Discussion:
anderson's take on the vp picks, king joe, the race.......
(too old to reply)
mianderson
2008-08-20 19:33:13 UTC
Permalink
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week. He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech. Kos summed up the situation today
pretty well with the following: "a new Q-poll has Obama up five,
Gallup has him up three (after being tied a couple of days ago), Ras
has him up two, as does Bloomberg/Times. Look, the race is tightening
at the national level, but it's much less tight when you look at the
state-by-state numbers that, you know, actually decide the presidency.
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."

Here is how I like to look at the situation state by state: Looking
at the electoral map of 2000 that everyone uses as a template, it's a
pretty safe bet that Mccain *cannot* hold all those states that bush
won. Be it colorado, nevada, florida, ohio, virginia, etc.....he may
hold some of those states, but there is no way he holds the 6 or 7
states that Bush has won the last 2 cycles that are most vulnerable.
Which means mccain would have to pick up some states gore won, again
using the 2000 template. And where are they...... Michigan? No way,
the natural gap there between dems and reps there has grown too much
over the last 8 years. Minnesota? Please. Wisconsin? Some polls
there have been close(and some havent been), but Mccain is smoking
dope if he thinks he can steal wisconsin. So that leaves
Pennsylvania, and the numbers for mccain just arent feasible for a few
reasons:

1) Philadelphia turnout with obama on the ticket will be *higher* than
for gore or kerry because of the race thing. Mccain is going to have
a 550,000+ vote deficit to make up after philly is counted. He can't
do that.
2) The state polls that show philly close right now are overcounting
the more gop areas of the state and undercounting the more dem areas.
If you actually take the polling numbers and adjust to better
approximate the voting turnout in each part of the state the last two
cycles, it's more like an 8 pt race in pa and not a dead even race.

Ok, enough about that. Let's talk about kingjoe accepting an
invitation to speak at the gop convention. The rumor mill is saying
that harry reid, levin, etc are prepared to boot kingjoe's *** off his
chairmanship after the election. Hoooray! Apparently this may have
been the straw that did it. And the great thing is that come january
09 we won't need kingjoe's vote because we'll have somewhere between
53 and 56 senators most likely.......the sweetest thing about picking
up more senate seats in 2008 will be the fact that any leverage
kingjoe has is completely gone. Personally I'd like to see capital
security have to drag him out of his chairmanship seat clawing with
them.

Now the vp picks. The media is still clueless in mentioning some
names(bayh) as potential vp's. Yes biden is in the running. Sebelius
is in the running. Dolts like evan bayh aren't. What do I think
about Biden as a vp? Eh....he's fine I guess. I don't think it
really matters either way.
xyzzy
2008-08-20 19:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
mianderson
2008-08-20 19:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
yes. Zogby has been atocious now for the past 4-5 years.
xyzzy
2008-08-20 20:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
yes.  Zogby has been atocious now for the past 4-5 years.
Examples? I haven't been following him that closely, but when I
googled on
"discredited zogby" mainly what I found was 'wingers complaining about
a zogby poll in which 72% of US soldiers in Iraq think we should
leave.

Do you have any cites of progressives or Kosites shitting on Zogby
before this latest poll came out?
mianderson
2008-08-20 20:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
yes. Zogby has been atocious now for the past 4-5 years.
Examples? I haven't been following him that closely, but when I
googled on
"discredited zogby" mainly what I found was 'wingers complaining about
a zogby poll in which 72% of US soldiers in Iraq think we should
leave.
Do you have any cites of progressives or Kosites shitting on Zogby
before this latest poll came out?
ummm...this is the same dolt who said a day before the 2004 election
that kerry would win with over 300 electoral votes. He has been
discredited(by both the left and right) for going on 4 years now. He
also had a disastrous 06.

