NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting that the Administration seems to understand that concept when it comes to bailing out the finance corporations that tanked the economy, but not in Iraq. "We MUST spend $700B of taxpayer money because staying here and doing nothing will make it worse" -- why couldn't they have seen that with Iraq?

Because it just proves how close a friendship the banks and the military industrial complex has with the US polticans. It suxs big time.

Yea, and have our soliders come home in body bags all the time. *sighs* We had that happen in the droves in Vietnam. Why do we have to repeat history? The truth is the Iraqis don't want the US there. Why should the US stay there and dominate a sovereign nation? It makes the US look like imperalists, which we probably are.

Yes, we are damned if we stay and we are damned if we leave, but why should we compound an error by staying? There really isn't an answer to the problem, but it's a worthless endevor in staying.

Because unlike the Vietnamese, the Iraqis will come after you if you leave. With Boeings and car bombs. That's what religious extremists do.

And believe me, the US are no imperialists.

Because unlike the Vietnamese, the Iraqis will come after you if you leave. With Boeings and car bombs. That's what religious extremists do.

And believe me, the US are no imperialists.

when was the last time we were car bombed by an Iraqi outside of Iraq?

I think you MIGHT be mixing up Iraq with Afghanistan. As far as Middle East nations go, Iraq is fairly religiously moderate and secular.

Or at least, you know, it was...

And believe me, the US are no imperialists.


*laughs* Oh yea.... we're not imperalists. Gee how many bases do we have in Saudi Arabia and how many are we trying to build in Iraq? If that isn't imperialism, I don't know what is? The US spends way too much money borrowed and taxed off of it's citizens for war and war materials, and not enough on it's people. It reaks of foreign domination.

Because unlike the Vietnamese, the Iraqis will come after you if you leave. With Boeings and car bombs. That's what religious extremists do.

And believe me, the US are no imperialists.

Are you implying that Iraqis are all terrorists? Or that the entire nation is part of Al Qaeda? That it was Iraq who was behind 9/11? Al Qaeda may be in Iraq now (thanks to the invasion), but that doesn't mean that Iraq as a nation can be counted on to launch terrorist attacks against the United States if left to govern themselves.

when was the last time we were car bombed by an Iraqi outside of Iraq?

1993, actually.

I think you MIGHT be mixing up Iraq with Afghanistan. As far as Middle East nations go, Iraq is fairly religiously moderate and secular.

Or at least, you know, it was...

Yes. BECAUSE OF SADDAM. He's gone now, and you've got raving lunatics like the Mahdi Army running around.

Because unlike the Vietnamese, the Iraqis will come after you if you leave. With Boeings and car bombs. That's what religious extremists do.

And believe me, the US are no imperialists.
the iraqis have never done anything to us. there is no reason to think that they will in the future.

and furthermore if there is some group in iraq who has such an inclination there is nothing to stop them from doing it even if we stay in iraq for 100 years.

Are you implying that Iraqis are all terrorists? Or that the entire nation is part of Al Qaeda? That it was Iraq who was behind 9/11? Al Qaeda may be in Iraq now (thanks to the invasion), but that doesn't mean that Iraq as a nation can be counted on to launch terrorist attacks against the United States if left to govern themselves.

Nah, they might just fund and harbour terrorists. That would be much better.

*laughs* Oh yea.... we're not imperalists. Gee how many bases do we have in Saudi Arabia and how many are we trying to build in Iraq? If that isn't imperialism, I don't know what is? The US spends way too much money borrowed and taxed off of it's citizens for war and war materials, and not enough on it's people. It reaks of foreign domination.

No, you're not imperialists. ROME was imperialist. And you are no Rome.

Nah, they might just fund and harbour terrorists. That would be much better.

Iraq is funding terrorists now. Yeah, I'm guessing that will happen. Once we leave the government will begin funding terrorists, because they'd just love to give us a reason to come back.

Iraq is funding terrorists now. Yeah, I'm guessing that will happen. Once we leave the government will begin funding terrorists, because they'd just love to give us a reason to come back.

Hehehe, short of actually being attacked on US soil by a real military force, the US isn't sending their army anywhere for a while.

the iraqis have never done anything to us. there is no reason to think that they will in the future.

and furthermore if there is some group in iraq who has such an inclination there is nothing to stop them from doing it even if we stay in iraq for 100 years.

Yes, and you're aware that Iraq has been under the control of an iron-fisted dictator for the last few decades? They have just as many nuts as the rest of the region.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Sounds like that when Obama wins, there's going to be a civil war. And so there should be.

Isn't it funny that the same people that the 'pals around with terrorists' schtick has been incendiary to... are willing to resort to acts of violence to facilitate the change in the government of a nation?

Oh, if only there was a name for that...

Hehehe, short of actually being attacked on US soil by a real military force, the US isn't sending their army anywhere for a while.

Oh, I think force redistribution would be feasible if it were shown that Iraq was funding terrorism, but as was pointed out to you earlier, the greater threat to national security exists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

No, you're not imperialists. ROME was imperialist. And you are no Rome.

But the US follows imperialistic policies. It doesn't mean the US has to conquer the world to be imperalistic.

See wikipedia for a defination of imperalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

Imperialism has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to Empire building, as the expansion of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political powers in other territories or nations...

and

In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign people— a chauvinism and comportment relegating foreign people to a lesser social and or political status


The US has been guilty of both of these in Iraq, so how can you not say the US is not guilty of imperalism.

Oh, I think force redistribution would be feasible if it were shown that Iraq was funding terrorism

It's not about funds, the US just wouldn't want to go to war.

but as was pointed out to you earlier, the greater threat to national security exists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yes. NOW. Iraq might be relatively stable NOW. If the US leaves, the thing will collapse, there'll be civil war, and best case scenario, we end up with another Saddam. Worst case scenario, we end up with another Taliban.

Yes, and you're aware that Iraq has been under the control of an iron-fisted dictator for the last few decades? They have just as many nuts as the rest of the region.
we cant keep nuts from acting by occupying iraq.

The US has been guilty of both of these in Iraq, so how can you not say the US is not guilty of imperalism.

"Conquer and expand" is not part of the US's policy. It was part of Rome's.

Iraq's insurgents are one of the biggest potential threats in the world; if the US leave, they'll have a chance to take power, and if they make it, you'll have yet another state sanctioning Osama and his friends.

Which would be a strategic advantage, surely?

we cant keep nuts from acting by occupying iraq.

Yes. You can. For one thing (and as harsh as it may sound, it'll work), they'll target your military in Iraq instead of your civilians in the US.

McCain vs Wall Street, who'll hit bottom first?

http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/behind-mccains-fall/

The race is on!

Which would be a strategic advantage, surely?

What... having another pro-terrorist state? Yeah, that'll be a big advantage. Because if it's one thing the US needs now, it's more enemies.

You can't. You're in Iraq. If you leave, it will collapse. Deal with it.

Fair enough. Leave. LEt it collapse. Sponsor the relief effort. It'd be cheaper.

Yes. You can. For one thing (and as harsh as it may sound, it'll work), they'll target your military in Iraq instead of your civilians in the US.

You mean they'll train in Iraq, and Iran will get to test new weapons and tactics conveniently close without having to deal with messy casualties of their own.

Look, this thread is about the ongoing election campaign, not the war in Iraq, if you wish to talk about it, take it to another thread.

What... having another pro-terrorist state? Yeah, that'll be a big advantage. Because if it's one thing the US needs now, it's more enemies.

The reason you can't win against an insurgency is becausse you don't know who they are.

Let the insurgents become the new government, and they identify themselves.

Come on, seriously - as tactics go, this is kindergarten stuff.

Fair enough. Leave. LEt it collapse. Sponsor the relief effort. It'd be cheaper.

What relief effort? It's not a humanitarian crisis. It'll collapse into warlordism. The best you could hope for is to back the next Saddam.

You mean they'll train in Iraq, and Iran will get to test new weapons and tactics conveniently close without having to deal with messy casualties of their own.

Boy, if you can prove that Iran is aiding terrorists that are actively attacking US troops, that's complete and total justification for retaliation.

"Conquer and expand" is not part of the US's policy. It was part of Rome's.



*shakes head* That can have a loose interpretation you know.

W. Bush saying we will win the hearts and minds of the people. That we will spread the ideals of democracy in the Middle East.

Trying to force these on people could be considered an act of imperialism.

In addition, the US's unhealthy craving for oil. Some have said the US invasion was for oil. That can be considered a conquest by some, a conquest for natural resources. But there were quite a few imperialstic ideas in the mixture of the invasion of Iraq.

Yes. NOW. Iraq might be relatively stable NOW. If the US leaves, the thing will collapse, there'll be civil war, and best case scenario, we end up with another Saddam. Worst case scenario, we end up with another Taliban.

Iraq was stable BEFORE we invaded it, and we've had to work really hard to get it to become relatively stable, if that's what you want to call it. Many Iraqis are very much in opposition to Al Qaeda. It does not necessarily follow that the US leaving would result in the creation of a strong terrorist movement there. The only reason they are there now is because invaded.

The reason you can't win against an insurgency is becausse you don't know who they are.

Let the insurgents become the new government, and they identify themselves.

Come on, seriously - as tactics go, this is kindergarten stuff.

And then what? Just let them be? Attack Iraq again? You can never win. You can either accept ongoing conflict, or let them attack your civilian targets in the US. It's really lose-lose, but one scenario really trumps the other.

Yes. You can. For one thing (and as harsh as it may sound, it'll work), they'll target your military in Iraq instead of your civilians in the US.
its immoral to use soldiers as human shields

i am quite unconvinced that the same type of person who is drawn to iraq to fight the US occupation is the same type who would come to the US to engage in terrorist acts here.

so keeping the one tied up in iraq (and constantly creating more) does not keep the other from making their own plans.

Iraq was stable BEFORE we invaded it, and we've had to work really hard to get it to become relatively stable, if that's what you want to call it. Many Iraqis are very much in opposition to Al Qaeda. It does not necessarily follow that the US leaving would result in the creation of a strong terrorist movement there. The only reason they are there now is because invaded.

Yes! It's too late now; Saddam was a brilliant leader. You can't bring him back. The US has fucked up Iraq permanently.

Look, this thread is about the ongoing election campaign, not the war in Iraq, if you wish to talk about it, take it to another thread.

Sorry.... guess I got carried away. Elections.... right. I appologize.

its immoral to use soldiers as human shields

i am quite unconvinced that the same type of person who is drawn to iraq to fight the US occupation is the same type who would come to the US to engage in terrorist acts here.

so keeping the one tied up in iraq (and constantly creating more) does not keep the other from making their own plans.

They're both called Al-Qaeda, no?

And soldiers are paid to fight, and should expect to be injured and die. That's the point of "army".

Yes! It's too late now; Saddam was a brilliant leader. You can't bring him back. The US has fucked up Iraq permanently.

Feel free to start a thread about it, and I'll come and point out how ridiculous and childish all your answers are there.

But I'm not indulging your hijack of this thread any further.

You might also want to tone down your flamebaiting before someone reports it to moderation.

And then what? Just let them be? Attack Iraq again? You can never win. You can either accept ongoing conflict, or let them attack your civilian targets in the US. It's really lose-lose, but one scenario really trumps the other.

Why are Iraqi insurgents gonna attack America?

Yes! It's too late now; Saddam was a brilliant leader. You can't bring him back. The US has fucked up Iraq permanently.

Actually, I was suggesting that we had NOT screwed up Iraq permanently. That it isn't the case that Iraq will fall into terrorist hands once we leave. Many Iraqis are opposed to Al Qaeda.

This thread is about the election, however - so we should move this elsewhere if it's to continue.

Actually, I was suggesting that we had NOT screwed up Iraq permanently. That it isn't the case that Iraq will fall into terrorist hands once we leave. Many Iraqis are opposed to Al Qaeda.

This thread is about the election, however - so we should move this elsewhere if it's to continue.

Frankly I don't care either way.

Frankly I don't care either way.

Which makes your actions not just flamebait, but also trolling...

By your own admission. Brave or foolish?

Which makes your actions not just flamebait, but also trolling...

By your own admission. Brave or foolish?

Son, I've been expressing my opinion on the misgivings of Obama's policy in Iraq. If I'd been trolling or flamebaiting, you'd know it.

They're both called Al-Qaeda, no?

And soldiers are paid to fight, and should expect to be injured and die. That's the point of "army".
no they are not.

you really need to keep up on your iraqi insurgency news.

Son, I've been expressing my opinion on the misgivings of Obama's policy in Iraq. If I'd been trolling or flamebaiting, you'd know it.

Then you need to find out who is using your keyboard while you're not looking, because he's making a liar of you.

"Frankly, I don't care either way" makes it trolling.

All the taunts about imperialism, etc make it flamebait.

Try reading the TOS.

Then you need to find out who is using your keyboard while you're not looking, because he's making a liar of you.

"Frankly, I don't care either way" makes it trolling.

All the taunts about imperialism, etc make it flamebait.

Try reading the TOS.

Actually, I meant that I don't care whether or not the discussion continues. I've said my piece.

And when did I ever taunt anybody? Somebody else brought up the imperialism, and I just honestly can't let that sit; the US is not imperialist, no matter what the radicals say.

no they are not.

you really need to keep up on your iraqi insurgency news.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is one organisation. Another is a Mahdi Army.

this thread...is not...about...Iraq.

this thread...is not...about...Iraq.

Don't look at me, it's not like I steered it in that direction. I mentioned that Obama's Iraq policy is flawed and it just evolved from there.

Don't look at me, it's not like I steered it in that direction. I mentioned that Obama's Iraq policy is flawed and it just evolved from there.

Pretending you weren't involved doesn't work when the data is stored in archives.

Pretending you weren't involved doesn't work when the data is stored in archives.

I said that Obama was a bad choice for president. I was asked for an example, I provided his Iraq policy, the discussion shifted in that direction. We're done here.

I said that Obama was a bad choice for president. I was asked for an example, I provided his Iraq policy, the discussion shifted in that direction. We're done here.

So you did steer in that direction, by your own admission.

Ferrous Oxide, GTFO.

So you did steer in that direction, by your own admission.

No. Everybody else was asking the questions.

this thread...is not...about...Iraq.
OK neo

i be dood.

no more iraq talk.

Ferrous Oxide, GTFO.

Fine.

i be dood.

No, not Dodd. Biden.

welll spiro was going to be indicted wasnt he? its a long time ago so im a bit fuzzy on what exactly was going on when he resigned.

if she gets elected vp she cant be impeached as alaskan governor since she'll have to resign that office. i dont think its a criminal offense so ...what charges might then be filed in alaska?

if she had been in office long enough to amass that many enemies, maybe. but she hasnt.

She would still be liable for any offences she may have committed as governor, and could be indicted, as Agnew was for having accepted bribes while he was governor of Maryland.

Boy, if you can prove that Iran is aiding terrorists that are actively attacking US troops, that's complete and total justification for retaliation.

Who're you calling "boy"?

Why are Iraqi insurgents gonna attack America?

b/c they haey our fredoms

I don't think anybody was genuinely scared of Bush. You know who else the Americans were scared of? The king of Great Britain.

Uh, no, they weren't. They didn't like the type of government we had, so they changed it. It's amusing that you point out that being afraid of Saddam worked, but being afraid of the King of Great Britian (who was also incidentally an iron-fisted dictator) caused a revolution. Clearly, you're understanding of history is unsurpassed. Tell me about the American Civil War was an argument over pies versus cakes.

Meanwhile, what kind of person hopes there will be a civil war in a western country over peoples fears of a man because he's black.

She would still be liable for any offences she may have committed as governor, and could be indicted, as Agnew was for having accepted bribes while he was governor of Maryland.
of course she could. but WOULD she?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122364495587222887.html

So it's found that she violated ethics laws and *shocker* the position of the McCain camp is that the board that found she violated the law and abused her position is really just a bunch of Obama supporters.

One wonders, if Palin can't get a fair trial in Alaska by her own party after she's been running their state and is supposed so popular, why we should allow her to be VP? I mean, clearly both parties have completely turned on her. That doesn't sound like someone who could unite the country for the better, does it?

I mean, clearly both parties have completely turned on her. That doesn't sound like someone who could unite the country for the better, does it?
Unity in opposition is still unity.

... at least, we wish. Somehow, even a politician worse than Bush isn't bad enough to stop people voting for her.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122364495587222887.html

So it's found that she violated ethics laws and *shocker* the position of the McCain camp is that the board that found she violated the law and abused her position is really just a bunch of Obama supporters.

One wonders, if Palin can't get a fair trial in Alaska by her own party after she's been running their state and is supposed so popular, why we should allow her to be VP? I mean, clearly both parties have completely turned on her. That doesn't sound like someone who could unite the country for the better, does it?
You have to admire the overwhelming power of those four Democrats on the board, being outnumbered two to one and yet driving the investigation to a unanimous decision deep in Palin country.

You have to admire the overwhelming power of those four Democrats on the board, being outnumbered two to one and yet driving the investigation to a unanimous decision deep in Palin country.

Seriously, the fact that he could make this claim is just astonishing. I wish the people who conducted the probe would appear on Prime Time televisions and defend themselves against these charges. It's patently ludicrous to suggest this board was too partisan and the only place she could get a "fair" trial was by her own administration.

You have to admire the overwhelming power of those four Democrats on the board, being outnumbered two to one and yet driving the investigation to a unanimous decision deep in Palin country.

Yep. Clearly it's a partisan witchhunt. ;)

Edit: What else would you use, however to hunt a partisan witch?

Yep. Clearly it's a partisan witchhunt. ;)

Edit: What else would you use, however to hunt a partisan witch?

You're confused. Palin is anti-witch. She had someone cast a protective spell on her that wards off witchcraft. Duh.

You're confused. Palin is anti-witch. She had someone cast a protective spell on her that wards off witchcraft. Duh.

other people's witchcraft

Clearly she wants no outside influences interfering with her own. ;)

this thread...is not...about...Iraq.
It's not about Ferrous Oxide, either. I wish people would stop feeding that troll.

of course she could. but WOULD she?

No.

I really want to a press secretary to bring a laser pointer to a press conference to see if they really can be as easily distracted as a house cat.

I turned on the news (I know, I was asking for it) and were they discussing the ethics violation of a current VP candidate? Nope. Instead it was the horror, HORROR, of someone not part of the Obama campaign, someone McCain praised not to long ago, saying that the tenor of the McCain campaign with the angry crowds is remenicent of segregationist Wallace's campaign in the 60s. You know, the crowds so off the rails that the candidate himself has had to tell them to cool it, those crowds. OUTRAGE! Not, you know, the VP candidate allows the 'first dude' access to provide unethical pressure using her official position to carry out grudges...no no, we got to talk about how outragous it is that someone pointed out something about someone's campaign that even the candidate has had to come down on.

Only one anchor, some cat I've never seen but obviously part of the 'evil liburul media', would ask, "Well, if Obama has to disown this guy, what about the VP candidate essentially implying Obama is a terrorist by association?" Oh no, that's different...

John Lewis is a good guy, too. I quite liked him as my Rep before I moved. He even sent real letters - well, still form letters, I'm sure, but actual letters in the mail.

And good for him, too. I don't think this is an end to negativity, but what say you about McCain's effort to at least limit the personal attacks?

Linque (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/obama_24;_ylt=At0.kIKDsGjfis4fvXbNMs9h24cA).



Better than letting slams like "Arab" go, isn't it?

I thought it amusing that he apparently thinks Arab precludes being a decent family man.

I noticed that, too. He's a decent family man, not an Arab. He's a citizen, not a Muslim.

If I were an Arab or a Muslim, I'd be feeling like the cavemen from the Geico ads at this point.

I just hope it wasn't "too little, too late". This is about more than just wether the candidate I support gets elected. McCain/Palin have potentially raised up a shitstorm that all of us will end up paying for. Selma and Montgomery weren't all that long ago.

I just hope it wasn't "too little, too late". This is about more than just wether the candidate I support gets elected. McCain/Palin have potentially raised up a shitstorm that all of us will end up paying for. Selma and Montgomery weren't all that long ago.
I believe it is "too little, too late." All we can hope for now is that the rabid haters he incited will become so disgusted with McCain backpedaling on them, that they will just abandon the whole process and go home to their armed compounds, rather than try to prove their point, as it were, with violence. But I'd be willing to bet that Obama's already intense Secret Service protection has been increased by a lot.

EDIT: Also I would not want to be either an Arab-American or a Muslim walking down certain streets in certain towns right now.

I believe it is "too little, too late." All we can hope for now is that the rabid haters he incited will become so disgusted with McCain backpedaling on them, that they will just abandon the whole process and go home to their armed compounds, rather than try to prove their point, as it were, with violence. But I'd be willing to bet that Obama's already intense Secret Service protection has been increased by a lot.

EDIT: Also I would not want to be either an Arab-American or a Muslim walking down certain streets in certain towns right now.

I heard a rumor that the Secret Service was among those that requested McCain knock it off with the inflammatory rhetoric.

John Lewis is a good guy, too. I quite liked him as my Rep before I moved. He even sent real letters - well, still form letters, I'm sure, but actual letters in the mail.

And I would say John Lewis knows a thing or to about fighting segregation.

I think McCain is playing with fire.

Because you're high. We've been discussing at length the electoral map.

The popular vote is still an indicator of how hard or easy it is to shift leaning states as well as to track and predict the shifting of leaning states, so it's still relevant. But we've argued about electoral vote totals since the primaries. Almost a sickening amount, about whether or not candidates had the ability to turn certain states, about how many states each of them have to turn in order to make the magic 270...I seriously have no idea how you missed it, its been dominating the conversation.

If you're a McCain supporter right now you might want to focus on popular vote just to make yourself feel better. Five to eleven percent seem surmountable when you look at as many as seven states that McCain has to run the board on to win where Obama needs only one of them-and where he leads in just about all of them. As Obama's team stated when they began this, they're not going to find themselves on Nov. 4th hoping for a single state.

Well, maybe I am, maybe I am.

Thank you for explaining, I may have missed it because I came in the middle of these conversations and that is why I asked.

Palin has apparently been speaking out about Obama's "radical" views on abortion. She's complained that ""Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life." link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html)

That woman has chutzpah.

Palin has apparently been speaking out about Obama's "radical" views on abortion. She's complained that ""Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life." link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html)

That woman has chutzpah.

I was talking to a friend about this, we were trying to find out what a 'radical pro-abortion' stance would be, forced abortions? Coupons? What?

And I would say John Lewis knows a thing or to about fighting segregation.

I think McCain is playing with fire.

You have to question his judgment. You absolutely have to. Sowing these kinds of seeds is so incredibly dangerous to more than just Obama.

I have to give some deference to Hillary here. She said her vitriol wouldn't compare to the Republican campaign. Damned if she wasn't right.

I was talking to a friend about this, we were trying to find out what a 'radical pro-abortion' stance would be, forced abortions? Coupons? What?

favoring the 2 for 1 twin-be-gone special

I have to give some deference to Hillary here. She said her vitriol wouldn't compare to the Republican campaign. Damned if she wasn't right.

Hillary did Obama a favor there by throwing out the usual sort of mud. It left Obama immune to it in this phase, and McCain's party with only extra toxic mud to use that would alienate everyone else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/politics/12strategy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

“I think you’re seeing a turning point,” said Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan, where Mr. McCain has decided to stop campaigning. “You’re starting to feel real frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign’s message, isn’t connecting.”

It's all coming together for Obama and at the same time the McCain campaign can't manage to figure out what their message is.

“I think there have been quite a few reporters recently,” said Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, Mark Salter, “who have sort of implied, or made more than implications, that somehow we’re responsible for the occasional nut who shows up and yells something about Barack Obama.”

I find this bit amusing when they just told Obama to rebuke someone publicly that wasn't even part of his campaign. Yeah, but they aren't responsible for riling up the crowds THEY're attracting. Interesting bit of inconsistency there.

The difficulties of the McCain campaign have led some Republican leaders to express concern that he could end up dragging other Republican candidates down to defeat. “If Obama is able to run up big numbers around the country,” said Mr. Anuzis, the Michigan party chairman, “the potential for hurting down-ballot Republicans is very big.”

Interesting. It's almost like somehow a 50-state strategy could affect the down-ballot. If only we'd have thought of that. I mean, it's not like any of us noticed that a broader campaign would affect teh down ballot. Interesting that the campaigns are now saying the same thing.

“My sense of where things are: John McCain beat back what was a political climate that would have snuffed out any other candidate in the Republican Party,” said Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser. “He’s beat back every hurdle that was ever placed in front of him.”

This was so much fun to see. It sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister. "The Americans are not in Iraq. The pictures they're showing you are a landing in Miami."

I was talking to a friend about this, we were trying to find out what a 'radical pro-abortion' stance would be, forced abortions? Coupons? What?
lol coupons.

i think she means supporting "partial birth abortions" or maybe letting teens make their own decision about whether or not to abort.

or allowing some whore to wake up one morning in her 9th month of pregnancy and decide that she isnt ready to be a mother and go get an abortion instead of inducing labor. and when that "aborted" baby is born alive and healthy, killing it anyway.

the typical nonsense that the religious right spreads about late term abortions.

I just saw the video of her dropping the puck at the Flyers/Rangers game.

What was she thinking? And she brought her little daughter with her so they could have family being booed by a city time, apparently.

Not only that, but then while she's dropping the puck, you can see Obama/Biden signs in the background. Class act, all the way.

I heard a rumor that the Secret Service was among those that requested McCain knock it off with the inflammatory rhetoric.
I would expect they did. They are investigating the crowd member who yelled "kill him" at one of Palin's rallies. McCain/Palin better put the breaks on before they end up running into something like a protective order or a gag order on such language. It's one thing for a private citizen to make hate-filled speeches about generic groups, but it's a whole different thing for such hate-filled speeches to target specific individuals by name. As a public figure, Obama might have less protection against speech, but what about Mr. Ayers? Does Palin want to hound him out his community the way her pastor did to that woman in Africa? I don't think that will fly around here.

I would expect they did. They are investigating the crowd member who yelled "kill him" at one of Palin's rallies. McCain/Palin better put the breaks on before they end up running into something like a protective order or a gag order on such language. It's one thing for a private citizen to make hate-filled speeches about generic groups, but it's a whole different thing for such hate-filled speeches to target specific individuals by name. As a public figure, Obama might have less protection against speech, but what about Mr. Ayers? Does Palin want to hound him out his community the way her pastor did to that woman in Africa? I don't think that will fly around here.

Good point. By the by, did you make a prediction in the prediction thread?

Good point. By the by, did you make a prediction in the prediction thread?
Not yet. Magic 8-Ball keeps saying "better tell you later."

Not yet. Magic 8-Ball keeps saying "better tell you later."

So unfair. We're putting ourselves out there 3 weeks before the election.

I still believe there is a great chance of a landslide. Everyone is being conservative here (the irony) but, given this candidate's ability to consistently top himself over and over in terms of shockingly stupid political moves, I'm a bit optomistic.

So unfair. We're putting ourselves out there 3 weeks before the election.

I still believe there is a great chance of a landslide. Everyone is being conservative here (the irony) but, given this candidate's ability to consistently top himself over and over in terms of shockingly stupid political moves, I'm a bit optomistic.

I'll have optimism on November 5th. Until then I don't discount the stupidity of my fellow Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI).

So unfair. We're putting ourselves out there 3 weeks before the election.

I still believe there is a great chance of a landslide. Everyone is being conservative here (the irony) but, given this candidate's ability to consistently top himself over and over in terms of shockingly stupid political moves, I'm a bit optomistic.
I'm superstitious. Even though I know there's no such thing, I still fear the jinx. I do not want to make a prediction.

I'll have optimism on November 5th. Until then I don't discount the stupidity of my fellow Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI).
Yeah, this. ^^

At this point in time, I am far less worried about Obama losing than I am about him being assassinated in office. The hate speech indicates an increasingly angry minority of the hard right, some of whom are bound to go over to extremism or terrorism. "Hang that n- from a tree" was disgusting enough - but the "kill him" and "off with his head" shouts are pretty scary.

Reassuringly, the efficiency of the SS in protecting the president can be seen in the fact that even Bush is still alive after 8 years. On the other hand, the people who hate Bush are peace-loving liberals, while the people who hate Obama are gun-toting rednecks. That's hardly fair.

I would expect they did. They are investigating the crowd member who yelled "kill him" at one of Palin's rallies.
I found it much funnier at a McCain rally where a member of the audience was asking McCain a question and she started off by saying Obama was "an Arab".... and McCain had to start defending Obama in the middle of his own Presidential rally.

I'd love to have seen the expression on the GOP campaign manager's face at that point.

I found it much funnier at a McCain rally where a member of the audience was asking McCain a question and she started off by saying Obama was "an Arab".... and McCain had to start defending Obama in the middle of his own Presidential rally.

I'd love to have seen the expression on the GOP campaign manager's face at that point.

The fact that someone openly confronted McCain with the "Obama iz teh ebil mozlem" accusation is what makes me wonder if this couldn't have been a devious and effective satirical trolling. Because if that was the woman truly believed you'd think it'd have been out in the air long ago.

I would expect they did. They are investigating the crowd member who yelled "kill him" at one of Palin's rallies. McCain/Palin better put the breaks on before they end up running into something like a protective order or a gag order on such language. It's one thing for a private citizen to make hate-filled speeches about generic groups, but it's a whole different thing for such hate-filled speeches to target specific individuals by name. As a public figure, Obama might have less protection against speech, but what about Mr. Ayers? Does Palin want to hound him out his community the way her pastor did to that woman in Africa? I don't think that will fly around here.

And meanwhile Palin screaming hatefilled Terrorist gibes and getting the Redneck Red Staters motivated to violence. I am mainly mad and angry at McCain, because he let them get worked up to a fevered pitched and motivated to violence and sat there till the SS told him to knock it off.

And then he looks sheepish when he tells them, Obama is not *that* bad. What did McCain expect to happen? But I suppose we should have expected this out of him. Even though McCain served his country, a fighter jock is still a fighter jock.

I found it much funnier at a McCain rally where a member of the audience was asking McCain a question and she started off by saying Obama was "an Arab".... and McCain had to start defending Obama in the middle of his own Presidential rally.

I'd love to have seen the expression on the GOP campaign manager's face at that point.

At this point, I'd guess that the campaign manager was happy. They've really got almost no chance of winning, so all that's left is damage control just for the party to survive.

I'll have optimism on November 5th. Until then I don't discount the stupidity of my fellow Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI).

It's amusing that you put that in reply to a post where I misspelled optimism.

Faith is a magical thing. Both of us have evidence on our side, but I think I'd rather expect better. The fact that all evidence is behind an Obama win and people are still predicting a McCain win says horrible things about my country.

No joke, I'll be leaving if Obama loses. Rationally, there would be no other explanation other than racism. This is one of the best campaigns we've seen in a long time versus one of the worst. The climate is perfect. The timing is perfect. And the anticipation by the Obama campaign borders on prescience. Honestly, if I don't see a mountainous EV victory, it will be the last nail in the coffin for me. /hijack

First McCain pulled out of Michigan, now it's almost as if Florida is pulling out of McCain. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html)

For the first time in more than a decade, Florida Republicans are considering the almost unthinkable: Their presidential nominee could lose the state.
...
Even Gov. Charlie Crist, who helped deliver Florida for McCain during the primary, said he will spend the final weeks before Election Day minding the state's weak economy rather than campaigning for the Arizona senator.

''When I have time to help, I'll try to do that,'' Crist said last week, after he flew around the state with McCain running mate Sarah Palin. Saturday, he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World.
...
Roger Stone, a longtime McCain supporter, said the state party and the national campaign bear almost equal blame.

''This effort lacks coordination and a cooperative spirit and it's showing,'' Stone said. ``But it's more than mechanics. The campaign has no consistent message.''

Over the summer, the Obama camp spent at least $10 million on Florida television ads -- 4,000 of the spots attacking McCain -- while McCain spent nothing.

The failure by the party and McCain's campaign to respond to an Obama radio ad in Florida that bashed McCain over embryonic stem-cell research was ''a perfect example of them not being on the ball in Florida,'' Stone said, echoing numerous Florida Republicans. But national campaign officials said McCain is within striking distance of Obama in the polls, has ample time to turn things around, and had a winning strategy until Wall Street's crash.
...
Crist has stressed the need to focus on the economy and, close allies say, has grown troubled with the negative direction of the McCain campaign as it focuses more on Obama's connections to 1960s radical William Ayers, rather than on pocketbook issues.

''Everybody runs their campaign the way they think is the best to run it,'' Crist said last week. Asked about the Ayers attack, the governor raised his eyebrows and said: ``It is what it is.''
What is it about Obama opponents declaring not getting blown out a victory? It's like everyone he runs against thinks they're Jake La Motta..."You didn't knock me out, Ray! You didn't knock me out!"

I found it much funnier at a McCain rally where a member of the audience was asking McCain a question and she started off by saying Obama was "an Arab".... and McCain had to start defending Obama in the middle of his own Presidential rally.

I'd love to have seen the expression on the GOP campaign manager's face at that point.

Do you have a link?

First McCain pulled out of Michigan, now it's almost as if Florida is pulling out of McCain. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html)


What is it about Obama opponents declaring not getting blown out a victory? It's like everyone he runs against thinks they're Jake La Motta..."You didn't knock me out, Ray! You didn't knock me out!"
oh come on. can you BLAME crist?

for god's sake he got ENGAGED so that he could be mccains non-gay running mate and the slimey old bastard picked a newbie beauty queen instead?

he's better off tending his own garden.

Do you have a link?

I'll try - it was a video. I thought it was common knowledge that it happened.

Edit: Here's a youtube vid of the rally - where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for defending him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

"I. I can't trust Obama. I. I have read about him. He's not. He's a. He's an Arab. He's ..." *McCain shakes his head* "He's not?"

Edit 2: Hah! I've also just found a youtube vid of an interview with the same woman afterwards who said she got her information about Obama being an Arab from a pamphlet in her local library and a pamphlet from a local McCain campaigner. *facepalm*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE

I'll try - it was a video. I thought it was common knowledge that it happened.

Edit: Here's a youtube vid of the rally - where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for defending him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

"I. I can't trust Obama. I. I have read about him. He's not. He's a. He's an Arab. He's ..." *McCain shakes his head* "He's not?"

Edit 2: Hah! I've also just found a youtube vid of an interview with the same woman afterwards who said she got her information about Obama being an Arab from a pamphlet in her local library and a pamphlet from a local McCain campaigner. *facepalm*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE

*adds to favorites*

I'll try - it was a video. I thought it was common knowledge that it happened.

Edit: Here's a youtube vid of the rally - where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for defending him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

"I. I can't trust Obama. I. I have read about him. He's not. He's a. He's an Arab. He's ..." *McCain shakes his head* "He's not?"

Edit 2: Hah! I've also just found a youtube vid of an interview with the same woman afterwards who said she got her information about Obama being an Arab from a pamphlet in her local library and a pamphlet from a local McCain campaigner. *facepalm*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE

Huh, the McCain campaign was disseminating easily disproven lies. That's a shock.

I'll try - it was a video. I thought it was common knowledge that it happened.

Edit: Here's a youtube vid of the rally - where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for defending him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

"I. I can't trust Obama. I. I have read about him. He's not. He's a. He's an Arab. He's ..." *McCain shakes his head* "He's not?"

Edit 2: Hah! I've also just found a youtube vid of an interview with the same woman afterwards who said she got her information about Obama being an Arab from a pamphlet in her local library and a pamphlet from a local McCain campaigner. *facepalm*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE


It's official: we're a nation of morons.

Huh, the McCain campaign was disseminating easily disproven lies. That's a shock.

Uh, no. Volunteers for the McCain Campaign were. If you go to the site that shot the video, they make it clear that she did not say it was distributed by the campaign or that it was endorsed by them.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't, but it isn't what we've learned here.

It's official: we're a nation of morons.

So if this video was of a little person setting fire to people whose ages are divisible by 3 would that make it official we're a nation of little people who set fire to people whose ages are divisible by 3?

Uh, no. Volunteers for the McCain Campaign were. If you go to the site that shot the video, they make it clear that she did not say it was distributed by the campaign or that it was endorsed by them.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't, but it isn't what we've learned here.

The views of volunteers that work at one of McCain's campaign headquarters and send out mail from there that smears Obama isn't at all relevant to the McCain campaign?

I mean I see the distinction you are making, but it is a bit weak.

So if this video was of a little person setting fire to people whose ages are divisible by 3 would that make it official we're a nation of little people who set fire to people whose ages are divisible by 3?

WTF? You aren't making sense here. Regardless, "we're a nation of morons" is obvious not to be taken literally.

I'll try - it was a video. I thought it was common knowledge that it happened.

Edit: Here's a youtube vid of the rally - where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for defending him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

"I. I can't trust Obama. I. I have read about him. He's not. He's a. He's an Arab. He's ..." *McCain shakes his head* "He's not?"

Edit 2: Hah! I've also just found a youtube vid of an interview with the same woman afterwards who said she got her information about Obama being an Arab from a pamphlet in her local library and a pamphlet from a local McCain campaigner. *facepalm*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE

*Sighs* She's just an old woman, a senior citizen. My dad who is around the same age as McCain and is a Democrat believes Mccain betrayed his country when he was captured in Vietnam and spilled his guts and betrayed his country that way. I shook my head and told my dear old man, that he was tortured and people say anything under torture.

He still thinks McCain is tratior. Older heads are really so very stubborn and hard to change. Be they Republican or Democrat.

No joke, I'll be leaving if Obama loses.

At the moment, I'm set to make my application for citizenship at the start of the new year. That's been the plan for a couple of years now.

Whether I make that application, or whether me and mine relocate to my mother-country, may well depend on what happens in November.

At the moment, I'm set to make my application for citizenship at the start of the new year. That's been the plan for a couple of years now.

Whether I make that application, or whether me and mine relocate to my mother-country, may well depend on what happens in November.

Im planning on studying abroad this summer. This election will determine whether I stay there. Well, that and if Tash will come with me.

*Sighs* She's just an old woman, a senior citizen. My dad who is around the same age as McCain and is a Democrat believes Mccain betrayed his country when he was captured in Vietnam and spilled his guts and betrayed his country that way. I shook my head and told my dear old man, that he was tortured and people say anything under torture.

He still thinks McCain is tratior. Older heads are really so very stubborn and hard to change. Be they Republican or Democrat.

My dad was a Republican and he stopped voting in 2000, that is, he didn't vote that year and hasn't since. Also used to listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly and believe his bull, in the 90s. Now, not so much. He's not what I'd call really old but stubborn for sure.

At the moment, I'm set to make my application for citizenship at the start of the new year. That's been the plan for a couple of years now.

Whether I make that application, or whether me and mine relocate to my mother-country, may well depend on what happens in November.

No kidding, I told my folks something similar. I graduate this fall. I said if I couldn't find a job, I was going to either one join the Peace Corps or two find a teaching English job in another country job. Anything to get away from this madness. I have a handout on teaching English in Japan. Japan sounds so much more civilized than the US.

The views of volunteers that work at one of McCain's campaign headquarters and send out mail from there that smears Obama isn't at all relevant to the McCain campaign?

I mean I see the distinction you are making, but it is a bit weak.

I think it's important. Is McCain's campaign responsible? Sure. But it's not an official activity.

It's like this. If someone in my company (as in, I own it) were on a site and showed up drunk, would I be responsible? Yup. I'd be increasingly responsible if it happened repeatedly. However, it wouldn't be the same as if we were talking about something I encouraged or permitted. There is no evidence this is a sanctioned activity, but because these are people working FOR McCain, he's still responsible.

Incidentally, the source makes the same distinction for the samre reason.


WTF? You aren't making sense here. Regardless, "we're a nation of morons" is obvious not to be taken literally.

It was a joke. It was meant to be ridiculous, but to highlight the fallacy of extending her rather odd behavior much past her.

I think it's important. Is McCain's campaign responsible? Sure. But it's not an official activity.

It's like this. If someone in my company (as in, I own it) were on a site and showed up drunk, would I be responsible? Yup. I'd be increasingly responsible if it happened repeatedly. However, it wouldn't be the same as if we were talking about something I encouraged or permitted. There is no evidence this is a sanctioned activity, but because these are people working FOR McCain, he's still responsible.

The distinction is one that is not worth making when you are discussing the release of information to the public. It matters not if the release was sanctioned or not, if it is made in your name, then you are saying it. There is a significantly different level of responsibility for the actions of others in your name when this action is a public action rather than a private one. If, and only if, immediately you discover that someone has overstepped the limit you act to deny any and all responsibility for that act, can you possibly hope to be exonerated of your personal responsibility. McCain did not do this.

Oh my goodness
(not exact)
somebody: His father was a Muslim but he is a christian.
Old lady: Yes but he still has Muslim in him!

:eek:

I didn't know it was a genetic!

I once went out with a Jordanian. Did I catch something?

Oh my goodness
(not exact)
somebody: His father was a Muslim but he is a christian.
Old lady: Yes but he still has Muslim in him!

:eek:

I didn't know it was a genetic!

I once went out with a Jordanian. Did I catch something?

Well, that certainly explains Kimchi's plan for the Muslim Sterilizing Virus.

Oh my goodness
(not exact)
somebody: His father was a Muslim but he is a christian.
Old lady: Yes but he still has Muslim in him!

:eek:

I didn't know it was a genetic!

I once went out with a Jordanian. Did I catch something?

I'm so going to use that line on people. That ought to be good for laughs.

The distinction is one that is not worth making when you are discussing the release of information to the public. It matters not if the release was sanctioned or not, if it is made in your name, then you are saying it. There is a significantly different level of responsibility for the actions of others in your name when this action is a public action rather than a private one. If, and only if, immediately you discover that someone has overstepped the limit you act to deny any and all responsibility for that act, can you possibly hope to be exonerated of your personal responsibility. McCain did not do this.

Okay, here's why it matters. There are loons on all sides. I remember way back in 2004 when MoveOn.org held a contest for political ads, and someone entered an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Now, even though MoveOn removed the ad from competition, we had to have lengthy discussion about what constituted 'airing' an ad.

Now, you can argue that it's not the same thing because MoveOn rebuked the ad, but it's really a fine line.

For a more recent example, take Whispering Sierra Deep Hot Kimchi Wife's assertation that Obama's organization was full of loonies because of blogs set up on his website by nutter groups. Now I, as with some of you, defended it saying that it's an open forum and he wasn't responsible for what everyone goes about saying on their own and everyone has looneys. If we were to make that distinction then, when they were pigeybackling on Obama's own website, then if we don't make that distinction when groups show up making their own brochures (which aren't that hard to get made), then I think we set a skewed standard. Just as we made a distinction between people who were looney but also happened to support Obama, it is only fair to make the same distinction between people who are looney or racist or xenophobic and also happen to support McCain.

Making the semantic point that since McCain didn't 'discourage it enough' it is tantamount to printing it himself I don't think serves us well.

You could argue that McCain and his running mate have created an enviroment that encourages this to such an extent that it seemed appropriate to bring it up to the candidate himself as the old woman did, but I think the distinction between what the campaign does and what the supporters do is one that we should not blur.

I think it's important. Is McCain's campaign responsible? Sure. But it's not an official activity.

It's like this. If someone in my company (as in, I own it) were on a site and showed up drunk, would I be responsible? Yup. I'd be increasingly responsible if it happened repeatedly. However, it wouldn't be the same as if we were talking about something I encouraged or permitted. There is no evidence this is a sanctioned activity, but because these are people working FOR McCain, he's still responsible.

Incidentally, the source makes the same distinction for the samre reason.

Okay, here's why it matters. There are loons on all sides. I remember way back in 2004 when MoveOn.org held a contest for political ads, and someone entered an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Now, even though MoveOn removed the ad from competition, we had to have lengthy discussion about what constituted 'airing' an ad.

Now, you can argue that it's not the same thing because MoveOn rebuked the ad, but it's really a fine line.

For a more recent example, take Whispering Sierra Deep Hot Kimchi Wife's assertation that Obama's organization was full of loonies because of blogs set up on his website by nutter groups. Now I, as with some of you, defended it saying that it's an open forum and he wasn't responsible for what everyone goes about saying on their own and everyone has looneys. If we were to make that distinction then, when they were pigeybackling on Obama's own website, then if we don't make that distinction when groups show up making their own brochures (which aren't that hard to get made), then I think we set a skewed standard. Just as we made a distinction between people who were looney but also happened to support Obama, it is only fair to make the same distinction between people who are looney or racist or xenophobic and also happen to support McCain.

Making the semantic point that since McCain didn't 'discourage it enough' it is tantamount to printing it himself I don't think serves us well.

You could argue that McCain and his running mate have created an enviroment that encourages this to such an extent that it seemed appropriate to bring it up to the candidate himself as the old woman did, but I think the distinction between what the campaign does and what the supporters do is one that we should not blur.

I agree with this distinction in principle, but this is an example of exactly what Rep. Lewis was talking about: McCain and Palin are "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and they are ultimately responsible for what results from that.

Incidentally, the source makes the same distinction for the samre reason.

What exactly are you referring to? Which source? Where?

Also, everyone planning on ditching: chillax! Obama's got this wrapped up, pretty much.

Okay, here's why it matters. There are loons on all sides. I remember way back in 2004 when MoveOn.org held a contest for political ads, and someone entered an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Now, even though MoveOn removed the ad from competition, we had to have lengthy discussion about what constituted 'airing' an ad.

Now, you can argue that it's not the same thing because MoveOn rebuked the ad, but it's really a fine line.

For a more recent example, take Whispering Sierra Deep Hot Kimchi Wife's assertation that Obama's organization was full of loonies because of blogs set up on his website by nutter groups. Now I, as with some of you, defended it saying that it's an open forum and he wasn't responsible for what everyone goes about saying on their own and everyone has looneys. If we were to make that distinction then, when they were pigeybackling on Obama's own website, then if we don't make that distinction when groups show up making their own brochures (which aren't that hard to get made), then I think we set a skewed standard. Just as we made a distinction between people who were looney but also happened to support Obama, it is only fair to make the same distinction between people who are looney or racist or xenophobic and also happen to support McCain.

Making the semantic point that since McCain didn't 'discourage it enough' it is tantamount to printing it himself I don't think serves us well.

You could argue that McCain and his running mate have created an enviroment that encourages this to such an extent that it seemed appropriate to bring it up to the candidate himself as the old woman did, but I think the distinction between what the campaign does and what the supporters do is one that we should not blur.
This. McCain and Palin have not been acting responsibly. Not even close.

Whereas the blogs on Obama's site were shut down as soon as they became obvious.

Not the same at all.

I agree with this distinction in principle, but this is an example of exactly what Rep. Lewis was talking about: McCain and Palin are "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and they are ultimately responsible for what results from that.
I just think that it's a separate argument to make. It's valid, in my mind, that his campaign has created an environment that normalizes the idea-no one at a town hall for GWB would have stood up and said directly to him, "McCain has secretly fathered a half black baby." These kinds of 'around the bend' attacks have always been underground, no supporter would have the sack to bring it up to the candidate himself because at some level they knew it wasn't okay. McCain's campaign had created a tone that had made people think it was okay to have that on the surface, that it was normalized. And that's what Lewis is talking about, and I think that's the distinction we should be making.

The distinction is one that is not worth making when you are discussing the release of information to the public. It matters not if the release was sanctioned or not, if it is made in your name, then you are saying it. There is a significantly different level of responsibility for the actions of others in your name when this action is a public action rather than a private one. If, and only if, immediately you discover that someone has overstepped the limit you act to deny any and all responsibility for that act, can you possibly hope to be exonerated of your personal responsibility. McCain did not do this.

^This.

Comparisons to the blog section on Obama's website or even to videos submitted to Moveon.org don't really work because those things were always understood to be statements from people unaffiliated with the campaign or with Moveon.

If, as was claimed, someone actually representing the McCain campaign (even as a volunteer) passed out such flyers, that is a much clearer connection to the campaign itself, and thus needs a much stronger counter from the campaign.

A better comparison could be the Obama campaign volunteers who would not allow a Muslim woman to sit behind Obama at a rally (ie. on camera) without removing her hijab. They were representatives of the campaign, even though they were doing something that was not endorsed by the campaign. And what was the response? A public apology from the campaign and personal apology from Obama to the woman who had been treated this way. And, I would guess, better instructions on this matter given to later volunteers. That is the type of response that is needed.

^This.

Comparisons to the blog section on Obama's website or even to videos submitted to Moveon.org don't really work because those things were always understood to be statements from people unaffiliated with the campaign or with Moveon.

If, as was claimed, someone actually representing the McCain campaign (even as a volunteer) passed out such flyers, that is a much clearer connection to the campaign itself, and thus needs a much stronger counter from the campaign.

A better comparison could be the Obama campaign volunteers who would not allow a Muslim woman to sit behind Obama at a rally (ie. on camera) without removing her hijab. They were representatives of the campaign, even though they were doing something that was not endorsed by the campaign. And what was the response? A public apology from the campaign and personal apology from Obama to the woman who had been treated this way. And, I would guess, better instructions on this matter given to later volunteers. That is the type of response that is needed.

As opposed to claiming Obama is attacking "the common man" that wants his head. -_-

I agree with this distinction in principle, but this is an example of exactly what Rep. Lewis was talking about: McCain and Palin are "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and they are ultimately responsible for what results from that.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. My reasons echo CTOAN's. The problem here is that the reply to blaming McCain for some unsanctioned volunteers is that they'll compare it to some of Obama's volunteers or various other related volunteers.

There are buttloads of more problems with SANCTIONED acts performed by McCain. They've spread hatred and for days sat idly by while people shouted about it. Any actions of volunteers pales in comparison. My mixed race family is of the opinion that given these tactics a win by McCain will spark a race war. I think they're wrong, but I do suspect there will be rioting.

Frankly, I'd say that electing a President that campaigned under the guise of "he's not like us" and stood by while people shouted racial epithets at black reporters and talked about killing his opponenet and called him a terrorist reasonably should expect that kind of outcome. If McCain were to win, it will make the election of Bush look like US unity.

What exactly are you referring to? Which source? Where?

The source of the video that was linked. I went to the the site where the video was posted, originally. It's where the interviewer was from. They pointed out the difference.

This is a bit of an over-simplification. Iranian Shia and Arab (Iraqi) Shia are different culturally. Ask any Iranian what they think about Arabs and you will hear about how the Iranian culture is better then the Arabs. This means tension between the two would be likely if an outside force was not giving them a reason to work together.

right. Iranians are Persian while Iraqis are Arabs. They will make sure you know this distinction if you ever ask them.

If McCain were to win, it will make the election of Bush look like US unity.

At this point, because of McCain's actions, a win by Obama might do the same.

^This.

Comparisons to the blog section on Obama's website or even to videos submitted to Moveon.org don't really work because those things were always understood to be statements from people unaffiliated with the campaign or with Moveon.

If, as was claimed, someone actually representing the McCain campaign (even as a volunteer) passed out such flyers, that is a much clearer connection to the campaign itself, and thus needs a much stronger counter from the campaign.

A better comparison could be the Obama campaign volunteers who would not allow a Muslim woman to sit behind Obama at a rally (ie. on camera) without removing her hijab. They were representatives of the campaign, even though they were doing something that was not endorsed by the campaign. And what was the response? A public apology from the campaign and personal apology from Obama to the woman who had been treated this way. And, I would guess, better instructions on this matter given to later volunteers. That is the type of response that is needed.

I think you would have heard nothing of that if hadn't become so famous. If McCain does correct his volunteers we'll likely never know it. I still agree with CTOAN. There are plenty of things McCain is directly responsible for. He has sites around the US. Tons of them. With bunches of volunteers that are coming and going.

We don't know how many of them are involved, how much this is actually related to the campaign or if this is just like this internet emails and whatnot. And our source for this is a woman who is clearly out of touch. You said he was an Arab and not an Arab and that he had Muslim in him and various other odd statements, many of which were contradictory.

I'm reluctant to make this bigger than it is while we've got such damning evidence against McCain. McCain is either a racist or pandering to them. That's a fact. McCain is trying to avoid the economy and get people focused on anything else. That's a fact.

McCain is basing his character attacks on non-evidence, they can't ever be cleared because of how they are formed. They indicate that the information we're getting isn't real and by doing so there is no reason to believe further information and thus clear the air. These seeds can't be unsown. It's criminal and, in comparison, it's fairly silly to focus on things he likely can't control and we don't have strong evidence of.

At this point, because of McCain's actions, a win by Obama might do the same.

Frankly, I think the racists that support McCain are the vocal minority. They're cowards he's whipping into a frenzy. I don't for a moment worry that they'll get a toe-hold. It is precisely this reason that as the McCain campaign whipped them up various people in the GOP began to distance themelves from him.

Frankly, I think the racists that support McCain are the vocal minority. They're cowards he's whipping into a frenzy. I don't for a moment worry that they'll get a toe-hold. It is precisely this reason that as the McCain campaign whipped them up various people in the GOP began to distance themelves from him.

I hope you're right.

I wonder what crossed Palin's mind when she heard the "kill him!".

I hope you're right.

I wonder what crossed Palin's mind when she heard the "kill him!".

"I can't... I don't have a helicopter."

Is it just me or has even the precious few supporters McCain/Palin had on this forum gone quiet? I guess it's hard to defend blatant racisim.

Frankly, I think the racists that support McCain are the vocal minority. They're cowards he's whipping into a frenzy. I don't for a moment worry that they'll get a toe-hold. It is precisely this reason that as the McCain campaign whipped them up various people in the GOP began to distance themelves from him.
According to reports I have heard from reporters assigned to the McCain campaign, speaking on CNN and MSNBC, that "vocal minority" are the only ones still going to McCain's rallies.

As one pointed out, there are always crazies at political rallies because "that's what they do, isn't it -- go to political rallies," but lately there have been few or no other people around when the reporters have gone out to get "man-in-the-street" comments from the (shrinking) crowds.

EDIT: Yes, they are a vocal minority, all right, but they are the only ones left in McCain's camp. But hell, let them get that toehold if McCain will let them -- he'll still lose because they are such a minority, nationally.

"I can't... I don't have a helicopter."

Is it just me or has even the precious few supporters McCain/Palin had on this forum gone quiet? I guess it's hard to defend blatant racisim.

You could check Stormfront if you like. ;)

By the by, CH indicated not to listen to the polls. They don't mean anything.

Only one candidate for President has come back from a deficit this big this late in the election since Gallup started polling in 1936. It was Ronald Reagan and it was one poll not weeks of them like McCain is dealing with.

I'll say that again. Only once. The idea that polls don't matter at all is nonsense. They are evidence of the position of the electorate. To completely ignore them is to act like we're guessing in the dark. We aren't. There is tons of statistical evidence to support a win by Obama at this point.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

By the by, CH indicated not to listen to the polls. They don't mean anything.

Only one candidate for President has come back from a deficit this big this late in the election since Gallup started polling in 1936. It was Ronald Reagan and it was one poll not weeks of them like McCain is dealing with.

I'll say that again. Only once. The idea that polls don't matter at all is nonsense. They are evidence of the position of the electorate. To completely ignore them is to act like we're guessing in the dark. We aren't. There is tons of statistical evidence to support a win by Obama at this point.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

You forget one critical fact.

Despite his famous firing of the air-traffic controllers union, and his association with various groups not considered sympathetic to organized labor, Ronal Reagan was a lifetime member of what was then an AFL-CIO organization, and in fact was the leader of a prominent labor union, the Screen Actors Guild.

Wait...what? That's not a "critical fact", it has nothing to do with you're even talking about....shit, is that even true?

What the hell am I talking about...

By the by, CH indicated not to listen to the polls. They don't mean anything.

Only one candidate for President has come back from a deficit this big this late in the election since Gallup started polling in 1936. It was Ronald Reagan and it was one poll not weeks of them like McCain is dealing with.

I'll say that again. Only once. The idea that polls don't matter at all is nonsense. They are evidence of the position of the electorate. To completely ignore them is to act like we're guessing in the dark. We aren't. There is tons of statistical evidence to support a win by Obama at this point.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Yeah... but there's another gamechanger here that never bothered Reagan - Obama has committed the ultimate sin, by being both in a position of power AND black. That's my worry - the race card is going to get played like you wouldnt believe in the voting.

Yeah... but there's another gamechanger here that never bothered Reagan - Obama has committed the ultimate sin, by being both in a position of power AND black. That's my worry - the race card is going to get played like you wouldnt believe in the voting.

Part of me hopes that the "wigger" factor will offset the "mouth breathing sheet wearing inbred racist" factor.

That is to say, that enough of those kids who thought Fred Durst was "hardcore" will be "down" with the "homies" and vote for Obama because he's got some black. And that will offset the dingleberries who will vote against him because he's black.

I have no data to back that.

But keep rollin', rollin', rollin' Obama.

Yeah... but there's another gamechanger here that never bothered Reagan - Obama has committed the ultimate sin, by being both in a position of power AND black. That's my worry - the race card is going to get played like you wouldnt believe in the voting.

Oh, there will be a Brady effect. Fortunately, most of the polls don't account for newly registered voters which should easily counter said effect.

The speed with which people condemned and moved away from the McCain campaign, even people who can be openly racist, like my father (though he'd argue it isn't racist to say white people should stay with white people) is telling.

McCain made a mistake. He managed to associate the accusations he's making with the hang 'em brand of racism. People have been very forgiving of the ignorant brand of racism that people often call "soft" racism. I don't think it's particularly better, but people forgive themselves and others for it. But McCain made it so arguing the ignorant brand is now going to sound like the hang 'em brand.

People don't want to face their racism (look at some of the people who often argue on NSG). It pisses them off. They certainly don't want their candidate showing them exactly what their brand of "soft" racism leads to. "Kill 'em", "terrorist", "sit down, boy". America racists can deal with being 'unfairly attacked' for being racists. They can deal with a black President. They can deal with a world that is leaving them behind. What they can't deal with is proving everyone who ever accused them of racism right. Those statements, those terms, it was too much. Everyone knew it when it happened. It was an ugly corner. You can't close that box, Johnny Flyer.

Note: This obviously wildly speculative.

Yeah... but there's another gamechanger here that never bothered Reagan - Obama has committed the ultimate sin, by being both in a position of power AND black. That's my worry - the race card is going to get played like you wouldnt believe in the voting.

I think that's largely overstated at this point. Sure the race card will be played, and be pushed back against. But as someone said somewhere else, there aren't that many-if any at all-Obama supporters or even 'undecideds' at this point that are going to go, "Well, I was thinking about voting for him, but it says here he's a n****r...and I hates me some n****rs..." There are people that are going to make that distinction, but they aren't in the margins that are going to decide this election. In fact, the more that's played on the more I think there'll be counter movement. If this was a close election, if there was a measurable 'Bradley Effect' in the primaries, maybe. But it's not close, and there wasn't. Presidential races tighten, it will happen, but I'm not as concerned that race will be the deciding factor.

Now, McCain's latest Hail Mary, the new secret economic plan that he's going to use the debate to introduce in an attempt to grab the headlines from the last major appearance by both candidates...it might work to close things up again. Or it might make him look even more random...

I think that's largely overstated at this point. Sure the race card will be played, and be pushed back against. But as someone said somewhere else, there aren't that many-if any at all-Obama supporters or even 'undecideds' at this point that are going to go, "Well, I was thinking about voting for him, but it says here he's a n****r...and I hates me some n****rs..." There are people that are going to make that distinction, but they aren't in the margins that are going to decide this election. In fact, the more that's played on the more I think there'll be counter movement. If this was a close election, if there was a measurable 'Bradley Effect' in the primaries, maybe. But it's not close, and there wasn't. Presidential races tighten, it will happen, but I'm not as concerned that race will be the deciding factor.

Now, McCain's latest Hail Mary, the new secret economic plan that he's going to use the debate to introduce in an attempt to grab the headlines from the last major appearance by both candidates...it might work to close things up again. Or it might make him look even more random...

One wonders... if it's so good, why keep it a secret? I mean, A - We're in a crisis and need a good plan. B - If it's good there is no chance releasing it is going to give Obama a chance to tear it apart.

I suspect... A - there isn't a fully-formed plan yet so he can't release it. And B - if he released the plan he has right now, it would be shredded by Obama and he knows it.

I'll give him this, though, he finally figured out that the best way to handle the financial crisis is to consult financial experts. To most of us, this is a big "DUH" moment. Instead of riding in on a white horse and freaking out all the people who are doing real work, he finally did what leaders do. They put smart people in a room till they come up with a solution.

"I can't... I don't have a helicopter."

Is it just me or has even the precious few supporters McCain/Palin had on this forum gone quiet? I guess it's hard to defend blatant racisim.I supported McCain until recently, but that doesn't mean I support Obama. In fact, I wish Colin Powell would have run for President. And defending blatant racism is easy. All you have to do is admit that everybody is racist against something, accept it, and then move on to the more important issues.

I supported McCain until recently, but that doesn't mean I support Obama. In fact, I wish Colin Powell would have run for President. And defending blatant racism is easy. All you have to do is admit that everybody is racist against something, accept it, and then move on to the more important issues.

Thank you for being such a shining example. This is the kind of excuses that so-called soft racism uses. "Oh, we're all racist, aren't we?" It's not true. It's totally dangerous. But it's very easy to just brush it off as not one of the important issues, anyway, isn't it? I seriously couldn't have picked a better example.

However, even people who think racism isn't an important issue and think it's all okay because everyone is racist can't stomach the recent rhetoric. Perfect.

One wonders... if it's so good, why keep it a secret? I mean, A - We're in a crisis and need a good plan. B - If it's good there is no chance releasing it is going to give Obama a chance to tear it apart.

I suspect... A - there isn't a fully-formed plan yet so he can't release it. And B - if he released the plan he has right now, it would be shredded by Obama and he knows it.

I'll give him this, though, he finally figured out that the best way to handle the financial crisis is to consult financial experts. To most of us, this is a big "DUH" moment. Instead of riding in on a white horse and freaking out all the people who are doing real work, he finally did what leaders do. They put smart people in a room till they come up with a solution.
You gotta think that Obama has economic experts too, and should be able to at least guess at about where he's headed with this. He just has to know the principle against whatever McCain talks about and then play at the erratic thing the entire time. McCain's last bombshell went over like a lead balloon-not only was it Clinton's plan, and already in the bailout, but he lost base support for it. This might be a more carefully planned gambit, but might be just as risky.

He can only hope that Obama tries to cruise through the debate.

You gotta think that Obama has economic experts too, and should be able to at least guess at about where he's headed with this. He just has to know the principle against whatever McCain talks about and then play at the erratic thing the entire time. McCain's last bombshell went over like a lead balloon-not only was it Clinton's plan, and already in the bailout, but he lost base support for it. This might be a more carefully planned gambit, but might be just as risky.

He can only hope that Obama tries to cruise through the debate.

If there is anything that Obama has proven is that he doesn't have cruise control. It's a major complain from IL lawmakers, that he is constantly on. It's been a complaint from US lawmakers. It was evident in his campaign win over Hillary. And it's been evident in his race against McCain.

I suspect even when he wins he won't be on cruise until Jan. He'll be getting ready for a very interesting Presidency.

And, no, I don't suspect McCain's gambit will work.

Thank you for being such a shining example. This is the kind of excuses that so-called soft racism uses. "Oh, we're all racist, aren't we?" It's not true. It's totally dangerous. But it's very easy to just brush it off as not one of the important issues, anyway, isn't it? I seriously couldn't have picked a better example.

However, even people who think racism isn't an important issue and think it's all okay because everyone is racist can't stomach the recent rhetoric. Perfect.If you're apathetic enough, it's easy to brush off everything. And, excuse me, but I'm not excusing myself to anyone. I don't need an excuse to be myself. If you think being myself is wrong, then you can tell me, but your views on life in general aren't mine. It's a logical fallacy to assume that what your definition of what's extremely dangerous and mine matches.

It was a joke. It was meant to be ridiculous, but to highlight the fallacy of extending her rather odd behavior much past her.



Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolē excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

:rolleyes:

If there is anything that Obama has proven is that he doesn't have cruise control. It's a major complain from IL lawmakers, that he is constantly on. It's been a complaint from US lawmakers. It was evident in his campaign win over Hillary. And it's been evident in his race against McCain.

I suspect even when he wins he won't be on cruise until Jan. He'll be getting ready for a very interesting Presidency.

And, no, I don't suspect McCain's gambit will work.

It will work in this way, and this is really the way that he's hoping for, the post debate chatter will be all about him and his new plan. That's what he wants and I'm sure he's going to get it.

However, I've been burned being pessimistic about Obama's Teflon nature so many times now that I just can't do it again.

He can only hope that Obama tries to cruise through the debate.
it's a possibility but highly unlikely. Obama has been on the ball the entire campaign which stretches back how many months now?
I seriously doubt his people, on hearing that McCain's got a supersecret plan ready to unveil next debate which will solve the world's financial crisis, are sitting with their thumbs up their ass going, "meh. we've won already so who cares?"
My bet is they're working out what his plan would entail and have been coming up with debate points against it since McCain first floated his idea.

If you're apathetic enough, it's easy to brush off everything. And, excuse me, but I'm not excusing myself to anyone. I don't need an excuse to be myself. If you think being myself is wrong, then you can tell me, but your views on life in general aren't mine. It's a logical fallacy to assume that what your definition of what's extremely dangerous and mine matches.

Amusing. However, given that what is extremely dangerous would be extremely dangerous whether you agreed with it or not, I'm going to ignore you're little diatribe and continue to hold you up as an example of my point.

You did offer an excuse. Unsolicited.

And I think you should look up what a logical fallacy is. I said almost none of that. No one said you have to agree with me. In fact, given you're excusing racism and saying it isn't an important problem, you're not likely to agree with me.

Fortunately, it's not particularly likely that given the way you've formed it, that people are going to give much value to your opinion. In the future, you should probably investigate terms before using them. Some of that seems like you just willy nilly inserted the term "logical fallacy" and the truism like "we don't have the same views".

:rolleyes:

That would be an excellent excuse if you weren't simultaneously arguing the exact same thing when predicting the outcome of the election.

Obama has this wrapped up.

This is why certain ads on Five Thirty Eight amuse me so:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/adobama.png

I don't know where they get this stuff from.

I honestly do find it hilarious that almost every ad on Five Thirty Eight is a McCain ad, despite the bias of Five Thirty Eight's organizer.

it's a possibility but highly unlikely. Obama has been on the ball the entire campaign which stretches back how many months now?
I seriously doubt his people, on hearing that McCain's got a supersecret plan ready to unveil next debate which will solve the world's financial crisis, are sitting with their thumbs up their ass going, "meh. we've won already so who cares?"
My bet is they're working out what his plan would entail and have been coming up with debate points against it since McCain first floated his idea.

He did go on cruise control (well, you could call it shifting gears...) at the end of the primaries when he started to focus on the national campaign. Of course, that might be reaching...

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/is-drudge-priming-mccain-reboot.html) is ahead of me on the whole 'reboot' thing, with more detail...cause, you know, that's what he does...

Anyone else catch that Sarah Palin trotted out the old "Obama colluded with Iraq to delay troop pullouts" bullshit? CNN has mentioned it as a lie several times now. Apparently some Iraqi politician has mentioned it's a lie.

My word, it is getting to be a pissing contest literally:
McCain vows to whip Obama's 'you know what'
ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - Republican John McCain vowed Sunday to "whip" Democratic rival Barack Obama's "you-know-what" when the two presidential candidates meet Wednesday in their final televised debate.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93PD0880&show_article=1

Don't McCain know he should never try to 'outflank' a Black man in the trouser dept?
Does he really think his wrinkled, flaccid, septuagenarian teensy pecker is gonna be a match for Barack's schlong?
More proof that McCain is losing it ;)

And more proof that the right-wing bloggers are getting desperate. Front page of the drudgereport:
http://drudgereport.com/

Huge photo of McCain with the headline screaming, "Ready for Comeback?" in bolded, Uppercase, 72pt font. And all because one poll - just one - shows McCain up a % point. Never mind that the others show him slipping further and that 1% is still well within the margin of error. It's still a comeback!

(now just waiting for our very own CH to come in and trumpet the Zogby tracking poll as proof that McCain is going to win)

I think that's largely overstated at this point. Sure the race card will be played, and be pushed back against. But as someone said somewhere else, there aren't that many-if any at all-Obama supporters or even 'undecideds' at this point that are going to go, "Well, I was thinking about voting for him, but it says here he's a n****r...and I hates me some n****rs..." There are people that are going to make that distinction, but they aren't in the margins that are going to decide this election. In fact, the more that's played on the more I think there'll be counter movement. If this was a close election, if there was a measurable 'Bradley Effect' in the primaries, maybe. But it's not close, and there wasn't. Presidential races tighten, it will happen, but I'm not as concerned that race will be the deciding factor.

Now, McCain's latest Hail Mary, the new secret economic plan that he's going to use the debate to introduce in an attempt to grab the headlines from the last major appearance by both candidates...it might work to close things up again. Or it might make him look even more random...

It will be too late for a 'counter movement' once the votes are cast - and that's where we're going to find out whether the average American really is willing to vote for a Black President.

That's why - while I still think Obama's going to take it, I think it's going to be painful close... a lot of people are - I think - okay with talking about voting for 'that one', but will be feeling a little different once there's no one watching them.

I supported McCain until recently, but that doesn't mean I support Obama. In fact, I wish Colin Powell would have run for President. And defending blatant racism is easy. All you have to do is admit that everybody is racist against something, accept it, and then move on to the more important issues.

Not everyone is racist. Trying to excuse yourself by saying 'well everyone is doing it' isn't going to wash.

Colin Powell is not going to run for President THIS year. He might still get the opportunity to be a VP candidate. But, I doubt it.

I supported McCain until recently, but that doesn't mean I support Obama. In fact, I wish Colin Powell would have run for President. And defending blatant racism is easy. All you have to do is admit that everybody is racist against something, accept it, and then move on to the more important issues.

If you're apathetic enough, it's easy to brush off everything. And, excuse me, but I'm not excusing myself to anyone. I don't need an excuse to be myself. If you think being myself is wrong, then you can tell me, but your views on life in general aren't mine. It's a logical fallacy to assume that what your definition of what's extremely dangerous and mine matches.
If you want to talk about yourself, well and good, go right ahead. But kindly do not presume to talk about anyone else, thank you.

To quote you, "your views on life in general aren't mine."

NOT everybody "is racist against something." The only people who are racist (and you can only be racist against one thing -- race) are RACISTS. If you want to put yourself in that club, then you are welcome to it, but I am not a member of it, and I will not let you tell me that I am just so you can "excuse blatant racism" while not "excusing yourself to anyone."

So, I will thank you to put that "everybody is racist against something" crap back on the shelf. I'm not buying it.

Not everyone is racist. Trying to excuse yourself by saying 'well everyone is doing it' isn't going to wash.

Colin Powell is not going to run for President THIS year. He might still get the opportunity to be a VP candidate. But, I doubt it.
If you are talking about Powell being tapped to replace Bible Spice, I'd have to say he would be out of his mind to accept an invitation from McCain after all that "kill him" and "sit down, boy" stuff connected to McCain's campaign. For a black person to step in to "save" the McCain campaign at this point would be a sell-out on the order of "Undercover Brother" -- the great, universally admired, black general who was expected to announce his bid for the presidency, instead announcing that he was starting a fried chicken restaurant chain because he was under the spell of Da Man. I mean seriously, it would destroy any hope Powell might have of rebuilding his credibility after letting himself be Bush's lapdog for so long (pictures of him with that prop anthrax vial at the UN are still hurting him), casting him as the go-to token black guy of the rightwing.

If Powell ever wants to make a run for high office, he needs to stay well out of this mess. If he has any self-respect left -- and any brains at all -- he will.

Anyone else catch that Sarah Palin trotted out the old "Obama colluded with Iraq to delay troop pullouts" bullshit? CNN has mentioned it as a lie several times now. Apparently some Iraqi politician has mentioned it's a lie.
They've run out of fresh poo to fling. Now they have to pick up the turds that were already thrown back at them and throw them again. Of course, the staler it gets, the less it sticks.

If you are talking about Powell being tapped to replace Bible Spice, I'd have to say he would be out of his mind to accept an invitation from McCain after all that "kill him" and "sit down, boy" stuff connected to McCain's campaign. For a black person to step in to "save" the McCain campaign at this point would be a sell-out on the order of "Undercover Brother" -- the great, universally admired, black general who was expected to announce his bid for the presidency, instead announcing that he was starting a fried chicken restaurant chain because he was under the spell of the Da Man. I mean seriously, it would destroy any hope Powell might have of rebuilding his credibility after letting himself be Bush's lapdog for so long (pictures of him with that prop anthrax vial at the UN are still hurting him), casting him as the go-to token black guy of the rightwing.

If Powell ever wants to make a run for high office, he needs to stay well out of this mess. If he has any self-respect left -- and any brains at all -- he will.

Well, we've already seen one 'token' candidate commit political suicide this election. It's not entirely impossible that McCain will still try to capture the niche voters here - and, if he thinks people are voting for Obama because he's black, I wouldn't put it past him to try to pick up a token black candidate. Like you say, though, Powell would have to be an idiot to join the campaign right now. Even if it was enough to tip THIS election (which I still doubt) it would be poisonous for his career.

Colin Powell has a couple of hurdles to clear before he even starts running, whether that's now, as some sort of Emergency Backup VP (highly unlikely) or in 2012. One is that Mrs. Powell has put the kibosh on him running for any elected office as she's afraid he'll be killed. Assuming she comes around, the second, bigger hurdle is that Powell is pro-choice and (not as sure on this one) pro-union. He spoke at the 2000 Republican Convention and mentioned both of these things. (It was sort of funny to hear the sudden silence from the audience. They were all "Whoo! Powell! Whoo! and then dead calm.)

Now, McCain's latest Hail Mary, the new secret economic plan that he's going to use the debate to introduce in an attempt to grab the headlines from the last major appearance by both candidates...it might work to close things up again. Or it might make him look even more random...

can his campaign get any worse?

this "i know how but im not going to tell you" business is stupid.

and didnt he notice how his LAST economic bailout plan that he introduced in the last debate fell silently over the crowd? if he has a bold new plan he need a bold new introduction. AND HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THE DAMNED THING.

can his campaign get any worse?

this "i know how but im not going to tell you" business is stupid.

and didnt he notice how his LAST economic bailout plan that he introduced in the last debate fell silently over the crowd? if he has a bold new plan he need a bold new introduction. AND HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THE DAMNED THING.
Well, THAT'S not gonna happen.

Maybe his secret plan is to give everybody in the US $20.

At least, that was the magic amount my crazy grandfather thought covered all needs, and if McCain is going to be the nation's crazy grandfather, it would be appropriate. (He shows the same level of economic savvy that my grandpa did.)

Colin Powell has a couple of hurdles to clear before he even starts running, whether that's now, as some sort of Emergency Backup VP (highly unlikely) or in 2012. One is that Mrs. Powell has put the kibosh on him running for any elected office as she's afraid he'll be killed. Assuming she comes around, the second, bigger hurdle is that Powell is pro-choice and (not as sure on this one) pro-union. He spoke at the 2000 Republican Convention and mentioned both of these things. (It was sort of funny to hear the sudden silence from the audience. They were all "Whoo! Powell! Whoo! and then dead calm.)

He could run as a Democrat.

The source of the Obama is a Muslim rumor (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)?

Nice of Fox News (totally unbiased, honest!) to give him a forum to spread his whackiness.

I hope you're right.

He is. The racist idiots that McCain is whipping into a frenzy were already voting for him. Its not gonna change the polls

I wonder what crossed Palin's mind when she heard the "kill him!".

If you watch closely, to Ms. Palin's credit (might be the first nice thing Ive ever said about her) when she heard him yell that, she looked slightly horrified.

My word, it is getting to be a pissing contest literally:


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93PD0880&show_article=1

Don't McCain know he should never try to 'outflank' a Black man in the trouser dept?
Does he really think his wrinkled, flaccid, septuagenarian teensy pecker is gonna be a match for Barack's schlong?
More proof that McCain is losing it ;)

And more proof that the right-wing bloggers are getting desperate. Front page of the drudgereport:
http://drudgereport.com/


Huge photo of McCain with the headline screaming, "Ready for Comeback?" in bolded, Uppercase, 72pt font. And all because one poll - just one - shows McCain up a % point. Never mind that the others show him slipping further and that 1% is still well within the margin of error. It's still a comeback!

(now just waiting for our very own CH to come in and trumpet the Zogby tracking poll as proof that McCain is going to win)


Thats really funny. Really, raelly funny. McCain lost a debate about forgein policy. His strong suit. McCain lost a town-hall style debate. His strong suit. He thinks he's going to win a standard format debate about domestic policy, Obama's strong suit?


This campaign has become better then TV.

The source of the Obama is a Muslim rumor (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)?

Nice of Fox News (totally unbiased, honest!) to give him a forum to spread his whackiness.

Woah. That dude is flat-out nuts. I can't even call it malicious. He's just crazy.

Thats really funny. Really, raelly funny. McCain lost a debate about forgein policy. His strong suit. McCain lost a town-hall style debate. His strong suit. He thinks he's going to win a standard format debate about domestic policy, Obama's strong suit?

Clearly!

[It does have a strange sort of logic to it. The first two debates went essentially "wrong", so this one should too!]

If you watch closely, to Ms. Palin's credit (might be the first nice thing Ive ever said about her) when she heard him yell that, she looked slightly horrified.

What makes me upset about both her and McCain it was only till they were slapped on the wrist by the SS, they never said anything to stop it. She should have said something in the manner of, that's not the way to talk about a political opponent. But obviously, brains is not her forte, neither is it McCain's.

they were slapped on the wrist by the SS

They were?

The source of the Obama is a Muslim rumor (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)?

Nice of Fox News (totally unbiased, honest!) to give him a forum to spread his whackiness.
Wowie-zowie. When loons meet bigots, we now see what happens.

They were?
The political gossip is that the Secret Service told the McCain campaign to knock it off. I notice that McCain today "unveiled" a whole new, positive, "we don't hide from history, we make history, 'cause we're Americans!" gimmick in his stump speeches.

I supported McCain until recently, but that doesn't mean I support Obama. In fact, I wish Colin Powell would have run for President. And defending blatant racism is easy. All you have to do is admit that everybody is racist against something, accept it, and then move on to the more important issues.

Care to prove it? So far no one who's made that claim has . . .

First McCain pulled out of Michigan, now it's almost as if Florida is pulling out of McCain. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html)


What is it about Obama opponents declaring not getting blown out a victory? It's like everyone he runs against thinks they're Jake La Motta..."You didn't knock me out, Ray! You didn't knock me out!"

With Florida shaped like it is, this is an interesting choice of words.

(*groan*)

My word, it is getting to be a pissing contest literally:

McCain vows to whip Obama's 'you know what'
ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - Republican John McCain vowed Sunday to "whip" Democratic rival Barack Obama's "you-know-what" when the two presidential candidates meet Wednesday in their final televised debate.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93PD0880&show_article=1


You're missing the worst possible spin on this . . .

McCain just said he's going to whip a black man.

You're missing the worst possible spin on this . . .

McCain just said he's going to whip a black man.

...Send this to everybody you know, no, everybody in the WORLD! NOW!

I beg of you. Point this out. This will bite McCain in the ass SO HARD.

Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that no matter who wins the election, the US will lose.

I mean just look at this thread for how idiotically divisive and superficial our 'democracy' has become.

Look at the media and the way they describe wars. Then look at how they cover the election. There's no difference. They talk about someone "intensifying" combat activity on this or that "battleground." It's all war to them, and to the rest of us. And both candidates will give us exactly that - more war. And that's what we want. Us Versus Them. It's like no one can just disagree anymore, politically or otherwise. No, They have to be demonic, terrorist, dangerous, insane, stupid, radical, traitor threats the likes of which the world has never seen and which Satan would be envious of. And We have to be the good guys defending against Them. There's no middle ground any more.

It's getting to be so where I expect to have my humanity/nationality/ethnicity/reason for being questioned whenever I disagree with anyone about anything.

"I want the roast beef."

"YOU TRAITOR!"

Colin Powell has a couple of hurdles to clear before he even starts running, whether that's now, as some sort of Emergency Backup VP (highly unlikely) or in 2012. One is that Mrs. Powell has put the kibosh on him running for any elected office as she's afraid he'll be killed. Assuming she comes around, the second, bigger hurdle is that Powell is pro-choice and (not as sure on this one) pro-union. He spoke at the 2000 Republican Convention and mentioned both of these things. (It was sort of funny to hear the sudden silence from the audience. They were all "Whoo! Powell! Whoo! and then dead calm.)

There is also the little matter of Powell's lack of credibility after his speech at the U.N. Security Council trying to justify the invasion of Iraq based on lies. See, e.g., transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html); The U.N. Deception: What Exactly Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7093_the_un_deceptio.html)

...Send this to everybody you know, no, everybody in the WORLD! NOW!

I beg of you. Point this out. This will bite McCain in the ass SO HARD.

Why? Thats race baiting. Its clear what he meant. Trying to turn it into something it clearly isnt is the tactics of the Republicans, and I personally am above that.

Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that no matter who wins the election, the US will lose.

I mean just look at this thread for how idiotically divisive and superficial our 'democracy' has become.

