Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I would expect most reasonable, undecided people would have to take the intellectually honest "I don't have enough information" line before they can make any rational judgments on her effect of their vote. I don't. I think half of those people can instantly decide, based on her social stances of abortion, creationism, far right conservative values, etc., whether she is even a possibility or not. You can, like myself, almost instantly like her a lot as a smart, rising, potential powerhouse and star of the conservative base, and yet not want her anywhere near the idea of being Commander-in-Chief or potentially responsible for choosing 2-3 Supreme Court judges. I think she has a fabulous future in politics. I just don't want her in a position of power because of my personal politics. I think the right had a drastic misunderstanding of the Hilary voters but that remains to be seen.
SDS Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I don't. I think half of those people can instantly decide, based on her social stances of abortion, creationism, far right conservative values, etc., whether she is even a possibility or not. You can, like myself, almost instantly like her a lot as a smart, rising, potential powerhouse and star of the conservative base, and yet not want her anywhere near the idea of being Commander-in-Chief or potentially responsible for choosing 2-3 Supreme Court judges. I think she has a fabulous future in politics. I just don't want her in a position of power because of my personal politics. I think the right had a drastic misunderstanding of the Hilary voters but that remains to be seen. If that were the case, then there would be no need for campaigns. Candidates could fill out an issue card, post them on a website and the vote could commence shortly thereafter. If that were the case, the terms "Reagan-Democrats" and "undecided voters" would not exist. People who shoehorn this choice as being due to "Hillary voters" is taking a simpleton approach to their analysis. Two candidates here running on "change" due to the lack of popularity of the sitting president. One chose an old white established Washington man who has been in office almost since I was born (to pander to white men and to make up for his lack of accomplishments) and the other chose to re-enforce his "change" message by selecting a candidate who actually took on corruption in her own party. Whether or not she brings in "Hillary" voters or not is only one arm of the octopus. There are many forces at work here and to boil it down to "Hillary voters" misses the big picture.
Bishop Hedd Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Hard to believe this Palin thing was started by a Colorado student over a year ago and picked up by right wing hate radio. Dont matter tho, story is already old, blown off the cable stations by Gustav. Obama still ahead by 8. nice Palin bounce there.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 If that were the case, then there would be no need for campaigns. Candidates could fill out an issue card, post them on a website and the vote could commence shortly thereafter. If that were the case, the terms "Reagan-Democrats" and "undecided voters" would not exist. People who shoehorn this choice as being due to "Hillary voters" is taking a simpleton approach to their analysis. Two candidates here running on "change" due to the lack of popularity of the sitting president. One chose an old white established Washington man who has been in office almost since I was born (to pander to white men and to make up for his lack of accomplishments) and the other chose to re-enforce his "change" message by selecting a candidate who actually took on corruption in her own party. Whether or not she brings in "Hillary" voters or not is only one arm of the octopus. There are many forces at work here and to boil it down to "Hillary voters" misses the big picture. I wasn't talking only about Hillary voters. When I referenced that sector, I was simply responding to the people that thought that particular sector would be swayed to vote for the woman because there was a woman on the Republican ticket. My opinion is that approximately half of the undecided voters could instantly decide whether or not she was a possible candidate and choice based on her social stances and her experience and they didn't need to wait for the public vetting of her because it wouldn't matter, they couldn't vote for someone who wants to ban abortion, teach creativism in schools, be a heartbeat away from the most important job in the world based on her experience, etc. The rest, like you suggested, should look into it further. Maybe "half" is too much on my part, I'm not sure. But there are a ton of women who are independents or undecided who were not "Hilary voters" who could instantly decide I don't want a candidate who would overturn Roe v. Wade and doesn't stand for equal pay or minimum wage or universal health care or other issues important to them. The need to "vet" her can vanish instantly.
/dev/null Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Hard to believe this Palin thing was started by a Colorado student over a year ago and picked up by right wing hate radio. Dont matter tho, story is already old, blown off the cable stations by Gustav. Obama still ahead by 8. nice Palin bounce there. Nice convention bounce for Obama too. Went from 45 to 49. Helluva bounce there
OCinBuffalo Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I don't. I think half of those people can instantly decide, based on her social stances of abortion, creationism, far right conservative values, etc., whether she is even a possibility or not. You can, like myself, almost instantly like her a lot as a smart, rising, potential powerhouse and star of the conservative base, and yet not want her anywhere near the idea of being Commander-in-Chief or potentially responsible for choosing 2-3 Supreme Court judges. I think she has a fabulous future in politics. I just don't want her in a position of power because of my personal politics. I think the right had a drastic misunderstanding of the Hilary voters but that remains to be seen. Do you believe the "1 in 4/5 of Hillary supporters voted for Bush in 2004?" estimates. If it's true and if McCain gets a lot of those, I don't think they will have misunderstood anything at all. Women are 52% of the electorate. All McCain needs to do is get about 40% of them and he wins, because men will go at least 60% for him, if the current polls are accurate. In all cases, this is as you said, I think, earlier. It's throwing a bomb on 2nd and 6. If you get it you look like a genius. If you get sacked you look like an idiot. I like the play call, but it's going to come down to execution.
SDS Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 teach creativism in schools, She has never advocated teaching creation in school, despite whatever soundbite you may have heard.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Nice convention bounce for Obama too. Went from 45 to 49. Helluva bounce there His bounce was +8, according to Mr. Gallup as of this morning. Gallup said the average bounce was +5. Five days ago in the Gallup tracking, he was down 2. As of this morning, counting the speech and the announcement of Palin, he was up 8. That's a 10 point bounce. In the Rasmussen tracking it was a 4-5 point bounce as of this morning and counting both the speech and the Palin announcement, depending on whether you want to count leaners or not.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I don't. I think half of those people can instantly decide, based on her social stances of abortion, creationism, far right conservative values, etc., whether she is even a possibility or not. You can, like myself, almost instantly like her a lot as a smart, rising, potential powerhouse and star of the conservative base, and yet not want her anywhere near the idea of being Commander-in-Chief or potentially responsible for choosing 2-3 Supreme Court judges. I think she has a fabulous future in politics. I just don't want her in a position of power because of my personal politics. I think the right had a drastic misunderstanding of the Hilary voters but that remains to be seen. I could not have said it better. Hmm, more to think about.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 She has never advocated teaching creation in school, despite whatever soundbite you may have heard. Sure she has. Unless you want to say that teaching both is not really advocating teaching creativism. I can understand why people would have no problem with, and even applaud this concept. But I can also see more prople who would have a huge problem with it. PALIN: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.“Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. "And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. “It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.” http://community.adn.com/adn/node/102978
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 His bounce was +8, according to Mr. Gallup as of this morning. Gallup said the average bounce was +5. Five days ago in the Gallup tracking, he was down 2. As of this morning, counting the speech and the announcement of Palin, he was up 8. That's a 10 point bounce. In the Rasmussen tracking it was a 4-5 point bounce as of this morning and counting both the speech and the Palin announcement, depending on whether you want to count leaners or not. I still think the Pailin announcement is being absorbed. The polls won't refect her effect if any until folks get a better sense of her. That being said first reactions do matter, kinda like first impressions. Both positive and negative impressions may result in mixed messages and unclear polls. I would wait a week and then poll. So don't read a poll on her for 10 days.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 She has never advocated teaching creation in school, despite whatever soundbite you may have heard. umm here she says otherwise The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." the next day she backtracked a bit... In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 In all cases, this is as you said, I think, earlier. It's throwing a bomb on 2nd and 6. If you get it you look like a genius. If you get sacked you look like an idiot. I like the play call, but it's going to come down to execution. I think it's more accurate to say this is more like throwing a bomb on 4th and 6, not 2nd and 6. In the 2nd and 6th scenario you have two more chances at it. To me, not that the end of the race is close, but that this race was virtually over right now if he didn't do something like this. I think McCain obviously knew he couldn't win without some bold, risky Hail Sarah pass. And again, I think it was very smart, because otherwise, a Romney or Pawlenty choice would have been like running a fullback dive on 4th and 6, basically just giving up virtually any chance of winning.
SDS Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Sure she has. Unless you want to say that teaching both is not really advocating teaching creativism. I can understand why people would have no problem with, and even applaud this concept. But I can also see more prople who would have a huge problem with it. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/102978 Thanks for the link. What I have read about her comments have simply been, when it is brought up in class that it should not be a taboo topic. My paraphrasing... What you posted was an excerpt from a debate, which you know isn't the best place to get detailed policy positions, as there is no time to discuss such things in detail.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Sure she has. Unless you want to say that teaching both is not really advocating teaching creativism. I can understand why people would have no problem with, and even applaud this concept. But I can also see more prople who would have a huge problem with it. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/102978 Interesting the next articles links here to casinos and Jack Abramoff. Bet the DNC research folks are going nuts over this one, looking for more info. hmmm. 10 October 26, 2006 - 7:02pm | alaskastraightalker Pro-Palin mailer breaks state law That's the headline of a story in the Juneau newspaper today about an illegal mailer sent on behalf of Palin by the RGA, the DC group that got money from Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed casino clients, and Tom Delay. The story said, in part: Alaska state elections law bars Outside groups interfering in Alaska elections, and makes campaign efforts such as the RGA's mailer illegal, said Brooke Miles, executive director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission. "It's a completely prohibited ad," Miles said. The ban on Outside money doesn't apply to advocacy of issues and doesn't apply to ballot measures, but Miles said the RGA mailer was obviously intended to help Palin beat Knowles. "There's no way they could even pretend it's issues advocacy," Miles said. So much for Palin, ethics, and clean government. If she lets her campaign engage in sleazy tactics by looking the other way when an Outside group breaks the law, you can imagine what she will do if elected to office. According to APOC, she could have asked the RGA not to do ads for her, but she declined. Maybe she needs to keep corruption chair Ruedrich working on her behalf as well.
SDS Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 umm here she says otherwise the next day she backtracked a bit... I don't know if she "backtracked" or clarified her position. Only she knows. However, modern day debates are just lame vehicles for mindless "gotcha" politics.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I still think the Pailin announcement is being absorbed. The polls won't refect her effect if any until folks get a better sense of her. That being said first reactions do matter, kinda like first impressions. Both positive and negative impressions may result in mixed messages and unclear polls. I would wait a week and then poll. So don't read a poll on her for 10 days. Oh, I agree with that completely. I was simply responding to /dev/nul's numbers. And I started out the poll business by saying for what it's worth, which is not much. That said, even though the old adage says otherwise, I think "first impressions" are garbage, and eventually not all that important, no matter what people say. I think first impressions are actually as much the complete opposite of the ultimate impression of a person as the ultimate lasting impression of a person. I find that most people, when you get to know them and spend time with them and really understand them, aren't anything like you first thought. Some are way better, some, or more, are way worse. A smaller number, IMO, are consistent with one's "first impression".
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Oh, I agree with that completely. I was simply responding to /dev/nul's numbers. And I started out the poll business by saying for what it's worth, which is not much. That said, even though the old adage says otherwise, I think "first impressions" are garbage, and eventually not all that important, no matter what people say. I think first impressions are actually as much the complete opposite of the ultimate impression of a person as the ultimate lasting impression of a person. I find that most people, when you get to know them and spend time with them and really understand them, aren't anything like you first thought. Some are way better, some, or more, are way worse. A smaller number, IMO, are consistent with one's "first impression". You are right of course, but the problem here is that we have a little over 2 and a half months before the election and it may take some time for that to happen, so in this case first impressions of those likely to be swayed one way or the other may be all both campaigns have to work from in order to achieve their results. Thus, the next couple of weeks of press vetting will be critical. Those impressions carried over through early November, as they effect those deciding at the last second to vote could determine this election. This will not be a landslide unless one sides voters fail to show up. So both parties will going for the small fraction of real undecided. Impressions about Pailin now will have carry over in November. Depending how she is defined now and its an impression will be critical to both sides.
buckeyemike Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 So, Sarah Palin believes in creationism and intelligent design, huh? Big deal. Scientific issues are really important for a VP candidate, after all. By the way, Ben Stein believes in creationism too. I don't think there is a single damn person on this board who is as smart as Mr. Stein is, so I challenge the Darwinist mensas on this board to call Ben Stein a moron. I've actually had the privilege of meeting him after he gave a speech a few years ago. I think Mr. Stein is every bit as intelligent as he seems.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 So, Sarah Palin believes in creationism and intelligent design, huh? Big deal. Scientific issues are really important for a VP candidate, after all. By the way, Ben Stein believes in creationism too. I don't think there is a single damn person on this board who is as smart as Mr. Stein is. I've actually had the privilege of meeting him after he gave a speech a few years ago. I think Mr. Stein is every bit as intelligent as he seems. Intelligent maybe, but he is a moron of human for his arrogance. Please that guy has been discredited a long time ago.
Recommended Posts