posted
Charisma alone won't cut it, and I apologize if I gave that impression. But a candidate that appears stiff and unlikeable won't get far either, no matter how good his/her policies are.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
did anyone watch the candidates on Colbert tonight?
Hillary was amusing, and took some digs at herself(it's hard for me to get over my dislike of her so even saying that is big). Obama had fun with it too, but was more serious in his message. I thought the absolute best part of it was John Edwards though. His bit was hilarious.
personal side note - I wish he would endorse Obama
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet, there are many delegates that the Post counted for McCain where delegates haven't even been selected yet
I pointed out one area (Montana) where you claim that delegates haven't been selected but where, in actuality, 3 delegates have been selected.
quote:That's factually untrue
No, it's not. They factually defined how they made their determinations.
I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
I mean, they say that Romney has withdrawn. He only suspended his campaign. They say that Paul has withdrawn. He absolutely has not. These are flat out lies. What's their excuse for those?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
Funny, I'm wondering the same about you. After all, you've already relied on a simplistic reading of the Montana official site and didn't realize that three delegates were selected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pollster now has a graph for Pennsylvania Dem just since 2008 that moderates that dog leg created in the lower graph, where the weight of Clinton's early presumption worked against her trend.
Life is weird. I mean, who would have thought that a democratic debate held on the anniversary of the VA Tech massacre would involve the candidates talking about which one is more supportive of gun rights?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
Funny, I'm wondering the same about you. After all, you've already relied on a simplistic reading of the Montana official site and didn't realize that three delegates were selected.
Dagonee, did Ron Paul withdraw from the race? Yes or no.
Does McCain have 25 delegates from Michigan? Yes or no. If he does, can you explain why the GOP site in Michigan says he has 10?
Since the Nevada state convention hasn't happened yet, can you explain why the Post says McCain has 7 pledged delegates from Nevada?
And Washington. They also haven't had their convention yet, but the Post claims McCain has 16 pledged delegates from Washington. Can you explain this invention? Since neither Nevada nor Washington has selected any delegates at all yet, how do you explain that?
And why do you keep pointing to personal statements that the Post claims have been made (and which may or may not actually have been made, and which are not binding even if they were) and ignoring the factual errors on that page? Are you angling for a job with the Washington Post?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's just off Yahoo, but this AP Longitudinal poll gives some interesting insight.
quote:By tracking the same group throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo! News poll can gauge how individual views change. It suggests that Clinton has paid a price for hammering Obama since early February on several issues as she tries to overcome his lead in delegates and the popular vote. Among those Democrats who no longer consider her the more electable of the two, most now see her as less likable, decisive, strong, honest, experienced and ethical than they did in January.
quote:Does McCain have 25 delegates from Michigan? Yes or no. If he does, can you explain why the GOP site in Michigan says he has 10?
Nope.
quote:Since the Nevada state convention hasn't happened yet, can you explain why the Post says McCain has 7 pledged delegates from Nevada?
I've already answered the exact same question with respect to Montana. You've ignored that twice now. It was a simple explanation, one that took a two minute google search. And I found that explanation for the first state I looked for it in. I'm not going to engage in your research for you, especially considering that you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did.
quote:And why do you keep pointing to personal statements that the Post claims have been made (and which may or may not actually have been made, and which are not binding even if they were) and ignoring the factual errors on that page?
I haven't ignored the factual errors. You have, in fact, twice ignored the explanation of one of those so-called errors.
Why do you ignore the fact that there is more information about the number of delegates pledged to each candidate than the Times has chosen to use?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the Nevada state convention hasn't happened yet, can you explain why the Post says McCain has 7 pledged delegates from Nevada?
I've already answered the exact same question with respect to Montana. You've ignored that twice now. It was a simple explanation, one that took a two minute google search. And I found that explanation for the first state I looked for it in. I'm not going to engage in your research for you, especially considering that you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did.
Your answer makes no sense. Since Nevada hasn't selected its delegates, there are no delegates who the Post can claim have made personal pledges to McCain.
Even if there were, the idea of a major newspaper presenting "personal pledges" as though they are legally bound delegates is dishonest in the extreme. The idea of that newspaper proclaming that a contest has ended because of its belief in personal claims of personal pledges is bizarre beyond belief.
But that doesn't matter, because there are no Nevada delegates yet to make personal pledges.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, in a joint statement, throw their support to Obama -- giving him two high-profile southerners that are both key foreign policy voices in the Democratic Party.
Both will serve on Obama's national security team, giving the Obama camp an effective weapon against the Hillary campaign's claims that Obama has not passed the "commander in chief test."
posted
Candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous, ABC News.
A snippet:
quote:LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.
We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?
LINCOLN: Sure I do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?
LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?
posted
Okay, I can't help it, I have to say it: This would have been their senate debates, not presidential debates. I don't think Lincoln and Douglas even had Presidential debates, but their famed debates in 1858 were for the US Senate and were in Illinois. I'll ignore the other things[/history major]
But it WAS funny.
Dean, by the way, was plenty charismatic. He was destroyed by a media storm that turned him into a laughing stock.
And Colbert last night was hilarious. And I LOVED seeing John Edwards there. He's still talking about issues that no one else is talking about. I'd written him off before but, I wouldn't mind seeing him as a VP candidate for Obama. I'm glad he popped back up to talk about issues that still matter but are being ignored, and Jet Skis . He was hilarious too by the way, they all were.
And damn, good gets for Colbert. He's flying high. Successful week in Pennsylvania, three of the biggest players in the Democratic party all on the same night? Jon Stewart can't even get that kind of attention. Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Governor Rendell, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all in three days.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you love America this much (extending fingers), this much (extending hands slightly), or thiiiiiis much (extending hands broadly)?
quote:Originally posted by twinky: VP Edwards, or AG Edwards?
It's tough. Both are sounding great to me right now. AG Edwards I think would be an excellent people's champion. He's a lawyer, has had a great career in the legal field, he knows how to build a case, and he's a people's champion of sorts.
But on the other hand, his pet issues like poverty and the "Two Americas" aren't going to be serves as well from him being the AG, where as he could really spotlight them in the VP spot.
That's a really tough choice. I guess I still support him as an AG over VP but at this point I'd be happy to see either one. Seeing him again makes me realize just how outlandish this race has become, and how much better it was when we were talking about issues.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Think about this for Job security--Political Talking Head.
You get paid to tell the world how people will vote.
You then get paid to tell the world why people voted differently than you predicted.
The farther off the vote is from what you predicted, the more you will be called on, and paid, to tell the world why.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your answer makes no sense. Since Nevada hasn't selected its delegates, there are no delegates who the Post can claim have made personal pledges to McCain.
The concept is simple. It makes perfect sense. Montana selects all its delegates at the convention - except three. Those three are already determined. It's already been explained in full.
quote:Even if there were, the idea of a major newspaper presenting "personal pledges" as though they are legally bound delegates is dishonest in the extreme. The idea of that newspaper proclaming that a contest has ended because of its belief in personal claims of personal pledges is bizarre beyond belief.
THey explain exactly what they mean. It's only dishonest if one refuses to read and understand the explanation.
quote:But that doesn't matter, because there are no Nevada delegates yet to make personal pledges.
You are wrong. It's been explained. The answer is on the web for you if you care to actually learn something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, first Canada and Mexico via the NAFTA bashing, now Chinese bashing. Gotta love protectionist politics:
quote: A top expert on China has resigned as an informal adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign in the wake of the candidate's increasingly harsh anti-China rhetoric.
Richard Baum, a political science professor at the Center for Chinese Studies at UCLA, resigned in light of what he called “grossly misguided accusations” made by Clinton about China.
“As a lifelong Democrat, it saddens me that Sen. Clinton has chosen to take the low road in her effort to gain our party’s presidential nomination,” Baum said in an e-mail to Politico. ...
posted
I'm not convinced that tough talk on China is unwarranted...but blaming all our problems on them is dishonest, and it's exactly the kind of opportunistic preying on public fears crap that I hate and that Obama denounces so often.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his "bitter" remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayers, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.
Clinton has received only four such questions -- two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton ("If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?").
I'm disgusted that the stupid flag pin non-issue popped up twice. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think CNN's have been the best thus far, both because they ask better questions, and because I like their format better.
I wish I could mix and match some of the commentators to make the perfect question asking/moderating staff. I'd take Keith Olbermann from MSNBC, Charlie Rose from, what PBS? and Anderson Cooper from CNN (and Wolf Blitzer as an alternate). Actually, I don't think anyone would ever pick him, but I'd take Jack Cafferty too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish that the candidates would agree to the science debate. I think that would actually cover a lot of information that has not yet been discussed. I can see Obama's point that at this point that everyone knows everyone else's lines at this point, but debating science issues, I have no clue what the candidates will say.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other Presidential Primary news, I met Obama today and shook his hand, and exchanged words with him.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I'm surprised you did not include in your list Sean Hannity from Fox News. Don't you think he would ask legitimate, journalistically valid questions?
I agree with you at least in not including in your list Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who said he feels a "tingling sensation up his legs" when he is in the presence of Sen. Obama. (I don't think I will ever be able to look at Chris Matthews again with a straight face.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't watch enough Fox News to have an opinion Ron. I haven't heard good things about his journalistic integrity. But I would want a mix of liberal/conservative slanted journalists, so he'd good at balancing out the group. I think of Olbermann as more liberal, Cooper, Blitzer and Rose as being apolitical, and Cafferty as fairly angry at EVERYONE.
Matthews is extremely passionate about politics, you have to give him credit for that, but he doesn't have anything between his head and his mouth to govern the things he says. I've heard he is seriously considering running for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton ("If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?").
Did anyone else immediately think of that west wing line about Marbury and hiding the women and booze.
Edit:
"Are we really going to let him loose in the White House, where there's liquor and women."
posted
In lighter news, a poll of roughly 5000 people in China indicates that 60% support Clinton, 24% support Obama, and 7% support McCain. (presumably the rest were undecided or declined)
They audio interview two specific people in Shanghai but what amuses me is not that the Chinese woman prefers Hilary as a fellow woman or that the Chinese guy prefers Obama since he's black, young, and strong. What really amuses me is that they found two ordinary workers that not only knew a little about the candidates but could comment on the issue in pretty decent English. link
There is a much longer, pretty amusing, but less analytical view of the primaries at Sexy Beijing. link For those unfamiliar with the show, its a set of short webisodes that examine various issues to do with living in China (the hook is a parody of Sex in the City, which explains the title). Its a pretty fun piece.
In Canada, I noticed a poll that puts Obama much higher in popularity than his opponents. The article is very badly oganised, but some tidbits:
quote:When asked which of the three candidates they liked most, respondents preferred Obama over McCain by an almost five-to-one margin - 39 per cent to eight per cent. Even among self-declared Conservatives, Obama had almost double McCain's support. ... Obama's popularity was highest in Ontario and especially in Alberta, where he held a 23-point lead over Clinton ... Obama also led with self-declared Conservative voters - 36 per cent of whom expressed support for him, while 31 per cent supported Clinton and 19 per cent supported McCain. ... When asked who they thought would win the presidency, 44 per cent said Obama, 19 per cent said McCain, and only 17 per cent predicted there would be a second Clinton in the White House.
That second last bit really underscores how different "our" conservatives are from "your" conservatives even in the conservative heartland of Alberta, in case anyone was still doubtful. linkPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame our problems on China. I'm just frightened to death of them.
Also, pollster is now tracking a definite bounce for Clinton in PA. Looks like the debate worked well for her.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the media in general is definitely dragging this out as long as possible. Two weeks ago, she was 20 points ahead in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just re-read a book called "A God In Ruins" by Leon Uris.
He wrote about a ficitonal presidential race set in 2008. I believe the book was written pre 9/11. While there are a lot of differences in that story compared to the real race, there are a few similarities that I would have never thought actually possible.
quote: This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't blame our problems on China. I'm just frightened to death of them.
Also, pollster is now tracking a definite bounce for Clinton in PA. Looks like the debate worked well for her.
I just looked at the data and calling that a definite bounce is an exaggeration at best.
Since the different polls have different biases, a bounce like these could simply be the result of which group has run the most recent polls. If you look at the individual pollers, here is what you see.
quote: Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
To be fair here, DK didn't say he agreed with the article or not. He could have just been posting it to draw attention to the claim. I was rolling my eyes at the article, not at DK. Because the article does simplify it down to the level of only voting based on race or gender. [/serious]
Besides, everybody knows the only reason to vote republican is that you hate poor people! It doesn't matter what color or gender they are.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to comment on items that I brought up. My bad.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you're going to quote my unserious comment, I'd appreciate it if you left the in. Just to prevent any potential confusion by other readers who missed the original context.
posted
Either the bitter ones or the clingers to religion. The self-hating gun nuts . . . don't vote too many times. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
