Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 3

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.

yolland

Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
7,471
Please continue discussion here.

Due to the overly contentious nature of the last several pages of pt. 2, I'm not carrying any posts over this time.
 
Aww, no mention of her hockey-mom-ness in the title? You have to at least mention that one! It's her biggest qualification yet!
 
What's the point of arguing about these people??? None of you are gonna be able to change anybody else's mind. Nobody's gonna be like "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for Obama instead" or "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for McCain instead". People are gonna keep defending their positions and whoever is gonna win is gonna win anyway regardless of these pointless discussions. :down:
 
What's the point of arguing about these people??? None of you are gonna be able to change anybody else's mind. Nobody's gonna be like "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for Obama instead" or "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for McCain instead". People are gonna keep defending their positions and whoever is gonna win is gonna win anyway regardless of these pointless discussions. :down:

There are undecided voters in this forum who may every well read these discussions. But for the most part, it is a merry-go-round, as NSW has put it bluntly (whether quoting him is credible or not).
 
I can't imagine an undecided voter here on Interference making a decision based on the back and forth bickering and nitpicking that happens here.

If someone is trying to make a decision based on these threads ... then jebus help them.
 
I can't imagine an undecided voter here on Interference making a decision based on the back and forth bickering and nitpicking that happens here.

If someone is trying to make a decision based on these threads ... then jebus help them.

Oh no, I don't mean the arguments, I mean the continual news updates that go on, the posted articles and whatnot.

If people were voting based on an Irvine-STING debate, I'd be shocked.
 
What's the point of arguing about these people??? None of you are gonna be able to change anybody else's mind. Nobody's gonna be like "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for Obama instead" or "Oh what you're saying makes sense, I'll vote for McCain instead". People are gonna keep defending their positions and whoever is gonna win is gonna win anyway regardless of these pointless discussions. :down:

I don't think this is entirely true.

I've changed my views on various issues in part becaue of reasonable arguments that were made on this forum.

Not everyone in FYM is Sting.
 

Don't get overly excited yet. These "polls" tend to swing back and forth until election day. I wouldn't put too much faith in them - especially thinking Obama's got it and then some folks not bothering to vote. Everyone thought John Kerry was going to beat Bush in 04.

The way the media is playing this saying stuff like the "Palin excitement is leveling off" has nothing to do with the facts. It's the Wall Street collapse that's giving the Dems the edge right now. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Don't get overly excited yet. These "polls" tend to swing back and forth until election day. I wouldn't put too much faith in them

Trying to have it both ways aren't you? You used polls to "prove" your point at the beggining of Palin's bounce, now it's don't put too much faith in polls. Wow, at least you're entertaining...

The way the media is playing this saying stuff like the "Palin excitement is leveling off" has nothing to do with the facts. It's the Wall Street collapse that's giving the Dems the edge right now. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing to do with the facts? How are you so knowledgable about everyone's thought process to know that Palin has nothing to do with this?
 
Everyone thought John Kerry was going to beat Bush in 04.


no, actually, no one thought that. Kerry was slightly behind in all the polls right up until election day.



The way the media is playing this saying stuff like the "Palin excitement is leveling off" has nothing to do with the facts. It's the Wall Street collapse that's giving the Dems the edge right now. Nothing more, nothing less.


the facts are that, yes, the economy plays into Democratic strengths because they aren't the party that's deregulated the system to the point where it has collapsed. you're ignoring the fact that Palin's unfavorables are rising and her favorable ratings are plummeting. her Gibson interview did not go over well, and her background is becoming a liability.

so it's important to take a whole spectrum of events into account when you look at shifting polls.
 
The Palin levelling off was already beginning last week before the Wall St. clusterfuck.
 
Trying to have it both ways aren't you? You used polls to "prove" your point at the beggining of Palin's bounce, now it's don't put too much faith in polls. Wow, at least you're entertaining...

well he meant to say
polls don´t mean much when certain decision makers can easily manipulate the software that counts the votes
 
no, actually, no one thought that. Kerry was slightly behind in all the polls right up until election day.






the facts are that, yes, the economy plays into Democratic strengths because they aren't the party that's deregulated the system to the point where it has collapsed. you're ignoring the fact that Palin's unfavorables are rising and her favorable ratings are plummeting. her Gibson interview did not go over well, and her background is becoming a liability.

so it's important to take a whole spectrum of events into account when you look at shifting polls.

No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.
 
It's the Wall Street collapse that's giving the Dems the edge right now. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obama's rebound is mostly due to his fighting the fuck back rather than take the "I'm not going to dignify this..." position.

and yes, when the economy tanks, Dems will gain.

I notice the US embassy attack didn't have much of an effect either.

I'm surprised the Reps didn't try and scare some voters.
 
No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.

Kerry trailed in the daily tracking polls pretty much from the Rep convention to the election.

The reason people thought he was going to win was the exit polling on election day. Clearly it was wrong.
 
No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.

I would have been more concerned if a campaign volunteer and avid supporters of Kerry didn't believe in him winning while campaigning for him.
 
No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.

I love when blanket statements are used, such as saying "people thought Kerry was going to win" all in the name of trying to win a point. Who exactly are these people? Well, as you yourself have stated, these "people" were "hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win."

As Vincent said, of course they thought he was going to win, they were his supporters! But as was already pointed out numerous times, the polls at the time all showed that Kerry was slightly behind.
 
No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.

I think all that proves is that all the people your friend knows/knew thought Kerry would win. Chances are slim your friend actually knows most of the people in the United States. ;)
 
I think all that proves is that all the people your friend knows/knew thought Kerry would win. Chances are slim your friend actually knows most of the people in the United States. ;)

Duh. It's called the law of averages. Besides, I was following the election very closely as well and even though I had a gut feeling that Bush was going to take it I never saw anything on any network that week that called it for either of them. All the reports I saw on numerous networks and newspapers said it was "too close to call".
 
No sir, actually most people thought Kerry was going to win. You're wrong...again. A friend of mine who has worked for the Democrats for years was a volunteer for John Kerry in 2004 and even as the election results were coming in on election night he was with hundreds of Kerry supporters and every single one of them thought Kerry was going to win - not by much mind you - but that yes, he was going to win. I'll never forget the tone of his voice over the phone when it was announced that indeed Bush was re-elected. Pure heartbreak.

People who work for the Democrats have a different mindset than your average American.

Your average American thought it would be close and that both had a shot, but that Bush was the favorite.
 
Duh. It's called the law of averages. Besides, I was following the election very closely as well and even though I had a gut feeling that Bush was going to take it I never saw anything on any network that week that called it for either of them. All the reports I saw on numerous networks and newspapers said it was "too close to call".

You talked to a guy who was at an election party entirely composed of pro-Kerry people. People that are that strongly in favor of a candidate that they would go to a party on election night could very easily be a bit disillusioned because of their fervent support. Like a sports fan that has total faith in a mediocre team. Not all of them, mind you, but enough that it's certainly not accurate.

I don't know if you've ever worked in stats (or common sense), but that's not an accurate representation of America, by your law of averages standards.
 
You talked to a guy who was at an election party entirely composed of pro-Kerry people. People that are that strongly in favor of a candidate that they would go to a party on election night could very easily be a bit disillusioned because of their fervent support. Like a sports fan that has total faith in a mediocre team. Not all of them, mind you, but enough that it's certainly not accurate.

I don't know if you've ever worked in stats (or common sense), but that's not an accurate representation of America, by your law of averages standards.

I knew you'd jump all over the "law of averages" statement without ever even attempting to explain why dozens of newspapers and news networks were saying all week "too close to call".

Anyways, I digress. Isn't this thread supposed to be about Lois Lane...uh, I mean Wonderwoman...uh.... Tina Fey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom