the democrats would do well to run ads designed to make the far-right afraid they're going to elect the 2000 john mccain, and make the middle ground afraid that they're going to elect george bush again (they seem to only be focusing on the latter, but they'd do well to also address the former).
I don't think the former would work and, although it's all they have, the latter will not be convincing - assuming the other side is allowed to respond. 'Course, thanks to the internet, they are. 8)
the democrats would do well to run ads designed to make the far-right afraid they're going to elect the 2000 john mccain, and make the middle ground afraid that they're going to elect george bush again (they seem to only be focusing on the latter, but they'd do well to also address the former).
I don't think the former would work and, although it's all they have, the latter will not be convincing - assuming the other side is allowed to respond. 'Course, thanks to the internet, they are. 8)
I kind of think the Obama camp should continue doing more or less what they are now. I think there are enough reasonable people in America, that if they keep pointing out how McCain's policy is essentially the same as Bush's people will start to come around. Meanwhile, they just need to ignore Palin except for the cases where she has truly dubious marks on her record. If Obama does that, he should be able to metaphorically stay above the fray. American's like candidates how seem to be teflon coated (see Reagon, JFK) and that's the key for Obama.
If McCain wants to win, he's going to have to change his tactics, I think. First off, he needs to knock off playing the "umbrage card" every time Obama speaks. Take the news this morning that Obama used the cliche "lipstick on a pig" and minutes later the McCain campaign is demanding an apology because their candidate used a similar analogy to label herself a pit bull with lipstick. Second, he's going to have to tread more lightly with the smear tactics, unless he can get Obama to slip to a similar level. Not that McCain shouldn't use any smear tactics, if he wants to win he'll have to, I just think he's focused (in advertisements) too much on smear. McCain really needs to differentiate himself from Bush, and smearing Obama won't do that.
Obama might have a significant lead in the electorial college, but this is still anyones game.
Obama might have a significant lead in the electorial college, but this is still anyones game.
I remember, during the last election, watching all those colored maps of the US tallying up the total electorate vote. It showed Kerry ahead for a long time but Bush kept chipping away. By the time the election was nigh, it was pretty obvious who was gonna win.
It's easy to forget, but the entire election really just comes down to this:
[A spaceship landed on Earth, and a 100 foot tall robot walked out.]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "If I had one Altarian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say "That's terrible" I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am."
- Douglas Adams, So long, and Thanks for all the Fish - Chapter Thirty-six
The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
That was also one of my favorite lines of reasoning from the books. Even better, in my mind, was when we learned what it took to actually be qualified to rule the universe.
The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
That is pretty much my take, to a degree. For the first time I saw the movie "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" about two years ago. At the end I said to my wife that it was good right up to the end. I said in the real world, short of an act of God (which does happen), Smith would have gone back in disgrace and the bad guys would have won.
I think it was Groucho Marx that said, "I would never join a club that would allow someone like me to be a member." My personal similar one is, "I would never vote for a politician who actually wanted the postion for which he was running."
'Course I usually do anyway. But it is because I think he is really just the best lizard...
On a side note, last year I was coming from Elgin (a suburb of Chicago) heading towards I-90 and desperately needed a cup of coffee. I gave up on starbucks and went to a McDonalds. It was Sunday around noon.
The Mcdonalds was packed and, with the exception of me and an elderly couple there, every single person on both sides of the counter was latino. There was virtually no English being spoken and the girl behind the counter spoke in such a thick accent I had a hard time understanding her. It was all Spanish behind the counter.
I've been to pretty much every state in the nation and the only two that I have more than driven through that are still "good ol' whitebread Norman Rockwell America are South Dakota and Alaska, and that is ignoring the tiny (in SD) and small (in Alaska) "native" population.
If you parse the links you can see any day you want and follow the map up to the 2004 election and then follow this one as well.
It would be interesting to create an animated graph to watch several months of movement up to election day from 2004 and then this one as well. I haven't the time (no the ability) to do such a thing though...
Wow, that is a wild ride. Leading up to the election, the states that tend to vote blue or red are marked as definitely blue or red in each graph and the states that tend to be swing states are either undecided or narrowly blue/red. In fact, both of the last two elections swung on a handful of votes in Florida and Ohio.
The flaw in this graph isn't the polls, it's that they are counting the weakly leaning states for one candidate or the other and they are declaring a state is leaning when the numbers are within the margin of error. Look at Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia. Each is within 2% of being a tie. None of those states should be counted either way. Rather, people like to feel important by "calling the election" early. So they produce ridiculous charts like this.
Inconveniently, they don't have a similar chart for 1996, which would likely have shown a very similar trend but of course resulted in a different president; supporting my contention that the methodology is flawed. Repeat after me. Past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
Past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
Past performance is not necessarily a predictor of future performance.
But very often it is an excellent heuristic.
People don't choose the candidate that best matches their view. The candidates adjust their platform to cover the largest number of people not covered by the other candidate (and even then there is some overlap). The political statistical tools have gotten so good that all Presidential elections from this point on are going to be extremely close and potentially contested.
The candidates adjust their platform to cover the largest number of people not covered by the other candidate (and even then there is some overlap). The political statistical tools have gotten so good that all Presidential elections from this point on are going to be extremely close and potentially contested.
That's a good point. I also had a "new to me" thought this morning. There are some subgroups in our society which either depend on or feed on controversy. Most of these groups benefit financially from rallying peoples concerns that policy X is evil or this other group has an agenda with the primary goal of destroying your way of life. By the way, you can usually figure out who these groups are by looking way over to the right and then way over to the left.
Think of these guys as memes gone wrong.
But, these groups have a significant problem. The population at large is actually moderating. Consider the major beliefs that nobody holds anymore. Can you take another groups or nations land if you are stronger than them? This was quite common 150 years ago, but it doesn't seem right anymore. How about issues like segregation or woman's suffrage? The point is, most people are moderating on most of the big issues. So, the big issues have gotten small and the groups that need controversy are forced to find new ones.
Gay rights was popular to fight for a while, but it's trending down. Abortion is ever popular. Gun rights, and separation of church and state perhaps. So, if our problems are actually getting less controversial, why the militant partisan politics? That's where the combination of politicians catering to demographics coupled with organizations which need controversy to survive comes in. The question I have, is why do we as a society bite this particular lure?
That's a good point. I also had a "new to me" thought this morning. .
.
.
.
.
That's a pretty good post RCC. I just got back from lunch with some coleagues and they were talking about the comments of Matt Damon and I realized this quote is exactly what you are talking about: "I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago."
Yeah, that's one of the things I really want to know about a presidential candidate. People forget that the Congress passes law and the president signs them in to law. People forget that these polarizing issues are irrelevant to a sitting president and only matter to partisan hacks on both sides of the debate. We make fools of ourselves when we include many of these subjects in serious debate on this particular elected office. 'Course, we've all done it, and chances are that the older you are, the more often a person has done it although it usually trails off as one gets more experience.
Yeah, Matt Damon's little video was stupid. Her belief or non-belief in evolution has little to do with her ability to lead.
I actually think it's not insignificant. So long as her personal beliefs don't agitate improper legislative action (eg requiring ID be taught in classrooms due to the "controversy") it doesn't matter much. But, if we neglect to teach proper science we do run the very real long term risk of losing out to Asia and Europe where they do teach science in science classrooms.
Enough on that. Are you looking for bold and positive statements how Sarah Palin will save the democracy? Rather than muck around in freerepublic, here's a handy blog to do the dirty work for you.
Her belief or non-belief in evolution has little to do with her ability to lead.
I would agree with this statement, except politicians tend to try and make their beliefs into policy. It reflects poorly on our educational system when our leaders openly show contempt for science by promoting a religious/personal belief over science. In a world where labor is going elsewhere and our economy is based on intellectual pursuits, embracing science is of the utmost importance.
Abstinence-only sex ed is another issue which turns a belief system into public policy that inevitably fails. Congress and W have promoted abstinence only, and because the federal government holds purse strings, states backed off teaching real sex ed to kids. Some kids are sexually mature by 12 or 13, but we're afraid to teach them anything.
Granted, neither of these rank in import anywhere near economic policy or foreign policy, but they shouldn't be swept under the rug as "oh, that's just his/her belief..."
Yeah, Matt Damon's little video was stupid. Her belief or non-belief in evolution has little to do with her ability to lead.
I actually think it's not insignificant. So long as her personal beliefs don't agitate improper legislative action (eg requiring ID be taught in classrooms due to the "controversy") it doesn't matter much. But, if we neglect to teach proper science we do run the very real long term risk of losing out to Asia and Europe where they do teach science in science classrooms.
Enough on that. Are you looking for bold and positive statements how Sarah Palin will save the democracy? Rather than muck around in freerepublic, here's a handy blog to do the dirty work for you.
I have quite a few sources. Freerepublic is a very good one because there are so many people there that do the "dirty work" for me. Coincidentally, they link to Slate, Salon and many others a lot.
I have heard from a reliable source that she makes her own diamond ear rings by squeezing coal in her hands.
I must add what I said on a thread on Freerepublic not ten minutes ago regarding the Gibson interview and his cutting a part of something she said out of context of the full sentence and her subsequent response:
1.
>>Gibson was a condescending a$$<<
Yes, he was.
And yet she was unflappable and he was, at times, caught off guard by her frankness and clarity. He seemed to be unnerved by his inability to unnerve her.
2.
The good news is that Sarah answered it the best way I can imagine short of insisting he "quote her whole paragraph". She remembered what she MEANT when she said it and covered that, even when he tried unsuccessfully a second time to do a "gotcha". And when one goes back and reads the actual FULL quote, her answer DID line up with it.
That is, frankly, unheard of in politics. She is very unflappable.
The dems should be VERY afraid of this woman.
Fact is, he thought (or hoped) he had a hick and figured he'd twist her one way and then the other, yet she was not the least bit intimidated. He started to appear a bit flustered that she was so hard to trip up.
Haven't been able to watch the whole interview yet, however a couple of exerpts so far:
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
I'm still completely surprised that no one in the MSM is reporting about Georgia starting this conflict. I mean, it has been a couple of years in the making, but the Bush Administration had been urging Georgia for months not to bomb Osettia, and they did it anyway. Russia had peacekeepers in there that were killed by the bombing. What was Russia supposed to do?
now, Russia was in the wrong by going into Georgia and by not pulling out right away, but will someone please report the truth on this one?
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state...."
More drilling WILL NOT give us energy independence and that's all Alaska has to offer in that way. There are a great deal of things that have to happen for us to have energy independence and more drilling is only a small piece to that puzzle. And the fact that this is the best thing that she can come up with as to her credentials in national security doesn't really say much for her credentials.
Haven't been able to watch the whole interview yet, however a couple of exerpts so far:
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
I'm still completely surprised that no one in the MSM is reporting about Georgia starting this conflict. I mean, it has been a couple of years in the making, but the Bush Administration had been urging Georgia for months not to bomb Osettia, and they did it anyway. Russia had peacekeepers in there that were killed by the bombing. What was Russia supposed to do?
Also, let's remember that Iraq didn't provoke us either......
now, Russia was in the wrong by going into Georgia and by not pulling out right away, but will someone please report the truth on this one?
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state...."
More drilling WILL NOT give us energy independence and that's all Alaska has to offer in that way. There are a great deal of things that have to happen for us to have energy independence and more drilling is only a small piece to that puzzle. And the fact that this is the best thing that she can come up with as to her credentials in national security doesn't really say much for her credentials.
"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She's a governor of a state where 20% of America's energy supply comes from there. And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending $700 billion of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue."And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia."
1) doubt she knows more about energy than anyone in the country. Perhaps knows more about Alaska's oil production.
2) Alaska is where 20% of the oil our country produces comes from. Not total energy.
3) I CAN'T BELIEVE HE ACTUALLY SAID THE NEXT TO RUSSIA THING!!!!!!!! A COUNTRY SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO!!!!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!
Haven't been able to watch the whole interview yet, however a couple of exerpts so far:
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
I'm still completely surprised that no one in the MSM is reporting about Georgia starting this conflict. I mean, it has been a couple of years in the making, but the Bush Administration had been urging Georgia for months not to bomb Osettia, and they did it anyway. Russia had peacekeepers in there that were killed by the bombing. What was Russia supposed to do?
now, Russia was in the wrong by going into Georgia and by not pulling out right away, but will someone please report the truth on this one?
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state...."
More drilling WILL NOT give us energy independence and that's all Alaska has to offer in that way. There are a great deal of things that have to happen for us to have energy independence and more drilling is only a small piece to that puzzle. And the fact that this is the best thing that she can come up with as to her credentials in national security doesn't really say much for her credentials.
I can sum up your post in a few words. You disagree with her. That is reasonable.
I happen to agree with her. That is also reasonable.
Looks like you and I will be voting for different candidates.
"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She's a governor of a state where 20% of America's energy supply comes from there. And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending $700 billion of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue."And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia."
1) doubt she knows more about energy than anyone in the country. Perhaps knows more about Alaska's oil production.
2) Alaska is where 20% of the oil our country produces comes from. Not total energy.
3) I CAN'T BELIEVE HE ACTUALLY SAID THE NEXT TO RUSSIA THING!!!!!!!! A COUNTRY SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO!!!!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!
Actually, it DOES matter. You may want to check what direct relations she has had with Canada as well.
However, if I were McCain and I was asked, "What experience does she have in the field of national security?", my response would be, "Compared to whom?" If they said "Obama", I would trot out her experience with the national guard and point out that the experience difference between the two is staggering. She held an executive position. He was a senator, a representative for a state. Two completely different jobs with different challenges. And with a Governor, the buck stops there. Not so with a senator.
That is why most of our presidents are ex-governors.
I tried to stay away from this thread, but I can't.
So far this interview has been amazing.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
This is what happens when you sequester someone away for two weeks and pump them full of info. She's smart enough to memorize it and spit it back, but she has no idea what she's saying and can't elaborate beyond the canned answer.
Other side thoughts, yes Gibson was a smug ass, but he's always like that. And Palin's repeated "Charlie" was annoying.
Best line:
GIBSON: I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes?
I agree with Matt Damon, this whole thing is absurd
I tried to stay away from this thread, but I can't.
So far this interview has been amazing.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
This is what happens when you sequester someone away for two weeks and pump them full of info. She's smart enough to memorize it and spit it back, but she has no idea what she's saying and can't elaborate beyond the canned answer.
Not true. She was using what is called the "broken record" response. It is a very effective interview tool. What it communicates to the other person is that they are getting all the answer out of me on this that you are going to. http://workhelp.org/content/view/87/64/
I use it when dealing with adversaries from time to time. It is very effective when used properly and beats Um, ah, well, charlie, um, we must be supportive, and, uh, but, the middle east, um, you, know....
Now THAT is a blizzard of words.
But she did not stammer, she did not stutter. She did not look for words. She nailed it, virtually verbatim, both times. She is a pro.
Regarding the particular question, it would have been HIGHLY inappropriate to go into more detail and Charlie and she both knew it. He was going for yet another "gotcha" moment and hit a brick wall. He was clearly, yet again, irritated with his inability to rattle her.
It is very clear people interpret these interviews through the lens of their pre-conceived perceptions of the world and our culture. I suppose that is why every candidate for every office, no matter how lunatic fringe they are, will get SOME votes.
Other side thoughts, yes Gibson was a smug ass, but he's always like that. And Palin's repeated "Charlie" was annoying.
Now imagine YOU are the one being interviewed by that "smug ass" with decades under his belt of attempting to make news by getting interviewees to stumble and say things they didn't mean.
Regarding her always calling him "Charlie", I liked it. Must be a personality conflict thing for you.
I must admit that when watching her get interviewed and then watching McCain, Biden and Obama, the rest look like typical "word parsing" politicians. Yeah, even McCain, although he is nowhere NEAR as bad as Obama. Few are, actually.
Not true. She was using what is called the "broken record" response. It is a very effective interview tool. What it communicates to the other person is that they are getting all the answer out of me on this that you are going to. http://workhelp.org/content/view/87/64/
I use it when dealing with adversaries from time to time. It is very effective when used properly and beats Um, ah, well, charlie, um, we must be supportive, and, uh, but, the middle east, um, you, know....
Now THAT is a blizzard of words.
You're mistaken in this case. The "broken record" response is only meaningful as a way to tell someone you are refusing to actually answer their question. When is that the right response? If you are a pro athlete accused of taking steroids, you use this response. If you are anyone famous accused of cheating on your spouse.
This was a valid (and might I add within the realm of possibility) policy question, and she filibustered. That means she knew she didn't have any good response, so she dodged the question.
More drilling WILL NOT give us energy independence and that's all Alaska has to offer in that way.
Well, Alaska does have very cold temperatures, which makes it better for Geothermal energy than the lower 48. But it's unclear to me if Palin realizes that. And no, I'm not just being facetious.
Comments
I kind of think the Obama camp should continue doing more or less what they are now. I think there are enough reasonable people in America, that if they keep pointing out how McCain's policy is essentially the same as Bush's people will start to come around. Meanwhile, they just need to ignore Palin except for the cases where she has truly dubious marks on her record. If Obama does that, he should be able to metaphorically stay above the fray. American's like candidates how seem to be teflon coated (see Reagon, JFK) and that's the key for Obama.
If McCain wants to win, he's going to have to change his tactics, I think. First off, he needs to knock off playing the "umbrage card" every time Obama speaks. Take the news this morning that Obama used the cliche "lipstick on a pig" and minutes later the McCain campaign is demanding an apology because their candidate used a similar analogy to label herself a pit bull with lipstick. Second, he's going to have to tread more lightly with the smear tactics, unless he can get Obama to slip to a similar level. Not that McCain shouldn't use any smear tactics, if he wants to win he'll have to, I just think he's focused (in advertisements) too much on smear. McCain really needs to differentiate himself from Bush, and smearing Obama won't do that.
Obama might have a significant lead in the electorial college, but this is still anyones game.
I think McCain is doing just fine. I would like Obama to continue on as he is doing too. By all means he should continue to compare McCain to Bush.
Northern Mexico (California) cracks me up.
Some of these have historical data:
http://www.270towin.com
fivethirtyeight.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... vs_mccain/
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
This site is kinda fun: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
That was also one of my favorite lines of reasoning from the books. Even better, in my mind, was when we learned what it took to actually be qualified to rule the universe.
I think it was Groucho Marx that said, "I would never join a club that would allow someone like me to be a member." My personal similar one is, "I would never vote for a politician who actually wanted the postion for which he was running."
'Course I usually do anyway. But it is because I think he is really just the best lizard...
Why vote for the best lizard? He's still a lizard. Me, I vote for the second worst lizard...so at least I might not get stuck with the worst one.
You've got that all wrong.
The correct term is Mexifornia
On a side note, last year I was coming from Elgin (a suburb of Chicago) heading towards I-90 and desperately needed a cup of coffee. I gave up on starbucks and went to a McDonalds. It was Sunday around noon.
The Mcdonalds was packed and, with the exception of me and an elderly couple there, every single person on both sides of the counter was latino. There was virtually no English being spoken and the girl behind the counter spoke in such a thick accent I had a hard time understanding her. It was all Spanish behind the counter.
I've been to pretty much every state in the nation and the only two that I have more than driven through that are still "good ol' whitebread Norman Rockwell America are South Dakota and Alaska, and that is ignoring the tiny (in SD) and small (in Alaska) "native" population.
And here is what it looked like on the same day in the last election:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/P ... Sep11.html
If you parse the links you can see any day you want and follow the map up to the 2004 election and then follow this one as well.
It would be interesting to create an animated graph to watch several months of movement up to election day from 2004 and then this one as well. I haven't the time (no the ability) to do such a thing though...
Wow, that is a wild ride. Leading up to the election, the states that tend to vote blue or red are marked as definitely blue or red in each graph and the states that tend to be swing states are either undecided or narrowly blue/red. In fact, both of the last two elections swung on a handful of votes in Florida and Ohio.
The flaw in this graph isn't the polls, it's that they are counting the weakly leaning states for one candidate or the other and they are declaring a state is leaning when the numbers are within the margin of error. Look at Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia. Each is within 2% of being a tie. None of those states should be counted either way. Rather, people like to feel important by "calling the election" early. So they produce ridiculous charts like this.
Inconveniently, they don't have a similar chart for 1996, which would likely have shown a very similar trend but of course resulted in a different president; supporting my contention that the methodology is flawed. Repeat after me. Past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
Past performance is not necessarily a predictor of future performance.
But very often it is an excellent heuristic.
People don't choose the candidate that best matches their view. The candidates adjust their platform to cover the largest number of people not covered by the other candidate (and even then there is some overlap). The political statistical tools have gotten so good that all Presidential elections from this point on are going to be extremely close and potentially contested.
That's a good point. I also had a "new to me" thought this morning. There are some subgroups in our society which either depend on or feed on controversy. Most of these groups benefit financially from rallying peoples concerns that policy X is evil or this other group has an agenda with the primary goal of destroying your way of life. By the way, you can usually figure out who these groups are by looking way over to the right and then way over to the left.
Think of these guys as memes gone wrong.
But, these groups have a significant problem. The population at large is actually moderating. Consider the major beliefs that nobody holds anymore. Can you take another groups or nations land if you are stronger than them? This was quite common 150 years ago, but it doesn't seem right anymore. How about issues like segregation or woman's suffrage? The point is, most people are moderating on most of the big issues. So, the big issues have gotten small and the groups that need controversy are forced to find new ones.
Gay rights was popular to fight for a while, but it's trending down. Abortion is ever popular. Gun rights, and separation of church and state perhaps. So, if our problems are actually getting less controversial, why the militant partisan politics? That's where the combination of politicians catering to demographics coupled with organizations which need controversy to survive comes in. The question I have, is why do we as a society bite this particular lure?
Yeah, that's one of the things I really want to know about a presidential candidate. People forget that the Congress passes law and the president signs them in to law. People forget that these polarizing issues are irrelevant to a sitting president and only matter to partisan hacks on both sides of the debate. We make fools of ourselves when we include many of these subjects in serious debate on this particular elected office. 'Course, we've all done it, and chances are that the older you are, the more often a person has done it although it usually trails off as one gets more experience.
Matt is obviously still a bit young.
I actually think it's not insignificant. So long as her personal beliefs don't agitate improper legislative action (eg requiring ID be taught in classrooms due to the "controversy") it doesn't matter much. But, if we neglect to teach proper science we do run the very real long term risk of losing out to Asia and Europe where they do teach science in science classrooms.
Enough on that. Are you looking for bold and positive statements how Sarah Palin will save the democracy? Rather than muck around in freerepublic, here's a handy blog to do the dirty work for you.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailh ... watch.aspx
I would agree with this statement, except politicians tend to try and make their beliefs into policy. It reflects poorly on our educational system when our leaders openly show contempt for science by promoting a religious/personal belief over science. In a world where labor is going elsewhere and our economy is based on intellectual pursuits, embracing science is of the utmost importance.
Abstinence-only sex ed is another issue which turns a belief system into public policy that inevitably fails. Congress and W have promoted abstinence only, and because the federal government holds purse strings, states backed off teaching real sex ed to kids. Some kids are sexually mature by 12 or 13, but we're afraid to teach them anything.
Granted, neither of these rank in import anywhere near economic policy or foreign policy, but they shouldn't be swept under the rug as "oh, that's just his/her belief..."
I have heard from a reliable source that she makes her own diamond ear rings by squeezing coal in her hands.
I must add what I said on a thread on Freerepublic not ten minutes ago regarding the Gibson interview and his cutting a part of something she said out of context of the full sentence and her subsequent response:
1.
>>Gibson was a condescending a$$<<
Yes, he was.
And yet she was unflappable and he was, at times, caught off guard by her frankness and clarity. He seemed to be unnerved by his inability to unnerve her.
2.
The good news is that Sarah answered it the best way I can imagine short of insisting he "quote her whole paragraph". She remembered what she MEANT when she said it and covered that, even when he tried unsuccessfully a second time to do a "gotcha". And when one goes back and reads the actual FULL quote, her answer DID line up with it.
That is, frankly, unheard of in politics. She is very unflappable.
The dems should be VERY afraid of this woman.
Fact is, he thought (or hoped) he had a hick and figured he'd twist her one way and then the other, yet she was not the least bit intimidated. He started to appear a bit flustered that she was so hard to trip up.
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable,"
I'm still completely surprised that no one in the MSM is reporting about Georgia starting this conflict. I mean, it has been a couple of years in the making, but the Bush Administration had been urging Georgia for months not to bomb Osettia, and they did it anyway. Russia had peacekeepers in there that were killed by the bombing. What was Russia supposed to do?
now, Russia was in the wrong by going into Georgia and by not pulling out right away, but will someone please report the truth on this one?
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state...."
More drilling WILL NOT give us energy independence and that's all Alaska has to offer in that way. There are a great deal of things that have to happen for us to have energy independence and more drilling is only a small piece to that puzzle. And the fact that this is the best thing that she can come up with as to her credentials in national security doesn't really say much for her credentials.
http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx ... =850878100
"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She's a governor of a state where 20% of America's energy supply comes from there. And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending $700 billion of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue."And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia."
1) doubt she knows more about energy than anyone in the country. Perhaps knows more about Alaska's oil production.
2) Alaska is where 20% of the oil our country produces comes from. Not total energy.
3) I CAN'T BELIEVE HE ACTUALLY SAID THE NEXT TO RUSSIA THING!!!!!!!! A COUNTRY SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO!!!!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!
I happen to agree with her. That is also reasonable.
Looks like you and I will be voting for different candidates.
However, if I were McCain and I was asked, "What experience does she have in the field of national security?", my response would be, "Compared to whom?" If they said "Obama", I would trot out her experience with the national guard and point out that the experience difference between the two is staggering. She held an executive position. He was a senator, a representative for a state. Two completely different jobs with different challenges. And with a Governor, the buck stops there. Not so with a senator.
That is why most of our presidents are ex-governors.
So far this interview has been amazing.
This is what happens when you sequester someone away for two weeks and pump them full of info. She's smart enough to memorize it and spit it back, but she has no idea what she's saying and can't elaborate beyond the canned answer.
Other side thoughts, yes Gibson was a smug ass, but he's always like that. And Palin's repeated "Charlie" was annoying.
Best line:
I agree with Matt Damon, this whole thing is absurd
http://workhelp.org/content/view/87/64/
I use it when dealing with adversaries from time to time. It is very effective when used properly and beats Um, ah, well, charlie, um, we must be supportive, and, uh, but, the middle east, um, you, know....
Now THAT is a blizzard of words.
But she did not stammer, she did not stutter. She did not look for words. She nailed it, virtually verbatim, both times. She is a pro.
Regarding the particular question, it would have been HIGHLY inappropriate to go into more detail and Charlie and she both knew it. He was going for yet another "gotcha" moment and hit a brick wall. He was clearly, yet again, irritated with his inability to rattle her.
It is very clear people interpret these interviews through the lens of their pre-conceived perceptions of the world and our culture. I suppose that is why every candidate for every office, no matter how lunatic fringe they are, will get SOME votes.
Regarding her always calling him "Charlie", I liked it. Must be a personality conflict thing for you.
I must admit that when watching her get interviewed and then watching McCain, Biden and Obama, the rest look like typical "word parsing" politicians. Yeah, even McCain, although he is nowhere NEAR as bad as Obama. Few are, actually.
You're mistaken in this case. The "broken record" response is only meaningful as a way to tell someone you are refusing to actually answer their question. When is that the right response? If you are a pro athlete accused of taking steroids, you use this response. If you are anyone famous accused of cheating on your spouse.
This was a valid (and might I add within the realm of possibility) policy question, and she filibustered. That means she knew she didn't have any good response, so she dodged the question.
Well, Alaska does have very cold temperatures, which makes it better for Geothermal energy than the lower 48. But it's unclear to me if Palin realizes that. And no, I'm not just being facetious.