t matter anymore. The American people don’t care about Vladimir Putin if they are fear they might not get a loan to pay for their home. McCain’s campaign was foolish not to define Obama and the Democrats as playing as large a role as they did in the economic crisis as they did. They dropped the ball. McCain’s strong point means nothing now in th face of domestic problems.
Ask Bush 41’ how much successful foreign policy is worth in an election year when there are fears of a recession. Americans jump to the Democrats like crazy in those kinds of times unless they feel that party is totally inept like it was back 1980 with Carter.
Note: I’ll go ahead and say whatever party is currently holding the executive office when an economic crisis occurs is the one that suffers. It’s quite ridiculous, considering it takes years for an economy to respond to the effects of a Presidency.
Oh look it’s not surprising again.
That Rolling Stone article is pretty interesting. Somehow, though, I’m not surprised at its portrayal of McCain - I always assumed all politicians were intemperate jackass womanizers.