Sat 6 Sep 2008
Our Eph Pundit experiment seems to be a success. Others are welcomed to join in. I suspect that the debate will be most productive if we focus on specific points in a given thread. My point here is that McCain is much more likely to win because he picked Palin. Evidence below.
Consider the evidence from Intrade:
Click on the image for a clearer picture and go to Intrade for more details. Obama’s chances of winning have dropped by 4% since Palin was announced. Intrade is a betting market for politics and other events. There is a great deal of evidence that such prediction markets provide the most unbiased estimates of the likelihood of future events. It is clear that Obama’s chances of becoming president are much lower now then they were before the Palin pick. Is there another event that could explain the change? Was McCain’s speech that good? Would picking Pawlenty or Romney provided a similar bounce. No to all, I think.
In our previous thread, Soph Mom claimed:
On a positive note, every woman I know is up in arms about this, even my conservative friends. Our local Obama headquarters is overflowing with volunteers!
I am sure that this is true, but perhaps Soph Mom does not know a fair cross section of swing voters. Consider the The Secret Sorority of PTA Moms:
Democrat should not underestimate the impact of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket. Sure, her speech lacked policy specifics and was full of inconsistencies, but she was also able to relay to millions of soccer moms out there that she was one of them.
Indeed. Note that the first comment in the thread that follows is from Professor Sam Crane.
Again, my only point in this post is that, by picking Palin, McCain maximized his chances of winning in November.
121 Responses to “ Eph Pundit: Palin Helps ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Eph Pundit: Lipstick » EphBlog
September 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am[...] that line? I don’t see it in this version of the speech. If so, impressive. Again, thos
September 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
meh…Palin’s impact will fade with time, especially once Hillary comes up witha good one-liner about it (and she will). 4% is a standard seeming bounce for a VP pick (plus convention).
Especially when it brought in 10 mil for the opposition.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I think that’s fairly in line with what you’d expect from a VP/convention bounce combined with some of the effects of the Dem Convention wearing off.
That said, I do agree that Palin was a solid pick for McCain, although I think that it’s a sad reflection on our politics that she is. For all of Republican’s talk, Palin is not experience enough to step up as President if need be. The argument that they continue to return to–executive experience–is largely bunk; the “executive experience” one gets from running Wasilla is far from a qualifying experience, and executive experience is not necessarily the only important qualifier for a position like this. Obama and McCain’s experience as lawmakers are just as important qualifiers. It is true that the skills required to govern are somewhat different than the skills required to legislate–Hillary Clinton is a great example of this. She seems to be a great and effective senator, but her ability to manage a presidential campaign was sadly lacking. McCain, similarly, has shown himself to be a less than stellar manager when it comes to his campaign. Obama, on the other hand, has been a brilliant campaign manager. I’m not arguing that Obama’s superior managing of his campaign is primarily what we should elect him on…I’m just pointing out that if you believe that skill as an executive is the most important qualification for president, Obama has demonstrated far more than McCain in the most significant position either of them have had for the past 30 years or so.
I do not think that Palin’s pick is powerful because she has “executive experience,” however; I think the American public is intelligent enough to see through that argument. Rather, Palin’s pick was wise because of her effect on the Christian base. Whether the Dems like it or not, Evangelicals still are the single most influential voting block in America. Palin–through her anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, radically pro-christian views–presents Evangelicals with a reason to get excited. Excited Evangelicals, in turn, guarantee a point or two bump for McCain in the election. Palin will not likely win many disaffected Clinton voters, and in my opinion, she’s doubtful to have much of an impact on undecided voters, either way. I think ultimately most independents’ votes are not primarily determined by the VP. However, for the republicans, a 1-2 point evangelical bump may easily be all the boost they need in this election.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Way too early to tell. He may have made a “good” choice, but he did it for all the wrong reasons. They were running about even prior to the Dem convention. We’ll see.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am
There are two notions of bounces: the polls and the odds at Intrade and places like it. I care not for polls. As to Intrade, Obama got no bounce.
More importantly, if Obama’s contract is still at 57 a week from now, then I think it will be clear that the change (he has been at 60 or above for months) is due to Palin specifically, and not some generic bounce.
Also, one way to know that Palin is doing great stuff for McCain is to see if Obama/Biden mention her name. If they never say her name, you can be certain that Palin is doing great things for McCain.
Current Eph talks about the “Christian base.” Did you read the link that I provided? Laura is not a part of that base and neither are the women she describes. If you think that this is just about the Christian base, you are kidding yourself.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am
David: What brand of likely-o-meter are you using?
September 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
David,
wait, mentioning her name is a sign she’s good for mccain? or is it a sign they think she’s only marginal and there’s no need to directly focus on her as she is the VP candidate and not the P candidate?
it’s easy enough to make the opposite argument of you–mentioning her means they realize they have to combat her because she’s so valuable to McCain!
Also, Laura is not voting for Palin, she was just describing a type who might vote for palin. polls have shown no bounce from independents to mccain since palin.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
David –
An aggregate of polling data is probably the best source, such as what Nate Silver has been reporting on at the New Republic’s Plank where it was quite clear that there was a bounce from Denver, albeit a modest one. Self selection makes your chosen method of assessing the race deeply problematic.
As for McCain “maximizing” his possibilities with Palin, that’s a counterfactual as we cannot know the actual results of another possible pick and the rollout that would have made people go gaga over that candidate. As of right now the aggregation of the most serious polls seems to give Obama anywhere from a 1 to 4 point lead, so roughly within the margin of error.
It’s too early to know anything and I suspect a virtual dead heat from now until November.
dcat
September 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Today’s Rasmussen Polling (two of three nights after Governor Palin’s speech) shows McCain cutting the Democrat’s 14 point edge among women in half. That is very bad news for the Dems.
Now that the Democrat has stopped the nonsensical pretense of “changing the electoral college map” and drawn all the resources back to the traditional battleground states, we can focus on the matchups in the key states: FL, OH, PA, and MI. These are states where the Dem nominee lost badly in the primaries and where the difficulties with working class voters and white women is most apparent.
So, any analysis of these key swing states must start with the potential appeal of Governor Palin to these voters. In addition to her obvious demographic and back-story appeal to moderate white working class women, it is probably worth considering a few additonal points:
Palin’s religion is a plus with these voters.
Palin’s hunting and NRA membership is a plus with these voters. I’ve now heard her throw the Democrat’s elitist dismissal of small towns “bitterly clinging to guns and religion” in his face.
And, finally, both Palins are union members. Todd “First Dude” Palin is a member of the United Steelworkers Union, something that will play well in western PA, OH, and MI.
——
Once we move past the traditional battleground states, we have to consider how the Palins will play in NH and across some of the Western states where the Dems were hoping to make inroads (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico). Being true westerners, I expect the Palins to play well in these close states, as well.
The probably hurt McCain in places like Massachusetts, New York, and San Francisco.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
HWC — What a fatuous, self interested analysis. You looks at one poll, overstate what it means, and then massage the evidence to say what you want to say. You repeat canards, accusing elitism where there is none, assert that Obama losing to another democrat in a battleground state, in some cases months ago, is evidence of his being in trouble vis a vis the Republicans, and then in a sad attempt at balance assert that McCain will probably be hurt in Massachusetts, New York and, er, San Francisco. And of course you maintain that the swing state divisions must be explained by Palin. Sophisticated.
Among the GOP red meat crowd this sort of pablum might work. Among serious people who think seriously about politics, this is talking points stuff.
dcat
September 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
on top of it, derek, he actually doesn’t look at whether or not the democrats are still expanding the map. recent ad buys for the democrats and republicans. Republican ads are up in traditionally red states VA and NC. as well as in Iowa, NH, NM, and Nevada.
the map is broader. deal with it.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Speaking of broader electoral college maps, McCain/Palin drew very large crowds yesterday in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Michigan appears to be very much in play this year. The RNC hit Obama with an attack ad yesterday linking him with convicted Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick.
One difference going foward is candidate fundraising. McCain is essentially done with his fundraising commitments, leaving him free to campaign: Wisconsin and Michigan yesterday, Colorado and NM today. The Democrat was doing a private fundraiser at Jon Bon Jovi’s house in New Jersey.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“The Democrat”. Can you not even say his name? lol. Michigan was one of the four you yourself described as a “traditional” battleground. you’re slipping.
as for wisconsin…well, let’s let pollster take it for us:
http://pollster.com/
the yellow toss ups are predominantly republican bases.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Election riddles of the day:
#1.
*Q: “What’s the difference between a pitbull and HWC?”
*A: “Nothing!”
#2.
*Q: “What’s the difference between HWC and Sarah Palin?”
*A: “The lipstick!”
September 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Yes. Democrats seem to be a little testy when I call him Barack Hussein Obama or The One, so out of consideration, I just call him the Democrat.
I’ve always thought that 2008 would be a replay of 2004 with Ohio and Florida deciding the outcome. I never expected Michigan to be in play since it has been Democratic since the Dukakis blowout. However, it appears to, once again, be close with the Democrat showing considerable weakness in the state. This weakness in the rust belt states of MI, PA, and OH was very apparent in the primaries where the Democratic nominee got clobbered. At the time DNC leaders such as Donna Brazille and the nominees campaign strategists said that they no longer relied on working class white voters in the new Democratic coalition. We’ll see.
Note: I don’t personally think WI is in play.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The predictive power of a market is valid over time but not necessarily at a point in time. Prediction markets are subject to speculative bubbles and market manipulation. Although, the increase in volume and trend may indicate a real concern.
Kane is citing a three day price fluctuation -$4 on which to premise his conclusion but no mention of Aug 23, which shows a one day change of +$3.50. Do you want to account for that?
I have to conclude that while the last three days on this chart is not good news for Obama McCain , three days in isolation is is not predictive of the outcome on Election Day, 60 days hence. What is? Read on.
If the campaign is about personality, McCain and Palin will win.
If the campaign is about issues - war, jobs, wages, health, education, middle class tax breaks - then Obama and Biden will win.
You have to hand it to Republican strategists. They successfully changed the conversation from issues to personality, introduced an intriguing and polarizing women veep candidate, used an exposure she has to insulate her from criticism and further vetting, and transformed the criticism of her into resentment by the base towards the media, the far left, Democrats, Washington and San Fransisco. Resentment will help get out the vote.
People who support Obama and Biden should make the conversation about issues, not personality.
The McCain Palin ticket are proposing the same solutions that Bush has advanced for the last eight years. They have no new answers except one, reform. Guess what? Bush was going to Washington to fix it too.
What is Einstein’s definition of insanity?
Change to conversation back to issue.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
How about you call him the name he prefers to go by: Barack Obama. Or with his title, Senator Obama, as those are the common methods of naming him.
However, thank you for proving once and for all that you are indeed a complete right-wing shill for some reason. What reason, I have some guesses…
To continue to your next “point” (dare I qualify it as one?)…
As for PA and Ohio, again, how one does in the primary has very little, if any relevance, to the general election. One is only democratic party members in both OH and PA, the other is, you know, general. One involves maybe 5-10% of voters, the other? 50-60%. Good god.
Also, if you knew anything about PA politics or were willing to be reasonable, you’d know that Rendell is extremely powerful and was 100% behind Hillary. That Philadelphia’s popular mayor was also behind Hillary because of a local endorsement disagreement with Obama. That it wasn’t “clobbering” because of how the delegates were selected (the only important measure), and, of course that Obama–because he followed party rules–wasn’t even on the ballot!
“clobbering”. ha. you do know how Clinton got his name “comeback kid” right?
and Brazille’s right–we don’t have to rely on white working class voters. We have to rely on a coalition. You’re unwilling to be part of a coalition? too freakin’ bad.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
How ’bout you let me decide what I call him! Sheesh.
Thanks for the explanation of voting dynamics in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I’m pretty famiiar with the dynamics in both states.
The Democrat has major hurdles outside of urban centers and a few Starbucks suburbs across the rust belt swing states. Even in states where he won a primary, like Missouri, he lost every county outside the two major urban areas.
Speaking of Rendell, you are aware that both he and the gov of Ohio, Strickland, said they did not want to be considered as the Democrat’s VP nominee.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
hwc,
Tempers and emotions do tend to get high about these issues.
The formal problem is that, where you have argued cogently that there is a great deal of bias and invective in these discussions– and in the media– ; you suddenly cite your phrasing straying from vituperation to abuse, without qualifying that usage with self-disparagement or reflection.
This undercuts your auctoritas, the authority of your voice as speaker. From my perspective, your usage comes very close to that of a certain “n-word”– who effects are largely curbed by its inability to claim legitimacy in most of its previous contexts of use.
Largely, but hardly “entirely.”
“Just my opinion.”
September 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ken:
With all due respect, I hardly think calling him “the Democrat” is the least bit similar to using the n-word.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
How ’bout you let me decide what I call him!
The common courtesy of calling someone by the name they choose notwithstanding, I think you should call him Hussein, sand-nigger, terrorist, rag-head or whatever you want.
How ’bout you let me decide what I call you?
September 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Just hopping in for a minute to ask David a question about the all-power intrade market. Didn’t it have Romney as the VP choice by a huge margin? In which case, can’t I fairly call bullshit on it?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
HWC:
Who you are is becoming all too clear.
And what Ken is alluding to, is the subtle way in which you denigrate Obama with this little ‘name-game.’
Also, any man who claims to be a Democrat, and yet says he is voting McCain/Palin because of his desire to support women, is spinning quite the web.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I have submitted my name as a candidate for board member of this blog. Rest assured I will work as hard as possible for the development of rules concerning but not limited to:
a. The number of comments to posts from individuals in which the exchanges additive to the spirit of informed discussion but rather devolve into school-yard name-calling.
b. The sense of decorum commensurate with the academic and social position of Williams College so that some innocent occasional reader or one who stumbles across the blog does not believe that the exchanges are between inmates of a correctional facility who have added nick names to their series of pipe-rappings.
Outraged,
Rechtel Turgidley, Jr.
Quark Island, Maine
September 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
In my haste to express my outrage, I inadvertently omitted the words ‘are not’ in point a) between the words ‘exchanges’ and ‘additive’. When put in, the sentence will become clear.
Let me say that my comments do not extend to all members of this discussion desiring to have points of view known and make facts available.
The bully-boys know who they are. Indeed, some, in their anonymity may not be products of Williams at all!
Shame!
Rechtal Turgidley, Jr
Quark Island, Maine
September 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
David- Looks better for Obama. Notice the convention bounce he had, and one for McCain with Palin. Still early, but I think this looks good for Obama.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Wow…this is unbelievable. Firstly, party primaries do not accurately reflect what will happen in general election. McCain got hammered in Utah in the primary but nobody believes he will lose it in the general. Obama was far, FAR more competitive in MI, OH, MA, CA, well, everywhere, than McCain was in Utah.
Secondly, hwc, you’re right–you can call Obama whatever you like, but that doesn’t excuse you from charges of racism. It’s obvious what you’re hoping to accomplish by gratuitously including his middle name or referring to him as “The One,” and while we can’t stop you from doing that, it doesn’t make your actions morally forgivable.
Thirdly, like it or not, the electoral map has been expanded this year. It’s possible that the states will break along Gore-Bush or Kerry-Bush lines this year, but it’s highly unlikely, and even if it does, there are many states that are far more competitive this year than they were then. McCain drew a big crowd in WI, but if we’re going to base our guesses on the election’s outcome on crowd sizes, the obvious conclusion is that Obama will win in a landslide. For better or for worse, the size of a candidate’s rallies is not necessarily proportional to that candidate’s support.
Finally, David, you cite several specific examples to try to show why Palin’s bounce is primarily not Evangelical. You were a philosophy major–you know better than that! All of the breakdowns of polls that I have seen indicate that Palin’s primary contribution to the ticket is in how she excites the republican base. If, a week from now–after the convention bounces have smoothed out–McCain is doing much better among independents and moderates than he was, I’ll happily eat my words. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Rechtal’s right and I was wrong @ #20, sorry HWC. I should not assume you use the name Hussein for any other purpose that you like the way it sounds.
“It’s all fair game.” video 3 mins.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
that = than @ 27
John McCain holds a hearing. In it, he hears an opinion that is diametrically opposed to his own perspective. See how he reacts. I wonder how this bodes for decision making in the oval office when the McCain Palin ticket wins.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Cenk Uygur walks through his case for why McCain’s temper is a liability for Sen. McCain as president of the US. “He shuts off the conversation” Ignore Cenk’s tone and listen to the argument.
YouTube 4 mins.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Nuts, PTC,
Keep em coming. These links are…um…educational, to say the least… as have been the discussions…and the “performances”.
Kind of makes you wonder if McCain would have been so rash in his pick if he had been more tech savvy. As it is, between the media and the internet, Palin is being vetted anyway.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Pat Buchanan:“McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”
YouTube 1 min.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Marquess of Queensberry or any other rules prohibited - no holds barred - gouging, biting, mauling, kicking, kneeing, stomping, tearing and twisting required - but at all times the right to complain about the violence in sports such as boxing and mixed martial arts is reserved.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Straight Talk Express off the rails. 3 mins.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Why was Palin chosen? A look back to the night Obama captured the nomination shows why. Video
September 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
OK. If you choose to ignore the demographic voter data from the primaries in your analysis, that’s fine. The campaigns aren’t ignoring it. For example, Biden was selected in the hope that he could be beef up the Democrat’s poor showing among white Catholics in PA. Governor Palin was selected, in part, to appeal to Reagan Democrats and white union households in PA, OH, MI, and, in part, to shore up Senator McCain’s appeal to the conservative base, which was soft throughout the primaries.
Thanks. I am grateful to have your permission. I’ll just keep calling him the Democrat.
I’ve been called a racist by the Democrat’s supporters, his campaign, and prominent members of the DNC since the New Hampshire primary as have all white voters who prefered a different candidate. I’m used to it. It’s one of several reasons why I won’t vote for him. I’m looking for a unifier, not a divider. A candidate who cannot even unify is own party is unlikely to be effective unifying the country.
OK. I look forward to reading your analysis based on that hypothesis. I know at one time, the Democrat was touting possibilies in Mississipi, Georgia, Monatana, and so forth. What red states are you targeting for the Democrat? The campaigns, of course, are focusing their resources heavily on the 2000 and 2004 battleground states. The Democrat pulled all his advertising in states like Georgia couple of weeks ago.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
look, hwc, you’re being disrespectful of an individual you don’t know in this conversation. At this point, the racial implications of that disrespect should be clear to you as multiple people have tried to explain (if you believe that not to be true, i’ll try to explain it again in a later post–but will do so only once you’ve called him Barack Obama when asking for said explanation). If, at this point you still believe your right (and yes, i guess you have that right) to call Senator Obama “the democrat” instead of a term that shows an ounce of respect for the man and his supporters is more important that showing the modicum of decency it would take to refer to him by his name, then so be it.
Know, however, that you will have forever (and I mean that) lost the respect of a fellow eph for doing so. And I welcome anyone else to sign on as well if they choose to that statement.
It’s up to you–it’s your character people are questioning now, not mine. Pick however you want.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
hwc–
Simply because false acusations of racism have been leveled on you before, doesn’t excuse you from being racist now. White voters who dislike Obama for non-racial reasons are not racist. However, refusing to use Obama’s name in ways other than to draw attention to an unusual, foreign-sounding middle name…well that either reveals bigotry on your part, or a conscious decision to appeal to bigotry of others. Either way, it’s reprehensible.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I don’t know how to examine that issue. Clearly, Palin has generated a great deal of excitement in the Evangelical committee, starting with that Hobson character who had previously been withholding his vote.
On the flip side, I can tell you that many Clinton supporters of the hardcore PUMA persuasion have moved enthusiastically from not-voting to the McCain/Palin camp. However, I have no idea what that means in terms of real percentages. I can only speak for myself. I’ve moved from maybe write-in/maybe McCain to solidly McCain with the Palin pick. I was worried that he would pick Mitt Romney.
If I could recommend a topic for Eph Pundit, it would be not what is Sarah Palin’s impact on this year’s election, but what is her impact on the long-term political landscape. IMO, her selection coupled with the Democrats’ failure to include a woman on the ticket bails the Republican Party out of their old white dude death spiral. If she proves to have Reaganesque appeal, the Democrats are in big trouble if they lose this time out.
A second topic of interest - with absolutely no data to date - is her impact on the Latino/a vote across the West.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Now to respond to the rest of your post, hwc, I’m not suggesting we ignore primary data. Don’t put words in my mouth. Instead, I’m suggesting that drawing conclusions about a candidate’s strength based on their primary performance against a strong opponent will not, for the most part, yield the sort of conclusions you are looking for. Do you think McCain is worried about Utah? Do you think Obama is worried about CA? Neither Obama nor McCain’s primary concern with MI is NOT due to the fact that neither candidate won their respective primary. Rather, it is due to the fact that MI has been a competitive state for a long time. Similarly, both Obama and McCain lost the MA primary and you don’t see them putting huge amounts of resources into the state.
Regarding the electoral map, well, I’ll let you look for yourself: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ or http://www.electoral-vote.com/.
I see many more states that Bush won that are currently leaning towards Obama than states that Kerry won leaning towards McCain.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
sorry–typo–neither obama nor mccain’s primary concern with MI is due to the fact that neither candidate won that respective primary. I had an unnecessary “not” in there.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Baloney. It’s marketing 101. You never refer to competing products by name. You call them, the “competiting brand” or “other leading brand” or “competitor” or “opponent” or the “Democrat”.
Truth is that some here believe it’s reprehensible to vote for someone other than the Democrat. That’s not the way it works. There are two parties, both legitimate, reaasonable choices for voters. I’m not calling anyone names for supporting the Democrat.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“I’ve been called a racist by the Democrat’s supporters, his campaign, and prominent members of the DNC since the New Hampshire primary as have all white voters who prefered a different candidate. I’m used to it. It’s one of several reasons why I won’t vote for him. I’m looking for a unifier, not a divider. A candidate who cannot even unify is own party is unlikely to be effective unifying the country.”
*************************************************
I call bullshit here as well. Tell us how, when, and who. Paint the scenario for us, HWC. Or perhaps you are “imagining” this?
As far as your claim that McCain is a unifier and Obama is a divider…that is laughably absurd…not even worth addressing.
And per Rory’s comment, I fully agree. The only difference is that I lost respect for you long ago… once your “interesteddad” moniker on College Confidential was ‘outed’. You remember, the moniker you use when you want to bash Williams?
Perhaps ‘aparent’ can show up and link to some of those equally hateful comments.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I’m not going to be bullied by your accusations of racism, all based on refering to the Democratic nominee for President as “the Democrat”. Suit yourself.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
hwc,
Our accusations of racism have to do more with your admission before that you preferred to call Obama either by his middle name, or “The One,” than with your referring to him as “the Democrat.”
You’re partially correct that this is an issue of branding, but branding with bigoted overtones is, well, still bigoted. Please, share, why else you prefer refer to Obama using his middle name.
Finally, I haven’t seen anyone condemn you for your republican views in this thread. Even if they did, you’re wrong in thinking your gratuitous use of Obama’s middle name is less reprehensible because someone else was somewhat intolerant.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
There was no intent to bully, simply to inform. I see you’ve chosen not to respect my request. I, for one, am saddened to see you refer to politics as marketing instead of a higher discourse. I’m also saddened you don’t respect my offer of respect enough to change your ways. Is calling Barack Obama “the democrat” going to change anything on this board? No, except that you have lost my respect.
Again, a sad commentary on the state of political discourse.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
So why again are you using his middle name?
September 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I’m not. I’m refering to him as the Democrat.
The question is: why are Democrats so defensive about using their nominee’s full first, middle, and last names? The answer is obvious: they know that it makes him less electable.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
BTW, blame Oprah Winfrey for coming up with The One name.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
hwc, pray, tell us why that makes him less electable.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
In fact, HWC, that is one strong accusation…one that would be taken very seriously by anyone working within the campaign.
As it just so happens, I have a several friends who are thusly involved. I shall bring it up with them shortly…ask them the likelihood…how it would be dealt with.
Funny, you don’t strike me as the kind of guy to allow such reprehensible behavior without making a very big scene about it…just doesn’t fit your um…personality.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
…might it be because xenophobic americans are scared off by its foreign sound? …are you proud of yourself for appealing to such opinions?
September 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
It’s being reported numerous places that Governor Palin took a shot at the Democratic VP nominee today at the Colorado Springs rally:
September 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I’m not. I’m refering to him as the Democrat.
Nice side step. Since when? A little further up, weren’t you calling him Hussein? I could have sworn you were. Maybe I’m wrong.
Sen. John Sidney McCain is a radical, violent christian who went to a… military academy. He crashed five navy jets, has PSTD, called his wife a cunt, loses his temper in policy discussions, intimidates people with his temper and worst of all, his temper ends the conversation… which obviously could lead to poor decision making. He has trouble hearing opposing arguments when he feels like they are a contradiction of his position.
I call him Sidney, not because the name “Sidney” represents people’s worst fears realized in McCain least admirable traits but because it is his name, and marketing 101 says don’t use his name.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Yes. You are wrong. I said I call him the Democrat instead of calling him one of several names that get under the thin skin of his supporters.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
no hwc, you yourself have called him barack hussein obama. stop lying. you also have called him “The One” in a mocking way. f*cking pathetic, honestly.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Bogus charge based on little or no evidence and blamed on rival campaign, Hillary Clinton.
Here’s the investigation of the story by CNN:
Two years in a Madrassa - 6 mins.
Washington Times Insight Magazine to NY Post to FoX News to everyone.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
hwc, there is no value pursuing a conversation with you if you are not going to own up to your words, and not going to be honest about what you say and what you mean. you’re far too eager to forgo that integrity in order to prevail in the post by post give and take. you’re playing games and that’s probably your level of interest.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The paradox of hwc’s evolving Barack Hussein Obama argument illustrated:
I call him Sidney, not because the name “Sidney” represents people’s worst fears realized in McCain least admirable traits but because it is his name, and marketing 101 says don’t use his name.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Here’s a quote from a posting by Hanna Rosin (she’s covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, and has also written for the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the New York Times) on Slate:
I believe these types of personal attacks by the media will backfire.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Rory:
You made the following comment in another thread:
See my post #59 above…the media has and continues to attack her family…
September 7th, 2008 at 2:34 am
hwc –
On a couple of occasions you’ve sort of tried to pull rank here and to speak as if a voice of authority on American politics. You wanna play that game, we can play that game. And you want to play the invective game, I can play that game. And you want to hide behind the foolish idea that being accused of racism is as bad as actually being a racist, well, this is the history I know best. So Scarecrow, play with fire.
dcat
September 7th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?
September 7th, 2008 at 3:22 am
“I’ve been called a racist by the Democrat’s supporters, his campaign, and prominent members of the DNC since the New Hampshire primary as have all white voters who prefered a different candidate. I’m used to it. It’s one of several reasons why I won’t vote for him.”
*********************************************
So, HWC…this little doozie of a comment, #35… I keep coming back to it, because it just doesn’t fly…for a number of reasons.
I asked you to explain when and where and how this happened, and got no reply. But you have had quite a lot of time to think about it, so maybe you can ‘remember’ better now. Who, within the campaign called you a racist? And what exactly were the circumstances?
And according to your comment, it happened many times…and to many white voters. In fact, you used the word “all” white voters. So perhaps you could at least start with the circumstances in which it happened to you, and then we will go from there.
FYI, I had dinner tonight with a friend who works within the Obama campaign,(and has, since the beginning, and all over the country), and so I brought up your comment over dinner. Suffice to say, that he, as well as the rest of us, would love to hear the details.
After all, you are the guy who always wants the ‘facts’, the ‘pesky details’, so give it a go.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:09 am
hwc — Either respond or don’t. If you have nothing to say, fine. You have said a whole lot less than you think you have as it is. “Threats” have nothing to do with it. But when you try to bully other people here on politics, I’m calling it. As I said, if you want to feign being the politics expert here, I’ll have that discussion. If you want to feign being the most biting writer here, I’ll test that supposition. And if you want to talk about racism and race, well, let’s do. I have a book coming out this fall that’ll give me some credibility on these issues.
dcat
September 7th, 2008 at 7:51 am
JG asks:
Intrade is not all powerful. I am sure that it gets many things wrong. But, if you are looking for an objective estimate of the probability of event X, then on average, prediction markets are your best source. See the Wikipedia entry for more details.
Obama’s contract closed at 57 yesterday. That is its lowest level since May 22. If we don’t attribute this change (based on hundreds of people wagering real money) to the Palin pick, to what should we attribute the change.
I agree with comments above that, to be certain, we would want to see the contract settle in for a week or so at this level.
Again, I am not claiming that Palin would be a good VP or that I like McCain. If McCain had picked Ridge or Romney or any of the other candidates, Obama’s contract would still be trading at 60 or above.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Rasmussen reports “Palin Powers McCain Bounce and Race is Tied.”
Can anyone image a world with a article entitle “Ridge Powers McCain Bounce?” Not me.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
David,
Is anything generally less permanent than a convention/VP bounce?
JPM,
As it comes from someone who supports republicans, its hard to read that as an attack and not think “oh shut up and stop whining.” At least, that’s what Sarah Palin would say if it were about Hillary. Cuz, you know, she did. Beyond that, that’s barely an attack…that quote is pointing out that Republicans are now using the pregnancy to their advantage (see: Levi getting flown out on McCain’s plane and the awkward and ridiculous tarmac meeting between the two) and democrats got played. what a vicious attack! now we have two blog posts! HOW AWFUL!
September 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
sophmom:
I’m not hear to relive the primaries. I’ve moved on. However, I will give you three examples:
a) The race card was first played by Obama’s national campaign co-chairman Jesse Jackson Jr, the morning after the New Hampshire primary on MSNBC. You won’t have any trouble finding the clip on YouTube.
b) I became a Democrat, in large part, because Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m told that I’m a racist for giving him credit for what may be the bravest legislative effort in my lifetime (he knew he was wiping out the Democratic Party in the South).
c) In primary loss after primary loss, the Democrat’s operatives blamed his lack of support on white voters and then suggested racism as the motive.
Just read this thread. I’m being accused of racism here. That’s fine. It’s not a way to attract votes to a “unified” Democratic Party, but it’s fine.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:58 am
dkane:
The most interesting number from the Rasmussen tracking poll this morning is the percentage of Democrats in the poll supporting the Democrat.
For comparison (from the CNN exit polls in 2004):
Kerry got 89% of the Democratic vote. Bush got 11% of the Democratic vote.
Even small shifts of Democratic voters to the McCain/Palin can have a major impact on the race, especially in the swing states where Reagan Democrats can be found.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
hwc,
i’ll give you one token of respect: you play the bs victim card better than even a republican operative. really, yet again you mention something specific but don’t actually find the youtube of it. you bring up a non-sequiter and completely miss the point (it is those who say that white people gave black people rights that bely an institutional racism deep in our society) of the discussion of said point.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I think I’ve got it now, Rory.
The Democrat believes that Lyndon Johnson was practicing “institutional racism” by fighting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And, that those of us who became Democrats specifically because of the civil rights efforts did so outof “institutional racism”.
Sounds like a real message of unity. Certainly has me fired up, ready to go.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
HWC:
Wow.
I knew it was a bogus claim…so I’m not surprised you couldn’t substantiate it. But you are absolutely shameless in your willingness to dodge, evade, and (inadequately) justify hateful and irresponsible accusations.
Amazingly, (and pathetically), you seem to forget, from one comment to the next, that everything you say, is right here for all to see. You even go so far as to completely deny something that is right on the screen. And you do it in thread after thread.
But saddest of all, when given a gracious and IMO, very generous opportunity (by Rory) to redeem yourself, you refuse.
I can’t imagine what it is you gain from these discussions. Especially when you lose credibility and respect, in the process.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Gallup is up with their first tracking poll with three days all after Governor Palin’s speech:
On Thursday (with all nights before Palin):
Obama/Biden: 49%
McCain/Palin: 42%
On Sunday (all nights post Palin):
Obama/Biden: 45%
McCain/Palin: 48%
September 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
hwc,
tracking poll, schmacking poll.
also, way to twist my words–really, almost artful. but no, that’s not what i said at all. the idea that LBJ did it himself by himself and granted it himself to black people is institutional racism. the idea that LBJ realized a wrong because black people stood up for themselves and then he did his part–and it was a glorious and wonderful part of the struggle–to remake america’s laws so that they no longer denied people their rights.
he deserves applause. but the idea that he “gave them” rights is wrong.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
If one acknowledges that he is categorically bad, nay evil, can he avoid the lectures? If so, I hereby acknowledge.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Let’s all say it together: One poll means less than aggregates. Before the conventions the aggregate polls were close. Obama got a tiny bump from his convention, and McCain got a tiny bhump from his. So as I predicted we appear to be moving back toward status quo ante. There is nothing to see here, people.
But it is nice to see hwc, in his hamhanded way, try to pull the 1964 Civil Rights Act card. I must admit — if you’re going to feign having big balls, you may as well feign having really big fucking balls.
dcat
September 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Derek- I’d like to get your take on her church activities, and if it will hurt her with Jewish voters?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Today, I put in a few hours (for the Obama campaign) on a phone bank. The calling location was a swing state. The call list was composed of undecided voters. I am happy to report that the results were very encouraging for Obama.
The ones that were for McCain made it clear from the get-go, and with the exception of a couple of responses, they were fairly civil. The definites for McCain were (or at least sounded) older.
Here was the surprise. When asked what their primary concerns were, many were chatty. And the subject matter was (surprise, surprise) the economy…money. The second most prevalent concern was health. I am not sure how the list was composed, but a striking amount of people were not well. One lady said to me, “He is my guy, but I have cancer, so I’m sorry I can’t do anything.” She meant volunteer work. Needless to say, I had to compose myself after that call.
It left me thinking about what ‘Nuts” said on one of these threads, that we need to focus on the issues. As well, I think Frank made a comment somewhere, about how the pocketbook was going to determine the election.
Surprisingly, the conversation, (at least with my list) did not touch on the war much. There was one Vietnam vet who was for Obama (and I think my friend had one young guy leaving for service soon, and he was ‘leaning’ to Obama).
I enjoyed the day and plan to get more involved. I have signed on for stumping in a couple of swing states where my spanish will come in handy. If it works out, I might post a journal about the experience.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
The other interesting thing was that the organizers remarked that this was the biggest show of volunteers yet. And when people started talking, they all expressed having been motivated by the Palin pick.
There were also many more women than men (FWIW).
September 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
SophM- Sounds like an amazing & productive day. Thanks for an upbeat comment.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Sph mom- The war and the economy are linked. We have gone into huge debt, and will end up spending over 2 trillion dollars by the time this is all said and done.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
This morning Frank Rich summarized my reaction to Palin vis a vis McCain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/07rich.html?em
In the context of the title of this thread, Palin’s a persona, who can present a well-crafted speech. Her packaged CV and remarks pulls for emotional voting, which helps McCain.
But- What really counts is McCain vs. Obama. If the election focuses on character qualities that resonate with the scary Republican conventioneers rather than issues, like the economy, then I think that we’re in trouble.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Soph Mom:
Kudos for getting involved.
This election appears to have galvinized both Dems and the GOP.
A journal of your experiences out on the stump would be an interesting read.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:46 am
PTC –
If she was at the alleged sermon saying that Israelis deserve the terrorist attacks she ought to be off the ticket. Period. Of course I believe that her husband being a member of a party advocating secession is a form of treason, so, it’s all relative. The GOP does not want this debate. So they frame things so that they do not have to have it.
dcat
September 8th, 2008 at 12:53 am
dcat- Sure. But Jews tend to look at those kinds of issues, even if not covered by the MSM. You know what I am thinking… Florida.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Another thing I have not seen is a outreach to Hispanic voters… which I think is one of the largest swing group this election.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Righto, PTC.
I am going to try to focus my stumping efforts on the Latino vote… as they are already leaning to Obama.
And there are an unprecedented amount of new voters that started registering during the Dem primaries. Let’s hope they will follow through and get to the booth.
Does anyone know the current figure?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:11 am
I’ll tell you, though — a huge percentage of Mexican-American voters in Texas were Hillary supporters, and right or wrong, many have not embraced Obama. Intellectually and ideologically it makes no sense, but emotionally, the doubt is still strong.
dcat
September 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Derek,
Yup…there seems to be range in the Latino support, depending on the part of the country. In the primaries, there was even a pretty significant difference between southern and northern California.
But according to these polling figures, 70% of the Hispanic Clinton supporters have transferred allegiance to Obama.
I’m not sure how the Palin pick will affect that. You would think that the pro-life stance would be more of a draw (given the prevalent Catholic background), but surveys indicate otherwise.
Maybe that would be less the case if the economy wasn’t so bad?
September 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Not to mention the situation in Mexico…which is so desperate. If it is breaking my heart, I can only imagine the impact it’s having on our hispanic communities.
I would love to hear Ken weigh in on that issue…given his experience there.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Obama is now down to 53 at Intrade. Does anyone believe that this would have happened if McCain had chosen Romney? Beware the Secret Sorority of PTA Moms!
September 8th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I certainly agree that Palin was the right pick for John McCain — Pawlenty would have been a “blah” pick, and Romney or Lieberman would have certainly hurt his cause, for different reasons. I don’t see McCain’s huge bounce lasting and I imagine it will settle into a very even race as we head into the debates, but without Palin, Obama would almost certainly be a few points ahead at the same juncture.
I am just as confident that she is the wrong pick for America, and is the final nail in everything moderates and even some liberals admired in the McCain of 2000 — his ambition to win has now completely
The Obama-Biden campaign has started on the stump to hit both Palin and McCain for their respective hypocrisy (on earmarks / bridge to nowhere, and for essentially running against the GOP when all of McCain’s current positions echo those of the Bush administration and of course he has been a GOP senator for 26 years). I think that theme has to be brought to the forefront in all campaign messaging (particularly with regard to McCain, as we’ve seen, attacking Saint Sarah TOO much is dangerous if you don’t want to be seen as a big mean bully picking on the poor little girl) going forward — just incredulity and disbelief, outright mockery, of the idea that suddenly, after years of capitulation to the far right wing of his party, after hiring the very people that he used to find so distasteful, after picking a VP far right of what he used to be, after proudly proclaiming his solidarity with Bush, McCain is suddently the candidate of change. It is laughable and should be treated as such by the Obama campaign (I’d say the media, but it is now clear that the media has been so cowed by allegations of GOP bias that it is now biased against the Dems … wonderful. Can you imagine Fox News doing was NBC just did??? Never. At leat we have Jon Stewart as the one guy left who won’t just report the GOP talking points).
Speaking of Saint Sarah, a report floating around that she was overhead saying, after Obama beat Hillary, “Satchmo beat the bitch.” She is way too politically savvy to ever be caught on tape saying something like that, but given the VAST number of reports surfacing, many uncontradicted, of her political vindictiveness / pettiness, I wouldn’t be shocked if it were true …
September 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Jeff,
that report floating around is poorly sourced and leads back to a really leftist paper in LA. It’s not necessary to bring that one up when we have so much documentation of so many similar situations. Like her laughing–on tape–while a talk show host called her cancer survivor political opponent in Alaska a “bitch” and a “cancer”.
Also fun–no republican as part of a vetting process ever contacted any political leaders in Alaska to ask questions about the bad VP candidate (hi hwc!). What type of decision making process is that? That’s the type of leadership we want for our country–don’t do your research, just go with the gut? The Republican (hi hwc!) scares me in a way he didn’t before this pick. His judgment and leadership style were exposed in this pick and it worried me.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Rory,
The Frank Rich article that Parent’12 posted (see #82) really is the most astute assessment of the pick that I’ve seen. (Thanks P’12!)
To me the most interesting part of the article was the idea that the ‘rashness’ of it was right in character with a history of visceral decision-making on McCain’s part, past and present, and ranging from…
a) his speculation that Hussein was behind the anthrax attacks
b) his insistence that Iraq had a role in 9/11
c) his supposed evidence of Saddam’s WMDs
d) his estimation that fewer than 100,000 troops would suffice for Iraq
e) his refusal to listen to Shinseki who faulted the Rumsfeld plan from the beginning
to more recently…
f) speculating that we might somehow ride to the rescue of Georgia
g) re-affirming that the crumbling regime of Musharraf deserved the benefit of the doubt even as it was enabling the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda
h) his blanket endorsement of Bush policy in Pakistan.
So this is what we can hope for in the way of Foreign Policy decisions from the GOP ticket. Of course, McCain will have Palin by his side… she having acquired her first passport about a year ago.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Dems are dropping the ball on the foreign policy debate, big time. I just don’t get why they hold back. McCain and Palin are going around mocking Obama for not supporting the surge and saying that the surge worked. Why aren’t the Dems hitting right back with video of McCain saying that this war would be easily won, etc.? Not to mention the rush to war in the first place. Everytime the McCain campaign mentioned sexism, the Dems should have jsut highlighted hit rape and Chelsea Clinton jokes. They dropped the ball on that. Now, everytime McCain/Palin talk about judgment in regards to Iraq, they should highlight the fact that Obama, but not McCain, foresaw just how difficult and costly this conflict would prove. The messaging war is being won by the GOP and the media is not going to pursue the truth, so the Dems have to hit McCain and the GOP far harder in advertising. They simply can’t let lies, half-truths, or ridiculous assertions slide without a harder push-back. You think they would have learned from 2004.
Rory, you are right, by the way, my bad. I will stick with the stuff that is verified. My frustration just boils over sometimes.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The Democrats’ problem is not the quality of the campaign they are running, but rather their candidate, their driving a wedge through their party’s coalition, and their obvious contempt for middle-American values.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
lol. hello shill. how’s it going? i’m just happy you’re in massachusetts so i don’t feel bad antagonizing you.
The Republicans’ problem is *certainly* not the campaign they run (ruthless and effective as always), but rather their candidates, their unbelievable web of lies and half-truths, and their obvious contempt (via their policies and their campaign trickery) for middle-American values.
wow, cheap-o sound bites that look vaguely like analysis are really, really, REALLY easy to write.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Yeah, good point HWC, good thing we didn’t nominate a silver-spoon candidate who inherited 100 million dollars thanks to the fact that he cheated on his wife with a rich woman 20 years younger than him, owns 7 homes, would (relative to Obama’s plan) increase taxes on everyone except for those making over 250,000 per year, rather than a devoted family man who is a self-made son of a single parent who rose to prominence through hard work, academic achievement, and taking a different, more difficult path than most of his law school classmates. I guess we really are contemptuous of middle-American values.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jeff- It will have to be 527s. Beleive it or not, Obama acutally is going to focus on the issues. He is not going to throw in a lot of fringe stuff- it is not his style.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
HWC:
If ‘quality’ of candidate was the determining factor, Obama would be a shoe-in.
Given the economy, the record of the last 8 years, the current GOP ticket, etc. if Obama doesn’t win, the reason could almost certainly be attributed to racism. And IMO, the backlash to this loss, combined with the results of a McCain/Palin team, will be so disastrous as to be almost insurmountable.
By the same token, if McCain/Palin win, it can be attributed to the willingness of the American public to be snowed by lies, sound-bites, and “performance”. It has almost nothing to do with the real middle-American values…and anyone so ready to spout that BS, needs to take a good hard look at their own belief system.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
And lest ‘anyone’ claim I’m accusing every voter who picks McCain, to be a racist…that isn’t what I’m saying.
What I am saying, is that there may be enough people in this country, who yet have such a difficult time seeing someone other than white as President… that they will vote McCain for just that reason… thus tipping the election.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:42 am
hwc: Please don’t take my of response as a lack of consideration. Still thinking…
September 9th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Soph Mom:
from the campaign trail in Knox County, Tennessee, a few weeks ago:
“It’s not that I wouldn’t vote for him– but the people around me, my neighbors, when I call them up, they won’t vote for, I can’t ask them to vote for, that n—–.”
Perhaps I should spell it out.
Nonetheless: how do you respond to that?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Let me take a run at this. Obama is half n_ _ _r half c_ _ _r. Even half c_ _ _r is better than John McCain. No?
Ok, I’ll give it some thought…
Obama is half white. I’m not even sure he would count as America’s first black president. No?
Ok. I don’t think there’s a rationale way to give a short answer to someone who won’t vote for a candidate they like because he is black. Wait a minute…
Obama’s against affirmative action based on race. He didn’t even tell Harvard Law he was a black man on his application. He got in on merit. And he was president of law review.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Ken,
How do you respond to that, indeed.
It is ugly. And a fact. But IMO, it is easier to deal with the people who place their prejudice out in broad daylight.
It’s the ones who are prejudiced and pretend otherwise…who do everything in their power to keep Obama from being elected while smiling and offering their bi-partisan handshake… who claim they are voting the weak GOP ticket because of the wonderful support of women the blatantly unqualified VP candidate represents…who lie and sabotage while claiming that God and country come first.
These are the racists that I have a bigger problem with. Because they own a prejudice that isn’t the fault of ignorance… and they use their intelligence and education to perpetuate it. A much more dangerous animal, IMO.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:18 am
I like that brassy McCain of years gone by, when he picked up that bombshell blond in his Corvette.
This time he’s picked a winner and not the “ONE we have been waiting for”.
The only circus here are the impersonators and the clowns and the dancing bears under the Obama tent.
And to think that this pretender of a gentleman called this VP MOM a pig with lipstick.
The polls will not support these comments borne under the stress of Obama’s campaign. His numbers will decline, despite your doorbell ditty.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Folks,
Last night when I was on site, the comment #106 above appeared, and it had David Broadband’sname on it. I saw it, and I posted a response under it. I returned to the main page, and then back to the this thread, and in the few seconds it took to bo back and then forward, his comment and mine had disappeared from the screen.
I thought it was odd, but as the site was a bit slow, I thought maybe it was a wierd tech issue. But now, I see it this morning, and the same comment has anonymous as it’s moniker.
Could someone from ‘tech’ please exlain to me how that happened? The language sounds like Broadband’s, and I have long recognized anonymous comments that sound like his, but how the heck, does a comment appear, and then disappear, and then re-appear…changed?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am
No idea how that could happen, but it is highly unlikely to be anything nefarious.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Okay,
What is going on? When I wrote #108 at 8:55 am, Comment #107 (anonymous) was then #106.
Now, in the 45 minutes since then, Broadband’s #106 appeared, and the “anonymous” comment moved to 107…
Honestly, what is going on? Did Broadband’s first comment get ‘held’? And so he re-wrote it under “anonymous”, submitted, and the original Broadband comment somehow ’slipped’ into place in the last half hour?
Some crazy ‘tech’ isues going on here…and now we know for sure that Broadband uses at least two monikers.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yes, Soph Mom, Broadband’s comment got held for moderation (I just went in and released it). It probably looked like spam to the system, and I can’t say that I disagree.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I just deleted the anonymous and superfluous one. indeed, it appears from looking at ip addresses that they came from the same computer and broadband probably just double posted.
i will say that it probably didn’t add anything to be posted once, except for further proof that broadband and hwc are eye to eye on this election. that should tell you something…lol
September 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thanks for solving the mystery…
Wierd how it made it to the screen and then got held…
Rory:
It might have been better to leave it so he, (and everyone else) now knows he uses two monikers…
September 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
how about we both vouch for this: Broadband’s last comment was also published under the name “anonymous” from the same IP with the same text. Anyone who thinks an anonymous comment might be from Broadband now has reason to wonder.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Obama had one of the most hilarious non-apologies I’ve heard yesterday with regards to the “pig in lipstick” comment. McCain’s campaign asked him to apologize for calling Palin a pig…and Obama politely declined, explaining that he called McCain and not Palin a pig (which, if you read his quote, is fairly clear).
September 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Go Barack. Between the disgraceful kindergarten attack ad (see Joe Klein’s take)
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html
and this lipstick bullshit, McCain has now sunk even below swift boating and Willy Horton levels, achieving in record time a new low in political discourse. I hope he’s able to look in the mirror, as he has demonstrated there is nothing he will not say or do in his quest to be President. Were the Obama campaign at the same level, they could come back with an ad, that would now be a lot more truthful than McCain’s swipe, saying “McCain is against educating kids about sexual predators, in other words, he is hoping your kids get molested.” Obviously, Obama wouldn’t do that — the thing is, there is no doubt McCain would had Obama taken the opposite position on that legislation. It is truly the silly season.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I saw that Jeff. The quotes are powerful…
Josh Marshall, for example:
“There’s no getting around it at this point, the man is not morally fit to serve as president”
Last night on Anderson Cooper, there were several women going back and forth about the ‘lipstick’ issue, and the sleazy ad, and I almost felt sorry for the Republican gals. Most of them are strong women; journalists… who most probably embrace belief systems very unlike Palin’s…and to see them try to come up with a legitimate argument in support of all this, is almost painful to watch.
However, it appears the ’spinning’ is beginning to backfire in a very big way.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Heck, even Mike Huckabee is siding with Obama on the lipstick-on-a-pig bullshit. Republicans, strike that all Americans, should all be absolutely embarassed of the campaign McCain is running.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
This from Andrew Sullivan:
“McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.”
September 11th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Just to clarify here: the Broadband or Broadbands have posted under 5-10 “aliases,” or more specifically, 5-10 aliases are associated with the anon proxy IP addresses used by the Broadbands.
I’m not going to detail out of some concern for privacy, but given the the content of the various posts, I find it relatively unlikely that the Broadbands are a bunch of MooCows making fun in the middle of the night.
The poster(s) have also demonstrated a reasonable knowledge of the Campus, enough to assume they’ve spent time there– and enough to reasonably imitate a MooCow parody.
The anon proxy services are not free, and represent a non-trivial investment on the posters’ part. The particular proxies are also associated with a series of questionable activities.
I tend towards supporting privacy, so I won’t go farther, but for those who haven’t noticed, the Broadbands have also at the very least skirted the edges of acceptable behavior. “Anonymouse,” indeed.
Finally, while the resources involved in tracking such activities to their source are not trivial, now may be the time to make it clear that they are certainly within the capacity of Williams alums.
(P.S. I suspect an editor simply deleted the double post, above)
September 11th, 2008 at 2:43 am
The world will not end if McCain is President.
In point of fact, the restless world of irrational states will subdue their outpouring of affection for our state with McCain’s victory. They will in fact, adhere to principle, for the principle of governance is reason and with it we prevail. To do otherwise, will cost us severely. We are not a passive people. We believe in individual and the sovereign rights of all.
McCain has experience of pain and failure and understands what it means to succeed. Picking Obama is merely playing into the hands of those who wish to use him and thus subject us as a nation to greater pain rather than prosperity of personal productivity in the future.
This argument is not about Europe, but America. The United States stands apart from Europe and the rest of the world. Not in arrogance alone, but in deed, direction and purpose.
God Bless this State and our People.