Look at the media and the way they describe wars. Then look at how they cover the election. There's no difference. They talk about someone "intensifying" combat activity on this or that "battleground." It's all war to them, and to the rest of us. And both candidates will give us exactly that - more war. And that's what we want. Us Versus Them. It's like no one can just disagree anymore, politically or otherwise. No, They have to be demonic, terrorist, dangerous, insane, stupid, radical, traitor threats the likes of which the world has never seen and which Satan would be envious of. And We have to be the good guys defending against Them. There's no middle ground any more.

It's getting to be so where I expect to have my humanity/nationality/ethnicity/reason for being questioned whenever I disagree with anyone about anything.

"I want the roast beef."

"YOU TRAITOR!"

The most depressing thing about this election is it could have been so much more. If McCain was not so bent on getting fundie and neocon votes, and had just stayed the way he was in 2000, this could have been a very positive election, were I think many of us would feel no matter who won our country would be ok.

Now look at it. McCain sold out and started foaming at the mouth. He let his personal dislike for Obama influence his campaign and its message. He chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, a transparent decision of poor judgement and pandering that will now probably cost him this election. Now, his campaign is one of the most sickening, slanderous, and outright dangerous campaigns in history. Karl Rove has said this is the most disgusting campaign hes ever seen. The Secret Service have yelled at McCain and Palin. People on this forum, some of whom have served in the military in defense of this nation are now saying they will leave the country if McCain wins.

Heartbreaking is the best word I can think of to describe this election. When McCain won the primary, I had high hopes for this election. I figured whoever won, our country would be better off then we are now and would be heading in a new, better direction. Now, I know that wont be the case if McCain wins.

This makes me geniunly depressed. Thats why Im so hostile to the Republican ticket. I liked McCain. I really did.

Why? Thats race baiting. Its clear what he meant. Trying to turn it into something it clearly isnt is the tactics of the Republicans, and I personally am above that.

I'm getting tired of being above them. :p

I'm getting tired of being above them. :p

If you stoop down to their level, they will beat you there. They have much more experiance down tere.

Why? Thats race baiting. Its clear what he meant. Trying to turn it into something it clearly isnt is the tactics of the Republicans, and I personally am above that.

Actually, I don't find it clear. It's not uncommon for politicians to try to court the racist vote with "code words". At it's most benign it's a sign of terminal "foot in mouth" disease, a disorder that should disqualify one from being president because of the international incidents it can spark.

Actually, I don't find it clear. It's not uncommon for politicians to try to court the racist vote with "code words". At it's most benign it's a sign of terminal "foot in mouth" disease, a disorder that should disqualify one from being president because of the international incidents it can spark.

Except "whip their ass" is a common phrase in American dialect.


To be honost, turning "Im going to whip his ass" into a racist comment is just as silly as when they turned the "lipstick on a pig" comment into a sexist one.

Except "whip their ass" is a common phrase in American dialect.

That's what makes it a code word. The very "whip" has those racist connotations for those who think of it, and that's all they need to make the appeal.

It's similar to using Obama's middle name all the time. The connotation of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Of course it's really his middle name, which again is why it's a 'code' word. But just emphasizing it will trigger an unconscious connection for some people.

In neither case is it overt racism or xenophobia, but just playing with connotations. Done all the time in public speaking, advertising, influence.

That's what makes it a code word. The very "whip" has those racist connotations for those who think of it, and that's all they need to make the appeal.

It's similar to using Obama's middle name all the time. The connotation of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Of course it's really his middle name, which again is why it's a 'code' word. But just emphasizing it will trigger an unconscious connection for some people.

In neither case is it overt racism or xenophobia, but just playing with connotations. Done all the time in public speaking, advertising, influence.

The people who "whip" triggers racist connotations with are people who had a sexist connotation triggered when Obama said "lipstick on a pig".

It cant be helped when idiots take things out of context and stretch them to mean whatever fits with their agenda even when it is clear what they originally meant.

Im just not one of those people. There was no hidden meaning. It was not meant as a "code word". Trying to make it one is race baiting and just as pitiful as trying to make Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment a sexist one.

It cant be helped when idiots take things out of context and stretch them to mean whatever fits with their agenda even when it is clear what they originally meant.

Yes, it can. These are politicians. They don't just say things that have no meaning. Everything they do is aimed to gain power and support. Even their 'unprepared' speech is prepared beforehand by someone. These aren't just innocent people who are being misconstrued and having their words taken out of context. The only 'context' is after all, getting power and support. And if saying 'whip' appeals to a racist sentiment and gets a few more votes or poll ratings, without overtly being racist enough for a net loss of votes, they WILL say it.

And did!

Im just not one of those people. There was no hidden meaning. It was not meant as a "code word".

I disagree, see above. It's not so much a hidden meaning as taking advantage of ambiguity in language, connotation, implication. Are you really going to say that when political speakers say "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" they are NOT trying to imply anything, to take advantage of ambiguity or connotation - they are just saying his full name, that's it?

Trying to make it one is race baiting

Erm, how so?

*snip*

So the "lipstick on a pig" comment was sexist?

Yes, it can. These are politicians. They don't just say things that have no meaning.

And it had a meaning. McCain thinks he will win the debate (or, at least, wanted the crowd to believe he does). End of story.

Reading more than that into it tells us more about your own problems with race than McCain's.

Yes, it can. These are politicians. They don't just say things that have no meaning. Everything they do is aimed to gain power and support. Even their 'unprepared' speech is prepared beforehand by someone. These aren't just innocent people who are being misconstrued and having their words taken out of context. The only 'context' is after all, getting power and support. And if saying 'whip' appeals to a racist sentiment and gets a few more votes or poll ratings, without overtly being racist enough for a net loss of votes, they WILL say it.

And did!


He was trying to fire up support and tell everyone he was going to win. To do this, he used common American slang.

I disagree, see above. It's not so much a hidden meaning as taking advantage of ambiguity in language, connotation, implication. Are you really going to say that when political speakers say "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" they are NOT trying to imply anything, to take advantage of ambiguity or connotation - they are just saying his full name, that's it?

Pointing out his middle name is different from this. There is no context were McCain using his middle name is anything but scaremongering. Using someone's middle name is not common American slang. There is a difference here, and I think everyone can see it whether they want to or not.



Erm, how so?

It is making something racist that wasnt intended to be racist and shifts th focuse to race.


Tell me, was Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment sexist. Because this is exactly the same thing. If you say it wasnt, there is an appaling double standard here.


I personally am feeling sick to my stomach defending McCain. But fairs fair. He says and does enough stupid shit and has enough bad ideas were I dont need to hunt for them or stretch what he says.

And it had a meaning. McCain thinks he will win the debate. End of story.

Reading more than that into it tells us more about your own problems with race than McCain's.

Exactly. I find it a poor choice of words for a politician, but not a racist code.

The McCain camp is doing plenty to encourage hatred and division. :mad: They don't need your help. :wink:

Thank God other people showed up to share my pain. It hurts to defend the GOP ticket.

I'm superstitious. Even though I know there's no such thing, I still fear the jinx. I do not want to make a prediction.My predictions hardly ever come true, so, in the hope that whatever gods may be out there want to make me look foolish:
I still predict massive vote-stealing, with the election ending up disputed, all turning on a long and contentious Missouri recount.

Thank God other people showed up to share my pain. It hurts to defend the GOP ticket.

No point attacking them for perceived slights when there are real reasons not to vote for them.

No point attacking them for perceived slights when there are real reasons not to vote for them.
Ditto. That phrase was in no way racist and had no cultural "coding" in it.

On the other hand, the constant use of Obama's middle name is part of a deliberate program to try to poison the voters against Obama by associating him with a hated and feared social group. It is a despicable tactic on many, many levels.

Let us blame McCain for what we know he actually does, not attribute imagined offenses to him for things he did not do.

EDIT: Though I did lol a little at the suggestion that everything politicians say has meaning. :D

Pointing out his middle name is different from this. There is no context were McCain using his middle name is anything but scaremongering. Using someone's middle name is not common American slang.

It's not slang. It's just his name. Obama's real and full name. What's wrong with that?

There is a difference here, and I think everyone can see it whether they want to or not.

There is no relevant difference. One is appealing to racial undertones, the other to 'terrorist' undertones.


And it had a meaning.

Several, actually. Pretending there is only one meaning is simplistic...


Reading more than that into it tells us more about your own problems with race than McCain's.

...and denouncing people who disagree with you as being racists is just plain offensive and stupid. You have NO idea about my attitude toward race, yet you just dropped a "LOL NO U R TEH RACIST" comment.

I have NO "problems with race," thanks.

:rolleyes:

Christ, it's like 10 posts since I was complaining about this tendency of denouncing your opponents, and already someone here has to accuse me of racism. Is that irony or is it just me being right?

It's not slang. It's just his name. Obama's real and full name. What's wrong with that? Nothing. But constantly using it like the GOP does is fear mongering.



There is no relevant difference. One is appealing to racial undertones, the other to 'terrorist' undertones.


Only if your choosing to look for racial undertones were there are none.


I ask again, do you think Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was sexist? Youve been asked several times now by more then one of us. Lets see if you have a double standard.

Just because your on my side doesnt mean I somehow expect less from you. Id expect you to do the same to me if the roles were reversed.

It's not slang. It's just his name. Obama's real and full name. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. And if we generally went around referring to people by their full names, there'd be no particular problem with using his.

However, they only use his fully name to emphasize the middle name. No one uses McCain's full name. In fact, I couldn't tell you what his middle name is without going to look it up. Why? Because it doesn't scare a bigoted segment of the population.

Several, actually. Pretending there is only one meaning is simplistic...

And pretending that it necessarily carries racial overtones is silly.

...and denouncing people who disagree with you as being racists is just plain offensive and stupid.

Like you're doing with McCain?

You have NO idea about my attitude toward race, yet you just dropped a "LOL NO U R TEH RACIST" comment.

I didn't say you were racist.

YOU are the one calling someone else racist, not me.

I have NO "problems with race," thanks.

...except, perhaps, a rather clear oversensitivity to issues associated with race - which certainly can be a problem.

First, you read way too much into a comment that is unlikely to mean anything more than its basic denotation. Then, you decide you've been called racist when you haven't.

Christ, it's like 10 posts since I was complaining about this tendency of denouncing your opponents, and already someone here has to accuse me of racism. Is that irony or is it just me being right?

Irony? Only in the fact that you are personally denouncing a comment for being racist when it isn't.

Nothing. But constantly using it like the GOP does is fear mongering.

I only needed to see it ONCE to see it for what it is. It was very overtly done in that instance - a youtube video of some guy who would always say "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" and he would add a 'ch' kind of sound to the H.

But even if done subtly it's the same thing: it has more than one meaning. Yes, it's really his name. No, it's not overt. But yes, it carries with it a connotation, which voters who are anti-Islamic, ignorant, racist, xenophobic etc WILL and DO latch on to.

And I'm not saying the "whip" comment was even intentional. I'm not saying it was overt either. I'm not saying McCain is personally racist. But, as with the above, to "whip" a black candidate DOES carry a connotation, which voters who are racist WILL and ARE latching on to.

I ask again, do you think Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was sexist?

I don't see why it would be. And it's still not relevant.

Youve been asked several times now by more then one of us. Lets see if you have a double standard.

I don't see why more than one of you is acting as if I'm a vile, loathesome being with "problems with race" just because I am introducing the amazing concept that politicians will make whatever kind of appeals they can to get power.

And I'm not saying the "whip" comment was even intentional.

I don't see why more than one of you is acting as if I'm a vile, loathesome being with "problems with race" just because I am introducing the amazing concept that politicians will make whatever kind of appeals they can to get power.

Do make up your mind. In order to be an appeal to get power, it would have to be intentional.

So, is it or is it not your contention that McCain specifically chose the phrase because of perceived racial connotations?


And, seriously, quit with the silly martyr complex. No one has said that you're vile or loathsome or anything like that.

Nothing. And if we generally went around referring to people by their full names, there'd be no particular problem with using his.

However, they only use his fully name to emphasize the middle name. No one uses McCain's full name. In fact, I couldn't tell you what his middle name is without going to look it up. Why? Because it doesn't scare a bigoted segment of the population.

Well, we don't generally talk about "whipping" people from what I can see. Anyway, no one talks about "whipping" McCain either. Why? Because it doesn't appeal to that bigoted segment.



And pretending that it necessarily carries racial overtones is silly.


Pretending it necessarily is pure of intent and makes no appeal to racists at all is no less so, particularly when you concede that this same campaign will make appeals to xenophobia and ignorance. Is it really such a stretch for you that they also make appeals to racism?


Like you're doing with McCain?

No. McCain is not here. I am not denouncing him. I am not in an argument with him. And I'm not even saying he is a racist person.

You and I however are both here, and you said I had "problems with race." That is an ad hominem, untrue, and I'd like it if you apologized.

I didn't say you were racist.

You said:


Reading more than that into it tells us more about your own problems with race than McCain's.

I suppose I'm reading more into this too? It only LOOKS like you're saying I'm racist, but in actuality you're talking about my problems with the election race is that it?

Or maybe you said I was a racist.

YOU are the one calling someone else racist, not me.

I am not calling *another poster* racist.

First, you read way too much into a comment that is unlikely to mean anything more than its basic denotation. Then, you decide you've been called racist when you haven't.

...

You know, I'm not going to play this game. You made an ad hominem, regardless of whether you meant "problems with race" as in "racist" or "oversensitive to race." Along with KoL you are trying to make me a hypocrite (somehow) too, as if "LOL U R TEH HYPOCRITE" isn't yet another ad hominem. And lastly now you are basically saying I'm delusional. Yet another ad hom.

Whatever.

Ah. I see I need to educate you once more about how polling and stats work.
Just because the numbers are different doesn't mean the polls contradict each other. Polling has what is called an margin of error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error). Usually this is +/- 3.1% due to sample size.

Let's assume, for simplicity sakes, all the polls had the same sample size and a 3.1% error rate.
The range for each over those 14 polls is:
McCain: 39 - 45%
Obama: 46 - 53%

The average over all those 14 polls is
McCain:42.5%
Obama: 49.3%

Thus McCain's support is 42.5% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 39.4 and 45.6. An upper and lower boundary where all 14 polls fall within.
Obama's support is 49.3% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 46.2 and 52.4. An upper and lower boundary where all but one of those 14 polls fall within.

Simply put, all those polls support each other and are giving us the same information. Therefore we can say they are all accurate.
So your point is....what exactly?
The "3.1% error margin" is for what is called a "95% confidence interval". To be 95% confident is the same as accepting a 5% chance of being wrong: that is, a one in twenty chance that a poll measuring Obama's support would find a result outside the range 46.2 to 52.4, and as we see, one out of fourteen polls does vary by that much. That is the amount of variation to be expected.

Once you take an average of the 14 polls, however, the error margin shrinks, by a factor of square-root-of-14 (that is assuming that all 14 have the same sample size and error margin; more technically, you would have to take a weighted average, more heavily toward the larger-sample polls, but I am trying to keep this simple). So the 95% confidence margin of error on the average is 0.8%, meaning that although there is a one-out-of-twenty chance that a single poll with sample sizes like these could come out less than 46.2 or 52.4, that does not apply to a larger poll with a sample size like the total of all the samples of these polls or more (such as, for example, the poll that will be taken November 4). For that, there is only a one-in-twenty chance that Obama's support would measure less than 48.5% or more than 50.1% (if voting was today). And McCain's range is from 41.7% to 43.3% with only the most miniscule chance of getting even with Obama.

So, is it or is it not your contention that McCain specifically chose the phrase because of perceived racial connotations?

I'm saying he very well could have. Of course I could be wrong. I'm not a telepath.
But regardless of whether he meant it, it can and has already appealed to racists. Not that that's terribly difficult to do when your opponent is a black man, but all the same.


And, seriously, quit with the silly martyr complex. No one has said that you're vile or loathsome or anything like that.

Yeah, just a racist, delusional hypocrite. With a silly martyr complex, too! Or maybe I just don't appreciate hostility and personal attacks.

Well, we don't generally talk about "whipping" people from what I can see.

Actually, "whip his ass" is a rather common phrase, the substitution of "whipping" or "beating" someone for winning. We talk about "whipping" or "beating" people in just about any contest that exists - most of which don't involve any violence.

And it's also common in politics in general. There's even a party official known as the "party whip" who goes around bullying people into voting the way the party wants them to. Should that official have a different name if the legislator he's currently visiting is black?

Anyway, no one talks about "whipping" McCain either. Why? Because it doesn't appeal to that bigoted segment.

Of course people talk about whipping McCain. I've heard similar phrases used to describe him, especially since Obama has been moving up in the polls.

And one who wanted to read connotations into that might actually say that it would be even worse to do it with McCain, given his treatment as a POW.

Pretending it necessarily is pure of intent and makes no appeal to racists at all is no less so, particularly when you concede that this same campaign will make appeals to xenophobia and ignorance. Is it really such a stretch for you that they also make appeals to racism?

It's a stretch for me to assume that a particular common phrase was chosen for that reason.

If McCain had used a less common phrase or one with more severe racial tones (ie. "lynching"), it would worry me more. Of course, even then, it could just be a poor choice of words - as it was with the sports commentator who used it when describing a particular contest with Tiger Woods in it.

No. McCain is not here. I am not denouncing him. I am not in an argument with him. And I'm not even saying he is a racist person.

No, just that he made a racist comment to gain power.

I suppose I'm reading more into this too? It only LOOKS like you're saying I'm racist, but in actuality you're talking about my problems with the election race is that it?

One need not be racist to have problems with race.

For instance, the hypersensitivity you're displaying here (and that you displayed by being so hell-bent that the use of a common phrase must be racially motivated).

I am not calling *another poster* racist.

Ah. So, such things are only silly if it's at another poster. Gotcha.

So I could irrationally state that, say, Brad Pitt is racist and that would be just fine so long as he doesn't post on NSG? I'm sure Brad Pitt has used the word "whip" at some point in his life.

You know, I'm not going to play this game. You made an ad hominem, regardless of whether you meant "problems with race" as in "racist" or "oversensitive to race." Along with KoL you are trying to make me a hypocrite (somehow) too, as if "LOL U R TEH HYPOCRITE" isn't yet another ad hominem. And lastly now you are basically saying I'm delusional. Yet another ad hom.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Yeah, just a racist, delusional hypocrite.

At best, it's been insinuated that you might be one of those.

And only because of your displayed double standard with the "lipstick on a pig" comment.

With a silly martyr complex, too!

That is generally what we call it when people start seeing persecution in every corner when it isn't there.

Or maybe I just don't appreciate hostility and personal attacks.

Like I said....

I don't see why it would be. And it's still not relevant.


Maybe you don't see it, but it is absolutely relevent.

Obama used a conventional turn of phrase to describe McCain's apparent desire to pass old conservative methodology off as new.

Did Obama's comment call Sarah Palin a pig? No. Was it intended to? Again - no.

On no level was it about Sarah Palin being a pick - lipstick or no. Indeed, logically, if it was a code for anything, Palin would have been the LIPSTICK, and McCain's campaign would have been the pig... from a symbolic point of view.

But most of us agree, Obama meant nothing about Sarah Palin, at all. He just used a phrase common in the vernacular.

Similarly - McCain has used a phrase common in the vernacular. To look for a deeper meaning about 'whips' and slavery, is to dig for something which is unsupported.

Seriously? There are people taking offense to McCain saying that he's going to whip Obama in the next debate?

These people seem more racist to me than the racists that they are objecting to.

It will be too late for a 'counter movement' once the votes are cast - and that's where we're going to find out whether the average American really is willing to vote for a Black President.

That's why - while I still think Obama's going to take it, I think it's going to be painful close... a lot of people are - I think - okay with talking about voting for 'that one', but will be feeling a little different once there's no one watching them.

That's the Bradley Effect I was talking about, and I think it's overstated. Like I said, if this race was close, I'd be worried about it. But it's not.

Seriously? There are people taking offense to McCain saying that he's going to whip Obama in the next debate?

These people seem more racist to me than the racists that they are objecting to.

Person. The rest of us think he's, to borrow my own phrase, making a mountain out of a place where a mole once considered maybe making a hill but ultimately decided against it.

That's the Bradley Effect I was talking about, and I think it's overstated. Like I said, if this race was close, I'd be worried about it. But it's not.

How do you know the race isn't close?

Person. The rest of us think he's, to borrow my own phrase, making a mountain out of a place where a mole once considered maybe making a hill but ultimately decided against it.

Oh. Good.

And the phrase would probably be "Making a space elevator out of a scissor lift." :wink:

How do you know the race isn't close?

CTOAN knows all and sees all!

Person. The rest of us think he's, to borrow my own phrase, making a mountain out of a place where a mole once considered maybe making a hill but ultimately decided against it.

*steals*

I'm totally using that phrase at some point. =)

How do you know the race isn't close?
Again, this is the Bradley Effect that's been talk about at length by dozens.

First, he's already been through 50+ primary elections, state senate elections, and national senate elections to give us a gauge of his stated support vs. actual support at the polls. In the primaries, more often than not, he outperformed his polls, not underperformed. You can argue that "this time it's different" but you'd have to make that case. With the breadth of his lead, the 'Bradley Effect' would have to be more prevalent that it was in the actual Bradley election in order for it to be enough to sway the election. You would in essence have to buy whatshisname's premise that 'everyone'-by way of a significant majority-is racist and just won't admit it in order for enough of them to be compelled by their racism at the last minute to change their vote.

The race will tighten, as presidential races do, but you'll have to show more than just persistent pessimism to demonstrate that it's just people not willing to admit they won't vote for a black man.

CTOAN knows all and sees all!

Well, everyone else was jumping around and screaming-I touched the monolith...

OUCH

christopher hitchens has... well not so much endorsed obama as UNendorsed john mccain, calling not only for his defeat but the defeat of any candidate who has endorsed him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/


he ends it with:

I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

Again, this is the Bradley Effect that's been talk about at length by dozens.

First, he's already been through 50+ primary elections, state senate elections, and national senate elections to give us a gauge of his stated support vs. actual support at the polls. In the primaries, more often than not, he outperformed his polls, not underperformed. You can argue that "this time it's different" but you'd have to make that case. With the breadth of his lead, the 'Bradley Effect' would have to be more prevalent that it was in the actual Bradley election in order for it to be enough to sway the election. You would in essence have to buy whatshisname's premise that 'everyone'-by way of a significant majority-is racist and just won't admit it in order for enough of them to be compelled by their racism at the last minute to change their vote.

The race will tighten, as presidential races do, but you'll have to show more than just persistent pessimism to demonstrate that it's just people not willing to admit they won't vote for a black man.

Presidential elections are not the same as primary elections or senatorial elections or mayoral elections or PTA elections. They are a different beast, that runs along some marginally similar lines.

There are - I think - a lot of people wo either hide conscious racism, or who hold a dark core of racism that they don't even admit to themselves. When it comes to the Presidential election, and they are out of the way of scrutiny, I expect a lot of people to vote in the way they always wanted to, but thought they'd get 'told off' for mentioning. I expect even more to stand in front of the voting machine and have an internal discussion that goes something along the lines of "Well, I like Obama, but is America REALLy ready for a black president"...

President is special. President is different. Even if it's mainly in our heads, because, in reality, it's the party that holds all the power and the president is their figurehead. But that's not how people vote.

We've seen the mechanism in action. We've seen people say they supported someone, and then make a statistically significant leap... and that wasn't even a presidential election.

OUCH

christopher hitchens has... well not so much endorsed obama as UNendorsed john mccain, calling not only for his defeat but the defeat of any candidate who has endorsed him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/


he ends it with:

I may not agree with him on his stance on the war, but the man can write. And how.

but you'll have to show more than just persistent pessimism to demonstrate that it's just people not willing to admit they won't vote for a black man.

Also - not pessimism. Cynicism, maybe. I expect people to act like people, and (roughly) to be historically consistent in that regard.

Which means sometimes they do good things, and sometimes they do stupid shit. Which is neither optimism, nor pessimism. It's realism.

OUCH

christopher hitchens has... well not so much endorsed obama as UNendorsed john mccain, calling not only for his defeat but the defeat of any candidate who has endorsed him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/


he ends it with:
Oh, it hurts. :D

Hitchens is a person for whom I have little respect and even less patience because of what I see as his slavering hawkishness, but if even HE is jumping off the S.S. McCain, well... that hurts.

Presidential elections are not the same as primary elections or senatorial elections or mayoral elections or PTA elections. They are a different beast, that runs along some marginally similar lines.

There are - I think - a lot of people wo either hide conscious racism, or who hold a dark core of racism that they don't even admit to themselves. When it comes to the Presidential election, and they are out of the way of scrutiny, I expect a lot of people to vote in the way they always wanted to, but thought they'd get 'told off' for mentioning. I expect even more to stand in front of the voting machine and have an internal discussion that goes something along the lines of "Well, I like Obama, but is America REALLy ready for a black president"...

President is special. President is different. Even if it's mainly in our heads, because, in reality, it's the party that holds all the power and the president is their figurehead. But that's not how people vote.

We've seen the mechanism in action. We've seen people say they supported someone, and then make a statistically significant leap... and that wasn't even a presidential election.

Also - not pessimism. Cynicism, maybe. I expect people to act like people, and (roughly) to be historically consistent in that regard.

Which means sometimes they do good things, and sometimes they do stupid shit. Which is neither optimism, nor pessimism. It's realism.
No, you had it right on the first try, it's cynicism. And it doesn't amount to a compelling reason to believe that this time it's different. Bradley was a mayoral race, so it stands to reason that in a state senate race, a national senate race, or in 50+ primary races-at some point this pattern might manifest itself, but it simply hasn't-further more he's out performed polls more often than not. On average three percentage points. I need more than cynicism or 'this time it's different' to be convinced that suddenly that trend is going to reverse itself 13-15 % points.

CTOAN makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

CTOAN makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside

I'm telling ya, touch the monolith. It's warm and smooth and full of stars.

I'm telling ya, touch the monolith. It's warm and smooth and full of stars.

ohhhhh

*touches*

what's this then? I didn't expect the stars to be gooey.

ohhhhh

*touches*

what's this then? I didn't expect the stars to be gooey.

Oh, sorry, that was me...I really like the monolith...

aaaaannd I've grossed myself out...

No, you had it right on the first try, it's cynicism. And it doesn't amount to a compelling reason to believe that this time it's different. Bradley was a mayoral race, so it stands to reason that in a state senate race, a national senate race, or in 50+ primary races-at some point this pattern might manifest itself, but it simply hasn't-further more he's out performed polls more often than not. On average three percentage points. I need more than cynicism or 'this time it's different' to be convinced that suddenly that trend is going to reverse itself 13-15 % points.

The 'trend' you're talking about is opinion polls. It's not based on anything real. And the Bradley precedent tells us that the data CAN be (very) misleading in those polls.

Looking at it objectively - there are reasons to believe that the Bradley effect alone couldn't turn this election, based on history - a 10% difference wouldn't fit previous mth... but the problem is, this time it IS different.

For all your complaints of not wanting to hear it - it is. One has only to look at the history of presidents, and compare it to all those various other layers of office, through the nation, to see that the 'acceptable' President still tends very much away from what might be 'acceptable' elsewhere.

You seem optimistic. That's good. But it's not necessarily real. You're choosing to ignore historical precedent, and that gives you warm fuzzies. But, I like your ability to just discard the data.

I believe the single, most important issue in the current US presidential elections is this: We, as a nation, cannot seem to field candidates from either party who actually are able to pull us together regardless of ideology (or in spite of it) in these turbulent times. That bothers me a lot, though it does not surprise me.

I believe the single, most important issue in the current US presidential elections is this: We, as a nation, cannot seem to field candidates from either party who actually are able to pull us together regardless of ideology (or in spite of it) in these turbulent times. That bothers me a lot, though it does not surprise me.
Quite honestly, I can't think of anyone who'd be capable of uniting Americans. There's a group actively waging a "culture war" against mainstream society which doesn't want to be united, and they make up a major part of the Republican constituency.

The 'trend' you're talking about is opinion polls. It's not based on anything real. And the Bradley precedent tells us that the data CAN be (very) misleading in those polls.
Dude, the trend you're talking about is opinion polls. Don't try and make this like we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about a black politician underperforming polls due to latent racism.

If you're not you're suggesting that black politicians cannot get elected because of latent racism. If that's the case, history really isn't on your side, since Obama already holds public office.

Looking at it objectively - there are reasons to believe that the Bradley effect alone couldn't turn this election, based on history - a 10% difference wouldn't fit previous mth... but the problem is, this time it IS different.

For all your complaints of not wanting to hear it - it is. One has only to look at the history of presidents, and compare it to all those various other layers of office, through the nation, to see that the 'acceptable' President still tends very much away from what might be 'acceptable' elsewhere.
What? What is different? It's not that I 'don't want to hear it,' it's that you have to do more than insist that it is. Are you suggesting that we won't elect a black president because we haven't? That seems specious. Regardless of what one individual state or another would deem 'acceptable' the overwhelming majority of candidates have come to the presidency from other elected office-there is nothing different here except that senators are not as likely to make it-but both Obama and McCain are senators, so that's a wash.

You haven't demonstrated anything, historical or otherwise, that trumps this candidates actual history in political campaigns.

You seem optimistic. That's good. But it's not necessarily real. You're choosing to ignore historical precedent, and that gives you warm fuzzies. But, I like your ability to just discard the data.
You seem to discard data just fine, and have offered up in its stead 'conventional wisdom' and backhanded accusations of naivety. That's not 'realism,' that's simply pessimism parading around as wisdom. I'm not buying it, try harder.

Dude, the trend you're talking about is opinion polls.


Yes. And how they relate to actual voting.

I'm pointing out there's a historical precedent for the polls to be deceptive, and your rebuttal is to go 'yeah, but... the polls! The polls!'.


Don't try and make this like we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about a black politician underperforming polls due to latent racism.

If you're not you're suggesting that black politicians cannot get elected because of latent racism. If that's the case, history really isn't on your side, since Obama already holds public office.


But not the presidency.


What? What is different? It's not that I 'don't want to hear it,' it's that you have to do more than insist that it is. Are you suggesting that we won't elect a black president because we haven't?


Seems like a fair historical precedent.


That seems specious.


As does being a Catholic... or a Mormon... or a Muslim? Or... not ahvign served in the military...

'Specious' doesn't mean it won't happen.


Regardless of what one individual state or another would deem 'acceptable' the overwhelming majority of candidates have come to the presidency from other elected office-there is nothing different here except that senators are not as likely to make it-but both Obama and McCain are senators, so that's a wash.


So - historical trend data is okay if it doesn't conflict your worldview?


You haven't demonstrated anything, historical or otherwise, that trumps this candidates actual history in political campaigns.


Which doesn't yet extend to a presidential race, which is what is at stake here.


You seem to discard data just fine, and have offered up in its stead 'conventional wisdom' and backhanded accusations of naivety. That's not 'realism,' that's simply pessimism parading around as wisdom. I'm not buying it, try harder.

No - there are numerous reasons to suspect Obama is going to have trouble at the elections. But, on top of those, is the established Bradley Effect. We're not talking about some random thing I just made up, or a gut-feeeling... this is a historically documented phenomenon.

But, on top of those, is the established Bradley Effect. We're not talking about some random thing I just made up, or a gut-feeeling... this is a historically documented phenomenon.
It is historically documented that the Bradley Effect is diminished, or completely gone, if it ever was real in the first place: I trust Nate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/if-bradley-effect-is-gone-what-happened.html) on this.

Yes. And how they relate to actual voting.

I'm pointing out there's a historical precedent for the polls to be deceptive, and your rebuttal is to go 'yeah, but... the polls! The polls!'.
Are you kidding me? First, my rebuttal is actually that despite the existence of 'the Bradley Effect,' Obama has consistantly outperformed the polls-in direct contradiction to the Bradley Effect. Your rebuttal amounts to 'this time for sure' and is about as likely to be successful as Bullwinkle's.



But not the presidency.



Seems like a fair historical precedent.



As does being a Catholic... or a Mormon... or a Muslim? Or... not ahvign served in the military...

'Specious' doesn't mean it won't happen.
But it does mean that it's not likely by your logic. By this assertion we'll never have a black boxing champion, black baseball player, black winner of the Heisman Trophy, black politician, Catholic president, non-veteran president...

Except that we've had all of these things. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. No major party has put forth a black candidate before, there is no precedent to look back on.



So - historical trend data is okay if it doesn't conflict your worldview?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Which doesn't yet extend to a presidential race, which is what is at stake here.



