• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Xisiqomelir said:
Apparently, your cognitive dissonance hasn't been distilled enough. Go watch Hannity for a few hours and you'll be able to spin this.

I just don't see what's to spin in that specific quote. Republicans would prefer cold, soulless robots while Democrats prefer someone with a conscious and heart. Isn't that always the back and forth re: the Supreme Court, more or less?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Deku said:
Looking at the pools, the articles, the free pass Palin is getting and the shift in GAF attitudes from exhuberance and big broad strokes of how Obama is going to win to talking about really marginal stuff about the election like how much coverage Obama is getting or who said what where. Things that individually would have no impact at all.


Ask me about this again on Monday.
 

capslock

Is jealous of Matlock's emoticon
ChrisGoldstein said:
All this makes me think Biden was a horrible pick.

You obviously no little of him nor have heard him speak. Biden is a great pick because he is someone who can be president from day 1, not someone who was selected for cynical reasons.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
Ask me about this again on Monday.

Or a week after that.

Using GAF to effectively gauge anything but front runner enthusiasm at any given moment is an exercise in futility. Anybody who does so is being foolish.
 
Pakkidis said:
Still think this is the best Obama commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcRA2AZsR2Q
It's a very inspirational video, and I agree it's a great ad: it should speak to every viewer, since they whole ad is focused on the average American, wanting the actively participate in making his/her country better. BUT this ad also is in line of the "Obama cult, jesus complex, ..." idea the republicans exploit, so I'm fairly sure this ad could backfire with people who are not pro-Obama yet.


Edit: And there has to be a lot more media focus on Biden, goddamned!! ><
 

Diablos

Member
ChrisGoldstein said:
All this makes me think Biden was a horrible pick.
Who else should he have picked?

An unknown (to most Americans at least)? If it was a man no one would have cared, if it was a woman they would all be complaining that it's a weak answer to Hillary.

And, I'm telling you, Hillary probably did not want to be VP. Depending on if Obama wins or loses will determine when she will tell everyone. Clintons don't run for Vice President, they run for President. It's all or nothing. She made this as clear as can be during the long, bitter primary season.

Hillary can be just as if not more effective than VP as being a Senator from New York from when she first won in 2000 until she kicks the bucket (or comes close enough). Most VP's really do not have much power over anything and she knows this. Hillary can be just as big of a spokesperson/leader for Obama's health care initiatives in the Senate as she could as VP. She's Hillary Clinton, she has already proven herself; her name speaks louder than having the title of Vice President.
 

Rugasuki

Member

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Can someone explain to me how picking Hillary Clinton was an automatic win for Obama?
 
Diablos said:
Who else should he have picked?

An unknown (to most Americans at least)? If it was a man no one would have cared, if it was a woman they would all be complaining that it's a weak answer to Hillary.

And, I'm telling you, Hillary probably did not want to be VP. Depending on if Obama wins or loses will determine when she will tell everyone. Clintons don't run for Vice President, they run for President. It's all or nothing. She made this as clear as can be during the long, bitter primary season.

Hillary can be just as if not more effective than VP as being a Senator from New York from when she first won in 2000 until she kicks the bucket (or comes close enough). Most VP's really do not have much power over anything and she knows this. Hillary can be just as big of a spokesperson/leader for Obama's health care initiatives in the Senate as she could as VP. She's Hillary Clinton, she has already proven herself; her name speaks louder than having the title of Vice President.
Too bad. Obama-Clinton would probably be a real hit. It's all just guess work since we'll never actually know though.
 

Xisiqomelir

Member
bob_arctor said:
I just don't see what's to spin in that specific quote. Republicans would prefer cold, soulless robots while Democrats prefer someone with a conscious and heart. Isn't that always the back and forth re: the Supreme Court, more or less?

I parse "should rule on what is in the Constitution" as "decide what the Constitution says", not "make judgements based on the Constitution".
 
Would it really be a big hit? For some reason I think that if that were the case the Clinton fans would be MORE pissed off than what has actually happened.
 

Zeliard

Member
BoboBrazil said:
Having Hilary on the ticket means Palin would have never been picked.

I really don't think Palin is as consequential and significant as some of you make it out to be. She's just the "hot", new thing right now and polls are reflecting that, but she'll start fading away soon enough as more people start to see what she's actually all about.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Can someone explain to me how picking Hillary Clinton was an automatic win for Obama?

