Yesterday, I argued that Joe Biden is not an especially popular politician, and would start out with an unusually high number of unfavorables for a VP selection, almost all of whom have been either relatively unknown at the time of their selection (allowing the campaign to build a favorable narrative around them), or almost universally well-liked to begin with.
However, Biden's case is probably stronger than I indicated, because he tends to be most popular among voting groups with a lot of undecided voters, which means a lot of persuadables. In particular, Biden's strength with senior citizens could be a real asset. How so? Because seniors are far more likely to be undecided in this election than their younger counterparts.
Below, I have averaged the Gallup national tracker crosstabs by age over the course of the last three weeks. The only thing I am interested in is the number of voters who are not committed to either Obama or McCain (either truly undecided or claiming that they'll vote third-party). This is how that vote breaks down by age group:18-29 9% undecided/otherSeniors are about 50 percent more likely than other voters to be uncommitted at this point in the race. Voters aged 65+ will eventually represent about 20 percent of the electorate, but they may represent more like 30 percent of the pool of persuadables.
30-49 9% undecided/other
50-64 10% undecided/other
65+ 16% undecided/other
Now, what did Joe Biden's favorables look like in that recent Rasumussen poll?VF = Very Favorable
That is a pretty strong age-based correlation. The only figure that breaks the pattern is Biden's relatively strong performance among 18-29 year olds, but that is probably because that cohort is so overwhelmingly Democratic at the moment that they are likely to support any Democrat.
SF = Somewhat Favorable
SU = Somewhat Unfavorable
VU = Very Unfavorable
Age VF + SF = Favorable SU + VU = Unfavorable
18-29 3 + 26 = 29 14 + 8 = 22 (+7)
30-39 4 + 19 = 23 17 + 16 = 33 (-10)
40-49 8 + 19 = 27 22 + 18 = 30 (-3)
50-64 19 + 24 = 43 19 + 18 = 37 (+6)
65+ 21 + 24 = 45 12 + 21 = 35 (+10)
Biden's net favorable score among seniors was the highest of any Democrat that Rasmussen tested, except for John Edwards, who has since disqualified himself:Edwards +21What a Biden pick really would be is a redux of Gore-Lieberman. Al Gore got quite a large bounce in Florida when he selected Lieberman, and if Obama were to pick Biden, he is probably committed to playing Florida out to the end, or at least until the last 15 days of the campaign.
Biden +10
Clinton +8
Kaine +1
Webb 0
Sebelius -1
Bayh -6
Hagel -9
*-*
By the way -- I wouldn't read too much into Biden's "I'm not the guy" statement because his demeanor seemed to be pretty sarcastic and jocular. Then again, assuming it was an unplanned joke, his statement couldn't have gone over too well with the Obama campaign. Hell, if they were really evil, they could have told all the candidates they weren't the one and then saw who leaked or broke their game face.
In any event, based on my 99.99% uninformed aggregation of information and intuition, I'd probably place the candidates into something like the following tiers:
1. Biden, Kaine
2. Sebelius, Clinton
3. Bayh, Reed, Other
8.20.2008
Biden: A New Trick for Old Fogeys
@ 4:30 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments
Sebelius, you heard it here first!
The Oracle tells you exactly what you need to hear.
And remember, there is no spoon.
Another Matrix fan!
We will know the name of the VP in a few days. The suspense is fun...like being a child waiting for that special birthday gift. Will it be the one we really, really want?
I certainly have no inside knowledge of who Obama plans on choosing, but Biden would surprise me, because he's been in the Senate for decades and has a mixed record, including the fact that he supported the Iraq war and recently made the bizarre statement that the recent fighting in Georgia was the most important event in Europe since the fall of Communism. (The turmoil and mass killing in ex-Yugoslavia after the death of Tito wasn't more important and, for that matter, more obviously in Europe?) To put it bluntly, he's an establishment Washington Democrat (his commute from Wilmington is not relevant except to his constituents) who can be construed to represent everything that's been wrong with Congress as an institution.
Choosing Biden would contradict Obama's theme of new politics. I could more easily see him being nominated for Secretary of State or U.N. Rep in an Obama administration, if one indeed eventuates.
I expect Obama to pick someone for VP who can be construed in some way to represent a "new" politics, either because s/he's relatively young, has been proven to have appeal in what are STILL thought of as traditionally Republican states (e.g., Schweitzer, Sebelius, Bayh), or/and has some kind of innovative ideas s/he will promote. Because of Biden's long record as a not particularly visionary establishment Democrat, he would be justly made to share the blame for all the failings of the institutional Democratic party in the Senate. I believe that even Gore, despite his baggage, could more easily represent himself as someone who is engaging in new thinking and was an innovator ahead of his time than Biden. And Gore is over 5 years younger!
I'm getting nervous about the idea of putting a "foreign policy" guy on the ticket. I don't want the central issue of the campaign to be foreign policy. If we do that we're fighting on their turf. We need to make the central issue the economy and keep talking about it.
We've fallen into the trap of letting them set the agenda.
Its the economy stupid!!
Stick to it.
I've got to say that the data on the old folks is persuasive. Thanks, Nate. It's always useful to have some facts.
Today we are going to learn how to play veepstakes.
1. Pick a candidate at random.
2. Put together a list of adjectives that describe the candidate.
3. Claim that people sharing those adjectives will be more likely to vote for the candidate.
4. Take a look at what state the candidate is from. Is it a swing or lean state? If so, the candidate can win it. If not, point out that historically the effect of VP's on swing states has been small.
5. Picture the candidate in a tank, then picture the candidate wearing a hard hat, while visiting a steel mill. Which of these images appeals most to do? If you said tank, then the candidate is strong on national defence. If you said hard hat, the candidate is strong on the economy. CEO's are automatically strong on the economy, while veterans are automatically strong on defence.
6. The next part is tricky. Is your veepstake selection more similar to the presidential candidate or more different. If similar, then the VP will increase the salience of key issues. If different, then the VP will make up for strengths. If neither, think of an issue they might have mentioned. They are now strong on that issue.
7. Are they a congressman? They have Washington experience. Governor? They have executive experience. Political outsider? They are a fresh face who can clean up Washington. Or VP/first lady? They will guarantee a victory, unless they don't.
8. Finally, we have ideology. Centrists are smart picks aimed at increasing appeal to independents. Hardliners are smart picks aimed at appeasing the base.
Worried that your analysis might be crap? Don't be. VP's don't matter anyway, so it would be hard for you to be proven wrong.
What if somebody points out that the candidate you suggested is horrible, and has reasons that lie outside this handy guidebook? That probably won't happen. The common form of Veepstake argumentation is to say "no it won't" to all suggested positives, while asserting different positives for a different candidate. Sometimes it may help to just assert positive qualities for your preferred candidate. In Veepstakes the longer list of positive traits generally trumps any shorter list, even if that list is more accurate or contains salient things.
Still confused? Lets try an example.
John McCain should run with... Paris Hilton.
Paris Hilton is...
* Young
* Hot
* White
* Rich
* Female
So she helps limit Obama's lead among attractive young voters (random aside but did anybody else notice that Huckabee rallies were absolute dogshows). White voters are about 80% of the electorate, so that's always good. Rich people vote more than poor people. Oh and she is a female, so she will appeal to Clinton supporters.
Hilton's home-state is California or New York. Not a swing state. However, that doesn't matter. Vice presidential candidates have rarely made a difference in modern history.
Probably in the course of the Simple Life, Paris Hilton wore a hard hat, but I would reckon it didn't suit her. However I do recall Paris Hilton mentioning energy policy once, and she often says "that's hot", so she is an expert on energy policy and climate change.
Paris Hilton is a fresh face who can bring a new era of politics to Washington. She is not a hardline ideologue, which will appeal to centrist voters. As we all know, centrists are more numerous than extremists. Moreover, Paris Hilton will help compensate for McCain's weakness in not being a celebrity, or being hot.
And now for some random assertions. Paris Hilton has more name recognition than other VP contenders. This will be a good thing in case voters forget McCain's name. The key demographic in the next election will be people who vote for the first candidate whose name they can remember (so Florida will be a swing state).
Paris Hilton is blonde. There has never been a blonde vice-president since the onset of colour television. Thus, Paris Hilton would make history.
No VP candidate that likes to carry around small dogs in a purse has ever lost an election.
Paris Hilton is ineligible because of her age? That is a fair point, but it doesn't refute the long list of reasons I have presented. I have like 12 points, while you have just one point of criticism. Lets determine who wins this argument.
12 positives - 1 negative = 11 positives. McCain-Hilton '08.
Nate,
Have you done a study about how demographics have changed in the last four years and if everybody could vote again what the margin would be if every living person voted the same way they did four years ago and Kerry got new 18-22 voters by say 20 points?
I know this is morbid to think of it this way but...the preboomer generation is one of the most conservative generations in the last century.
Bush won 60 and older voters by 7 points. Since he won 45-59 by only 2 and what I know about older boomers vs preboomers, my guess is he won the 70+ demographic by well over 10 points.
You see where I'm going. A lot of Republicans have died in the last 4years. A lot of new Democrats have turned 18.
I know people tend to think all early 20s are always liberal and all older voters are always conservative but that isn't really true.
Take a look at the 1988 election. You see that youths were actually more Rep than seniors. The preboomer generation (at this point 45-59) really jumps out at you here.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_88.html
Obviously things change throughout people's lives, but certain generations are just different than others and to a certain extent, people keep the values of their youth throughout their entire lives.
The fact is one of the most Republican generations is dying at the same time one of the most Democratic is turning 18.
This will probably have big implications over the next 25 years.
I figure that if everybody gets 12 elections as an adult, then the people that died would represent 8.33% of the vote. If you replace a R+10 subgroup with a D+20 subgroup and the subgroup represents 8.33% of the population, then you have caused a 2.5% shift in the overall population.
In other words, demographics changes alone might have wiped out Bush's entire 2004 margin and if we had the election again, Kerry would win the popular vote by 0.1%.
Assuming that today's 14 year olds turn out to be as liberal as their 18 year old siblings, the 2012 election would be a fairly comfortable Kerry win.
Obviously, people are also shifting and some Bush people will be voting for Obama. Some Kerry people will be voting for McCain. Some 2004 voters will stay home. Some eligible 2004 nonvoters will show up. Not everybody that died in the last 4 years was a preboomer, etc etc.
The fact is there is a big demographic change going on.
I believe that a major reason for the Republican success over the last 20 years occured when the FDR seniors started to die as the Reagan youth started to come of age in the late 70s and 80s.
The demographics are definitely shifting back.
Interesting post, clarkejeffery.
Hmmm...
Wondering why the electoral map is not reflecting the true numbers.
As marked it should read:
Obama: 264
McCain 265
That's if you honestly think that the polls are showing Colorado as dead even which is going against all other sites that show McCain as leading now.
I get the feeling this site is publishing an "outlier".
Nate uses earlier polls at a lesser weight in his projections. Earlier polls were higher for Obama.
That said, in the previous post regarding polls for 8/19, Nate wrote this:
"It was another fairly bad polling day for Barack Obama, and we are getting to the point where it would be hard to describe the election as anything other than 'too close to call'."
There is definitely some generational change going on, but I think, clarkejeffrey, you are missing the polarization that has benefited McCain.
In 2000 there were no age cleavages (check the exit polls on CNN), and insofar as there were, Gore did well among seniors.
Gore-Bush 2000
18-29: 48-46
30-44: 48-49
45-59: 48-49
60+: 51-47
In 2004 there were bigger cleavages, but they were still not huge (though there had been an 11 point swing to Bush among seniors).
Kerry-Bush 2004
18-29: 55-44
30-44: 47-51
45-59: 49-49
60+: 46-53
Yes, generally more Dem-leaning young people are entering the electorate, while GOP-leaning seniors are dying. At the same time though, those seniors still living are backing McCain in even bigger numbers.
In Quinnipiac's latest poll (which has age cross-tabs) it was...
Obama-McCain:
18-34: 55-36
35-54: 49-41
55+: 40-47
Now that poll had Obama up by 5, versus Bush beating Kerry by 2.5. So, getting rid of an average nation-wide swing of 7.5 to Obama (according to this poll), it looks like:
Obama-McCain:
18-34: 47.5-43.5
35-54: 41.5-48.5
55+: 32.5-54.5
Obama is doing better than Kerry because of a general swing to the Dems. Young voters are less overwhelmingly Dem-leaning than before - they just happen to be voting in a bad election year for the GOP. Likewise, middle-aged voters and seniors are increasingly GOP-leaning, it just happens to be a crappy year to wear a Republican pin.
@ clarkejeffrey
Good post! I have also thought about this. The next generation of voters is likely to be a "democratic" generation whereas the old Eisenhower-republicans, the cold-war warriors, are dying. On the other hand, the democratic Kennedy/Johnson ´68 generation is now getting old and slowly slipping out of the polticial landscape (Clinton/Gore as they archetypes of this generation). The next generation however, being in its "best years" right now is a republican generation that came to power with Nixon/Reagan (historians arent sure). Reagan still evokes nostalgic feelings in people that were young back then and are now in their 40s-50s.
Luckily for Republicans, Bill Clinton´s moral failures prevented him from becoming a similar symbol for the next generation, and it´s up to Obama to give these demographically disadvantaged younger voters (18-35) the kind of voice that Gore and Kerry couldn´t.
Strategically, it would make perfect sense to forge a coalition between the old civil rights/feminist/black movement and the current internet/globalized generation (and get a few Clinton voters on the way).
The BBC US Corespondent has called the VPs
Biden and Ridge
Hoser,
I think we could get into a chicken-egg debate here. You say the young numbers look bad for Reps because its a Dem year. I say its a Dem year because the young numbers look bad for Reps. I guess we could go on and on about this without resolution.
There is no doubt that it is a Dem year and at least as it stands now, more Bush voters are planning on voting for Obama than Kerry voters planning on voting for McCain. Of course that could change. Still I think the Demographic shift is part of the cause. Definitely not a full 7.5%. Probably not even the 2.5% that I mentioned earlier, but a statistically significant one in a closely divided electorate.
Lets just assume that it is the 2.5% that I mentioned earlier, then that means that the actual Dem lean for this year vs. 2004 is about 5%.
I noticed that you actually really overcorrected. You said the lean was 7.5% but you double counted it.
If you lean adjust at 5%, you see Obama up
18-34 +14
35-54: +3
55+: -12
There is definitely an age gap. I actually think that a large part of it might be the personal characteristics of these two candidates. Obama is far younger than McCain and they definitely act like they are from different generations. If thats true, it will disappear the next time if the Dems go with an older person and the Reps go young.
However, I think a large part of it is also the various principles that the parties espouse. Young people seem much more interested in preventing climate change than preventing gay marraige.
You could make a reasonable case that voters always remember the first bad presidency of their adult lives. If a voter turns 18 during a bad presidency and its followed by a relatively successful one, they will always be voting for the successful party for the rest of their lives. Herbert Hoover was brought up for decades by some people. Republicans keep claiming that Obama will bring back the Jimmy Carter days. That argument might work on a 50 year old, who turned 18 in 1976 but you might as well tell today's 22 year old that he will bring back the Hoover days. He will remember the George W Bush days for quite some time. When he is 50, he might still be voting for Dems because of it.
Yesterday Biden said I'm not the guy. I think he was telling the truth. Schweitzer is not out yet.
Battleground National Poll by Terrance Group
McCain 47
Obama 46
http://www.tarrance.com/082008/Battleground-35-charts.pdf
On the other hand, the democratic Kennedy/Johnson ´68 generation is now getting old and slowly slipping out of the polticial landscape
They have another 20 years or so.
The problem is that people are still so conflicted on Johnson. Was he the one that signed the civil rights act and got reelected in an enormous popular vote landslide or the one that led us into Vietnam and had to drop out in 68? Probably still the latter. I think enough people that were young at the time remember the promise of the Kennedy administration and try to forget LBJ.
History never repeats itself exactly, but you could argue following events.
Party holds office long time with relatively few interruptions.
President becomes reasonably but not entirely unpopular
Other party nominates unabashed pragmatist, that isn't completely trusted even within his own party.
Pragmatist has successful presidency but it ends in scandal.
VP runs for his own term and is sort of confused as to whether to emphasize the success of the previous administration or hide from the scandal.
Other party's candidate slides by in close election by emphasizing how scandal free he is.
Once president, he appears totally incompetent and becomes extremely unpopular.
Other party nominates the idealistic candidate they always wanted. This candidate has a lot of charisma but hasn't really ever compromised the party's core principles. Unpopular incumbent party tries to emphasize challenger's "extremism" with some success. However challenger's charisma and laid back manner stops the extremist charges from seeming to believable. Race stays close till the end, when undecideds decide any change would be better than the current course and break overwhelmingly for the challenger.
Did I just describe the history of
Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan
or
Bush-Clinton-Gore-Bush II-Obama
The parallels are kind of eerie.
New Reuters/Zogby Poll.
***McCain leads by 5***
McCain 46
Obama 41
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
Oh and if I wanted to take the analogy further I could point out..
Both Johnson and Bush I were accomplished men that were picked to serve as VP for presidents that represented completely opposite wings of their parties.
While both Johnson and Bush I were extremely popular and had significant successes early in their terms, they never completely escaped their predecessors' shadows. Once their presidencies got into trouble, their base deserted them.
We are all leaning towards Biden but truthfully, noone freaking knows.
Have you done a study about how demographics have changed in the last four years and if everybody could vote again what the margin would be if every living person voted the same way they did four years ago and Kerry got new 18-22 voters by say 20 points?
That question is based on the false premise that there'll be a big rise in youth turnout this year. That's unlikely when you actually take a closer look.
There are two distinct youth votes. One is collegiate youth, whose turnout rose massively between 2000 and 2004 as the result of big turnout-boosting efforts by the Democrats. In '04, collegiate turnout rose from significantly below the national average to the mid-70% level because of those get-out-the-vote drives.
Non-collegiate turnout is a different story. It remained at about 35%. This is not surprising, because non-collegiate youth, in general, don't read the newspaper, and don't watch TV news. If they're employed, they're employed in a couple of jobs, not making squat. They are virtually immune from political appeals, or at least from the political appeals that you see these days.
If the Democrats wanted this vote, and the vote of the disenfranchise in general, they could easily get it by promising to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour (the inflation and productivity-adjusted rate from 1968), and promising to roll back FICA taxes on people earning that amount of money.
Forget about "social justice," because that's a dirty word in the Democratic Party these days. Just call it a cynical vote buying strategy. If the Democrats made that promise, they'd unlock 20 or 30 million new votes. Of course, to do this the Democratic Party would have to coordinate between its presidential and congressional wings, and more importantly, it would have to be interested in winning.
I frankly doubt that it's capable of either task. In the meantime, I think you can forget about a meaningful increase in youth turnout. It already happened in 2004. The task this year will be to keep it from falling, which given the failing Obama campaign could be a real possibility.
maybe sebelius can do an ohuruogu? (that's a 400m women's runner if you don't know your olympians).
News Rasmussen Poll for Ohio shows McCain leading by 5 with leaners included.
The most discouraging number in the poll for Obama may be the fact that 51% of Ohio voters have an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive Democratic nominee. That figure includes 33% with a Very Unfavorable opinion, up six percent from a month ago.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_presidential_election
Goodbye Barack.
I read that a "friend of Joe Biden" says that "I'm not the guy" has been a standard Biden response to the VP question. I seem to recall him saying something similar a while back on one of the Sunday morning or cable news shows. I wouldn't read to much into it.
The new Ohio poll is at least a correction to Rasmussen´s -10 Obama outlier from last month. -5 is far more realistic I would guess.. But it remains the fact that Ohio voters will vote with their purse and the drilling issue, in my opinion, is the one that plays to Obama´s disadvantage there like nowhere else.
While the Terrance Group poll doesn´t seem terribly important to me (with leaners, margin of error etc....) the Reuters/Zogby is the first national poll that gets me worried.
And remember that Zogby is very democrat.
@live renats
Why? Is she going to be drug tested?
Biden's nickname in DC is 20/20 Hindsight Joe. His whole elected life Senator Biden has given the impression of being a guy on top of things simply by waiting for the dust to settle and then piping up with his "I told people this would happen, if they had listened to me 6 months ago this could have been prevented". It works in Delaware but it won't work in mainstream America.
@Darío
Nice showing of wishful thinking.
When evaluating potential VP's via polling, I'd trust the very favorable/very unfavorable gap more than just the favorable/unfavorable gap. If a candidate picks someone persuadable voters mildly disapprove of, they probably don't vote based on it, but if they pick someone they despite, watch out!
On that basis, Biden's numbers area a lot more troubling. He's only even among seniors, and is down pretty severely among 30 - 49.
On the other hand, the numbers in either category are still pretty small; the 15-20% who rate Biden "very unfavorable" may be McCain die-hards.
Wow! The Ohio and National Polls today are a bit amazing. As we approach the eve of the convention, we have the strongest confirm yet of a reversal. Obama best name a VP soon and hunker down to line up the delegates/base. The convention could get unruly. The press narrative could easily turn into "Obama is blowing this thing and Dems are in a panic."
I think he pick Hillary at the end.
It´s Ohio, stupid.
As a lifelong Democrat, I have to say that certain Democratic politicians come across to me as clowns. Ed Rendell is perhaps the best example of this. Joe Biden is another.
I don´t know that.
Obama nevwr win a poll from Rasmussen in Ohio but Rasmussen markets gives Obama 56% winning in Ohio.
As if your first comment wasn't dumb enough, 'davelondon', you managed to surpass it with your second. Please, we don't need Justin Webb's buttboys clogging up this site.
Obama needs to make a surpise pick or he is done for. Once people develop a negative feeling for a politician it`s curtains.
If McCain wins it`s 4 more years of gridlock and war, but people are just to stupid to realize this.
I guess we need to see where this race goes after a debate, if Obama is not winning by then he is a goner.
I would wager that the additional "undecided" old timers are weak Democrats who have a tought time pulling the lever for a black guy... and a tough time voting for a Republican. Where they end up breaking will play a big role in determining the election outcome -- i.e., most return to the D fold = Obama blowout; splitting 50/50 = Obama narrow win; most break for McCain = McCain narrow win (and probably the biggest generational voting split in history).
Coincidentially, this is also probably the group most susceptible to negative advertising. So it's too bad Obama isn't using his cash advantage to define McCain but McCain is spending his resources to define Obama (a la 2004).
Neither one should concede.
Why should they?
It's, ahem, a JUMP BALL .
:-)
From what I've read in the past, older folks aren't necessarily drawn to an older candidate the way, say many female voters are drawn to a woman, or blacks to a black candidate (Michael Steele excepting, of course).
Also, why does Janet Napolitano's
name never come up? She's a popular, two-term Democratic governor from a red state (and would automatically put AZ in play)?
I think that supporters of both McCain and Obama will have to realise something - that their VPs will never completely satisfy everyone. They will always have faults. Biden's weaknesses have already been mentioned. What about Bayh's centrism, say, or Clinton's supposed calculation - or the fact that no-one other than politicos outside Kansas has heard of Sibelius? Or for the Republicans - what about the fact that Romney appears to be made of plastic? No VP pick is flawless (which doesn't mean that the candidates shouldn't pick the best one). I think that there will be a lot of heartburn from the respective bases, no matter who's picked.
Sedi, I hate to say it but you're right. Obama might as well go on one of these.
If he picks Biden its almost too easy to attack. Bring up his grade inflation, his hair plugs, his plagarism, his big mouth, his weird statement about Indian accents in 7-11s. There are so many "Bidenisms" (oh, and there will be so many more by November!) its almost TOO easy.
Not trying to argue that the Zogby poll is no good simply because the numbers are not good for Obama. But like the LAT poll from yesterday the dramatic movement is all in the democratic side. Self identified democrats and liberals have abandoned Obama by the likes of 10%? My own read is not so different from one I read here a couple of days ago---for the past week and half we have been hearing how Hillary is taking away the nomination, how she vanquished him and on and on. so is this the noise? I found it very strange that while Obama's numbers with independents have grown (which is good) both polls have him down with his core demographics.
I guess the conventions will tell us (on the one hand the democrats bring the party together and on the other McCain gets branded as a republican with Cheney and Bush right there on the stage).
Maybe certain Democrat loyalists are realizing its not too late to force a Hillary nomination. Maybe she will keep the VP spot open for the Pope of Hope.
come on VC that is exactly my point---not that the dems do not want Obama, but that a very vocal part of the Hillary group is doing everything it can to make sure Obama does not get to shore up his base and the media obliges. Why else would Hillary's brother be meeting with Fiorina in PA? and holding a fundraiser for McCain?
How about we all wait for the convention and see how it plays?
tenants
Whats your problem with Justin Webb?
Whats your problem with buttboys? I assume it was a term of abuse?
To clarify I have never been in a relationship with Justin, actually I have never met him.
The only reason for my 1st post was that once you cut through all the analysis, when you continue to talk and talk and talk about something you overcopmplicate it hence the Kerry discussion. Thus as an outsider looking in the BBCs its definite is interesting.
In the same way that 2000 had a lot of noise and came down to a couple of states and all the noise in 04 came down to Ohio. In 08 I would guess it will come down to CO/NM/NV/VA - BO needing VA or 2 of the other 3.
Also if its wildly wrong it will be quite funny, Given the beebs love of BO.
2ndly - apologies I had you down for a brit and thus assumed you would know that Christine's Reputation is not squeky clean, and if you asked most brits they wouldnt equatwe her with winning golds but having the rules bent for her by officaldomland because she is quite good.
It was only lighthearted and not in any way meant to be serious.
Ohuruogu has never failed a drugs test. Don't confuse scattiness with 'cleanness'. You want drugs ceats go to www.Blonska.com...And nobody who's British and proud of it calls themselves a 'Brit', buttboy.
By the way, if you look at the tipping state graphic you'll see that Ohio is just as crucial this election as it ever has before. The other states are smokescreens as far as I'm concerned.
Hell, if they were really evil, they could have told all the candidates they weren't the one and then saw who leaked or broke their game face.
Or, if they're really really evil, they could have told them all that they ARE the one . . . unless something happens that changes their minds and looked to how they acted.
renants
You just keep on throwing out that abuse dont you?
FYI. I am proud to be British thanks, I am proud of where I cam from.
I have never heard anywhere the term Brit being linked with any kind of negativity towards britain, If you have I would be interested to hear where from.
Re tipping pint states it has in the last elections come down to a couple of states at most the rest solidfying towards a candidate is all I was saying as an example of the cutting through the hyperanalysis. I wasnt being absolutist, am just saying it will come down to a couple of states. My guess would be the above, other people think differently thats fine.
Re the golden Girl, yes there is a diffeence between scattiness and cheating absolutley with you British rules state -
1.A missed drug test is the same as a Positive drug test. ie a fail
2. missing 3 out of Comp random tests is a missed test.
3. A fail puts you out of Olympic comp forever
4. Christine is though very good, a possible gold when there arent many gold about for Brit track athletics and the potential face of 2012.
5. Christine ban overturned, rules are broken but no punishment.
The Greek sprinters didnt test positive but nobody believes them, why beleive christine, because we are british and a brits word is his/her bond and would never cheat apparently.
Notice you didnt clarify re your homophobia. Care to comment?
renants
You just keep on throwing out that abuse dont you?
FYI. I am proud to be British thanks, I am proud of where I cam from.
I have never heard anywhere the term Brit being linked with any kind of negativity towards britain, If you have I would be interested to hear where from.
Re tipping pint states it has in the last elections come down to a couple of states at most the rest solidfying towards a candidate is all I was saying as an example of the cutting through the hyperanalysis. I wasnt being absolutist, am just saying it will come down to a couple of states. My guess would be the above, other people think differently thats fine.
Re the golden Girl, yes there is a diffeence between scattiness and cheating absolutley with you British rules state -
1.A missed drug test is the same as a Positive drug test. ie a fail
2. missing 3 out of Comp random tests is a missed test.
3. A fail puts you out of Olympic comp forever
4. Christine is though very good, a possible gold when there arent many gold about for Brit track athletics and the potential face of 2012.
5. Christine ban overturned, rules are broken but no punishment.
The Greek sprinters didnt test positive but nobody believes them, why beleive christine, because we are british and a brits word is his/her bond and would never cheat apparently.
Notice you didnt clarify re your homophobia. Care to comment?
Hosertohoosier, not sure why it hasn't gotten any love in this thread, but your first post was flat-out awesome.
couldn't wait to see today's con trolls jump on the zogby poll, showing McCain up 5...the same reviled Zogby who is barely left on Nate's model. Same day a larger Quinnipiac poll, consistent with all the other national polls, shows Obama at 47, the same as he has been for the past 2 months, and McCain at 42 - in the alice through the looking glass world that is the cons on this board, Zogby now counts more than Quinnipiac. It's fun to cherry-pick polls, and we can all play that game.
If you look at RCP's tracker, Obama has been up since mid-April, period, and his poll numbers now are about the same as they have been all along, except for a bump in mid July. If the cons want to live by Zogby, they will, I am sure,be ready to die by Zogby (the same polling firm that said Obama was going to win California by 10 over HRC. How'd that one work out?)
I do not deny that the race has tightened a little (from plus 5 nationally to plus 2-3) and that Obama needs to man up. He is getting smacked around, as someone else said, bitch-slapped, reminding me of a good-natured labrador retriever getting mauled by a pit bull with distemper. "I love America, you love America and John McCain loves America" Damn...that is WEAK!!! Wake the f88k up, Barack. McCain is trying to DESTROY you. He cannot give anyone positive reasons to vote for him, so he can only make sure they are scared of you! They have not been subtle about their playbook, and I think the attacks have moved the polls a couple of points. I don't necessarily think the MSM are in the tank for their boy, McCain, at this point, as a lot of them have been turned off by his tactics. However, they are not going to fight your fight for you. You better name a fighter like Biden, Clark or Clinton, since you just don't have the stomach for it. You need a Bob Dole-style attack dog as VP...I have no doubt it helped Ford close a 30 point gap to 2...
Still, look at the long distance lens, and Obama has led in every RCP average for 4 months, so that might be something to pay attention to.
It is his election to lose, and we really won't know much, despite all the breathless cyber-verbiage on 2 point poll swings until after the 2 veep picks and 2 conventions...basically cut to the chase, and in the past 2 months Barack has gone from up 47-44 to up...47-44.
This site was really compelling in the midst of the primaries, because we could test Nate's model and that of the pollsters regularly against real results. Basically, the polls at this point, and essentially this site are fairly meaningless, since there is NOTHING tangible to check them against. unlike Nate's vaunted baseball stats, there are NO GAMES, and the pollsters can't even agree on what is a hit or an error, a walk or an out. It is about the furthest thing from the science of baseball stats as I can imagine.
Interesting, and tea leaves and hints, but nothing past that.
You want to be a happy Con? McCain is up 46-41 according to the vaunted Zogby and Quinnipiac is a hack outfit.
You want to be a happy Lib? Obama is up 47-42 according to the vaunted Quinnipiac and Zogby is a hack outfit. It is just getting silly.
I for one (an Obama supporter because I want change in political discourse and governance) am not concerned about choosing Biden for the Veep slot because of the governance issue:
If something awful (death/disability) takes out President Obama, then the country's situation has changed, and a different kind of leader is needed in the lurch.
Just imagine an alternative history: if in 1963 Oswald had taken out President LBJ, would you have felt confident with a young Jack Kennedy assuming the office?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Hello, wonderful blog!thank you. By the way,here we offer a lot of good nike shoes,you can come to have
a look.
nike shox r5
nike air max 180
air yeezy sneakers
tn chaussures
nike tn
tn chaussures
nike air max
sneakers
shox oz
nike shox monster
bon marche shox r5
men's nike shoes
nike shox monster
nike store
nike shox r4
nike air max
achat nike shox
cheap nike shoes
tn chaussures
nike air max
enfant chaussures
nike tn requin
nike tn
nike shox cartoon
chaussures nike shox
acheter chaussures homme
tn chaussures
chaussures sport
discount enfant chaussures
徵信
徵信社
私家偵探
偵探社
免費法律諮詢
捉姦
抓姦
尋人
徵信社
徵信
尋人
徵信公司
徵信評鑑
徵信社
外遇
討債公司
離婚
外遇
婚姻諮詢
徵信社
徵信
台中徵信社
徵信社台北徵信社
台北徵信社
台北徵信社
台北徵信社台中徵信社
台中徵信社
台中徵信社
台中徵信社
Post a Comment