No - there are numerous reasons to suspect Obama is going to have trouble at the elections. But, on top of those, is the established Bradley Effect. We're not talking about some random thing I just made up, or a gut-feeeling... this is a historically documented phenomenon.
Seriously? Seriously? A candidates past, and very recent, track record at the polls is trumped by a 1982 Gunernatorial race that's been turned into a catchy, if a little hackey, 'one size fits all' analysis? That's where you want to hang your hat? And that Obama has defeated that concept at every turn and at a national level, that's not documentation-the 1982 Gubernatorial race is?

Look, I know pessimism makes people feel smart, like they're not being 'fooled.' But c'mon, man...you can try just a little harder than going, "B-but the Bradley Effect! Quit sniffing daisies ya hippie!"

It is historically documented that the Bradley Effect is diminished, or completely gone, if it ever was real in the first place: I trust Nate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/if-bradley-effect-is-gone-what-happened.html) on this.
That's hilarious that that article popped up while we're talking about it...I swear that cat has an NSG account...quick, look for lurkers!

It is historically documented that the Bradley Effect is diminished, or completely gone, if it ever was real in the first place: I trust Nate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/if-bradley-effect-is-gone-what-happened.html) on this.

That's not actually the first time I've seen that argument. On closer examination I think you'll probably find that the Bradley effect is quite well documented up until some time in the 90's. So - claiming it never existed is a little optimistic.

As for what we can draw from that, I think the source makes some pretty good points but ignores the major one - which is that once you've had ONE black mayor, ten black mayors isn't a big deal. Once you've had one black Senator, a half dozen won't cause the same kind of shock.

But we've still yet to have a black president.

But we've still yet to have a black president.

Yes we did! Bill Clinton! :p

An interesting article from Rasmussen:

The only notable change in the horse race results this week come from Ohio where Obama is now on top, 49% to 47%.

. . .

In Virginia, a state that no Democrat has won since 1964, Obama earns 50% support for the third straight week while McCain is at 47%.

. . .

In Florida, it’s Obama 51%, McCain 46%.

In Missouri, the results are unchanged from a week ago—Obama 50%, McCain 47%.

The 'trend' you're talking about is opinion polls. It's not based on anything real. And the Bradley precedent tells us that the data CAN be (very) misleading in those polls.

Looking at it objectively - there are reasons to believe that the Bradley effect alone couldn't turn this election, based on history - a 10% difference wouldn't fit previous mth... but the problem is, this time it IS different.

For all your complaints of not wanting to hear it - it is. One has only to look at the history of presidents, and compare it to all those various other layers of office, through the nation, to see that the 'acceptable' President still tends very much away from what might be 'acceptable' elsewhere.

You seem optimistic. That's good. But it's not necessarily real. You're choosing to ignore historical precedent, and that gives you warm fuzzies. But, I like your ability to just discard the data.

Come on, Grave, you're better than this. Let's go ahead and compare Presidents to Senators. Shall we? We've had 42 Presidents over 200+ years. How many senators do we have today?

What we accept in Presidents IS different than in Senators, but only because they're elected more locally. If you look at various areas selection for President, you wouldn't find such a difference from who they select for mayor, or senator, etc. For example, Wasilla will almost assuredly select Palin for VP. In fact, Alaska most likely will. California wouldn't. And more than likely, America in general doesn't support Palin as VP.

There is a lot of evidence that pools are extremely telling. The Bradley effect wasn't a gigantic shift. In fact, there were better explanations for the outcome of that election in my opinion.

Do you have any good evidence for your claims? Nope. You've not even offered any. Do you address the people who are generally not polled, new voters (who widely support Obama), people who don't have land lines (people overwhelming composed of the young, the poor and the technology savvy), etc. There are tons of factors you are ignoring to focus on one. You have to do better.

That's not actually the first time I've seen that argument. On closer examination I think you'll probably find that the Bradley effect is quite well documented up until some time in the 90's. So - claiming it never existed is a little optimistic.

As for what we can draw from that, I think the source makes some pretty good points but ignores the major one - which is that once you've had ONE black mayor, ten black mayors isn't a big deal. Once you've had one black Senator, a half dozen won't cause the same kind of shock.

But we've still yet to have a black president.

And somehow you've decided President is the line in the sand. You realize that not having a black President (when black people represent about 12% of the population) and the civil rights movement when black people were at least viewed institutionally as equals isn't that statistically out of line.

Your argument about examining other levels actually betrays you because senators, mayors, ceos, etc., are much more statistically out of line.

What there is no precedent for is a swing in the polls like you're predicting and you're claiming the evidence supports you? What evidence? You haven't provided any. In fact, there is none that supports you. Polling has been shown to be a relatively reliable indicator. You're asking us to believe that there is this invisible, unprecedented, magical effect and we really, really gotta believe you because it's just gotta be true.

Did the Bradely effect somehow not exist during the primaries? Why or why not? Support it. Let me guess, but the general is different. It really is. You swear. Just take your word for it, right?

Yes. And how they relate to actual voting.

I'm pointing out there's a historical precedent for the polls to be deceptive, and your rebuttal is to go 'yeah, but... the polls! The polls!'.

On the Presidential level, which you argued is different... no, no, there isn't.

Polls are evidence of the current standings of the candidate. They've been demonstrated to be very reliable.

There's historical precedent for people getting dating ancient objects and fossils wrong. I'm sure you advocate tossing that out and pretending it's wildly inaccurate as well, right? If someone was arguing about tossing out all the evidence in any other context because of a couple of outlier instances, what would your response be? Or I could just go back and find it in any number of threads. You'd likely rather harshly rebuke them for being unscientific.

But not the presidency.

Yes, it's true. When people are running for President for the first time, they haven't yet been President. Very wise, my friend.


Seems like a fair historical precedent.

As does the precedent a female has never been VP. As a matter of fact, statistically, half the people on every ticket should be female. Women are WAAAAAAAAY more disproportionately overlooked for these offices. I notice you're not actually incorporating that into your pet theory.


So - historical trend data is okay if it doesn't conflict your worldview?

You mean like the historical trend data you ignored that no President has overcome this large of a margin or even close. The closest was Reagan who overcame a single 7% disadvantage. No Presidential candidate has held this kind of a lead this long and lost. What's the matter? "Historical trend data is okay if it doesn't conflict with your worldview." Incidentally, the data here is actually statistically relevant. The lack of a black President isn't, since it's aligned with the proportion of black people.


No - there are numerous reasons to suspect Obama is going to have trouble at the elections. But, on top of those, is the established Bradley Effect. We're not talking about some random thing I just made up, or a gut-feeeling... this is a historically documented phenomenon.

Secret reasons? You don't think they're relevant so you're keeping them to yourself?

As far as the historical documentation, be careful not to link to any.

In Virginia, a state that no Democrat has won since 1964...
And it hasn't been a "battleground" state since 1864 :tongue:

On the Presidential level, which you argued is different... no, no, there isn't.


The polling data statistical inaccuracy that we refer to as the Bradley Effect has yet to be tried on the Presidential level.

Agreed. No argument there.

But it has been seen to have had an effect, at least up into the 90's.


Polls are evidence of the current standings of the candidate. They've been demonstrated to be very reliable.

There's historical precedent for people getting dating ancient objects and fossils wrong. I'm sure you advocate tossing that out and pretending it's wildly inaccurate as well, right? If someone was arguing about tossing out all the evidence in any other context because of a couple of outlier instances, what would your response be? Or I could just go back and find it in any number of threads. You'd likely rather harshly rebuke them for being unscientific.


That rather depends. If you can explain why you're getting anomolies, and therefore normalise your result - yes... it would be unscientific.

On the other hand, if you are gettin asymmetric results because of a bias factor, it would be unscientific NOT to allow for the variable.

Example: Calculating gravitational acceleration at relative proximities to a body. The number keeps changing... why? Because there is a variable that isn't evidence in the calculation at 'ground level'. Once you allow for the variable the previously outlier data becomes compeltely rational.


Yes, it's true. When people are running for President for the first time, they haven't yet been President. Very wise, my friend.


You liked that, huh?

The point was - and I'm sticking with black frontrunners here - there's a breakpoint. Once you've had a black mayor, it's less of a big deal to have another - but it's a headache getting that first one.

Once the first football team picks a black player, the mould is broken. Once that player achieves a level of success, another frontier is redefined.

We can have black mayors, governors, senators... but the Presidential level is a whole new level.


As does the precedent a female has never been VP.


And it was a landmark when the first female VP candidate was proposed. And yet this year, we've had a nearmiss for a female presidential candidate (who I think suffered at least SOME of a Bradley-like Effect), and still have a female VP candidate in contention.

Once the trail has been blazed, it's less hard to follow it. But, we still haven't YET had a female VP.


As a matter of fact, statistically, half the people on every ticket should be female. Women are WAAAAAAAAY more disproportionately overlooked for these offices. I notice you're not actually incorporating that into your pet theory.


No, I agree. Women are seriously under-represented in... well, in a lot of places... but maybe most noticably in government.

I don't see that that contradicts what I'm saying. If anything, it might support it.


You mean like the historical trend data you ignored that no President has overcome this large of a margin or even close. The closest was Reagan who overcame a single 7% disadvantage. No Presidential candidate has held this kind of a lead this long and lost.


Agreed. Statistically, Reagan set the curve. But then, Reagan wasn't running against a black man.


What's the matter? "Historical trend data is okay if it doesn't conflict with your worldview." Incidentally, the data here is actually statistically relevant. The lack of a black President isn't, since it's aligned with the proportion of black people.


If that were all there were to it. But, I don't see any reason to believe it. I see casual racism everyday, and less overt but more virulent racism proportionally less often. And for every OJ complaining that he's being targetted for being black, there is a teenage girl getting her head bounced off the front of a police car that MIGHT not have happened if she was a white girl in a nice neighbourhood.

Is it just statistics that makes Obama the first serious black presidential hopeful? Can you honestly say it is?


Secret reasons? You don't think they're relevant so you're keeping them to yourself?

As far as the historical documentation, be careful not to link to any.

Nothing secret about it.

Presidents statistically don't get picked from the party with the majority when economy is recessing. And Democrats currently hold the majority.

Maybe Obama can break the statistics. I hope he can.

But where you assume I'm being coy, I'm assuming I'm posting from work, am bumping out posts between doing stuff, and don't have time to go hunting sources right now. Secret reasons. Cute.

Presidents statistically don't get picked from the party with the majority when economy is recessing. And Democrats currently hold the majority.
Wrong. Presidents don't get picked from the party HOLDING THE WHITE HOUSE when economy is recessing.

The problem is that you're discounting the current lead of Obama due to the historical precedent of no black President, but ignoring that there also has been no female VP. They are on opposite sides of the ticket. One of them has to win.

Worse, you suggest a female bradley effect may have cost Hillary (which would mean the famale effect trumps the race effect). So basically, we have to ignore the historical realities in regards to women which are FAR more statistically relevant.

And, no, I'm not discounting racism. However, I'm also not going to lose faith in the first black candidate ever because there hasn't been one before. Someone has to be first and things are perfectly set for Obama. Even your example of how things would go against him ignores that most people know the problems we're facing are more than 18 months old, when not only was there a different majority but a different President. In fact, the majority is there because of the mistakes of the current administration.

The economy was recessing in 2000. How did that one work out?

The problem is that you're discounting the current lead of Obama due to the historical precedent of no black President, but ignoring that there also has been no female VP. They are on opposite sides of the ticket. One of them has to win.

Worse, you suggest a female bradley effect may have cost Hillary (which would mean the famale effect trumps the race effect). So basically, we have to ignore the historical realities in regards to women which are FAR more statistically relevant.

And, no, I'm not discounting racism. However, I'm also not going to lose faith in the first black candidate ever because there hasn't been one before. Someone has to be first and things are perfectly set for Obama. Even your example of how things would go against him ignores that most people know the problems we're facing are more than 18 months old, when not only was there a different majority but a different President. In fact, the majority is there because of the mistakes of the current administration.

The economy was recessing in 2000. How did that one work out?

A couple of thoughts - a more full response in a while.

1) In the primaries, almost 3% of Democrats said they voted against Obama with race as the most important factor. About 6.5% said it was 'one of several important factors'.

This is the party that picked him as a candidate - and almost 10% of his OWN party admit they voted against him on race. How many voted against him on race but didn't admit it?

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/02/did-racism-swing-super-tuesday.asp

What happens when you carry that forward? Can we expect 10% to vote against Obama because he's black, as their most important, or one of the most important, reasons?

A higher proportion?

2) John McCain is an idiot. Ask me why after the election, and I'll tell you how he could have shut Obama down. I'm not going to say it out loud before then, because it's a silverbullet.

A couple of thoughts - a more full response in a while.

1) In the primaries, almost 3% of Democrats said they voted against Obama with race as the most important factor. About 6.5% said it was 'one of several important factors'.

This is the party that picked him as a candidate - and almost 10% of his OWN party admit they voted against him on race. How many voted against him on race but didn't admit it?

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/02/did-racism-swing-super-tuesday.asp

What happens when you carry that forward? Can we expect 10% to vote against Obama because he's black, as their most important, or one of the most important, reasons?

A higher proportion?

2) John McCain is an idiot. Ask me why after the election, and I'll tell you how he could have shut Obama down. I'm not going to say it out loud before then, because it's a silverbullet.
That's not the Bradley Effect-that's regular old surface racism that makes up the support of one candidate or another. This doesn't account for what you're argueing, that people's stated support is in fact the opposite. For what you're proposing those 10% of people who will not vote for a black man have to make up the entirety of undecided voters and then a marginal amount of actual Bradley effect.

All you've outlined above is Obama's ceiling. No one is arguing that he doesn't have one.

A couple of thoughts - a more full response in a while.

1) In the primaries, almost 3% of Democrats said they voted against Obama with race as the most important factor. About 6.5% said it was 'one of several important factors'.

This is the party that picked him as a candidate - and almost 10% of his OWN party admit they voted against him on race. How many voted against him on race but didn't admit it?

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/02/did-racism-swing-super-tuesday.asp

What happens when you carry that forward? Can we expect 10% to vote against Obama because he's black, as their most important, or one of the most important, reasons?

A higher proportion?

2) John McCain is an idiot. Ask me why after the election, and I'll tell you how he could have shut Obama down. I'm not going to say it out loud before then, because it's a silverbullet.

1) Um, you do realize that the Bradley effect is racists who don't admit it. You just showed that some people do.

Yes, there will likely be a lot of people who will vote for McCain because Obama is black. Duh. You've not demonstrated they aren't already polling as in the McCain camp, though. In fact, you've demonstrated that said percentage polled exactly where one would expect them to.

2) Yes, you figured out the one way to stop Obama and no one thought of it. You're the smartest man in the universe.

Yes, you figured out the one way to stop Obama and no one thought of it. You're the smartest man in the universe.

No, he's not. I am.

;)

1) Um, you do realize that the Bradley effect is racists who don't admit it. You just showed that some people do.

Yes, there will likely be a lot of people who will vote for McCain because Obama is black. Duh. You've not demonstrated they aren't already polling as in the McCain camp, though. In fact, you've demonstrated that said percentage polled exactly where one would expect them to.


Bradley effect would be those who denied that race was a factor, but still voted based on race.

If 10% admit it, and the Bradley effect might account for... say... 3%, then a poll would have to be at least... 13% (in that case)... advantage to be 'safe'.

See what I mean?


2) Yes, you figured out the one way to stop Obama and no one thought of it. You're the smartest man in the universe.

Seriously.... one of those moments when you sit and look at the pattern, and you end up inventing the mousetrap or something. And it's really that obvious.

Bradley effect would be those who denied that race was a factor, but still voted based on race.

If 10% admit it, and the Bradley effect might account for... say... 3%, then a poll would have to be at least... 13% (in that case)... advantage to be 'safe'.

See what I mean?

Uh, what? The 10% that admit it would already be in the McCain camp. Why would we assume that people can admit that race is a factor but not admit they're planning to vote McCain?

The people you're talking about admitting they were voting for Hillary. In fact, analysis usually showed that Obama did slightly better than the polling. It's the exact opposite of what you'd expect from the Bradley effect. Now, those are skewed liberal, so I'd definitely buy that there will be some Bradley effect, but suggesting we will see a swing of 13% is just fucking ludicrous.

Seriously.... one of those moments when you sit and look at the pattern, and you end up inventing the mousetrap or something. And it's really that obvious.

No offense, but I've watched you analyze American politics for half of a decade; forgive me if I'm skeptical. (I don't think I used that semicolon right.)