Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:30 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The only poll I believe is the one that will be held on Election Day, all others are in-accurate, IMO.
That's your choice. I don't think McCain's advisers are thinking that way right now. What do you think?+
Probably not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but:
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
We all know what the Exit Polls were saying in 2004.....
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:36 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The only poll I believe is the one that will be held on Election Day, all others are in-accurate, IMO.
That's your choice. I don't think McCain's advisers are thinking that way right now. What do you think?+
Probably not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but:
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
We all know what the Exit Polls were saying in 2004.....
Well I was alive then, but I don't think I could read let alone follow politics. I remember the 1984 election though.
Anyway...exit polling is off, that happened in the primaries too. I would say though that by the end of the primaries they got much better at predictions.
One thing I noticed was the trend is important.
Lets say if the eleciton was trending toward Reagan at the end but he was behind...the polls might have come out a day before with a lot of undecided...polling over the last 2 or 3 days.
It says nothing about how many people moved the day the poll came out into election day. So trends are important, if the wave is moving one way it is likely going to continue into the voting both.
I honestly think though, Obama will win by a landslide (but American standards) like Dukakis lost it.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:45 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The only poll I believe is the one that will be held on Election Day, all others are in-accurate, IMO.
That's your choice. I don't think McCain's advisers are thinking that way right now. What do you think?+
Probably not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but:
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
We all know what the Exit Polls were saying in 2004.....
Well I was alive then, but I don't think I could read let alone follow politics. I remember the 1984 election though.
Anyway...exit polling is off, that happened in the primaries too. I would say though that by the end of the primaries they got much better at predictions.
One thing I noticed was the trend is important.
Lets say if the eleciton was trending toward Reagan at the end but he was behind...the polls might have come out a day before with a lot of undecided...polling over the last 2 or 3 days.
It says nothing about how many people moved the day the poll came out into election day. So trends are important, if the wave is moving one way it is likely going to continue into the voting both.
I honestly think though, Obama will win by a landslide (but American standards) like Dukakis lost it.
This seems to dispute the historical fact that Chapman posted that it is common for the polls to have a slant in favor of the liberal candidate. I know you have yourself convinced that this is not the case but it is in fact true. I have no doubt this election won't be any different - this based on hitorical precedence as opposed to wishful conjecture.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:53 Post subject:
Quote:
Different time period. Lets stick to the present. Back in Truman's day very few people even graduated from high school because you did not need a high school education to earn a middle class wage.
No, Truman was the only President in the 20th Century not to have gone to college, or at least have a college degree. People said the same things about Truman that are being said about Palin.
Dragon Horse wrote:
As I said, she has no hobbies considered intellectual. She can hunt and also play chess, I have an uncle that does. I fish and have hunted (although I don't consider myself a hunter) and I have a "library" in my home full of books considered to be "intellectual" in nature, I play chess, I listen to classical music...
I can go back and extract all your other quotes about IQ, intelligence, intellectual hobbies and the like. We can both agree that former New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, was all those things, right? Princeton, Harvard Law, Attorney General, super rich father. Is soliciting and having sex with high priced prostitutes your idea of an "intellectual hobby"??? Or is Spitzer the exception rather than the rule??? Come on. The so called "intellectuals" or no better than anyone else, I don't care how high their IQ or how many degrees they have. They are still human and will make mistakes. The only thing that will impress me is character.
All this said, I think Palin does not have the experience to be Commander In Chief, which scares me.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I honestly think though, Obama will win by a landslide (but American standards) like Dukakis lost it.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:56 Post subject:
chip wrote:
This seems to dispute the historical fact that Chapman posted that it is common for the polls to have a slant in favor of the liberal candidate. I know you have yourself convinced that this is not the case but it is in fact true. I have no doubt this election won't be any different - this based on hitorical precedence as opposed to wishful conjecture.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 17:17 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The only poll I believe is the one that will be held on Election Day, all others are in-accurate, IMO.
That's your choice. I don't think McCain's advisers are thinking that way right now. What do you think?+
Probably not. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but:
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
We all know what the Exit Polls were saying in 2004.....
Well I was alive then, but I don't think I could read let alone follow politics. I remember the 1984 election though.
Anyway...exit polling is off, that happened in the primaries too. I would say though that by the end of the primaries they got much better at predictions.
One thing I noticed was the trend is important.
Lets say if the eleciton was trending toward Reagan at the end but he was behind...the polls might have come out a day before with a lot of undecided...polling over the last 2 or 3 days.
It says nothing about how many people moved the day the poll came out into election day. So trends are important, if the wave is moving one way it is likely going to continue into the voting both.
I honestly think though, Obama will win by a landslide (but American standards) like Dukakis lost it.
This seems to dispute the historical fact that Chapman posted that it is common for the polls to have a slant in favor of the liberal candidate. I know you have yourself convinced that this is not the case but it is in fact true. I have no doubt this election won't be any different - this based on hitorical precedence as opposed to wishful conjecture.
Uhm...you don't know I'm convinced of anything until I tell you.
Politicians take polls seriously, I have worked for political campaigns before (one REpublican among them, I'm an independent btw).
Polls can favor liberal candidates?
Why? What is the logic behind that statement. Can you explain this? Based on history? Is one example history? You have a few more to show a real trend?
If anything a lot of Obama's support comes from people who don't have home phones to get polling data from...he showed in the primaries a few times that he exceeded expectation against Clinton.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 17:23 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Quote:
Different time period. Lets stick to the present. Back in Truman's day very few people even graduated from high school because you did not need a high school education to earn a middle class wage.
No, Truman was the only President in the 20th Century not to have gone to college, or at least have a college degree. People said the same things about Truman that are being said about Palin.
Dragon Horse wrote:
As I said, she has no hobbies considered intellectual. She can hunt and also play chess, I have an uncle that does. I fish and have hunted (although I don't consider myself a hunter) and I have a "library" in my home full of books considered to be "intellectual" in nature, I play chess, I listen to classical music...
As I said, Truman was born at a different period.
The way to sum up what I said is simple.
There was less correlation between intelligence and education in the past than today due to changes in culture/society. There were many bright people who simply did not need college to do things so the cost and effort were not worth it.
This is far less true today than when Truman was an 18 year old man. Take it or leave it.
I can go back and extract all your other quotes about IQ, intelligence, intellectual hobbies and the like. We can both agree that former New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer, was all those things, right? Princeton, Harvard Law, Attorney General, super rich father. Is soliciting and having sex with high priced prostitutes your idea of an "intellectual hobby"??? Or is Spitzer the exception rather than the rule??? Come on. The so called "intellectuals" or no better than anyone else, I don't care how high their IQ or how many degrees they have. They are still human and will make mistakes. The only thing that will impress me is character.
All this said, I think Palin does not have the experience to be Commander In Chief, which scares me.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I honestly think though, Obama will win by a landslide (but American standards) like Dukakis lost it.
Nope, it certainly will not be a landslide.
You are confusing issues and and arguing against points I am not trying to make.
This is very simple.
My belief is intelligence is important for high office, especially the president. I want the smartest person I can get in there.
That being said, intelligence has nothing to do with morality, ideology, leadership ability.
What I'm saying is that intelligence is very important because without that your ability to lead and make complex decisions is diminished.
Eliot Spitzer had personal issues that spilled over into his work. He was smart, but as I said, smart people usually mess up big.
One more time to make this clear.
I did not say, do not imply, and do not mean intelligence makes one moral or gives them leadership ability.
What I do know is that leadership ability is relevant to who you are trying to lead and for what purpose.
Morality is also relevant as there is no real core standard, but an "average standard".
In any case.
Given all those things that you are concerned about...I would rather have a intelligent person with them than one who is less intelligent.
A somewhat intelligent, moral, and good leader can lead a Home Owners Association, a Church, Cub Scouts, etc. That does not mean I want them as my President.
Bringing this back to Palin. I don't care about any of her other qualities, because without intelligence I think the other things fall down, that has to be the foundation for me.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 17:39 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
chip wrote:
This seems to dispute the historical fact that Chapman posted that it is common for the polls to have a slant in favor of the liberal candidate. I know you have yourself convinced that this is not the case but it is in fact true. I have no doubt this election won't be any different - this based on hitorical precedence as opposed to wishful conjecture.
Precisely. This election will be no different.
One example is not a fact.
I will go back to Bush and Kerry, that is more recent.
Kerry never lead Bush for a solid month and at the end of the campaign Kerry was ahead in some polls, but not in all. So if you average them Kerry and Bush were in the margin of error of 4%+/- So there was an 8 point potential swing there. Bush won by less than 3%.
Kerry's loss was not outside of the norm. Look for yourself.
Undecideds broke for Bush over Kerry and the base rallied. Look at undecideds this year, there are much less of them...in many polls it appears if even 60% of them break for McCain he will still lose, he is down that much. What is the odds that over 60% will break for him...not likely given what data we have seen coming out of focus groups after the debates...most independence/undecideds are breaking for Obama...I showed that already in the last debate but I can show it for all. I know...I know...you dont believe in polls...okay...
Gore was ahead in 2000 in the polls and he did win the popular vote but he lost because popular vote is not what is important. He lost by about 200,000 votes in Florida, mainly due to the fact Nadar was in the race and got more than Gore lost, since he was too the left of Gore most of those people Gore would have won Florida and the election.
As it stands today in almost every major national poll Obama is outside the margin of error.
In the key swing states, most of them he is ahead, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia he is way outside the margin of error.
If the election was held today he would win by about 277 (so by 7 electoral votes)...chance are he will at least pick up one more state like New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina, or Missouri.
At least one of them.
So I don't see this race as being similar to Gore V Bush and especially not Kerry v Bush.
Obama has far more states in play than Kerry could hope for and he is further ahead in those states that were mostly Red States.
What it appears is that you both "hope" there will be some base surge by the Republicans like with Bush in 2004 or 2000, but those elections were much closer than this one.
In fact I would say forget national polls.
Look at key swing states. They will decide this. If you look at how many Obama needs...it is not difficult to see he will win it just matters by how much, unless something outrageous happens in the next 19 days.
That's the recent historical precedence.
Here is some antidotal evidence...
McCain has a weak ground game. In VA he is being outspent over 4:1 by Obama and Obama volunteers are all over NOrthern VA...they call me all the time. I've been called by McCain once and I saw a pathetic McCain rally not to far from me...there was no one outside.
When Obama has a rally, even if he does not show their is a line out the door.
That tells me something. He has already pulled out of Michigan, rumor is he is cutting back in Wisconsin. He will likely fold in Pennsylvania as well.
Did Bush ever do that? I don't think so. So what's really going on?
Problem is, unlike Bush, McCain's base is fractured...and has been since his nomination, first the religious right (who won Bush the last two elections along with fear mongering) were cool on him due to past issues...then he somewhat made up with him...he tried to get Palin that made some of the religous right happy...but turned off more women (as I have provided evidence for) and also alienated many Neocon type REpublicans who make up a significant portion of the party like Brookes at New York TImes, like Buckley Jr., like Peggy Noonan...I personally know many Republicans who will be voting for Obama due to Palin.
This did not happen under Bush, the base was unified.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 18:56 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Sarah Palin has said she believes Humans and Dinosaurs lived together 6,000 years ago...scary
Has she actually said this or has this been attributed to her?
attributed:
Quote:
ANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage
Joined: 18 May 2008 {Posts: 4 } Location: San Antonio, TX
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 22:47 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Given that Miller lacks evidence to back up his thinly veiled accusation, I suggest that he either retract it or at least stop trying to defend it.
Again, the key phrase is "or those who may as well be" - I don't know how many NRA members there are on this site. But, living in Texas, I'm actually around quite a few of these redneck mofo's - and many of the people here remind me of them. THAT'S what I'm saying. Now, if you can give me some pointers on how I can provide evidence of people reminding me of others, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
This is a typical arrogant, weasel repsonse from you. This is not at all what you said, you said there were "so many NRA members on this site". When you come back, shall we go back and see???
Richard Miller wrote:
Boy, I tell you - I have never in my life seen so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place until I came to this site...
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 17 Oct 2008 00:28 Post subject:
Nikia Miller wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Given that Miller lacks evidence to back up his thinly veiled accusation, I suggest that he either retract it or at least stop trying to defend it.
Again, the key phrase is "or those who may as well be" - I don't know how many NRA members there are on this site. But, living in Texas, I'm actually around quite a few of these redneck mofo's - and many of the people here remind me of them. THAT'S what I'm saying. Now, if you can give me some pointers on how I can provide evidence of people reminding me of others, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
This is a typical arrogant, weasel repsonse from you. This is not at all what you said, you said there were "so many NRA members on this site". When you come back, shall we go back and see???
Richard Miller wrote:
Boy, I tell you - I have never in my life seen so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place until I came to this site...
I can take a hint. You did not do this to promote productive discussion, you did his to start something. Join your husband, you're outta here as well.
Why doesn't Sarah Palin have time to do any more interviews to show that she is not the incompetent as the liberal as well as the conservative media contend BUT she has time to do an episode of Saturday Night Live? Is she running for Vice President or Class President?
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 19 Oct 2008 19:19 Post subject:
anonymouse wrote:
Why doesn't Sarah Palin have time to do any more interviews to show that she is not the incompetent as the liberal as well as the conservative media contend BUT she has time to do an episode of Saturday Night Live? Is she running for Vice President or Class President?
I'm not sure she would know the difference. She definately didn't have a clue what the VP does in the debate or what she would do as VP. LOL
Why doesn't Sarah Palin have time to do any more interviews to show that she is not the incompetent as the liberal as well as the conservative media contend BUT she has time to do an episode of Saturday Night Live? Is she running for Vice President or Class President?
She has the time, but the McCain campaign doesn't want her using it making herself look less-than-ready for VP.
Why doesn't Sarah Palin have time to do any more interviews to show that she is not the incompetent as the liberal as well as the conservative media contend BUT she has time to do an episode of Saturday Night Live? Is she running for Vice President or Class President?
I'm not sure she would know the difference. She definately didn't have a clue what the VP does in the debate or what she would do as VP. LOL
Wait. Are you serious? Sarah Palin got the VP's job RIGHT in the debate. It is Senator Biden who got it WAY WRONG.
From the debate:
Quote:
IFILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.
PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does.
BIDEN: They didn't get yours or mine? Which one didn't they get?
PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that's where I want you, I want you to lead. I said, I can't wait to get and there go to work with you.
IFILL: Senator?
BIDEN: Gwen, I hope we'll get back to education because I don't know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind, the money was left behind, we didn't fund it. We can get back to that I assume.
With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues.
I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.
And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
First of all, Article I does not delineate the powers of the Executive Branch, that's Article II. Article I outlines the Legislative Branch. Furthermore...
From Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:
Quote:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
How does presiding over the Senate EXCLUDE one from a role in the Legislative Branch? Remember, Biden says the Constitution is explicit, right? Well, don't forget that the above quote about the role of the Vice-President comes from Article I, which is about the Legislative Branch! In fact, the only thing mentioned in Article II (Executive Branch) about the Vice-President has to do with how that position is filled and that part of Article II, Section 1 was superseded by the 12th Amendment.
THANK YOU. They stepped all over more qualified female Republican candidates to get to Palin. Say what you will about Obama and perceptions of his experience but one cannot say that he was chosen over more qualified Black-identified candidates or that his nomination was based on race.
Intelligence is not the only trait that matters in a leader, and personally I don't think she is an idiot. But she is questionable in many ways.
Someone who believes that people in small towns are "really Americans" or "more patriotic" shouldn't be seen paying her respects at Ground Zero, where terrorists obviously made a mistake and murdered thousands of "fake Americans" who live in cities. I'm sure that Osama bin Laden thinks of places like Wasilla when he thinks of terrorizing the U.S. and will direct his minions to crash some prop planes into the new sports complex up there.
She's really tipping her hand, and unfortunately she is speaking to and for a lot of small town bigots with a superiority complex who feel exactly the same way.
Someone let me know when the condition of my citizenship and the symbol of my patriotism became my place of birth or rearing. It's a disgusting display of cultural chauvanism.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Furthermore...
In fact, the only thing mentioned in Article II (Executive Branch) about the Vice-President has to do with how that position is filled and that part of Article II, Section 1 was superseded by the 12th Amendment.