But regardless of zogby, the gop and gop people in this forum have
been cherry picking polls the last few months. And mainly state
polls. They'll take a poll in pennsyvlania that *drastically*
overrepresented rural and western parts of the state and claim that it
is *the* poll for pennsylvania
xyzzy
2008-08-21 02:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by mianderson
Post by xyzzy
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
yes.  Zogby has been atocious now for the past 4-5 years.
Examples? I haven't been following him that closely, but when I
googled on
"discredited zogby" mainly what I found was 'wingers complaining about
a zogby poll in which 72% of US soldiers in Iraq think we should
leave.
Do you have any cites of progressives or Kosites shitting on Zogby
before this latest poll came out?
ummm...this is the same dolt who said a day before the 2004 election
that kerry would win with over 300 electoral votes.  He has been
discredited(by both the left and right) for going on 4 years now.  He
also had a disastrous 06.
fair enough, that's a good one.
Chris Bellomy
2008-08-20 22:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by mianderson
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
Just wondering, was Zogby shitty and discredited before his latest
poll came out?
Yeah, pretty much. His methods are pretty wack and he was the
least accurate of the pollsters during the primaries.

That said, any polling done before Labor Day is pretty
pointless. Gary Hart was leading Reagan in the summer of
'84.

cb
j***@yahoo.com
2008-08-20 22:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week.  He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused. Mccain is the old white
guy. OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.




Kos summed up the situation today
Post by mianderson
pretty well with the following: "a new Q-poll has Obama up five,
Gallup has him up three (after being tied a couple of days ago), Ras
has him up two, as does Bloomberg/Times. Look, the race is tightening
at the national level, but it's much less tight when you look at the
state-by-state numbers that, you know, actually decide the presidency.
So while it's not exactly a cakewalk, freaking out over single polls
from shitty, discredited pollsters like Zogby is pretty pathetic."
TMML. Zogby was the left's man for the past eight years or so.

BTW, I thought Obama would run away with this? Oh wait, was it it
Hill running away with it over Guiliani. I cant keep your predictions
strait. And its not even football season.
Post by mianderson
Here is how I like to look at the situation state by state:  Looking
at the electoral map of 2000 that everyone uses as a template, it's a
pretty safe bet that Mccain *cannot* hold all those states that bush
won.  Be it colorado, nevada, florida, ohio, virginia, etc.....he may
hold some of those states, but there is no way he holds the 6 or 7
states that Bush has won the last 2 cycles that are most vulnerable.
Which means mccain would have to pick up some states gore won, again
using the 2000 template.  And where are they...... Michigan?  No way,
the natural gap there between dems and reps there has grown too much
over the last 8 years.  Minnesota?  Please.  Wisconsin?  Some polls
there have been close(and some havent been), but Mccain is smoking
dope if he thinks he can steal wisconsin.  So that leaves
Pennsylvania, and the numbers for mccain just arent feasible for a few
1) Philadelphia turnout with obama on the ticket will be *higher* than
for gore or kerry because of the race thing.  Mccain is going to have
a 550,000+ vote deficit to make up after philly is counted.  He can't
do that.
2) The state polls that show philly close right now are overcounting
the more gop areas of the state and undercounting the more dem areas.
If you actually take the polling numbers and adjust to better
approximate the voting turnout in each part of the state the last two
cycles, it's more like an 8 pt race in pa and not a dead even race.
Ok, enough about that.  Let's talk about kingjoe accepting an
invitation to speak at the gop convention.  The rumor mill is saying
that harry reid, levin, etc are prepared to boot kingjoe's *** off his
chairmanship after the election.  Hoooray!  Apparently this may have
been the straw that did it.  And the great thing is that come january
09 we won't need kingjoe's vote because we'll have somewhere between
53 and 56 senators most likely.......the sweetest thing about picking
up more senate seats in 2008 will be the fact that any leverage
kingjoe has is completely gone.  Personally I'd like to see capital
security have to drag him out of his chairmanship seat clawing with
them.
Once again, he goes from THE FIRST JEWISH VEEP NOMINEE!!!!!! to
pariah.

Shameful.
Post by mianderson
Now the vp picks.  The media is still clueless in mentioning some
names(bayh) as potential vp's.  Yes biden is in the running.  Sebelius
is in the running.  Dolts like evan bayh aren't.  What do I think
about Biden as a vp?  Eh....he's fine I guess.  I don't think it
really matters either way.
You better hope its not Biden. His negatives far outweigh his
positives.
Google Beta User
2008-08-20 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
TMML.  Zogby was the left's man for the past eight years or so.
BTW, I thought Obama would run away with this?  
This is something that's been repeated so much which I don't know
where it came from.

McCain was always going to be viewed favorably because of his Maverick
gimmick, and because of the fact that he isn't a right-wing kook and
actually does what he feels is right and honorable, even if it pisses
of the intolerant elements of his party. Being that that's his
reputation, he was always going to do better than Romney, Tancredo,
Thompson, Gingrich or whichever real conservative Repubs would've
liked.

Obama was never going to blow anyone away because he's a new guy, he's
unknown and also because, well...

This idea that Obama is a failure because he's only been leading by
3-6 points through the summer, instead of leading by 283403280 points
is puzzling.
j***@yahoo.com
2008-08-20 22:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Google Beta User
TMML.  Zogby was the left's man for the past eight years or so.
BTW, I thought Obama would run away with this?  
This is something that's been repeated so much which I don't know
where it came from.
I was referring to Mia's predictions.
Post by Google Beta User
McCain was always going to be viewed favorably because of his Maverick
gimmick, and because of the fact that he isn't a right-wing kook and
actually does what he feels is right and honorable, even if it pisses
of the intolerant elements of his party.  Being that that's his
reputation, he was always going to do better than Romney, Tancredo,
Thompson, Gingrich or whichever real conservative Repubs would've
liked.
Obama was never going to blow anyone away because he's a new guy, he's
unknown and also because, well...
This idea that Obama is a failure because he's only been leading by
3-6 points through the summer, instead of leading by 283403280 points
is puzzling.
I never said anything of the sort.

I did figure the race would not be close because of the Bush
backlash.
Google Beta User
2008-08-20 22:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Google Beta User
TMML.  Zogby was the left's man for the past eight years or so.
BTW, I thought Obama would run away with this?  
This is something that's been repeated so much which I don't know
where it came from.
I was referring to Mia's predictions.
Fair enough.

Still there appears to be a general sentiment out there of, "I thought
your guy was supposed to be smoking it? bwahaha".
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Google Beta User
McCain was always going to be viewed favorably because of his Maverick
gimmick, and because of the fact that he isn't a right-wing kook and
actually does what he feels is right and honorable, even if it pisses
of the intolerant elements of his party.  Being that that's his
reputation, he was always going to do better than Romney, Tancredo,
Thompson, Gingrich or whichever real conservative Repubs would've
liked.
Obama was never going to blow anyone away because he's a new guy, he's
unknown and also because, well...
This idea that Obama is a failure because he's only been leading by
3-6 points through the summer, instead of leading by 283403280 points
is puzzling.
I never said anything of the sort.
I did figure the race would not be close because of the Bush
backlash.
It would've been against anyone other than McCain (and possibly
Giuliani).
mianderson
2008-08-21 22:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week. He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused. Mccain is the old white
guy. OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.
when the old white guy reverts back to his stump speech to answer
every single question(even if its not relevant to the question), thats
struggling.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
TMML. Zogby was the left's man for the past eight years or so.
BTW, I thought Obama would run away with this? Oh wait, was it it
Hill running away with it over Guiliani. I cant keep your predictions
strait. And its not even football season.
I never said obama would ruts mccain. I said his victory was pretty
much assured, but that it wouldnt be a 12 pt win or anything. I've
always maintained that obama will win about 305-315 electoral votes
and win the popular vote by 4-5 pts or so.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Once again, he goes from THE FIRST JEWISH VEEP NOMINEE!!!!!! to
pariah.
Shameful.
he changed his politics. There is nothing shameful about democrats
not supporting someone who is going out of their way to undermine the
democratic party....sheeesh.
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by mianderson
Now the vp picks. The media is still clueless in mentioning some
names(bayh) as potential vp's. Yesbidenis in the running. Sebelius
is in the running. Dolts like evanbayharen't. What do I think
aboutBidenas a vp? Eh....he's fine I guess. I don't think it
really matters either way.
You better hope its notBiden. His negatives far outweigh his
positives.
it's completely irrelevant. Biden is fine. He wouldnt be my choice
but the only choices that could hurt obama are someone really
loony(scares people) or someone like bayh or some extreme dlc hack
like that(pisses progressives off). Biden is a dull safe choice that
wont help or hurt obama, which is why it's sensible I guess.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2008-08-22 13:11:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT), mianderson
Post by mianderson
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week. He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused. Mccain is the old white
guy. OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.
when the old white guy reverts back to his stump speech to answer
every single question(even if its not relevant to the question), thats
struggling.
Even Leonard Pitts said McCain "gave the more impressive performance"
at Saddleback.
Post by mianderson
it's completely irrelevant. Biden is fine.
A Harvard elitist, married to a big mouth, choosing a plagiarist as
his running mate.

That's not the problem. The problem is that some people think that's
what's good for this country.

Hugh
mianderson
2008-08-22 13:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT), mianderson
Post by mianderson
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week.  He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused.  Mccain is the old white
guy.  OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.
when the old white guy reverts back to his stump speech to answer
every single question(even if its not relevant to the question), thats
struggling.
Even Leonard Pitts said McCain "gave the more impressive performance"
at Saddleback.
nobody watched that silly q and a.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by mianderson
it's completely irrelevant.  Biden is fine.  
A Harvard elitist, married to a big mouth, choosing a plagiarist as
his running mate.
a potential running mate who is also a fierce attack dog. And really
thats what obama needs. Some guy who is good with words(even if they
arent his own) who isn't afraid to go out and just tear mccain to
pieces. That way obama stays above the fray(to some degree). If
biden is the vp candidate, he's going to spend all his time tearing
mccain a new *******, which is fine with me.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2008-08-22 20:00:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:18:30 -0700 (PDT), mianderson
Post by mianderson
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT), mianderson
Post by mianderson
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week. =A0He's al=
so
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by mianderson
Post by mianderson
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused. =A0Mccain is the old white
guy. =A0OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.
when the old white guy reverts back to his stump speech to answer
every single question(even if its not relevant to the question), thats
struggling.
Even Leonard Pitts said McCain "gave the more impressive performance"
at Saddleback.
nobody watched that silly q and a.
Evidently Pitts did. Like Berra said, "Nobody goes there anymore -
it's too crowded!"
Post by mianderson
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by mianderson
it's completely irrelevant. =A0Biden is fine. =A0
A Harvard elitist, married to a big mouth, choosing a plagiarist as
his running mate.
a potential running mate who is also a fierce attack dog. And really
thats what obama needs. Some guy who is good with words(even if they
arent his own) who isn't afraid to go out and just tear mccain to
pieces. That way obama stays above the fray(to some degree). If
biden is the vp candidate, he's going to spend all his time tearing
mccain a new *******, which is fine with me.
Oh, I understand the strategy. But a busted condom doesn't get the job
done very often - and Biden is one with all the baggage he carries.
Lots of people still believe in honesty.

They won't let Nobama "stay above the fray". His 3rd degeree hasn't
even started yet.

Hugh
lein
2008-08-23 01:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mianderson
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT), mianderson
Post by mianderson
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by mianderson
First, couldn't be more pleased with how the campaign is going.
Mccain seems to be aging 2 years with every passing week. He's also
completely incapable of thinking/answering questions that veer the
slightest off his stump speech.
I think you've got the candidates confused. Mccain is the old white
guy. OBAMA is the one struggling with off the cuff answers.
when the old white guy reverts back to his stump speech to answer
every single question(even if its not relevant to the question), thats
struggling.
Even Leonard Pitts said McCain "gave the more impressive performance"
at Saddleback.
nobody watched that silly q and a.
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by mianderson
it's completely irrelevant. Biden is fine.
A Harvard elitist, married to a big mouth, choosing a plagiarist as
his running mate.
a potential running mate who is also a fierce attack dog. And really
thats what obama needs. Some guy who is good with words(even if they
arent his own) who isn't afraid to go out and just tear mccain to
pieces. That way obama stays above the fray(to some degree). If
biden is the vp candidate, he's going to spend all his time tearing
mccain a new *******, which is fine with me.
So does he attack McCain on Iraq and foreign policy after praising him
for it? Does he attack McCain's ability to be president when Biden
himself said he would like to be McCain's running mate?

Loading...