Nothing is automatic but it would have potentially even more highly motivated the base which can be powerful and served as a stronger counterpoint to Palin. I think the Mccain bump is partially due to the base being so energized and evangelical (in the promoting the ticket sense not the religious one). That enthusiasm can sometimes spread from the base to independents. A Hillary attack on Palin as VP is also more significant than a Senator clinton attack on Palin. But it doesn't matter and is moot at this point. Obama and Biden can still win. They just have to be more aggressive and pick an issue and focus on it so the American people can understand the message a bit more. You have to simplify your attack and message in president campaigns so the voter has at least one clear idea about why he is voting for you when he steps in that booth.
 
imo, it wouldn't have matter if Obama picked Hillary, McCain and the Republicans always find some way to bring the election down to its deeply cynical levels no matter who he picked....more PUMA stories...more about Bill and Hillary's negatives....who knows.
 
BrandNew said:
Would it really be a big hit? For some reason I think that if that were the case the Clinton fans would be MORE pissed off than what has actually happened.

No. I can tell you as a Clinton fan I wanted it to happen although I knew it wasn't going to happen. It is what it is. Arguing the past isn't going to change the future.
 
BotoxAgent said:
imo, it wouldn't have matter if Obama picked Hillary, McCain and the Republicans always find some way to bring the election down to its deeply cynical levels no matter who he picked....more PUMA stories...more about Bill and Hillary's negatives....who knows.

Yep.

There should be no illusions about this. Republicans play dirty, they play for keeps, and they use whatever works to sink their opponent in the muck.

Fool me once... shame on you... can't... can't be fooled again.
 

HylianTom

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Can someone explain to me how picking Hillary Clinton was an automatic win for Obama?

This is not necessarily my belief, but here's how the theory goes:
- Women generally veer to the Democratic side. Pick Hillary, and this preference would have been accelerated. She's not an extremist (*cough*Palin*cough*), so many more women would've jumped onto this ticket without hesitation. You think we saw a gender gap in the 90's? Ha!
- Her selection would've united the party more than any other one. It also would've driven Republican turnout. However, since this is supposedly a "get-out-your-base" election, and given that the Democrats have seen their voter rolls increase notably while Republicans' numbers have dropped notably, the net effect would've been in favor of the Dems.
- The Clintons supposedly appeal to "working class" "Reagan" white folks somewhere in that mushy middle, so it would've made the ticket more appealing to swing voters.
- The media would've been captivated with this story. Obama AND the Clintons? That's lots of free airtime.
- McCain wouldn't've picked a woman, going with one of his other, more self-poisonous options.

That's how it supposedly would've worked. Some I can see, some I can't.
 

Fatalah

Member
The Republicans would have used hours of footage showing Hillary bashing Obama for being such a bad pick during the Democratic Primaries.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Nothing is automatic but it would have potentially even more highly motivated the base which can be powerful and served as a stronger counterpoint to Palin. I think the Mccain bump is partially due to the base being so energized and evangelical (in the promoting the ticket sense not the religious one). That enthusiasm can sometimes spread from the base to independents. A Hillary attack on Palin as VP is also more significant than a Senator clinton attack on Palin. But it doesn't matter and is moot at this point. Obama and Biden can still win. They just have to be more aggressive and pick an issue and focus on it so the American people can understand the message a bit more.


But here's the thing. Palin wouldn't have been selected ad mccains running mate if that were the case. It also would have flown in the face of his change message. On top of that the clintons would have energized the GOP base equally as much as palin. The keep the clintons out of the white house meme would have been strong
 
HylianTom said:
The media would've been captivated with this story. Obama AND the Clintons? That's lots of free airtime.

And that's an underestimated effect. While people may have thought it was petty and silly the Obama Hillary stuff drove coverage. Ever since that dynamic has been missing Obama has struggled to wrest away the narrative and coverage from Mccain. Of course part of this is simply due to the convention being so close obviously and in a week or two I'm sure things will reset but I'm kind of scared Palin is going to keep generating media attention and steal airtime whether it be through fluff pieces or not.
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Zeliard said:
Amount raised $84,879.11

Is that actually how much GAF has raised?? At the bottom it has 2.5k raised by GAF, on the meter, but nearly 85k is what it shows for "amount raised" by GAF.

No. There's a bundler in the group somewhere that has raised over $70,000, and he's in a TON of groups for some reason.
 
Hmm think Obama is/was more concerned with an effective presidency than he was/is with a "sure win" that would have resulted from Clinton as vp(debatable anyway).
 

Deku

Banned
My concern has to do with the fact that McCain's VP pick has the hype Obama had in the primaries and could well ride it to election day.

