Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2 - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-03-2008, 08:31 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Maybe I am late to the party but I think I've finally wrapped my head around this choice.

McCain didn't pick her because she would attract the disenfranchised women from HRC's camp, which was a rather asanine proposition to begin with (aside from anecdotal bits about select voters here and there, it would take MILLIONS of her 18 million 'cracks in the glass ceiling' to matter).

He picked her because she would be a sympathetic punching bag and he could turn a lot of 'middle' voters against the media first and then by proxy against Obama.

Her qualifications are almost off the table right now.
First of all you have the Obama experience issue, not the most impressive resume.
"How can you attack her resume with a similar one?"
It doesn't merely take the issue of experience off the table FOR Obama, it makes her nearly impervious to the charge as well. A charge they KNOW will be made. Hence=punching bag

Then you have the idea that there is a vicious and ugly Far Left (examples" the slimey attack blogs like Daily Kos and the nutjob protesters who have showed up at BOTH conventions) They make her sympathetic to a lot of mothers with their attacks. The protesters work to turn middle American by themselves and their "unAmericanism" this doesn't have to do with the Palin selection directly but it works to form the "Far Left" narrative, as in, "they are all against us!!!" And then the flag waving begins...

Then you have the perception that the media was always in the tank for Obama.
It's made all attacks against her specious. They made the pregnant daughter thign an issue and it (IMO) has backfired.

Brilliant.

Now, does that mean it will change the election? Maybe not.
However, strategically speaking, I think it was a bold, smart move.

They've gone from the damage of Obama's inxperience, in which this well has run pretty dry to turn the tables and make this about the media being unfair to the poor mother whos' become a punching bag.

And we wonder why Republicans win elections.
I applaud you. You seem to be a person that has given this the serious thought it deserves and have come up with the right answer. While those morons on the left (and I consider myself left and want Obama to win!!!) rant and rave on about "experience" "teen pregnancy" and " Hillary voters never going for a pro-life cadidate" the Republicans will meanwhile build up a bloc of voters that could care less about teen pregnancy, Hillary Clinton and think the word experience means another Washington insider (like, perhaps Joe Biden). All these nincompoops that actually think she'll "step down" and be replaced by boobs like Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge or Lieberman are completely out of their minds. Haven't they seen what this has created???? My God, how stupid can some of you who call yourselves politically aware be for crying in the soup. It absolutley baffles me. It is frightening. And it is the reason these two could actually win this November.
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:34 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
It's close. Just pretend I supplied a poll to justify my argument, because that's all polls are worth. They can be made to say whatever you want to say. You know this.

You are giving people like Charlie Black too little credit.

They knew they didn't have a solid choice that would please all comers.
So they spent a lot of time thinking out of the box.
I think they knew that they had to unify the party as "us against them"
This is how they did it.

It's a theory anyways, I cettainly could be wrong.
Oh and another thing, Mac only needs 5-8% of the 18 million of Hillary's supporters to tip the scales.

I think he has that w/or w/out Sarah he prolly could of did it w Mitt.



<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:41 PM   #78
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Holy crap I just noticed that the first thread on Palin got 10,061 views!!!
That's more than the Presidential thread...now what does that tell you about this choice???
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:43 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Holy crap I just noticed that the first thread on Palin got 10,061 views!!!
That's more than the Presidential thread...now what does that tell you about this choice???

That you have busy fingers ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:51 PM   #80
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Holy crap I just noticed that the first thread on Palin got 10,061 views!!!
That's more than the Presidential thread...now what does that tell you about this choice???
That it's a story.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:57 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:23 PM
Uh oh.
A Hillary defector, 17,999,999.00 to go



http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/20...s-john-mccain/
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 08:58 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:23 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:02 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:23 PM
not a big fan of Ann

but this time

the right wing screw ball

may be more right

than many on the left

Quote:
THE BEST MAN TURNED OUT TO BE A WOMAN
by Ann Coulter
September 3, 2008

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him -- a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.

The media are hopping mad about McCain's vice presidential selection, but they're really furious over at MSNBC. After drawing "Keith + Obama" hearts on their denim notebooks, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews stayed up all night last Thursday, writing jokes about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the presumed vice presidential pick. Now they can't use any of them.

So the media are taking it out on our brave Sarah and her 17-year-old daughter.

They claimed Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. In fact, Palin was chosen because she's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She's fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she's a "Republican."

As a right-winger, Palin will appeal to the narrow 59 percent of Americans who voted for another former small-market sportscaster: Ronald Reagan. Our motto: Sarah Palin is only a heartbeat away!

If you're going to say Palin was chosen because she's a woman, you're going to have to demonstrate that the runners-up were more qualified. Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems like a terrific fellow and fine governor, but he is not obviously more qualified than Palin.

As for former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, the other also-rans, I can think of at least 40 million unborn reasons she's better than either of them.

Within the first few hours after Palin's name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?

The media hysterically denounced Palin as "inexperienced." But then people started to notice that she has more executive experience than B. Hussein Obama -- the guy at the top of the Democrats' ticket.

They tried to create a "Troopergate" for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.

For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin's ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.

The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it's irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals' new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency.

They claimed her newborn wasn't her child, but the child of her 17-year-old daughter. That turned out to be a lie.

Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they're opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain's vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.

But at least liberal reporters had finally found someone their own size to pick on: a 17-year-old girl.

Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren't particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.

While the difficult circumstances of Palin's pregnant daughter are being covered like a terrorist attack on the nation, with leering accounts of the 18-year-old father, the media remain resolutely uninterested in the parentage of Edwards' mistress's love child. Except, that is, the hardworking reporters at the National Enquirer, who say Edwards is the father.

As this goes to press, the latest media-invented scandal about Palin is that McCain didn't know her well before choosing her as his running mate. He knew her well enough, though admittedly, not as well as Obama knows William Ayers.

John F. Kennedy, who was -- from what the media tell me -- America's most beloved president, detested his vice president, Lyndon Johnson.

Until Clinton interviewed Al Gore one time before choosing him as his vice presidential candidate, he had met Gore only one other time: when Gore was running for president in 1988 and flew to Little Rock seeking Clinton's endorsement. Clinton turned him down.

To this day, there's no proof that Bill Clinton ever met one-on-one with his CIA director, James Woolsey, other than a brief chat after midnight the night before Woolsey's nomination was announced.

Barring some all-new, trivial and probably false story about Palin -- her former hairdresser got a parking ticket in 1978! -- the media apparently intend to keep being hysterical about McCain's alleged failure to "vet" Palin properly. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that everyone is asking: "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?"

No one's saying that.

Attacks on McCain's "vetting" process require the media to keep claiming that Palin has a lot of problems. But she doesn't have any problems. Remember? Those were all blind alleys.

Unfortunately, for the ordinary TV viewer hearing nonstop hysteria about nonspecific "problems," it takes a lot of effort to figure out that every attack liberals have launched against Palin turned out to be a lie.

It's as if a basketball player made the winning shot in the last three seconds of the game and liberals demand that we have a week-long discussion about whether the player should have taken that shot. WHAT IF HE MISSED?

With Palin, McCain didn't miss.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:04 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 12:23 AM
If Ann Coulter says it, you know it's wrong.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:29 PM   #85
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
not a big fan of Ann

but this time

the right wing screw ball

may be more right

than many on the left
Can't stand Ann...but I've got to admit that in this circumstance she's right on the button.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:34 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
M-

Gallup is not the most reliable polling data-they usually poll "registered voters" only.

Here's a cpl of suggestions for you:

Count polls with likely voters-that's usually more accurate.
Count the polls that include Nader Barr etc, becuause they usually swing elections.

Get back to us.



<>
None of the polls you mentioned matter.

Polls that matter are polls of likely voters with all candidates---but broken down by state. National polls are useless, save for swaying public opinion. When the final result of the election is based on electoral votes, it doesn't matter if all of Alaska votes for McCain or if all of Delaware votes Obama, nor if the national polls have a 46-45 race. If 60% of California is for Obama and 52% of Ohio is for McCain....that tells us more of what November 4th is going to show, as well as where the work currently needs to be focused.
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:49 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utoo View Post
None of the polls you mentioned matter.

.
the type of polls do matter was my point for accuracy sakes.

listen ive been voting since 1980, i know how the electoral process works.

you should look at a polls that have all the canidates listed, plus likely voters vs reg voters w only 2 choices is not the best model- was my larger point.

it will come down to a few states and how a few electoral votes fall as it has the last few elections.
<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:51 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 12:23 AM
^Gotcha, my bad.
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 09:59 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Hot mic catches GOP strategists trashing Palin pick

(CNN) – Prominent Republican analysts Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy became the latest victims of an open microphone Wednesday, caught after a segment on MSNBC trashing John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Noonan, a Wall Street Journal columnist and former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, and Murphy, a campaign strategist and onetime aide to John McCain, can both be heard expressing disbelief with the pick of Palin after they apparently thought they were in a commercial break.

“I come out of the blue swing-state governor world, Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney,” Murphy said during the mishap which has since been posted on YouTube. Murphy later flatly says of the pick, "It's not going to work."

Noonan is heard going even further, saying of the presidential race, "It's over."

"I think they went for this — excuse me– political bulls–t about narratives," Noonan also said. "Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Murphy, who was a senior adviser to John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, also adds, "You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical."

UPDATE: Writing on the Wall Street Journal Web site, Noonan apologizes for using profanity and says she was not claiming McCain's campaign was "over."

"In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up," she writes. "The first lesson they learned is the one they remember," I said to [MSNBC's Chuck] Todd — and I'm pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to."

__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 09-03-2008, 10:13 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,482
Local Time: 11:23 PM
Ann Coulter sure as hell gets this right:

Quote:
As for former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, the other also-rans, I can think of at least 40 million unborn reasons she's better than either of them.
really, that's all it comes down to.

McCain wanted Lieberman. we know this. the Republicans said they'd freak out if he picked someone who doesn't believe in forced pregnancy. thus, they tried to go for broke and picked Palin.

it's a gimmick designed to please the base.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com