Buffalo_Gal Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, section122 said: Well I agreed with the premise of one poll that she provided a bump but showed that naming a vp candidate usually causes a bump. I did look into the messenger however to see if it should be believed. Everyone should do that and I think @Deranged Rhino would agree that instead of accepting what the media is telling us we investigate for ourselves... Anyway here is more: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[82] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[83] A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[94] If you do not like Rasmussen, feel free to search the other polling sites you do like from mid 2008 to election day. You will see how the polls tightened when he selected her, and then got wider after the meltdown (as always, the internal polls may have shown something else). Sarah Palin did not lose the election for John McCain. She made it closer than it would have been as conservative Rs would have sat home. With her on the ticket, more wandered down to vote while holding their nose and voting for that ***** McCain. However, since this is an AOC thread, it is time for me to be done with a topic from 11 years ago in this thread (WOW! time flies when you are having fun!), except to point out that AOC is not treated any worse than past Republican Women have been. Politics ain't beanbag. ? 2 1
Doc Brown Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: No, at that time the surge had settled things down and things were relatively quiet. It was a few years prior to that everyone was up in arms due to the lack of new WMD's found in Iraq, and the poor planning for after the military victory. https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ Edited July 23, 2019 by Doc Brown
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 ..how come we haven't heard from "Photo Op Chuckie Schumer" lately?.....detained by Iran?.....where art thou Good Chuck??...........
BeginnersMind Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: If you do not like Rasmussen, feel free to search the other polling sites you do like from mid 2008 to election day. You will see how the polls tightened when he selected her, and then got wider after the meltdown (as always, the internal polls may have shown something else). Sarah Palin did not lose the election for John McCain. She made it closer than it would have been as conservative Rs would have sat home. With her on the ticket, more wandered down to vote while holding their nose and voting for that ***** McCain. However, since this is an AOC thread, it is time for me to be done with a topic from 11 years ago in this thread (WOW! time flies when you are having fun!), except to point out that AOC is not treated any worse than past Republican Women have been. Politics ain't beanbag. ? She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. 1
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2019 Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama
Keukasmallies Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ..how come we haven't heard from "Photo Op Chuckie Schumer" lately?.....detained by Iran?.....where art thou Good Chuck??........... He might be busy looking over his glasses as he reads a prepared statement decrying the high water level in Lake Ontario that is flooding homes along the WNY shoreline. No action, mind you, just a sincere statement....well, a statement. Edited July 24, 2019 by Keukasmallies 2 1
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 19 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: She was a bad choice. She gave a spectacular first speech. And then went downhill the more she opened her mouth. She was a terrible pick for VP and having her one step from the presidency rightfully made McCain’s judgment look more suspect. Once he did that, my vote for him fell off and I voted Libertarian. Yeah, but in 2008 you can't run a winning ticket without a woman on it. It's why Obama chose Joe Biden. 2
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 20 hours ago, /dev/null said: To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama Same here.
BeginnersMind Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 20 hours ago, /dev/null said: To be fair, Bob Barr was a poor Libertarian nominee in 2008. I still voted for him however, since the other options were McCain and Obama The Libertarian Party cannot our up a credible presidential candidate. If they’d had someone not in sneakers running in 2018, they might have gotten to the critical 5% to get matching funds. Mostly they cant get out of their own way. The free drug culture bumps into more serious members. Watching their internal mechanisms is painful. Their philosophy is good. Their platforms are clear. Their execution is for s—t.
KRC Posted July 24, 2019 Posted July 24, 2019 13 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: The Libertarian Party cannot our up a credible presidential candidate. If they’d had someone not in sneakers running in 2018, they might have gotten to the critical 5% to get matching funds. Mostly they cant get out of their own way. The free drug culture bumps into more serious members. Watching their internal mechanisms is painful. Their philosophy is good. Their platforms are clear. Their execution is for s—t. Having worked for their state party several years back, it was a joke. The candidates were not interested in running on what they could realistically achieve in a term or two. They insisted on running on their end game (eliminating the Department of education, etc.). Then, they wondered why they only got 1% of the vote. I tried to tell them, "Focus on realistic goals. State that you want to cut the federal budget by 5% over two terms. Then, run again on continuing to make incremental cuts to the budget until you get to your goal. It is much more palatable to the general public than 'I want to cut everything not Constitutionally mandated and I want to do it immediately.'" Their response was, "I am not going to sacrifice my ideals." OK. Enjoy your 1%.
BeginnersMind Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 15 hours ago, KRC said: Having worked for their state party several years back, it was a joke. The candidates were not interested in running on what they could realistically achieve in a term or two. They insisted on running on their end game (eliminating the Department of education, etc.). Then, they wondered why they only got 1% of the vote. I tried to tell them, "Focus on realistic goals. State that you want to cut the federal budget by 5% over two terms. Then, run again on continuing to make incremental cuts to the budget until you get to your goal. It is much more palatable to the general public than 'I want to cut everything not Constitutionally mandated and I want to do it immediately.'" Their response was, "I am not going to sacrifice my ideals." OK. Enjoy your 1%. Yeah. Not budging from ideals and accepting a compromise will get them nowhere. That’s what too much Ayn Rand will get you and that’s another wing of the Libertarian party. It’s fine to have ideals but you have to be able to work with others or nothing gets done and everyone is a villain. The current Dems and Reps are a case study that the Libertarians are refusing to learn from. Most of the silent majority would be happy with a centrist who wasn’t a divisive jagoff. No one like that has a chance with our primary system in the current party structure, and a media (and viewers) that get off on the incivility of the comments sections of news stories. Almost wonder if a Civility party would make an electoral splash. 3
/dev/null Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Most of the silent majority would be happy with a centrist who wasn’t a divisive jagoff. No one like that has a chance with our primary system in the current party structure, and a media (and viewers) that get off on the incivility of the comments sections of news stories. Almost wonder if a Civility party would make an electoral splash. 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" 2
BeginnersMind Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 Just now, /dev/null said: 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan used to have a weekly dinner and drink together. Both sides use rhetoric that seems to have forgotten that we are all “us.” I don’t think the majority of voters deep down believe it but the words deepen the divide. Echo chambers of all sorts too. And even partisan gerrymandering (which is a tool of both parties). If Nancy, Trump, and McConnell would share drinks on Friday nights, just that simple gesture, I’d feel a lot better. And I bet more ***** would get done in a better way. 1
LB3 Posted July 25, 2019 Posted July 25, 2019 41 minutes ago, /dev/null said: 14 months from now during the Trump vs DemNominee debates, I want to see the moderator follow up after a few of the Democrats #orangmanbadraysis rants or Trump's tantrums with something like "My Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, don't say anybody at all. You've spent months and millions of dollars saying not nice things about one another. But what do you agree on? What are your opponents endearing qualities?" If that happened IRL... 1
SoCal Deek Posted July 26, 2019 Posted July 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: . Have these people lost their minds?! They took a picture of two ‘ congressmen’ from the SAME party meeting in their office. I have about ten meetings today....should I remember to bring a photographer? GET TO WORK DAMMIT 1
Prickly Pete Posted July 26, 2019 Posted July 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: How did I miss this ? ? So AOC is now willing to work with people she considers racist? 1 1
Recommended Posts