• 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.
Amir0x said:
So Palin is known as "Denali" to the secret service, and her husband is known as "driller."

Can't make that stuff up. I still don't grasp the concept of having code names if everyone knows what they are.

What would your secret service codename be Amir0x
 
NewLib said:
Why do people still act like the rules are still set by Roe vs Wade? Casey has more value to it now and there are quite a few other Judicial decisions which makes Roe vs Wade basically, "Some types of abortions can be made legal."

I simply pointed that out because people seem to base their presidential votes on it, thinking that Roe v Wade somehow means there's an outbreak of women getting abortions for the fun of it 8 1/2 months into their pregnancy.
 

Diablos

Member
The Lamonster said:
lol and playing the Wright card
2d2bxnm.jpg


"I want to talk about Reverend Wright for just a second. I think it's still important. I know there's only two months until the election, but really, I think we need to talk about Reverend Wright for just a second here. It's so important and so many people are forgetting that. Reverend Wright! YEAH!!!!!"
 
DrEvil said:
I wanna make sure this doesn't get lost in the new page....I worked hard on this!
Honest criticism: "Dinosaurs" is a great idea for an ad, but I don't think you've chosen the clips to best illustrate it. In that first Palin clip, she's not talking about dinosaurs, right? Don't take quotes out of context in a political ad. Don't use a Matt Damon puppet labeled "F.A.G." from Team America. I think you could do something with just the "Does Sarah Palin believe dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago?" and making allusions to McCain and Palin as political dinosaurs themselves. The archeologist stuff is perfect. Drop the nuclear bomb reference and clips (unless you go in a "dinosaur thinking" viv New Cold War direction). You have a lot of talent.

And that font is horrible! I never want to see it again.
 

Diablos

Member
Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win

Wed Sep 10, 7:26 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.
ADVERTISEMENT

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.

He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.

But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."

"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.

His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-incumbency mood against the White House party.

"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.

Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.

And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910/ts_afp/usvotepollemory
 
Amir0x said:
So Palin is known as "Denali" to the secret service, and her husband is known as "driller."

Can't make that stuff up. I still don't grasp the concept of having code names if everyone knows what they are.

They're not as much for secrecy as they are for making it easier to be said/understood over a radio.
 
I'm surprised more of you aren't ripping people new ones in the "Why Bother Voting?" thread. There are some severely misguided people over there.
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
couple quick questions, maybe you guys can help me out with here. First of all I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about the election process. Every state has so many electoral votes, so if a candidate wins any given state (and it turns red, or blue) does that then mean that the candidate gains every electoral vote? or are the votes broken down and given out based on a percentage of voters voting either dem, or rep?

Secondly, has this come up already in this thread or previous?

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm

what do you guys make of this? true? skewed? false?
 

Hootie

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Matthews agrees that if Obama wins Ohio, it's over.

I don't know who wouldn't agree with that. He'd really have to screw up in a lot of other swing states for an Ohio win to not give him the election.
 

Zeliard

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Matthews agrees that if Obama wins Ohio, it's over.

I think if Obama wins one of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, it's over. Of course, he could very well lose them all.
 

Barrett2

Member
Extollere said:
couple quick questions, maybe you guys can help me out with here. First of all I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about the election process. Every state has so many electoral votes, so if a candidate wins any given state (and it turns red, or blue) does that then mean that the candidate gains every electoral vote? or are the votes broken down and given out based on a percentage of voters voting either dem, or rep?

Most states have a 'winner take all' system where whichever candidate receives the most popular votes gets ALL electoral votes, which is the number of that states Senators + House of Representative members. Nebraska.... and I think one other state (?) have proportional electoral vote distribution based on popular vote.
 
Dahellisdat said:
I'm surprised more of you aren't ripping people new ones in the "Why Bother Voting?" thread. There are some severely misguided people over there.
Well, "ripping people new ones" isn't going to make people want to vote.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
PhoenixDark said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/

why is obama laughing it up while walking towards Grounds Zero? If he really cares so much about America why is he laughing at us

It certainly looked like McCain was laughing it up as well. In fact the commentator even mentioned McCain and Obama having a laugh and talking to eachother. Are you retarded?
 

Hootie

Member
Zeliard said:
I think if Obama wins one of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, it's over. Of course, he could very well lose them all.

At this point I believe McCain will grab Virginia and Florida.

I'm very optimistic about Colorado, but Ohio is a complete toss-up and I think it'll be that way until Election day.
 

Gruco

Banned
Extollere said:
couple quick questions, maybe you guys can help me out with here. First of all I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about the election process. Every state has so many electoral votes, so if a candidate wins any given state (and it turns red, or blue) does that then mean that the candidate gains every electoral vote? or are the votes broken down and given out based on a percentage of voters voting either dem, or rep?
Winner take all in all states save NE and ME, which divide votes by district IIRC, but which has never been relevant.
 

Zeliard

Member
Dahellisdat said:
I'm surprised more of you aren't ripping people new ones in the "Why Bother Voting?" thread. There are some severely misguided people over there.

I was reading that thread for a while, but then it started annoying me so I stopped. If Obama loses it will be specifically because a section of young people think their vote doesn't mean shit. All of this enthusiasm won't matter if people don't actually go vote.

Xisiqomelir said:
This better not happen.

My personal fiscalconservatives.jpg:

Obamabet.jpg

I hate you. I'm seriously about to drop a large sum of money on an Obama win (been thinking about it for a while now) - if I lose, I'm blaming you.
 
NEW YORK (AFP) - A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.

IEM buyers might be following this dude more than the Intrade buyers.
 

Xisiqomelir

Member
Zeliard said:
I hate you. I'm seriously about to drop a large sum of money on an Obama win (been thinking about it for a while now) - if I lose, I'm blaming you.

Trust me, it will make Election Night at least 3000x more entertaining.
 

Cheebs

Member
Hootie said:
I don't know who wouldn't agree with that. He'd really have to screw up in a lot of other swing states for an Ohio win to not give him the election.
Also, he'd have to lose PA and MI if he wins Ohio to lose. And PA and Michigan are basically Ohio but 2-3% more democratic.
 

syllogism

Member
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
Then there's the headline tease:

EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY
 
random observation: I remember that I first saw DailyKOS back when someone posted a link to it during the Texas primaries. When you combine that with the orange color scheme, and the "star" logo at the top right, I always have to remind myself that it has no special relationship to the state of Texas...
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Hmm. The Kos/R2K poll of North Carolina has Obama behind by 17 points, similar to the SUSA poll. And in the same time frame, there are three other polls showing a 3-4 point race. A real schism there.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/11/14030/7529/890/595082

He shows the cross tabs, which is nice. Compared to the actual registered voters, men and whites are over-sampled a few points. Nothing huge. Must just be a tough state to read.
 

AniHawk

Member
Cheebs said:
Also, he'd have to lose PA and MI if he wins Ohio to lose. And PA and Michigan are basically Ohio but 2-3% more democratic.
Wisconsin was the scarily close one in 2004 though. Michigan and Pennsylvania went to Kerry relatively safely. WI was an 11k difference.
 

syllogism

Member
"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she told ABC News' Charles Gibson in an exclusive interview.
Unprovoked, really?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom