by Nate Poblano-Halperin
Five Reasons to Expect a Large Bump:
1. Obama has twice the usual number of swing voters to reach out to: independents and PUMAs.
2. Enormous amounts of star power in the lineup -- including, of course, Obama himself.
3. Interest -- and ratings -- will be high.
4. McCain comeback story is getting old; media pendulum may be swinging at right time.
5. Hillary's reputation is on the line, and she will rise to the top of her game.
Five Reasons to Expect No Bump, or a Small One:
1. Even small PUMA eruptions will be magnified by the media.
2. Expectations for Obama's speechmaking powers will be exceptionally high.
3. The VP bounce is often part of the convention bounce, but Biden hasn't moved the numbers much so far.
4. McCain team can quickly stomp on any bounce with response ads and veep speculation.
5. Bill's ego is on the line, and he will not be at the top of his game.
8.25.2008
Should Obama Expect a Big Convention Bounce?
@ 3:42 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
273 comments
"Biden hasn't moved the numbers much so far."
It's been -- literally -- 48 hours since his speech as I'm typing this. How fast do things bounce in your world, Nate?
Bounce will be about 2 points, because polls have some 'leanings'.Ras. has Obama 3 up so bounce will look small. Other polls (Dem. lean) have it even so any bounce will seem rather good. It is so easy to manipulate a poll. The whole story of polls this year is: Obama increases lead; McCain cuts lead.Actual figures mean little---trend is the whole story. Jack
PLEASE stop calling Hillary supporters PUMAs.
PUMAs are primarily Republican ops and a few exceptionally shrill people who seem to think that you vote for people based on the size of their tits.
Hillary supporters are people who supported Hillary for the nomination, but currently aren't supporting Obama. They don't actively oppose Obama (or support McCain), but they're dissappointed in the outcome and nervous about Obama. They aren't out demanding special treatment, but they want to be shown that this really is the right guy to vote for, not just another Democrat. Which really is something they deserve.
PUMAs can be written off. Hillary supporters who aren't sure yet can't, nor should they be. The Democratic party needs to come back together, not because they need to win the White House, but so they can get things done over the next dozen years.
I guesstimate a soft five point bounce. Obama is such an interesting fellow that he will draw ratings and people will watch him. His speech will be the highlight of the wek and many will be swayed by his captivating style.
At least for a time.
It’s bit like Chinese food: after a fashion you get hungry, all those veggies fill you up, but don't add much in the way of calories. Worse, it may be a bit like eating a Crave Case from White Castle: After a while it just makes you sick!
The PUMAs will tell the story. If they yield to Obama then he will get his five points, if not the whole thing could sink under its own weight of a party cleaved in two by its slavish devotion to identity politics: the feminists vs. the racialists.
Good theatre for sure!
the pumas are the ones who couldn't punch their ballots in florida properly. and then created global warming. anything is possible with those dumbasses.
We have never had a situation like this before. Two back to back conventions right after a very popular olympics. I think that it will be very hard to look to the past for a model this year.
My gut tells me that two weeks of the Olympics have people tired of "big spectical appointment TV" and less likely to watch the conventions.
Very small bounce at most, Nate. And too bad you're such a wanker.
Expanding on my comments in the last thread, the "bump" can play to a fairly limited amount of voters.
The "15%" floated around is ridiculous, although I don't know if I could guess how ridiculous. After all, the committed voters---who I guess make up about 40% on both sides, aren't going to have their minds changed by a bunch of balloons.
So, if we take 20% of voters, we have to figure out how many of them are going to be impressed by the pageantry of a convention. And of course, deduct those who might be turned off by the pageantry of a convention! I can't imagine that it would be more than 20-40% of voters who would make up their minds, even temporarily, based on such a thing. So it seems that 4-8% would be the expected bounce.
Two caveats to that, though:
First, Obama is an exceptional orator, and a speech that really manages to connect with people, or introduces a new, popular plank will boost those numbers.
Second, some of the true "swing voters" who might appeal to something like a convention are in states with a large number of suburban, moderate voters, aka, Ohio. So if Obama can get a six point boost in Ohio, and keep half of it, it will be worthwhile for him.
by Nate Poblano-Halperin *Time* for a change
I just went on Politico, and saw a column by Mr. Jonathan Martin, and there I saw John McCain campaigning with none other than Daddy Yankee :) I swear to god I laughed for 10 minutes. Daddy Yankee also said that his song titled Gasolina, was about energy independence hahahahaha.......
Whoever his advisers are, they better stick to their day jobs.
PUMAs are not a large group of people. They are racists and there are less than 100 of them.
Proof: they made this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtxB3b4_GlI
When Senator Clinton says "shame on your Senator McCain" for using her in his ads, and then passionately asks all her supporters to support Obama, I think there will be a significant bounce. How long it lasts, who knows.
I agree with Matthew H. We need to distinguish at least three groups of Hillary supporters:
1) Those who now support Obama. That's about half of the Hillary primary voters, or a little more.
2) What I've been calling "hard-core" Hillary supporters. They were holding out hope for Hillary as VP or even (somehow) President. After the Convention they will reset and make decisions based on the choices in front of them. Some of them will choose McCain just like some Democrats always choose the Republican. I'm making an educated guess that there are one to four million people like this, which makes them a bloc comparable to Nader 2000. Obama could ignore them altogether and win, but it would be better to pull some of them over.
3) PUMAs. They cannot be convinced...might not even have been convinced by Hillary as VP. It's not clear what party they're from, but I'd guess they draw from across the spectrum. They're not in play, and there aren't a ton of them (although they're loud).
The other thing that's confusing is only about one quarter of voters in the general election vote in the primaries. So is there an "echo" constituencies to the hard-core Hillary types who somehow didn't care enough to vote in the primaries but care enough to hold it against Obama now? Must be hard to sleep at night if that's your stance, but there may be some of them out there. Actually, I'm not being fair: there surely are people like that in caucus states, where they may not have been able to vote in the caucus.
I am expecting a fleeting 3-4 point surge because that is how many will respond based on the last commercial they saw, and let's face it, the convention is a big long commercial.
...I disagree that the party has an inordinate amount of star power. The only stars outside of Obama you have are Hillary and Bill, and the focus on them will be neutral at best.
John Edwards would have been a quasi-star, but no more.
I know you view this from the Dem side of the fence, but Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, Kaine, et al are not stars in the minds of mainstream viewers.
Biden is not a star, most people do not even know who he is. I just do not know who you are talking about.
Furthermore, if you compare it to the Republican side, you have Giuliani, who is a star.
Bush and Cheney are stars too, for different reasons obviously, but they can only improve their lot. There is nowhere to go but up. They will remind people of all the good things that they have done over the past 8 years, and an objective viewpoint can point to a few things, and they will get a chance to blame the rest on Pelosi and Reid, who have lower numbers than they do.
Partisan Dems forget that it is only the last 6-8 months that the economy stinks and that Bush was wildy popular for 5 of 8 years of his Presidency when housing prices soared and the stock market did too.
They will remind everyone of what a thorn McCain was in their side when he wanted to be, but he won their respect and pushed them to victory in Iraq.
They will remind them of the 9/11 days and you will see only the good clips.
Overall, I expect the GOP to come out the better after Convention season. They get the last word, and they have more damage to fix. The nostalgia factor will start to set in. It was at this stage that everyone in the nation forgave Reagan for Iran-Contra and his approvals finished in the mid 60's.
Bush will not get that far, but he may get to the mid-low 40s. He can do that if only the Republicans forgive him, and they will.
5 days of branding can only help them...
Matthew H, let's agree to refer to Hillary supporters who do not yet support Obama as Pumas. We may keep the CAPSLOCK version for the fanatic few.
Who are the Pumas? they are not primarily female as the gender gap is very powerful. Females support the Democratic candidate by usual amounts if not more.
Hence, they are less likely to be those who formed an emotional bond with Hillary's bid. Rather, they are those who have a hard time forming an emotional bond with Obama's bid. The issue is cultural and most likely racial. I cannot believe it is entirely fixable.
Another way to look at it is as follows:
I made a comparison of May to July numbers a while back. It was interesting to see that Obama's numbers went up in the more Democratic States (i.e. he rallied some of the Democratic base) but not necessarily the Clinton States. How come? If the May-to-July improvement was among previous Clinton supporters, how could that not coincide with Clinton's geographical strengths?
I think the answer is that Obama managed to rally the Democratic base *where he was relatively strong to begin with* - where the social network of a Puma would include many non-Pumas. There might be plenty of disgruntled Clinton supporters in New York, but it is easy for them to come to their senses and join their Obama-supporting friends. The same may be true in the Philadelphia suburbs. But Southern Ohio is a different matter. There, Pumas know only other Pumas and still see no reason to like Obama.
The role of the convention is to bypass this social network, to form a direct bond between Obama and such Pumas, via their Democratic identity. This is not precisely a bounce in the technical term (which really means no more than creating a passing polling bias in favor of a candidate whose name is heard more often), but is rather a genuine political shift.
If Obama manages to get 4 percent of Democrats like this, getting from the 79% level of partisan support, to the 83% level, his position would be very powerful.
Does anyone here think that the MSM will give Ron Paul's upcoming mini-convention as much attention as they are giving the speculation about Clinton's intentions and the behavior of her supporters?
Will any visible dissent in Minnesota reduce the McCain counter-bump?
You can ridicule the Ronulahns, but there is a division within the GOP which he and Bob Barr accentuate. Such media coverage would help with ratings too if not as much as the PUMA and evangelical hype. It would also enliven what might otherwise be a very boring Republican convention.
Perhaps regular posters here should follow the lead of the republican trolls here and go onto conservative blogs to spread "concern" and spurious rumors about the Paulists, Libertarians and the 9/11 conspiracy.
Mid Pint Man, You make a lot of sense regarding the promising nature of the Rep Convention.
The Dem partisans will never see it, but Bush is due for a re-evalaution and the Convention is a good place to start that re-assessment.
Interestingly i have been told that the candidates will do a joint appearance together on 9/11 in NYC. that should be interesting.
McCain won the saddleback battle, will obama confound and win on 9/11?
The timing in any case is good for mccain coming so soon after his convention.
. . . and his stunning pick of Rob Portman!
...other Republican Stars?
If they get Colin Powell to speak that will be big. I suspect he might. McCain has a job lined up for him, it will counter the ill-timed rumor that he would endorse Obama, a rumor that was probably a false flag deal.
Condoleeza is a star, I bet she speaks.
Schwarzenegger will speak, he is easily the match of bill. He will remind mainstream people that it is still ok to be a Republican, that is if you are moderate like he and McCain.
Joe Lieberman, a midrange star.
I do not count Romney as a star, though he will give a good speech, aesthetically that is. He is the equal of Biden.
Huckabee is a quasi-star just because he is so funny and personable. You have to like him, even if you hate Republicans and are an atheist. Let's face it, he is an Arkansas Governor, they use the force on us.
You will see Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. Not stars either, but may be destined to be.
They will find every woman they can to speak.
They will do a big Tony Snow tribute, and probably throw Russert in too for kicks.
It will be all patriotism all the time, just like 2004.
Even the biggest Democrat blog in my state admits Hillary angst is a huge issue.
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/
Teddy Kennedy will have some star appeal if he makes to Denver.
Even Republicans grudgingly respect the guy, how can you not. Nobody every questioned his devotion to his ideals. Even when you disagree, you respect guys like that.
Who are the other Dem stars?
If you say Howard Dean you are insane, just like he is...
JRS:
I have seen it first hand: the Ronulahns are real. I think Barr's capture of the Liberterian Party nom took some wind out of their sails tho.
If they go anywhere they will split evenly for Obama and McC, neither really appeals to them.
I think the Klingons may have played a role in subduing them in any case and they will likely be small factor at best.
"You can ridicule the Ronulahns"
That is a fantastic term. Hilarious. It should enter the political vocabulary immediately.
midpointman,
I'm more interested to hear what the focus of the speeches will be than who the speakers will be at the Republican Convention. McCain's strategy, a smart one, has been to minimize attention on himself and try to make the election as much as a referendum on Obama's character as possible. Will they continue in this pattern during the convention? I suspect they will. But it might make for an odd environment.
humanist:
Matthew H, let's agree to refer to Hillary supporters who do not yet support Obama as Pumas.
Let's not. As Matthew H pointed out, "Hillary supporters" is a perfectly adequate term for the real group of people (as opposed to the fake media phenomenon of PUMA.) Capitalization isn't enough of to distinguish, and it continues to give PUMA more attention than it deserves.
The last word:
If he doesn't get a 15 point bounce for the convention, he is in deep trouble! I am really worried now....
Nobama...nobounce.....
Mule Rider,
What's with this limey lalk, Mule Rider? If you're going to call Nate by a derogatory epithet for an autoeroticist, please have respect for American sensibilites and call him a "jerkoff" or a "jagoff", you bloody wanker.
...oh and how about timing.
Bush got his 2011 withdrawal date in writing, and a pullback from Iraqi cities next June.
That will allow him to declare something of a victory, which will be huge for his legacy.
His drop in the approval ratings, let me remind you, was 3 parts Iraq, 1 part immigration, 1 part Katrina, and 1 part economy.
To me that says he makes it halfway back to 50%, and he is at 33% in Gallup.
He ends at 42%, and maybe 45% if the economy improves in the second half.
JRS:
Does anyone here think that the MSM will give Ron Paul's upcoming mini-convention as much attention as they are giving the speculation about Clinton's intentions and the behavior of her supporters?
Sadly, no, even though the PUMAs couldn't get together the 250 people they needed to pay for a hotel function room, and the Ron Paul gathering has moved to a venue that's bigger than the site of the Republican Convention.
The storyline is always "Democrats are divided and Republicans are united," regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
I'm thinking if the Republicans open up the convention with Larry Craig and follow up with Ted Stevens and maybe finish up with Trent Lott it would be a stellar opening and generate quite a bounce. Maybe someone with some connections can pass on my idea, thanks.
Just for clarification, and assuming a 2 point lead right now for Obama (45-43), a 15 point bounce would put Obama at a 17 point lead...maybe 58-41...what normal person would ever see that happening? The answer is no normal person, just trolling Republicans looking to up expectations to unreasonable levels.
I really think we should have nominated Hillary. I am really worried as to whether Obama can get enough people to vote for him.
Someone asked me the other day as to what accomplishments Obama ever had. I was flummoxed.
I told him, that he was for hope & change, change & home. That is all the I could come up with.
I am quite worried now.
At least Craig can find Minnesota. Most of the Republican candidates seem to have misplaced their maps.
I look for PUMAs to disappear when some reporters start to have fun, sticking mikes in their faces and asking them how they became cougars.
I think the idea that the Republican Convention helps McCain is a little off. Obama and McCain have opposite goals this cycle. Obama has to become the Generic Democrat and this convention will be all about that and reminding voters how bad we are after 8 years of Bush. McCain has to prevent becoming a generic Republican he has to run away from that as fast as he can. McCain cannot win with just the base and for those independents who disapprove of Bush and the Republican brand seeing adoring crowds cheering Bush and Cheney in the week-long advertisement that is the convention is not good for McCain. why do you think they are dispatching Cheney to the Caucus right away. Because they understand that. I don't know what this will mean in temrs of the bounce but the idea that McCain wrapping himself in the Republican brand will be good for him I really doubt it. It might get the base rallied behind him but it will not play well with independents who think the country is on the wrong track and it will not make drive armies of volunteers taking 3 weeks off to get out the vote in November from him from the faithful as you had with Bush.
And yes--the fact that what you have as hispanic outreach for McCain is Daddy Yankee is too much. First--Daddy Yankee is Puerto Rican and though his music is popular he does not embody the kind of figure that the latino community relates too (Dominicans and Puerto Ricans yes but that is a minuscule number. Perhaps McCain is trying for the Washington Heights demographic in NYC and we didn't know about it?) Also--I hope they start using Yankees song Cartel. Most excellent positioning on the War on Drugs. Once again the ads just make themselves.
beowulf,
You're right that no normal person is expecting a 15-point bounce. But I think you're mistaken on who it might be. The only *jagoffs* looking for a 15-point bounce are not people looking to build unreasonable expectations so that they can scoff at any subsequent failure to achieve that goal but delusionary idiots who believe that Obama finally being seen on the most grandiose of political stages - the convention - will undoubtedly prove him to be the greatest politician since George Washington and that we will all "come to our sense" when it's "so obvious" he should be leading this country.
That's the idiots who believe a 15-point bounce for Obama is likely. Jerkoffs.
I really think we should have nominated Huckabee. I am really worried as to whether McCaina can get enough people to vote for him.
Someone asked me the other day as to what accomplishments McCain ever had. I was flummoxed because he has changed his positions on most issues, I mean he said he would not vote now for his own immigration bill and he even changed his position on torture!
I told him, that he was now for war & winning, oh and destroying all evil in the world, and buying more homes since 7 isn't near enough. That is all the I could come up with.
I am quite worried now.
Yes, this post is jest.
Hmmm....Nate practically announces that his tongue is in his cheek and the commentariat insists on taking him seriously.
This might suggest why, despite his track record, the actual Mark Halperin still has a job.
Obama has NOT accomplished a damn thing, politically speaking.
This post was NOT in jest.
Mule - I agree with your last sentence...and it was on Fox News that I first saw anyone predicting that size bounce...and it was their pundits.
Try to answer the challenge.
Name the political accomplishments in the way of writing and passing legislation, anything. I will let you have that minor ethics bill, which he signed on to, but didn't write.
Hah, all I see in the background on MSNBC are Hillary signs!
Rasmussen: Obama 46% - McCain 42%
When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48% and McCain 45%.
USA Today/Gallup Poll: 7 Point Swing To OBAMA
The same USA/Gallup poll from last month had McCain up by 4 with Likely Voters, but this time around it's Obama by 3.
The national polls and the trackers are simply not showing a surge for McCain. Obama leads by 2 to 5 points in the last 7 non-trackers over the last week (and ties or leads the trackers.) But you can bet that, flawed concept or not, if McCain had gone from 4 down to 3 up in the Gallup poll, it'd be plastered all over the McCain Media (ABC, CNN, FOX).
USA Today/Gallup Polling Report.
Presidential choice
LV Aug. 21-23 (July) (June) MoE +/- 4
Obama 48 (45) (50)
McCain 45 (49) (44)
BIDEN wasn't chosen to move numbers, and certainly not to pander to PUMAs...or whatever you'd like to call them. OBAMA picking BIDEN is quite possibly the least cynical VP pick ever. Also, it was only 2 days ago that he was announced.
Just to underline my point. John Edwards DID move numbers for Kerry, but it was fairly short-lived. BIDEN is the opposite, he's got home-stretch upside.
Here's BIDEN's first campaign video introducing himself to supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq01S5SXQ_Y
Fox News has pundits? I thought they were all wankers.
People who support Obama do so very clear that he has only been in the Senate for 3 years, there is no trick being played by Obama. He has his ethics bill (diminish it as you want) and his nuclear proliferation bill, but his candidacy is not about experience in Washington. If that were all that mattered, Cheney would be King of the United States.
Many of us recognize that other experiences in life to matter. Personally, I like to hear of a person giving up a Clerkship at the U.S. Supreme Court to go and help out his adopted community in Chicago. That is experience. You and others apparently think that the only things that matter are generally useless bills in the Senate, and leading the charge to war in Iraq with President Bush. If so, vote as you will.
eponymous -
I am not sure how you can make McCain a low-profile figure at his own convention. They will talk him up like the second coming.
...and they will only gently rip into Obama personally, but they will rip on the Democrat value base and make Pelosi and Reid look like the twin wardons of purgatory.
They will portray the attack on Cindy McCain's condos as an attack on the American dream. That housin attack on McCain will backfire, because Cindy's father owns those houses, and his was an amazing story.
He is a bomber pilot in WWII never finishes high school comes back from the war starts a small biz and grows it huge. Employess a thousand regular joes who love the guy. Donates to charity, is a good family man.... The guy deserves his wealth, and the GOP will make it look like Obama thinks he does not, that being successful means you are out of touch. America does not believe that at all. Those who live the American Dream understand it most of all, that is what the GOP will say, with great effect.
Obama attacking two war heroes for attaining the American dream is how they will portray it.
beowulf,
Good succinct argument on why lack of "experience" and "accomplishments" is a bit overplayed. I think it should be a factor, but I also think that it's being used too heavily as an argument against Obama being President. A young, refreshing change of scenery is sometimes needed regardless of experience.
However, my beef with Obama has way more to do with his policy positions than his experience. We hare very little in common in that area. Hence, I do not support him nor will I vote for him. I may not vote for McCain either, but under no uncertain terms will I vote for Barack Obama.
I am really tired of that BS called community organizer. In my area these people are from ACORN. They have been found to fraudulently register peoople to vote. You know, dead people, illegal residents, animals etc.
Mule - I respect that completely.
I find it interesting that there has been little discussion on the timing of the conventions. This week is the last week of summer and a whole chunk of folks are vacationing or focused on the first week of school with the kids. Awareness that the Democratic convention is even happening is very low. The Republican convention is happening after Labor Day the traditional beginning of the fall and return to the grind where Americans begin to focus on work and not play - including elections.
I think the Democrats are not going to get the viewership they expect because of timing. McCain and the Republican are going to do a bit better because it is post Labor Day. What does this mean for a bounce? I think nothing at all. The story will be the "Bounceless'conventions. No one cares about them any more, we have already made up our minds.
Hey, Nate, your "will be high" link is broken. Source code shows you started the link tag with "a herf" instead of "a href".
Until it's fixed, here's the URL the link is supposed to point to.
Thank you. I respect your position as well.
God. Obama is fighting for the American Dream not against it. When thousands of people are either scrapping to pay their mortgages or evicted from their homes the War Hero with money narrative is pretty thin. Besides--weren't you Republicans the one acusing Kerry of being a kept man and having 4 houses? And he too happened to fight in Vietnam. So please spare me the spin.
Still no horserace numbers from SurveyUSA, but here are the fav/unfav ratings (1 for unfav, 10 for fav)
AL: M 5.3, O 4.2 (M +.9)
CA: O 5.4, M 4.3 (O +1.1)
IA: O 4.9, M 4.8 (O +.1)
KS: M 5.6, O 4.1 (M +1.5)
KY: M 5.2, O 4.0 (M +1.2)
MA: O 4.9, M 4.8 (O +.1)
MN: O 5.0, M 4.9 (O +.1)
MO: M 4.7, O 4.7 (tie)
NM: O 5.3, M 4.7 (O +.6)
NY: O 5.2, M 4.4 (O +.8)
OH: O 5.1, M 4.3 (O +.8)
OR: O 5.3, M 4.3 (O +1.0)
VA: M 5.3, O 4.7 (M +.6)
WA: O 5.2, M 4.9 (O +.3)
WI: M 4.9, O 4.7 (M +.2)
The numbers pretty much correlate with what one would expect the horserace to come out to (with some exceptions).
Interesting: MA voters barely preferring Obama in favorability, but OH voters strongly preferring him. Also, McCain viewed more favorably in WI and strongly in VA.
Completely off-topic...
I understand, respect, and support the idea of avoiding host-based censoring of comments. But it would be nice if you could add the ability for users to set up ignore lists. I like most of the discussion, but would like to see a little less of it :)
lat -
Do not confuse the electorate's anger at some Republicans vs the electorate's view on Republican ideals.
Right now a huge chunk of independents are former Republicans.
Wne the Republicans get up and start talking like Reagan did, about individual responsibility, rugged individuality, patriotism, getting government off our back, fiscal responsibility, low taxes...people love all of that.
Nobody, and I mean nobody in the mainstream wants a bigger government. The Dems are confusing anger at Bush with love for Democrat policies.
There is a reason that the last Liberal to win office was Jimmy Carter, and he would have lost to Gerald Ford if there had been another week in the election. Carter had been ahead by 33 points and Ford lost by 1%.
Bill Clinton won by running as a centrist, and won re-election by governing like a Republican. Bob Dole was probable to the left of Clinton on Economic Policy.
It can be argued that the last Liberal to serve before Carter was FDR. Truman was a populist, but not a Liberal, and proved to be a stand up guy, but not a popular President. Johnson was not a Liberal until 1965. Kennedy was not even close...a pro-military tax cutter is how he governed.
I think you underestimate how unexcited people will be once they turn the Libs loose in Denver.
Also, I forgot. The Dems nominated 2 LAWYERS who never held a real job in the private sector.
Last I checked, most people do not like lawyers, and certainly would never trust one with their checkbook.
I still do not understand why the Democrats only nominate Lawyers. Find me the last Democrat Nominee who was not a Lawyer...Jimmy Carter? He won.
The Dems still don't get why the lose so many elections the should win.
Midpointman,
I think your prediction may prove prescient. The key for the tone of the convention will be to make it all about the vaguely-defined issue of "character." Because McCain's policies are not favored by most people, this is by far the best course for them to take. I still think they will spend a lot of time demonizing those damn liberals, but of course there will also be a lot of focus on all the good parts of McCain's biography with all the negative bits conveniently ignored.
Mule,
Just to keep myself amused until election day, I'm going to start a "wanker-watch" of the number of times you call someone or something a "wanker" (or synonym).
Starting Today: 4.
What's unique about this year's DNC is that it is being held in the major SMSA in the state that is likely to decide the election. If people aren't too inconvenienced by road closures ...there could be a significant and lasting bounce in a flattered and proud CO. If so, then the size of the national bounce (which is always ephemeral) won't much matter.
MidPointMan,
Your comment on the likelihood of a serious rebound in Bush's approval numbers is unbelievable...as in, literally not believable. What do you mean Bush got his withdrawal date? Maliki pushed for it, and the U.S. basically had to agree to get out all of our troops against the administration's wishes. (You know whose plan it sounds a lot like: Barack Obama's!) If Bush claims anything approaching a victory, he will be laughed off the stage. A tolerable outcome given the abject disaster that Iraq has been, maybe, but any sort of a "victory," no.
His drop in approval ratings came from a whole bunch of factors. Iraq was definitely huge, but limping out 8 years later hardly constitutes vindication of Bush's Iraq position. The economy has been terrible for working class people, though it's been fine for those at the top of the economic ladder. Much of the opposition to Bush, however, has been to the incompetence and excessive politicization exhibited by his administration. I know a number of lifelong Republicans who are aghast at the incompetence and frustrated at his reckless spending. Moderates get angry at politics being central to every move the administration made (as exemplified by the Plame affair). Katrina was a convergence of both, and the region is still seriously suffering from its effects.
A stabilized situation in Iraq will help Bush, but way too many people have already decided that the Bush presidency was a disaster for him to recover to the mid-40s. Six good months (if they come) can't make up for seven and a half troubled years. Bush got his free pass in 2004, I don't see him getting another.
Well, now I see your subsequent post on how bringing up McCain's houses will backfire because Cindy's dad has a great story. Okay, you are just a bit deluded, I guess. Oh wait, I mean, you've totally got your finger on the pulse of American. Go with that! Please write to the GOP convention organizers to make sure that they bring up all of McCain's houses and why we shouldn't worry about him losing track of them all because her father Jim is a liquor magnate. I can't possibly see how that storyline wouldn't help McCain. People love to hear about guys getting rich by selling beer and booze. Oh, and he owned a racetrack (though one of his partners was a convicted felon, a fact that he covered up when applying for the license). That would probably make people like him even more. You might not want to mention that he was arrested twice for falsifying liquor sentences (1948 and 1953, though he was acquitted in the latter), however, because that doesn't always go over so well with law-and-order types.
So what exactly are the variables that effect convention bounce amplitude?
Kerry actually had a small negative bounce in 2004. Clinton had one of the largest bounces in 1992. Offhand, the two eras have a lot in common, but their differences would be more instructive.
Even though my sample set is pitifully small, I'd say 2008 has more in common with 1992:
1) Both times are dealing with the final consequences of a war with Iraq
2) Both times are in the midst of economic decline
3) Job security is a major talking point especially regarding NAFTA and outsourcing
4) Bush Sr. was unpopular then. Bush Jr. is even less popular now.
I know this isn't rigorous, but I'd say these factors would point to a large bump...
====================
Also, regarding the effect of Biden. Intrade had a small bounce of about 3.5 points, in the same ballpark of the 2 points Nate predicted. I thought this was interesting, but if you paint the US map using the Intrade probabilities, it looks almost exactly like Nate's map here.
MidPointMan said...
"Furthermore, if you compare it to the Republican side, you have Giuliani, who is a star."
Who was shoved down people's throats (like Hillary) by the MSM for over a year, and had been hailed as "America's Mayor"...yet he's couldn't even win a single state during the primaries.
Quite simply, Rudy 9iu1ian1 ran the most insanely inept campaign in American history.
lat -
That is not me, that is what the GOP will say.
I am not agreeing with it, that is what they will say.
"American Dream" will be a code attack on Obama's patriotism.
They will say he is a lawyer who failed in his only private sector job (not necessarily true, Obama says he did not like the job) and therefore does not understand the economy.
Dems think too often that people want their next door neighbor to run the economy. Not true. They want someone who has succeeded to run.
Understanding what poverty is does not make someone great at running the economy. Being poor does not make anyone qualified for anything, and you seem to think it does.
I am not a Republican, I just know how they think and how you think and you are mistaking dislike for Bush with a fundamental cultural shift, and you are wrong.
The US is still a largely right-of-center electorate....
Off topic:
But what is everyone's view on Colin Powell? I know he is doubtful to be McCain's running-mate, but what if it did happen?
Obama's accomplishments?
Universal health care for children in Illinois.
Requiring all police interrogations to be videotaped.
Locking down (and in some cases buying) Russian nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Republics.
His bill (not yet passed) putting the budget on the internet, with each earmark having its sponsor listed.
On Mule Rider's opinion, why is it you only get sane 50 posts in? It's like you're required to be shrill for the first couple of hours before you come back to reality.
There is the Pat Buchanan belief: John McCain is such a warmonger, and is so dangerous to the country, that his positions on everything else won't matter. He and his buddies have been paid a lot of money to start WWIII, and by gum they're going to get their money's worth.
If you believe that tripe, or the Obama/Rezko/Daley crap, then you're not somebody anyone can seriously debate with. Outside of that, it just comes down to positions. McCain and Obama have very different policy opinions on a wide variety of areas. If you like McCain's, then of course you should vote for him.
What better reason could there be?
Sedi -
You are joking. Obama's plan was to withdraw in 2006 and everyone knows it. He kept saying 16 months, but that was in 2006. Eventually we were going to be 16 months away. Obama will keep saying 16 months until he is right. Even a busted clock is right eventually.
Check your math, 2011 is more like 42 months.
You are in la-la land if you think this is Obama's plan. Please.
Every President gets a 5-6 point approval bounce in the last 6 months.
Clinton did, Bush 41 did!. He left with near 50% approval ratings, which was higher than Clinton's % of the vote!
Reagan did too!
Second termers always get a bounce on the way out.
Read some history. Iraq has turned around and that was the main reason independents lost faith.
As I said, if only Republicans back him he will make it to 40%...
Wake up...you have your partisan blinders on.
I just thought of something that might be quite hilarious, and a nice answer to the flip-flops passed out at the RNC in 2004.
Everyone should get a big set of plastic keys in a keyring, ranging in numbers from all the reports of the numbers of houses that McCain has. Then whenever they blast out a remark noting how out of touch McCain is, the crowd can wave the keys, shouting, "WHICH HOUSE? WHICH HOUSE?"
Oh, well. At least it'd make me laugh.
My guess is the 20% of Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain will relent on election day and hold their nose and vote for Obama.
Once they realize McCain is anti woman hurting Obama will just hurt them and they will not do it. Also at the end of an election cycle most people rally to there party and candidate.
Obama will probably get a bounce up to about 52% and lose most of it the next week. This election will be within the margin of error on election day.
I think Obama has a better ground game and will win a comfortable electoral victory but the popular vote may be close.
No poll will tell much until after we have a debate and see if either candidate excels or screws up.
I think by the end of the convention, if Hill and Bill behave, Obama will cut down the number of Demoicratic defectors to McCain in half, and then lose maybe half of that gain by November. In the end, I think he'll have about 85% of the Dems, a little fewer than Gore did in 2000, but he'll compensate by turning them out in much greater numbers.
Sedi -
We have not even had a recession and you are talking about 7.5 troubled years? Wow...
From 2002-2007 we had 5 of the best years of economic growth that easily rival Clinton's second term.
You are just delusional if you think otherwise.
Unemployment is still well under 6%, you do know that, right?
You guys will go try and convince the world that we are in the Great Depression II, and everyone over the age of 45 is going to laugh their arses off. They remember 1979, apparently you do not.
Do you read real news or just TPM. Give me a break!
MidPointMan: "Schwarzenegger will speak, he is easily the match of bill. He will remind mainstream people that it is still ok to be a Republican, that is if you are moderate like he and McCain."
Schwarzenegger has indicated he will NOT speak unless CA's budget impasse is fixed by next week. A carrot for state Republicans to cave in and for state Dems to dig their heels in.
Mid point man-
2011 is 24 months away from 2009. 2009 is when the next POTUS takes office. BHO's been saying 16 months but he hasn't actually had the power to make it 16 months.
A five to six point bounce for would give GWB a stratospheric approval rating of about 35%.
MSNBC signs Buchanan's checks. He thinks whatever pays the mortgage...and he is a radical isolationist.
Next...
MidPointMan---I still think you are not right about this. Also--Bill Clinton was also a lawyer by the way he won two times so I guess your law of lawyers being bad is a little off.
McCain needs to thread the needle very carefully he has a more difficult job than Obama does and I don't know that it can be done. has there any time when a sitting administration has been so unpopular and the population rallied behind it? I doubt it. But let's wait and see.
Furthermore...
GWB has not been "wildly popular" for quite some time.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
I would love to say I respect Mule Rider - unfortunately he wanked too much today for that to be the case.
MidPointMan,
Wow, from completely off my radar to one of the most obnoxious people on this blog in one day!
Obama would have started pulling troops out earlier, true, and the situation would likely be just as good or better than it is now. Faced with the reality of not having the crutch of U.S. troops, the Iraqis would have faced real pressure to actually solve their problems. This plan is what Obama is calling for now, in this election. You might have heard about it. McCain favors a long-term occupation, though it will be interesting to hear his response.
As for the bump, we will see if he gets one, but suggesting that he go from the low 30s to the mid 40s is foolish. Period. It's possible, of course, but hugely unlikely. Bush's father, for all of his troubles, never had negatives like W. has had.
I don't like to interact with patronizing jerks. You have no idea what my background or skills are, and to suggest that I have never read history is laughable. You can make all of the accusations you want, but it doesn't make them true. Please do take your Jim Hensley story to the GOP convention, though.
"Do not confuse the electorate's anger at some Republicans vs the electorate's view on Republican ideals....
Wne the Republicans get up and start talking like Reagan did, about individual responsibility, rugged individuality, patriotism, getting government off our back, fiscal responsibility, low taxes...people love all of that."
Individual responsibility, rugged individuality, getting government off our back... So that's why the Republicans oppose gay rights and abortion? One issue they want a constitutional amendment on, the other they want the balance of power in the Supreme Court to over turn it. Government off our back, indeed.
Fiscal responsibility and low taxes. Yes, all the swollen deficits and $10B a month on W's Desert Adventure are the pinnacle of responsibility. And low taxes, why yes, John McCain's tax plan does lower everyone's taxes, though someone making $65K a year will only save $300 (0.4%) while people making over $165K a year will save $4000 (6.1%). Fair tax policy, to be sure.
As for talking like Reagan did, last I check Reagan was dead. And the only thing the Republican party has in common with him anymore is party name only, very little on actual policy.
DeanScream--Powell is pro-choice and a hard core anti neo con by now so there are two strong republican constituencies against him.
Obama was calling for an immediate start of withdrawal long ago.
Revisionist history only embarasses you.
He called for withdrawal in 2006.
He was against the surge anyway, nobody will believe the spin that we was right on Iraq.
People are always predisposed to believe the Republicans are better with the military, right or wrong.
That is a tough sell for you, sorry.
Obama needs to talk about balanced budgets and accountability in government. Period.
That will co-opt the Right's message while not undermining his own.
Balanced budgets and accountable government is change people can and will believe in.
eponymous,
I'll be glad to indulge for you...as I'm sure you'll get to see me call someone a "wanker" at least a few more times.
Make sure it's me first, though...its usage has been contagious in here of late.
Make sure it's me first, though...its usage has been contagious in here of late.
Gee... I wonder why that is?
What a douche.
Tito -
You will never motivate independents with gay rights and abortion. If they were ideologues on those things they would not be independents.
Stop thinking that 51% percent agree with you on those things.
As for the budget, since the Dems took over in 2006 it has exploded, and not because of Iraq, we were already there.
It is spending that has Republicans ticked off at Bush, and I am telling you they will blame it on Pelosi and Reid.
I am not saying it is right, it is what they will do.
...and the tax thing is a big wash too. Only the left likes your class warfare arguments.
The top 1% pay 40% already. Most people who are objective think that is already pretty fair.
You also forget that most people expect to be rich someday. Wealth is largely an age thing anyway, so a lot of people do end up rich when they get to the the big boss at work after years of service.
They do not long to pay your high tax rates when they get there.
That is why that trick never wins elections. Bill Clinton got away with it because his increase was tiny compared to Obama's.
I am telling you how moderates think, and you are whining that they think like you.
If that were true this election would be over...you need to wake up.
Clinton was a lawyer with a Southern Twang. He was likable.
Clinton won states that Obama can only dream about, because he is from Arkansas.
How many Southerners are on your ticket?
Obama is neither a Southerner nor is he folksy.
You are soooooo overconfident.
You should have gotten a left-leaning war hero to join the ticket.
Wesley Clark's resume would work, if he weren't actuall Wesley Clark.
Wow! A one-day run from rational poster to troll with stops at concern-troll and fact-fabricator for Mid Point Man.
Most impressive.
I agree with you that Bush is no Reagan, and if he were, his numbers with be 53%, not 33%.
They will sell McCain as Reagan, and get Nancy and Arnold to help him do it.
...Bush is not like Reagan, but most Republicans still are. That is why 40% of Republicans disapprove of Bush.
The Republicans may be behind, but they are not that stupid.
You have the Frank mindset that we all really want to vote for populist economics, we just get confused by cultural debates.
But that has not been true since we tried it last in the 1960s.
You are under the impression that everyone really misses the 1970s that were created in the aftermath of the failure of the Great Society.
Nixon failed to overturn it, and Ford was helpless.
It took the failure of Carter to put an end to populist economics for a long time.
The economy simply is not as bad as you need it to be to uproot the entire system. The middle class is not as bad off as you try and sell to everyone, and they have more to lose from radical change than to gain, and they know it.
They are freaking out over at Kos. I am really concerned too.
If obama doesn't win, I will move to Africa and move in with his half brother.
Get ready to accuse Diebold/Rove/Bush of stealing the election right now, liberals.
Obama needs 2 themes in Denver.
Change =
1. Balanced Budget
2. Accountable Government
He will not use either one, too bad for him.
That would ice this thing for him.
People do not want MORE government, they want more FROM government.
That will sell...big.
MPM -
Whining? I'm here in reality where things aren't as rosey for your side as you want to think. I never said independents we for gay rights or abortion (though more people are for the right of choice than against it). You say they want government off their backs, and that is right. But you guys are the ones who want government to have a roll in everyone's life through social legislation and activist judges. And independents see through that bullshit. You guys used to be the party for states rights and personal freedoms, but you lost that mantle a while ago. I know it stings to hear that, but hey, the truth hurts. If your party hadn't made an ass out of itself over the whole Terri Schiavo case then you might still be able to convince people. But passing federal bills in the middle of the night to inject yourselves into a family's drama and personal disputes AND override decisions already made by the state was asinine at best. And that was the tipping point.
So bandy about with your name calling, false ideals, and draping yourself in the flag. But at least I know, and my party knows, that the independents of this country are independents for a reason. You can't just heap assumptions on them and say that they tilt towards you. You have to work for them and work for their vote. And for the last eight years y'all have taken them for granted. And they know it.
VC-
Is it too much to ask them to put their code out in the open so that any interested party can look at it? They're asking us to trust, but without the verify. Their code doesn't even need to be sinister. It could just suck.
I'll call up Karl Rove right now and ask him, Mason. But the High Council of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (chaired by Roger Ailes) will probably have to approve first.
Wow, the 2,179th consecutive post from Mason devoid of content and totally devoted to framing any non-sensical liberal argument so he/she can't lose and making vitriolic attacks in the process. A vertiable Iron Man/Woman. Most impressive.
What a f***ing douche.
Sedi -
Ad hominem attacks only embarass you.
Go on, tell me how the whole world is really liberal and I am wrong.
Then explain to me why this election is tied.
Give me a break.
I am just telling you what will happen, not what should happen.
You have the fanboy disease.
read: "veritable"
MR-
Bring it, tough guy.
My address is:
[Street redacted]
[City redacted], VA 2[Remainder of Zip Redacted]
I'll be out front waiting for you.
And they guy who starts every thread calling the host a wanker calls me a douche when I call him on it. That's irony, folks.
you know jack--that post about DKos just says to us all we need to know about you.
Mason,
Most people have learned to deal with that. You are about the only one who makes a scene like a 2-year old throwing a tantrum and thinks you just have to go toe-to-toe with me and "call me out."
If I call Nate, or whomever, a wanker, what the f*** is it to you? If you want to nail me on my discussion points on the election or a policy discussion, go ahead, but as I said, don't get your panties all in a wad because I use a few loose insults, especially if they aren't even directed at you.
Jerkoff.
Any bounce is sure to be short lived. According to sources close to HRC, the so called "Whitey" video is supposed to be released the moment the Dems have made Obama's nomination official. They decided to not wait until the weekend of the election.
All of McCains team will harshly criticize the presenting of the video, but want further clarification prior to commenting on it.
The PUMA's will be furious that they didn't nominate Hillary.
And rest assured if you were to actually leave your address, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
MidPointMan,
I applaud your insight in calling out the "sky is falling" routine by liberals on the economy. Yeah, things have stunk a little bit the last 6-18 months, but the biggest lie being perpetuated is that we're "falling apart" economically as a nation and it takes wiping the board clean (with a new administration and different party?) to fix it. That's just not true.
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick.
Jack, go sit on a candlestick.
Wow.
When Sedi gets accused of "ad hominem attacks", the whole world has officially jumped the shark.
I didn't even think there was a shark that big.
And we still have what... 10 weeks to go?
Let's just forget the damn election and all go out together and get really, really drunk.
VC-
It's a technical matter, not a policical matter. It's also a matter of commercial interest. Diebold won't release the code beacuse they are afraid that others will copy it and compete against them. It's a fair concern but, this leaves us in the unfortunate situation where we're using machines that are black boxes, and have failed numberous security audits. You and I push the button on the screen and hope we get counted. That we should even have a doubt undermines the democratic principles of this country.
For all of the problems with punch cards, at least they left a clear paper trail behind.
oh come on filistro you are going to tell me that you didn't start drinking already? ;-) I sure did!
What is it to me?
I enjoy it. It's easy. You're such a hot-headed douche that you always react.
Personally,
I don't thing that bringing up the "whitey" thing is right. Just because someon says "whitey" in a speech, doesn't mean we should even bring it up.
Please just let the whole "whitey" die.
Everyone knows the whole "whitey" this is/was just a hoax, by a disgruntled Hillary supporter. Please just stop talking about it.
Was that a threat MR? Just want to know?
"For all of the problems with punch cards, at least they left a clear paper trail behind."
Does anyone remember "hanging chads?" That was anything but clear.
No matter what process we use it seems we are doomed to manipulation when it comes to counting votes. It's sad that this country has gone the way of other Central American and South American "democracies." If we grew bananas, we could call ourselves a "Banana Republic" by now. With the way our dollar keeps getting devalued with other world currencies we might as well rename our currency to "The American Peso" and be done with it.
See, LAT? I'm clearly a much more disciplined person than you!
(Okay, I suspect I'm also a bit further west, so that could have something to do with it ;-)
I expect little to no bounce at all. I think most people have made up their minds already. We've still got a basically divided electorate and it's about getting a 51-49 advantage. This campaign has been going on so long only the slowest-witted voters haven't decided.
The Obama camp is playing a turnout game. Keep it close enough in enough tough states so that they can turn out their vote. Ohio, Colorado, Virginia. Those are the key. Win either Ohio or Virginia alone and Obama wins. Colorado must be won in combination with New Mexico and Iowa.
I see McCain having no chance whatsoever to win any of the Kerry states.
Mason,
Funny, because with all of your "knee-jerk" reactions to everything I say, I get the same vibe from you - i.e. that you are a hot-headed douche, or cunt, pick your poison.
I don't know. Did it seem like a threat? What's it to you? Was your "meet me at [address redacted}" not a threat?
I can certainly be threatening if you'd like. And I won't deal in {address redacted}.
I feel my IQ waning with every word of Mason's I read. I really need to stop.
filistro--yep eastern time so at least I got cover!
Does anyone here think those 15 state pols may just be fav/unfav and issues with no top line results? Wouldn't that be weird?
"IQ waning..."
Must... not... respond...
Must... resist...
Was your "meet me at [address redacted}" not a threat?
It's a joke, moron. About documents that the BA releases being almost completely redacted to the point of being useless.
This fool's so dense he sinks in mercury.
(MR CC: That's an insult, be mad now.)
MidPointMan,
Nate has one, simple rule:
Don't. Be. An. Asshole.
It's not that difficult or complicated. Jumping on here, posting comment after comment about how everyone is just stupid because we don't see things exactly like you is patronizing. That isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a description of your behavior. If you don't treat others like dirt, people here will be plenty sympathetic. If you want to be a loud-mouth and a know-it-all, shouting everybody else down with volume, people here will treat your posts accordingly.
I'm not interested in uncivil interactions. I've had lots interesting back-and-forth exchanges with conservative folks here and we can disagree without being too disagreeable. However, when you suddenly start prolifically posting comments telling everybody else what to think and why they're wrong, and treating them like children, you are being disagreeable. I like interacting with people who have different perspectives. Sure, we jab and mock each other a bit, but generally in a friendly way. I don't like being treated like someone who views have no merit. I don't like people making false assumptions about who I am and what I believe. You are not a troll, but you are a bully.
If you can play nicely, you clearly have something to say. I like being challenged on my views, but I don't like being talked down to. I meant it when I said that I don't want to interact with patronizing jerks. Perhaps this really isn't who you are, but that's how you are coming across right now. Try reading back through your posts today and imagine how someone who has a different view might react to them.
Peace. And please play nicely.
MidPointMan, if you think the economic issue is a plus for Republicans, I guess you've been under a rock for the last year. Look at the polls; it is the number one concern all across the country. The income gap has increased, wages have stagnated, and the middle class is losing ground. So who is out of touch here? That's why, fairly or not, the multi-house story leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouths right now.
You do nothing but hurl snarky insults that smell like a pile of steaming pigeon shit and I'm the dense one?
Tell me, how's that bitch of a mother you have doing? And your abusive father? Are you so bitter from all the cigarette burns and the ass-raping? That's the only reasonable explanation to me.
By the way, your mother is a big fan of the Cleveland Steamer. I just thought you should know.
@ MR.
LOL. That all you've got?
This convention just plain isn't looking good for Obama.
Giving a divisive figure like Michelle a prime time speech? Is that REALLY a good idea?
Mule Rider and Mason seriously. Stop. You guys are like two little kids with your arguing getting increasingly immature and vulgar. Give it up. Neither of you are ever going to convince the other
I'm just meeting you at your level of discourse.
I realize I'm not always "on topic" but I offer enough civilized points for you to have every opportunity to discuss and debate those.
But all you do is make idiotic insults and avoid any of the topic areas I'm discussing. Seems to me you can't quite hack it at an intellectual level.
VC-
Wives ALWAYS get a PT convention spot. It would have been REALLY weird for her to not have one. You're going down the "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-road.
I'm just meeting you at your level of discourse.
Keep telling yourself that. We'll see which one of us gets banned first.
Mason,
Here's my truce. I'll never speak to you or about you ever again, on anything, no matter what it is, if you agree to never speak to or about me in any capacity. We'll just go our separate ways.
I get tired of wasting keystrokes trying to banter with you when I actually like to come on here and make a couple of valid points here and there.
Is it a deal?
Otherwise, meet me at the Wolfchase Galleria Mall in Cordova, TN...I'll give you a time and place.
But I prefer the "no more contact ever" bit.
James-
I'm not trying to convince him. He's just a douche for showing up and wanker-izing every thread. I just want him to know that every time he does it and he doesn' like that.
If he'd stop, there'd be nothing between us as I pretty much ignore his content anyway. There are much better conservative posters on here anyway.
Well, personally I would have had Michelle speak around 6:00 pm, very early and keep it SHORT.
Shes going to provide a lot of material tonight, I think.
Err, time. Guess I said the place.
MR-
No deal. Stop calling "FIRST POST. NATE'S A WANKER," on every thread and we might have something.
It's just dumb. Seriously.
You addressed me first today, bub. I'm fine with never having anything to do with you...I left for a while, came back, and there you were, making some crack on me calling me a douche.
You need to let it be.
Do we have a deal? No more contact, references to one another, etc.?
VC-
Maybe. Then again, she might just talk about how he leaves the toilet seat. The role of the wife's speech is to humanize the candidate and you don't do that talking about policy.
Okay, as the jury sees, I made my offer. Mason persists. Tell you what, I'm leaving YOU out of my comment thread permanently. If you want to wallow in your own filth, go right ahead.
You are garbage. Filth. You are a nothing. A nobody. Probably the biggest sack of dog shit in school and made fun of perpetually. If you think coming on this train wreck of a f***ing site making ass-clownish comments that you think are witty makes you cool, go right ahead. And while you're at it, keep jerking off to pictures of your sister and making other incestuous fantasies.
I'll be on my way, though, and leave you to play with your own rotten testicles.
F*** you now and forever.
Buh-bye.
Do we have a deal? No more contact, references to one another, etc.?
No. We don't. When you act a douche, I'll call you a douche, and wanking on every thread is superdouchey. That's my final offer.
It won't happen, but it would be big for McCain if he could get Colin Powell's support and for him to make a resounding speech in support of his candidacy.
But I defer to the "not gonna happen."
Major breaking news:
Michelle to address "whitey" rumor in big speech tonight.
By addressing it now, she hopes to diffuse the issue before the election.
So my day's work is over, I've mixed a drink and I'm watching the convention coverage and the kids squabbling in here, and I'm musing...
Don't you think there are two games going on concurrently that have little or no relationship to each other? There's the micro-game we play, all of us super-obsessed types, where we get all fired up over every detail. "They used Ayres! Big mistake! Oh, God, we responded to Ayres! Bigger mistake!" And then there's teh macro game out there in the real world that has virtually no connection with our game because the vast majority of voters have never heard of Ayres and never will.
So where does this vast majority of voters get the info on which they base their decisions? From the media, from friends and family, from door knockers and mailers, what? I wonder if any of the stuff we obsess over even seeps out into the general consciousness... or are we like the "wise men" in Gulliver's Travels fighting over which end of the egg to break, while others are busy raising the chickens, selling and cooking the eggs and generally getting on with life?
Maybe I just need another drink. Yeah, another drink, that could be it. :-)
No way she discusses the "whitey" thing...for any reasons. That seems hard to believe unless she really thought that a lot of people are duped into thinking it's real.
Huh....
Touched a nerve with that mercury crack. Guess MR had a bad experience with a thermometer growing up.
cheers filistro. I am on my second one here and I guess I needed after I turned on the tv and saw the bloviators so their thing.
One good thing that I saw today that I think blends the two games that are going on and which you mention--Strickland said today that he had never seen a presidential campaign with the ground game of this one. And this is one of the guys who was hard core Hillary. He was pretty confident about Ohio. So that was good to see.
Drinking while on the internet is a dangerous thing!
MULE HEAD
I have been biting my tongue trying to not call you on your poor posting etiquette.
But PLEASE stop with the crap hurling man.
It is beneath you. Makes you come off as a tosser. IMHO
But I do appreciate that today you are at least editing your F-bombs [thanks].
Especially now that you are joining in on JACK-BE-A-NUMBSKULL's race baiting rants.
BEHAVE or BE GONE - both of you !
hey VCon it beats drinking while driving or drinking and hunting no? ;-)
Salut, LAT. It's nice not to drink alone :-)
Let's take Ohio. Let's take a sixtyish widow living somewhere between Dayton and Cincinnati. She has the kids and grandkids nearby but is often lonely. She works part- time at a dress shop and has to be super-careful with her money. She likes to go bowling, it's pretty mcuh her only social life. She is what we'd call a "low info" voter.
How does she decide who she will vote for? What is her strongest political influence?
I was just about to say, drinking on the internet is better than a lot of things you could be doing...then again, everything's better if you're at least carrying a little bit of a buzz. Cheers.
Michelle Obama shouldn't touch the word "whitey" with a ten-mile pole.
There are already enough of us who consider her an angry militant woman. We don't need to be reminded of rumors that tend to confirm this.
Just don't visit ebay with your credit card handy when drinking online.
I speak from experience here.
no surprise that STUTTER would jump into the race baiting game too.
nice piling on for the trolls.
shamelessly push those putrid talking points
DID I READ THAT RIGHT?
Mule Rider just challenged Mason to a SHOP OFF!!?!
OMGMG
KS... LOL!
Literally. I'm laughing out loud. OMG.
KS
ROFLOL, no he did invite him to meet at the Galleria.
Maybe he needs some new mule shoes...
touche
ok, somebody has to do it.
KS pwned MR
by unanimous consent !
MSNBC: McCain is in the driver's seat!
god bless the internet
god bless it all
VCon... it's a golf cart.
flistro--well I think her kids and grandkids could be her political community. How about her bowling league? Then again, according to Putnam Americans Now Bowl Alone.
I guess I don't have an answer to your question---maybe her family's voting history? was she ever a union member? also, in the end, who are the political influences of low info voters in general. Is there a study? I really have no idea.
VCon--ouch. No worries. I may start drinking early but one thing I never do is drink and shop. ;-)
Tito and Sedi,
MidPointMan is not a Republican---he just anticipates what Republicans will say. If you want to win, as opposed to just be able to whine later that Obama SHOULD have won, then that's exactly what you should be doing.
It's only after you understand what the other side may be able to do, that you can device a way to wrongfoot them, and actually win the elections. Living in a dream world in which all Americans share your progressive values will get you nowhere.
VA Conservative,
Doesn't reading ignorant liberal drivel give you such a confidence boost? I mean, damn, I actually think sometimes they are approaching an intellectual equivalency point. But than *bam* they prove they are at a level of discourse on par with a pack of hyenas.
who are the political influences of low info voters in general. Is there a study?
If there is, I'd love to read it.
I'm feeling so nervous, waiting for Michele Obama to speak. I can't even imagine how SHE feels right now....
LOL that golf cart line was great
(the needing new mules was excellent too)
And by the way VCon--if it is Joe Scarborough saying anything we already know he thinks McCain is always driving.
filistro said...
"VCon... it's a golf cart."
clever indeed.
but being in the driver seat & driving it straight are also two very different things.
I would wager John will put the golf cart into reverse & back-up over Cindy...
accident or intentional ?
Sedi -
, "MidPointMan,
Nate has one, simple rule:
Don't. Be. An. Asshole."
I think it was you who called me obnoxious...
You are demonstrating some "Hope-o-crisy" here.
You cannot take someone with a divergent opinion so you descend into the sewer.
I never called you anything. I simply stated my opinion, to which you exploded.
Typical "Hope-o-crisy"
VA CON
now tonight MR tries to make nice with you after insulting you previously for trying to carry on a rational partisan exchange with the 'enemy'.
DNFTT
I have never made an insulting remark to VA Con. That is a lie. Typical.
Better a golf cart than a Dukakis Tank.
Don't worry, maybe the failed one term President thats going to speak at 8:35--the last one to get a majority in a national election--can give you guys a confidence boost!
MSNBC people need some sleep or something as they are really prattling on even more than normal.
Also, Chuck Todd's post on their site says both candidates will be speaking to 50 million people during these conventions.
Obama ? Maybe now that the Olympics are over & the speech is not until Thursday + outside so everyone will want to see if it rains. That is an event.
McCain ? My guess is not so much. GOPers open on Labor Day ? I do not think anyone but the hardest core junkies will watch the first night. Then McCain on Thursday is up against the NFL season opener [Giants/Redskins].
OK, the NFL was kind enough to move the game forward 1 1/2 hours to 7PM instead of the scheduled 8:30PM start. But more people [including me] will watch the NFL for 4+ hours at least until 11 PM and then have no mood to watch a speech by John McCain, IMHO.
That appears to me to be terrible programming ala the infamous green screen speech.
I would put money on a bet that the NFL will still step on the GOPer convention closing night #'s - but maybe that would be best for McCain anyway that few people watch or listen to his nonsense & pandering. Now that is a strategy for change that works...
Craig Crawford, (liberal commentator for MSNBC and others) has stated that the DNC convention is ready to implode.
Wow the first PUMA march had less than 20 people. That's just sad.
This DNC is turning into a disorganized disaster. Way to circle the drain, Obama!
I'm sure it will only get better once Michelle My Belle Obama gives us six months worth of gaffe material tonight. Can't wait!
Cass said...
MidPointMan, if you think the economic issue is a plus for Republicans, I guess you've been under a rock for the last year. Look at the polls; it is the number one concern all across the country.
Cass -
I never said that the economy was a winner for the Republicans.
I did say it will be hard to convince Americans that two lawyers who have never worked in the private sector know how to fix it.
Joe Biden is Foreign Policy wonk. Obama is a constitutional scholar.
Just wait for the following line...at the RNC.
"These two guys would not know how to run a Dunkin Donuts!"
I already heard Scott Schmidt utter that line on FNC. It is a backdoor attack on Biden's Indian-American comment.
Look, the Republicans are crafty. You still forget that we have not had a recession. GDP was 2% last quarter. This is not 1992, it just isn't.
...and as evidence, the latest polls show that Obama's lead on economic issues has dwindled to nearly nothing.
Zogby had McCain ahead on that measure.
All I am saying is that going back to the well with the populist economics is not innovative at all.
Every Democrat who tried it has lost. Clinton was smart enough to avoid it by running as a centrist. He pulled it off because he was Southern.
Obama cannot run as a centrist unless he starts to sound like one, and attacking McCain for having a wealthy wife is not a line of attack that shows you are a centrist.
It is also hypocritical. People actually do remember that your last nominee was John Kerry, whose wife makes Cindy look poor by comparison.
Hypocrisy is a growing challenge for Obama because of his flip flop issue, he needs to guard against sounding hypocritcal.
McCain, with his wife included does not even rate as one of the 10 wealthiest Senators.
You think the at the RNC they will not list every Senator who has more money than him, including Ted Kennedy?
You are basically making an argument for voting out your 10 top Senators who are Dems and have more money than McCain. Tell me why that makes any sense at all...
You just lay the seeds of being called a hypocrit, it is fair warning.
MSNBC apparently has Luke Russert as a convention reporter on the floor. That is just not right IMO.
MPM... you still don't get it. Nobody cares how much money McCain has! They'd just like for HIM to know how much he has, since he's aspiring to run the country and all that.
A troll is a troll is a troll, regardless of education (Sorry, Chumley).
I don't expect a big bounce for Obama, sadly. I'm expecting action to try suppressing any potential gains by McCain to happen, not so much by uniting the party, but by turning Hillary onto McCain and nullifying the GOP outreach and PUMA 'movement'.
Single most powerful thing she can say is: "If McCain wins the general election, I won't run in 2012 or 2016."
Really, my expectations here are low. This convention has to spend most of its time putting the party back together. Not the best way to head into september.
DCM--yes just saw that. I am glad to see him pushing the youth vote issue but he had trouble explaining why the poll he sited had those numbers and how it could be that he was pushing one while the top-line number gave Obama a 20 advantage in that group in support (intention to vote).
Guy, why don't you got back a re-read my post, actually read it. Then we'll have a discussion about which party is making assumptions about this country's ideologies. In the meantime you just come off as clueless.
VACon,
You're right, the convention was officially a disaster as soon as that joker pulled the fire alarm and the roll call vote on which emergency exit to take got stuck in a deadlock between the "Eastern Exit" and "Western Exit" factions. Eventually they just went for the Western one but the other half of the delegates just couldn't stop bitching about how much better the Eastern one would have been. And of course there were ten or twelve which just sat in the building listening to the high-pitch squeal until the fire department arrived.
VCon -
What's up? You seem to be particularly partisan today. I had you pegged for one of the more rational folks here, not a racist woman hater.
Tito... VCon has been cranky ever since the Biden pick. I think he's a PUMA.
MidPointMan, Jonh McCain have never worked in the private sector and he said that he doesn´t understand nothing of economics.
I did want a Clinton pick. I can still hope for Clinton drama, though.
Yeah, maybe I'm a little bitter I'll never get to re-live the 90s and attack the Clintons. That was too much fun.
Vcon--I feel your pain. ;-)
Have a drink. Just keep out of ebay.
I try to stay away from the booze during the Democrat conventions.
I think we should all write down our favorite Clinton moments since 1992 since this convention is apparently their funeral.
I try to stay away from the booze during the Democrat conventions.
Good idea. TVs are expensive. I almost took out my roommate's during the 2004 SotU.
hmm. I liked the beginning of the Pelosi speech, but now she´s sounding too persuasive. "Barack Obama is right, and John McCain is wrong. Very, very wrong"
NOw it gets better again.
Sounds like Obama has the seven-year-old-Pelosi-grandson vote all sewn up.
Too bad it's got an LV crosstab of zero voters.
Pelosio talking and I just finished throwing up. anybody else thinks she had too much plastic surgery? They have a closeup of her on MSNBC, I just went blind in one eye!!!!!
With her talking there is no shortage of hot air. Too bad our cars don't run on hot air, all we would have to do is have her put her lips on my tail pipe and blow!
Shes definetly got botox, thats for sure.
Bob Dole started to creep me out when he showed up on tv after his botox, too (to be bipartisan here). The dude has bug eyes now, looks like hes jacked on Adderall.
MidPointMan,
Just let it be known that I tried to make peace. Sadly, your last two posts have precisely proved my point. I accused you of being condescending and patronizing, and you sadly prove my point in both. (Oh, and your one factual claim, that McCain isn't one of the ten wealthiest senators, is wrong according to OpenSecrets.org. He is 8th by avg. wealth and 9th by maximum wealth.) I don't know you from Adam, but I know how you have behaved today.
Apparently, you did not bother to actually read my post. As I said, I like interacting with people who can disagree with me without being disagreeable. My whole family is conservative. Most of my friends growing up are conservative. I live in the most conservative part of VA and many of my current friends and acquaintances are conservative. There are many conservatives on this site, and while I have chided a few of them, for the most part we get on fine. I can tolerate disagreement.
Your suggestion that me calling you out as acting in an obnoxious and patronizing manner is somehow descending into the sewer is downright laughable. When someone steps into the middle of a conversation and starts telling people how they have everything wrong and how only he (or she) knows what the American people are thinking...that IS obnoxious. Have you looked at your post? "Hope-o-crisy"? That is being a jerk. It's not name-calling, it's calling you out on bad behavior.
I am not like Mule or Mason. I'm not going to flip out on you. But I resent being treated like a child and I don't need to have interactions with rude people. I am content to just ignore you. Hopefully you will change your ways. If not, don't be surprised if others will start to do the same. Condescension is not civil discourse.
All those in favor of no more Pelosio close ups say aye!!!
AYE
JB- Don't know about that, but as VC said, there's Botox and makeup in/on that face.
Lots of makeup.
Oh look, Peanut Man is coming out.
Now THERES a successful Presidency! Not. Thanks for driving this country into the ditch, Jimmy.
Oh yea, this is inspiring! President Jimmy CARTER. Oh yeah, Mr 21% inflation himself-bring it on dude-give us your wisdom-Buy PEANUTS!!!
I'd rather see over-Botex'd eyebrows anyday than have to stare at the fake-tan orange hue of John Boehner.
Post a Comment