Why does it matter. Being hyped infer several advantages, including being given the benefit of the doubt, and a cult of personality, kind of like how a lot of people just like Obama.

The problem for Obama is, Palin has made him old news to some in the electorate and they could be the cruicial votes he needs.
 
Deku said:
My concern has to do with the fact that McCain's VP pick has the hype Obama had in the primaries and could well ride it to election day.

Why does it matter. Being hyped infer several advantages, including being given the benefit of the doubt, and a cult of personality, kind of like how a lot of people just like Obama.

The problem for Obama is, Palin has made him old news to some in the electorate and they could be the cruicial votes he needs.

The news cycle is too fast for that to work long term.
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
mckmas8808 said:
Can someone explain to me how picking Hillary Clinton was an automatic win for Obama?


Party unification. No wedge, etc, etc. I don't think it would have been a blow out, but the polls wouldn't be as close as they are right now, with McCain having the upper hand.
 

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Byakuya769 said:
Hmm think Obama is/was more concerned with an effective presidency than he was/is with a "sure win" that would have resulted from Clinton as vp(debatable anyway).


This is what I've always said.

Obama picked someone who would make him a better president
McCain picked someone who would make him a better candidate
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
NullPointer said:
There should be no illusions about this. Republicans play dirty, they play for keeps, and they use whatever works to sink their opponent in the muck.

Because, clearly, dirty politics is a one-sided affair.
 

Crayon Shinchan

Aquafina Fanboy
Back from a 1 week ban...

and it's been fun watching you guys panic and meltdown a bit... but in the end all for nought.

Obama is a smart player. He's killing it where he needs to be killing it; in electoral votes.

To an extent, Obama won the primaries not just because he was charismatic and preached an appealing message, without compromising his values (which are all excellent points of his), but because his campaign was run incredibly tightly; they attacked where they needed to attack, put resources out where it was needed, created an unprecedented grass roots movements, to affect change in areas that were outside the field of view of their opponents. He played the game for what mattered (delegate count), and planned a solid strategy around it, to shut out one of the most powerful brand name in politics with a huge starting advantage.

With McCain, unlike with Hilary, he's going to have an even bigger advantage; there won't be a long drawn out process where people in other states get to see what happens previously; everyone votes at the same time. Why's it an advantage? Well for one, it doesn't give the media weeks and months to hammer on Obama creating changing opinions as they try to fuel a ratings based agenda... another is that the McCain campaign will not have enough time to adapt appropriately until it's far too late.

The bump that McCain recieved post convention and post Palin is all too clear that they're not running any sort of tight campaign; the guy is struggling against internal party politics, getting 2 of his VP picks vetoed, before ignoring the party's choice (pawlenty) and going for a last ditched, unvetted 'maverick'.
Kudos to them for having spun it so well given what little material they had... but they really come off as repulsive as a result to any decent and sane individual; they've polarized things heavily in the last week... and it's not been to their advantage...

Sure they shored up their base, but their base are in areas that would've already voted red. Number of votes are important... but as 2000 showed us, electoral votes are what win this game.

So now they have the red states locked in, and a heavy division in swing states... what then? Well the debates will roll about, and Obama will have a few more weeks to invest heavily in swing states with localised issues and negative ads depending on state. He and Biden will destroy their opponents in the debates on an objective level, but as the media have already proven, they're capable of distorting reality; they can literally tell viewers the beat down McCain or Palin just recieved was in fact not a beat down, but an unexpectedly strong performance by them, with an unexpectedly weak performance from Obama/Biden.

In the mean time... we have a lot of historical firsts going on; this is the first time that the internet has been so widespread; a transparent medium of communication among the youth, after 8 years of a disastrous government... that is sure to change the way the game is played more than the polls can indicate. As well as historical and analytical data pointing towards a win for the democrats.

Well guys, this change has been powered by the likes of you; we're nearly there, these long 8 years we've endured, and the past year we've hoped like hell... we're nearly there... if we keep pushing a little further... create discussions with friends and colleagues, get out and volunteer for a little community organizing, donate, etc... we'll finally be able to cast off this pall on America's... nay, the world's progress in the last 8 years.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
But here's the thing. Palin wouldn't have been selected ad mccains running mate if that were the case. It also would have flown in the face of his change message. On top of that the clintons would have energized the GOP base equally as much as palin. The keep the clintons out of the white house meme would have been strong


Who literally knows what Mccain would have done.I could see it either way that he would have gone in the same direction or picked someone else but who knows. As far as energizing the opposition base, I don't really buy into that argument. Is there an effect? Yes. Obviously. Hence Obama's fundraising on the night of the speech but I think you always energize your base first and that has the most effect and you let the chips fall where they may. Obama was never going to steal this election imo because Republicans didn't go vote. They always go vote. You just have to win enough of them like Bill Clinton did to blunt the impact.

Now all that being said I thought the Democratic convention was wonderful. I thought Obama did a masterful job of incorporating the Clintons but still maintaining control of the convention. He literally did nothing wrong at the convention imo and he did everything right. But somtimes the moves you don't make are as important analysis wise as the moves you did make.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
O Reilly says there was 20% more revenue under Bush than Clinton, according to his statistics. Anyone have an actual source for this?

EDIT-Because this says otherwise:

fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C2-Government-Spending-Grew-Faster.gif
What are those numbers??

Are they absolute or rate of increase?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
If Palin is stealing air time then that means McCain is being talked about less too.

There's never been a point in American history where a VP pick drove the entire country behind a failing candidate.



And Gallup polls release in about 7 minutes!!!!

Im calling McCain +4. What about you guys?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
mckmas8808 said:
If Palin is stealing air time then that means McCain is being talked about less too.

There's never been a point in American history where a VP pick drove the entire country behind a failing candidate.



And Gallup polls release in about 7 minutes!!!!

Im calling McCain +4. What about you guys?
I think McCain will tick up one more time, maybe to +6, then decline to near tied by the weekend. (Reverting to what most other national polls show - a tied race.)
Edit: Holding steady at 5. Could be a sign that it's peaked.

080909DailyUpdateGraph1_h7v5a2.gif
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Crayon Shinchan said:
The bump that McCain recieved post convention and post Palin is all too clear that they're not running any sort of tight campaign; the guy is struggling against internal party politics, getting 2 of his VP picks vetoed, before ignoring the party's choice (pawlenty) and going for a last ditched, unvetted 'maverick'.
Kudos to them for having spun it so well given what little material they had... but they really come off as repulsive as a result to any decent and sane individual; they've polarized things heavily in the last week... and it's not been to their advantage...

Before we start:

:lol

So let me get this straight: McCain gets a nice bump in the polls (leading in many of them), beats Obama's speech ratings-wise, manages to inject some sort of excitement into the party while unifying it with the VP pick, and that's the analysis he gets from you?

And a huge EL OH EL at this comment:

they've polarized things heavily in the last week... and it's not been to their advantage...

Polarized who? Liberal poly-sci grads and coffee house regulars? He's leading with Independents, for Christ's sake!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx
 

ronito

Member
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/09/news/economy/cbo_budget_update/index.htm?cnn=yes
The budget deficit will jump by $246 billion to $407 billion this year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates in a report released Tuesday.

"Over the long run, growing budget deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt would lead to slower economic growth," the agency said.

Last year, the budget deficit was $161 billion. The government's fiscal year ends Sept. 30. The agency attributes the jump to "a substantial increase in spending and a halt in the growth of tax revenues."
Republicans no doubt will come out and say "See? This is because that tax break we gave the rich? It wasn't BIG ENOUGH!! Quick cut more taxes!!!"
 

mclem

Member
Can we turn something on its head?

It's quite common to talk about Obama's path to victory, usually involving Iowa, New Mexico and some other stuff; indeed, there's such a range of 'other stuff' that the breadth of options are quite hard to keep track of.

What if we turned it around? What are *McCain's* paths to victory, and how blockable are they by the Obama campaign? Perhaps it's easier to think of the situation in terms of Obama not losing? I'd guess that McCain's options are a bit fewer; just how many swing states does he need to cap?
 

Fatalah

Member
Former NYC Mayor, who previously campaigned for Bush in '04, is now for Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Koch_backs_Obama_calls_Palin_scary.html

What made Koch switch?
"The designation of Palin to be vice president," he said. "She's scary."

Koch is a member of a set of secular, swing-voting Jewish Democrats who may have been pushed away by the selection of Palin, and his endorsement may be a marker of an opportunity for Obama to strengthen his campaign among older Jewish voters in Florida.


I don't know if Koch is in good enough health to campaign in Florida again, but that would be helpful. He'd be able to reach all the transplanted New Yorkers he was mayor for many years ago.
 

thefro

Member
Everyone really just needs to chill... once McCain's bounce recedes we'll be exactly where we were at before the conventions at worst.

The Gallup poll is the junky one that showed McCain up 10 points, of course the internals (which have a huge MOE) are going to be whacky.

Ron Paul's on the ballot in MT and Palin's put Florida back into play for Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom