Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And like that one, probably meant to exploit the readiness of certain segments of the electorate to stereotype other segments as scary, hateful boneheads--the Angry Black Person who hates white people and can't wait 'til they get enough power to stab them in the back, or in this case the dumb Alaskan redneck whose "common, everyday chatter" is a stream of racial slurs.



indeed.

my meta point was that it cuts both ways.
 
McPalin rattles Team Obama
The Democratic ticket finds itself trapped by a McCain-Palin double-team.


Jonah Goldberg
September 9, 2008
» Discuss Article Barack Obama, a famous fan of pickup basketball, must recognize his plight: It's two on one now. John McCain drafted Gov. Sarah Palin, the star point guard from the Wasilla Warriors, to double-team Obama.

(McCain's team doesn't care if no one covers Joe Biden, who seems to spend most of his time yelling to the media, "I'm open! I'm open!" But when he gets the ball, all he does is talk about what a great player he is and dribble in place.)

So after the halftime show of the political conventions, to strain the sports metaphor a bit further, it looks as if the change-up in strategy has Team Obama rattled and in danger of choking. Polls -- the closest thing we have to a scoreboard -- show that McCain, at least temporarily, has taken the lead. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls since Friday shows McCain ahead by a razor-thin (and statistically meaningless) 2.9 percentage points. The USA Today-Gallup poll has McCain leading by a whopping 10 points among likely voters (and four points among registered voters), though that's almost surely an overstatement.

The McCain-Palin convention bounce also all but closed the ticket's gender gap. According to Rasmussen, Obama had a 14-point lead among women; now it's three. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, McCain now has a 12-point lead among white women.


Still, there's a lot of pressure on Sarah Barracuda. Called up from the political minors, she could yet wilt under the hot lights. But that's looking less and less likely.

The outrageous attacks on Palin out of the block (She banned books! She opposed family planning education! She's a creationist!) have missed the mark. And the eagerness of the mainstream media to go after her family life has backfired as well. For instance, the Washington Post's Hanna Rosin wrote sneeringly in Slate magazine of Palin's "wreck of a home life." Would Slate say that Obama, conceived out of wedlock to a teen mom, comes from a "wreck" of a family? I somehow doubt it.

Palin's more sober critics, mostly on the right, worried that picking her would undermine McCain's claim to "experience." Almost the exact opposite has happened. Thanks to the double-team strategy, Obama has found himself in the awkward position of sounding as if he's running against the GOP's vice presidential nominee. When Obama compared his own experience to Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla (leaving out her current job as governor), he ran right into the pick the McCain campaign had set, leaving McCain a clearer path to victory.

The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer -- or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt -- is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain.


Besides, on paper, Obama doesn't stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama's political narrative -- the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician -- all look like press-release material next to Palin's accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama's supposedly "sweeping" ethics reform -- which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down -- and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin's Godzilla.

Obama's idea of ethics reform is to mandate clean sheets in the brothel. Palin's is to tear it down.

The most unsportsmanlike conduct in the days to come will be the search for Palin gaffes, of which there undoubtedly will be many. The media will call fouls on her that they never call on the other candidates. Over the last week, Obama misspoke and referred to his "Muslim faith" on ABC's "This Week" and told a rally how excited he was to be in "New Pennsylvania." Perhaps that's one of the 57 states he once claimed to campaign in?


And let's not forget Biden, whose gaffes are the unavoidable byproduct of his limitless gasbaggery. Biden could shout on "Meet the Press," "Get these squirrels off of me!" and the collective response would be, "There goes Joe again." But if Palin flubs the name of the deputy agriculture minister of Kyrgyzstan, the media will blow their whistles saying she's unprepared for the job.

Fair or not, that's how it works in the pros. But so far, it still looks as if the MVP title is hers to lose.

McPalin rattles Team Obama - Los Angeles Times
 



listening to that librul Chuck Todd this morning, he felt these numbers were a little off -- a 20 point swing is enormous, but it does show the fact that McCain is currently incidental to this race. he's literally riding the back of Palin up in the polls.

my guess is that support among women, in reaction to what was a historic nomination, is that it's wide, but not yet deep.

most of the polling out today shows that the race is pretty much tied, which means that McCain got what he could out of his all-or-nothing VP pick, and also the timing of the pick designed to squelch media attention away from Obama's speech as well as having the huge advantage of having their convention last.

the polls will probably cough and sneeze a bit but remain relatively stable until the debates.
 
Time will tell but these baseless attacks by KoS and the like will not help their guy if they keep it up. Especially with the level to which they have stooped.



so ironic, considering Republican history when it comes to these kinds of attacks.

i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just saying that the Republicans have absolutely no legs to stand on when it comes to denouncing "unfair" ads.
 
I'm not sure if they did or not, but that's not the point. It's McCain and Palin who are talking about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere, not Obama or Biden. So their hypocrisy is relevant here.

But will the average American see it that way or as why are Obama/Biden attacking when they have done the same and more? Regardless of what Palin did, her job is to support the agenda of McCain. It is his desire to eliminate earmarks and he has a record that is consistent with that position.

I agree that your point is a reasonable one but will people see it that way? That is why I said before, I dont think this is an area where the Dems should go on the attack like Obama has done this week. In trying to raise the question of hypocrisy, they open themselves to scrutiny of their own records that, IMO, would serve to strengthen the McCain position.
 
But will the average American see it that way or as why are Obama/Biden attacking when they have done the same and more? Regardless of what Palin did, her job is to support the agenda of McCain. It is his desire to eliminate earmarks and he has a record that is consistent with that position.

I agree that your point is a reasonable one but will people see it that way? That is why I said before, I dont think this is an area where the Dems should go on the attack like Obama has done this week. In trying to raise the question of hypocrisy, they open themselves to scrutiny of their own records that, IMO, would serve to strengthen the McCain position.



it's also fair to hold Palin to her record. and if her record belies the "agenda of McCain," and in fact contradicts it, then it should absolutely be a part of the conversation.
 
But will the average American see it that way or as why are Obama/Biden attacking when they have done the same and more?

I think most will see it that way. Unfortunately we live in a day where we kinda expect our politicians to change their minds or "flip flop" as the Republicans have coined it, to a certain extent. It's a matter of how much and how big is the flip flop. The bridge to nowhere has been a pretty big story nationally and McCain was one of the most vocal about it, so to pick someone who supported it will get some big attention. This is a big part of his platform! Some can explain themselves out of the hypocricy and she hasn't explained herself well on this subject.
 
so ironic, considering Republican history when it comes to these kinds of attacks.

i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just saying that the Republicans have absolutely no legs to stand on when it comes to denouncing "unfair" ads.

I'll give you that. This kind of crap has gone on as long as there have been elections. With Kerry it was the swift boat thing which was unfair and irrelevant. With GW Bush it was National Guard Service.

I think the difference with Palin, as a partial result of her being a new face, is the sheer number of rumors and lies that have been quickly debunked. Its not one attack on lets say the Bridge, that the fringe media is sticking with...like the swift boat thing. They could probably get some run with that if they were not running in 50 different directions with her. Instead it is who is the real mom of her newborn? Palin is a Nazi? Palin only wants abstinence taught in schools. All things proven untrue very quickly. If these rumormongers were real media, they could have found the facts before spreading the rumors. It was all out there. I think it just confirms that these are politically biased attacks and not real reporting or the media vetting a VP candidate.... but I think we already knew that.
 
it's also fair to hold Palin to her record. and if her record belies the "agenda of McCain," and in fact contradicts it, then it should absolutely be a part of the conversation.

But that is where her State of the State address this year plays. She said Alaska, "..can not and must not rely so heavily on earmarks." It is not the exact same position as McCain, but it does speak to a desire to get away from them. You can make that point that it is a thin argument. However, it is what she said and is better from her and McCain than if she never said anything about them.
 
But that is where her State of the State address this year plays. She said Alaska, "..can not and must not rely so heavily on earmarks." It is not the exact same position as McCain, but it does speak to a desire to get away from them. You can make that point that it is a thin argument. However, it is what she said and is better from her and McCain than if she never said anything about them.



so she says one thing, and does another.

this leads me to conclude that she's a fraud and the campaign is lying.

i'm guessing i won't be alone in this conclusion.
 
Instead it is who is the real mom of her newborn? Palin is a Nazi? Palin only wants abstinence taught in schools. All things proven untrue very quickly.

Actually the abstinence issue has not been proven untrue. In writing we have that she supports abstinence being taught in schools, and then we have the one quote you provided that really doesn't address the issue fully, it just says the pro-contraception and didn't want "explicit" education, whatever that means.

So we may not really know where she stands, we haven't really heard what if anything she's done regarding this while she's in office. Time will tell, although I have a feeling she won't be very vocal about this issue given current circumstances.
 
I think most will see it that way. Unfortunately we live in a day where we kinda expect our politicians to change their minds or "flip flop" as the Republicans have coined it, to a certain extent. It's a matter of how much and how big is the flip flop. The bridge to nowhere has been a pretty big story nationally and McCain was one of the most vocal about it, so to pick someone who supported it will get some big attention. This is a big part of his platform! Some can explain themselves out of the hypocricy and she hasn't explained herself well on this subject.

You have a good point. I dont think she has really explained herself at all on it. It is a reasonable question. Hopefully she will address it and hopefully everyone is going to be open minded enough to listen without prejudice.
 
Actually the abstinence issue has not been proven untrue. In writing we have that she supports abstinence being taught in schools, and then we have the one quote you provided that really doesn't address the issue fully, it just says the pro-contraception and didn't want "explicit" education, whatever that means.

So we may not really know where she stands, we haven't really heard what if anything she's done regarding this while she's in office. Time will tell, although I have a feeling she won't be very vocal about this issue given current circumstances.


It is not just "one quote." There are several times where it was stated during her run. I thought it would be redundant to post several quotes saying that same thing. The fact is the rumors about abstinence only is schools is not true
 
It would be kind of pathetic if the only reason people start supporting the Republican ticket is because they're pissed about rumors and internet gossip.

But then, the American voting public isn't chock full of people who make good decisions, is it?
 
so she says one thing, and does another.

this leads me to conclude that she's a fraud and the campaign is lying.

i'm guessing i won't be alone in this conclusion.

Well she did rely on earmarks quite a bit, which made me question the stories of her supporting succession when that came out because obviously she couldn't have been that confident Alaska could act on it's own. We now know she probably wasn't ever a member of the AIP but her ties to them are somewhat :scratch:
 
It would be kind of pathetic if the only reason people start supporting the Republican ticket is because they're pissed about rumors and internet gossip.

But then, the American voting public isn't chock full of people who make good decisions, is it?

But is does serve to fire up people that may have been apathetic about voting. I know people who were not going to vote that are excited now. Voter turn out is going to be very important in this election.

It seems more than a little unfair to say that, "the American voting public isn't chock full of people who make good decisions." What are you basing that on? Is it possibly that fact that the guy you wanted did not win or proposition you wanted did not pass? If thats the case, it would seem a bit judgmental that your opinion is right and anyone that does not agree with you and vote that same way is not making a "good decision"
 
It seems more than a little unfair to say that, "the American voting public isn't chock full of people who make good decisions." What are you basing that on? Is it possibly that fact that the guy you wanted did not win or proposition you wanted did not pass? If thats the case, it would seem a bit judgmental that your opinion is right and anyone that does not agree with you and vote that same way is not making a "good decision"

:applaud:
 
:up:

Anyone who disagrees should google "question D3"

Very conservative: 20%
Somewhat conservative: 40%
Moderate: 2%
Somewhat liberal: 27%
Very liberal: 9%

Out of curiosity, who conducted this survey? I mean, who is responsible for these statistics? I don't argue that the country is (unfortunately) more conservative than liberal, I'm just curious as to the source.
 
Out of curiosity, who conducted this survey? I mean, who is responsible for these statistics? I don't argue that the country is (unfortunately) more conservative than liberal, I'm just curious as to the source.

It's a bipartisan poll called the "Battleground Poll" sponsored by George Washington University.

Here's what is said about it:


"The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public opinion polls, released its latest results on August 20th. Although many people read this poll for the data on voter preference in upcoming elections, for voter opinions about the two major political parties, for what things matter most to voters, I always zip past this data in the first fifteen pages of poll results and go straight to Question D3, which very quietly and totally ignored proclaims the biggest missing story in American politics and which is the only story, in the long run, that really matters.

I have been tracking Question D3 for a long time, since June 2002, in thirteen straight Battleground Poll results. Americans respond to this question more consistently than to any other question in those thirteen Battleground Poll surveys. People may change their opinions dramatically about Iraq or President Bush or drilling for oil, but not their answer to Question D3.

The Battleground Poll is different. It is bipartisan. A Republican polling organization, the Terrance Group, and a Democrat polling organization, Lake Research Partners, collaborate in picking the questions, selecting the sample population, conducting the surveys, and analyzing the results. The Battleground Poll website, along with the raw data, is "Republican Strategic Analysis" and "Democratic Strategic Analysis." There are few polls that are bipartisan. No other polling organization asks the same questions year after year, none that reveal the internals of their poll results so completely, and none ask anything like Question D3 in every survey. What is Question D3 and what were the results to Question D3 in the August 20, 2008 Battleground Poll? It is this:

When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...

--Very conservative

--Somewhat conservative

--MODERATE

--Somewhat liberal

--Very liberal

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

Sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative. Does this mean that most Americans do not know what "conservative" means? No: The question specifically provides an out to people who are not sure about their ideology; it provides an out to people who want to be considered "moderate." Americans reject those choices. They overwhelmingly define themselves as "conservative." This is a huge political story - except that it is not "new" at all. Look at the thirteen Battleground Poll results over the last six years, and how do Americans answer that very question? Here are the percentages of Americans in those polls who call themselves "conservative" since June 2002: 59% (June 2002 poll), 59% (September 2003 poll), 61% (April 2004 poll), 59% (June 2004 poll), 60% (September 2004 poll), 61% (October 2005 poll), 59% (March 2006), 61% (October 2006), 59% (January 2007), 63% (July 2007), 58% (December 2007), 63% (May 2008), and now 60% (August 2008.)"
 
:up:

Anyone who disagrees should google "question D3"

Very conservative: 20%
Somewhat conservative: 40%
Moderate: 2%
Somewhat liberal: 27%
Very liberal: 9%

Kind of a useless poll. Not that I disagree, I would assume the majority will fall in the conservative slot, it's easier to vote for self interest.

But the definition of conservative has a lot of gray.

The other interesting thing about this is I keep hearing from you and many others how the fact that this race is close is somehow an indication that the Democrats are screwing up, we should be up by 10 points. Sounds like some folks like to have it both ways.
 
Kind of a useless poll. Not that I disagree, I would assume the majority will fall in the conservative slot, it's easier to vote for self interest.

But the definition of conservative has a lot of gray.

The other interesting thing about this is I keep hearing from you and many others how the fact that this race is close is somehow an indication that the Democrats are screwing up, we should be up by 10 points. Sounds like some folks like to have it both ways.

And even though 60% claim to be conservative, judging by all the state polls on realclearpolitics.com and applying them to the electoral college, if the election were held today, Obama would win. Why is this?

My guess is that the 40% who answered "somewhat conservative" are people who are not necessarily thrilled with the the "neocon" movement that has defined the Republican Party in recent years.

Point being, there are conservative democrats and liberal republicans. They are all moderates in the overall scheme of things. I think the 2% for moderates is a very misleading stat.

I'm in a minority - 9% :cute:
 
The other interesting thing about this is I keep hearing from you and many others how the fact that this race is close is somehow an indication that the Democrats are screwing up, we should be up by 10 points. Sounds like some folks like to have it both ways.

Well it's hard to say. Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country by at least 5 to 6 percent, so it creates kind of a weird paradox.

Perhaps the average American is a conservative Democrat? :shrug:
 
Kind of a useless poll. Not that I disagree, I would assume the majority will fall in the conservative slot, it's easier to vote for self interest.

But the definition of conservative has a lot of gray.

The other interesting thing about this is I keep hearing from you and many others how the fact that this race is close is somehow an indication that the Democrats are screwing up, we should be up by 10 points. Sounds like some folks like to have it both ways.

Well, since according to many, the current Republican President in the White House is the "worst in US history", Democrats should win in November by one of the largest landslides in history.:wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom