-
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
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
Nice research.Azih said:
speculawyer
Member
It was more of a selection of scandals the people are most well-known for. Although it is hard to choose with Bush since one could also pick the lack of WMDs or wireless wiretapping.Huzah said:
Huzah said:
What? Points? 'My team'?
Azih said:
Using real world examples to prove tax vs. prosperity is a iffy proposition as there are many many reasons why some cities/states/countries are properous and some are not, ie. a port city with good weather can afford to tax alot higher than a land locked city that is frozen half of the year.
Just remember taxes give resources to the government to decide how best to spend it. Big government people think the government can spend it better, small government people think the government can't spend it better.
From a UK perspective I'm finding this all fascinating. It's so very different to politics over here, and the conferences especially were more like a WWE primetime Wrestling show than a political party conference!
The Republican conference especially, with all it's flagwaving, and the politics of fear, was mindboggling to watch. Have they no shame?
I do think the Democrats could be shooting themselves in the foot a bit with hyping Obaama up as the Messiah and that change is 'expected' of America. The stadium with the mock Whitehouse behind him was highly silly.
That sort of approach (on a far lesser scale though) is what lost Labour the election before Tony Blair took over. They were expected to win by a landslide, but they had this massive conference just before the election which came across as a victory celebration before the election had even taken place. And the British public turned on them, giving the Tories another term.
What are the polls like at the moment? My impression is this is going to a VERY close election. Literally 50:50 close. You have 2 polar opposite approaches - hope versus fear. And that splits the general population down the middle.
The Republican conference especially, with all it's flagwaving, and the politics of fear, was mindboggling to watch. Have they no shame?
I do think the Democrats could be shooting themselves in the foot a bit with hyping Obaama up as the Messiah and that change is 'expected' of America. The stadium with the mock Whitehouse behind him was highly silly.
That sort of approach (on a far lesser scale though) is what lost Labour the election before Tony Blair took over. They were expected to win by a landslide, but they had this massive conference just before the election which came across as a victory celebration before the election had even taken place. And the British public turned on them, giving the Tories another term.
What are the polls like at the moment? My impression is this is going to a VERY close election. Literally 50:50 close. You have 2 polar opposite approaches - hope versus fear. And that splits the general population down the middle.
Mahadev
Member
Btw I don't know if this has been mentioned but you should really check Colbert's responce to Giuliani's idiotic speech. Not only it's hilarious and very sarcastic but he also makes a good point.
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=180323
Go to 4:25
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=180323
Go to 4:25
I'm a bit concerned that the Dems are virtually ignoring Palin. I believe this is a HUGE mistake. Hillary said she's not going to attack Palin. Barack and Biden have been essentially ignoring her. What are they going to let her do, build herself up and attack when it's too late? SOMEBODY needs to address her, and it's not something I would leave up to the media to do.
RobotChant
Member
talking about the issues matter little when you have no credibility. The GOP is going right at that with the no experience talk.
The angle shouldn't have been the poorly vetted Palin. It should be the Maverick loses to the puppet master, settles for a pick to appease the Bush crowd. You can't continue to just say "McCain, more of the same" because this is no longer a McCain/Palin ticket, this is the Palin/McCain ticket. You have to find a way to tie her into what has happened the past 8 years.
It also needs to be part of their dialogue that McCain had another pick in mind, but when the pressure came, he gave up. The Dems need to hammer in the message that a guy who can't fend off the lobbyist and special interest groups who run his campaign to get his own guy on the ticket, how will he do it once in the white house.
Without addressing Palin, they are ignoring the reason why McCain can win.
The angle shouldn't have been the poorly vetted Palin. It should be the Maverick loses to the puppet master, settles for a pick to appease the Bush crowd. You can't continue to just say "McCain, more of the same" because this is no longer a McCain/Palin ticket, this is the Palin/McCain ticket. You have to find a way to tie her into what has happened the past 8 years.
It also needs to be part of their dialogue that McCain had another pick in mind, but when the pressure came, he gave up. The Dems need to hammer in the message that a guy who can't fend off the lobbyist and special interest groups who run his campaign to get his own guy on the ticket, how will he do it once in the white house.
Without addressing Palin, they are ignoring the reason why McCain can win.
speculawyer said:
Me: Stretch to be a scandal.
Someoneelse: Didn't stop other would be scandals (lists them). Politics is tuff.
Me: I'd say monica was def a scandal and not a stretch.
You: Compare various scandals of GOP and DEM politicians infering that DEM politicians only have personal scandals which are no big deal unlike GOP who commit the real scandals.
Yeah, don't underestimate Paiin.
Her flaws are probably her strong point actually, and the more they try to attack issues about her family etc. the more the general public will identify with her. She doesn't need to be perfect as a VP, and I think McCain chose her precisely for that reason.
At a time when people feel detached from politics, if people feel they have someone they perceive as a strong president accompanied by someone they can relate to/identify with, that's a VERY powerful combination. When you throw in some fear, scaremongering about the presidential candidate on the other side on top of it, that's quite potent.
If McCain doees win it, it will be Palin that got it for him. They shouldn't underestimate her appeal. She's quite a clever choice.
Her flaws are probably her strong point actually, and the more they try to attack issues about her family etc. the more the general public will identify with her. She doesn't need to be perfect as a VP, and I think McCain chose her precisely for that reason.
At a time when people feel detached from politics, if people feel they have someone they perceive as a strong president accompanied by someone they can relate to/identify with, that's a VERY powerful combination. When you throw in some fear, scaremongering about the presidential candidate on the other side on top of it, that's quite potent.
If McCain doees win it, it will be Palin that got it for him. They shouldn't underestimate her appeal. She's quite a clever choice.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
http://www.thedailyshow.com/ - it's the third video "John McCain: Reformed Maverick".Slurpy said:
RobotChant said:
Well the hints are that the inner McCain campaign managers wanted Pawlentry but McCain nixed that, while McCain wanted Leiberman while Rove nixed that. Though Leiberman would of been an awful pick, and there's noway you can argue that.
It is true that the DEM needs to continue tieing McCain to Bush admin, constantly attacking the number 2 on the ticket like they have been is kind of silly if you think about it. Although I think Obama's campaign have gotten the message and are refocusing on McCain.
she's been beaten to shit. not much else can be done. if she re-emerges in a week, they can always bring her issues back into the picture.kevm3 said:
the media will continue to occasionally defecate on her, even if the democrats are focusing on other things. energy should be placed largely on mccain and the gop in general. i think if they focus too much on palin, people will grow sympathetic to her. they should just let the media rattle around the sordid controversies
Chrono said:How would people in the UK react to Plain? Candidates repeatedly lying in interviews and speeches? Is it always issues that are discussed or does irrational and emotional identity wars and the like come in?
I'm really curious .
Palin wouldn't be taken seriously over here at all. Politics is so totally different. Women in politics over here are still meant to be Thatcher
Strong, issue-driven, intelligent, not weak etc. We only have token female politicians around at the moment, they are all just fluff to show 'equality' and no one pays any attention to what they say.Someone like Thatcher would probably still do really well at the moment, Tony Blair and New Labour destroyed everyone's trust in politcians, especially over Iraq. New Labour was all about spin, and presentation, hiding the issues and instead talking about vague stuff like "Change". The parallels with Obama are very strong actually. And he has to be very careful about promising too much. No one over here believes ANYTHING politicans say at the moment, on either side.
Tony Blair also messed up by not delivering on that change he promised, in a way that was perceivable to the public. Everyone is VERY disillusioned with Labour. And if someone turned up like Thatcher basically saying "This is bullshit", people would probably vote for it in droves, even if it was very right-wing. People are fed up of politicians trying to please everyone.
As far as American politics works though, I can see why McCain chose Palin as I explained above. I believe she is the big threat to Obama winning actually, and they are attacking her all wrong. She is meant to seem more like a member of the public, and the more they point out her flaws, the more people will rally behind her. Palin is basically a trap and a distraction, and could be highly effective. The best thing they could do probably, is ignore her.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70
(Sorry if old)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70
(Sorry if old)
Alyssa DeJour said:
Besides the pandering PoW thing this kinda plays to exactly what McCain said in his speech on thursday, how the PoW experience shaped his views and himself from then on, while before then he was a hot headed selfish wild boy.
Though I think we all know the constant POW POW is eye roll inducing.
I think for the most part, you'd be unable to really qualify that.
Every time someone says something like "why can't Obama close the deal", this comes with the some sort of bizarre retardation that overlooks the fact that Obama has been ahead of McCain in most polls for months. The question never is "Why can't McCain beat Obama?", because we know that answer. We spin this as some indictment of Obama instead, because it makes a better story.
It is not "LIBERALS" who are delusional. Most indicators suggest Obama WILL win, no matter what your perspective on politics are. If he loses, it won't be out of some self-delusion that is possessed by the extreme left. It'll be out of some unexpected gaffe that occurs from now until election day, or by some vicious narrative or by some unspoken majority of rednecks.
By all viable metrics, this is a good time to be a Democrat.
Every time someone says something like "why can't Obama close the deal", this comes with the some sort of bizarre retardation that overlooks the fact that Obama has been ahead of McCain in most polls for months. The question never is "Why can't McCain beat Obama?", because we know that answer. We spin this as some indictment of Obama instead, because it makes a better story.
It is not "LIBERALS" who are delusional. Most indicators suggest Obama WILL win, no matter what your perspective on politics are. If he loses, it won't be out of some self-delusion that is possessed by the extreme left. It'll be out of some unexpected gaffe that occurs from now until election day, or by some vicious narrative or by some unspoken majority of rednecks.
By all viable metrics, this is a good time to be a Democrat.
Chiggs
Gold Member
Amir0x said:
That's all well and good, except this is Wrinkly Old McCain we're talking about. I think Bill Maher said it best this week when when commented that "this isn't Dole in '96 shuffling off in defeat." It's virtually a dead heat. Palin's speech, as far as ratings go, was just under Obama's, and the entire Republican convention, against all odds, was also a resounding ratings success.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D930S7U81&show_article=1
And then there's the other little issue about the right actually turning out to vote. Organization skills, Christian brainwashing...whatever you want to call it. They simply go out and vote.
On this forum? Going to disagree. I still see the occasional blowout nonsense. Are they even paying attention?
Sure, compelling ticket, some momentum with the last 8 years. I'm not going to disagree with that at all. It's just not going to be a lopsided affair.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Amir0x said:
Really? Give McCain Ohio and Florida, because I mean really. IIRC all Obama has to do to lose is not convert Missouri, Colorado, or Nevada. The popular vote might be clear, but the election is far from determined.
Chiggs said:
You must know your enemy. And give $10,000,000 when they bandy about their negative fearmongering bullshit.
In other words, Palin was always going to have these ratings. She was new and a curiosity and America loves a good story. She is a good story. But merely being watched does not prove that there is positive movement. The polls will obviously bounce in this general direction for a week or so, but the bitter taste left in the mouths of people who desire truth and enjoy helping their community is not going to evaporate.
Chiggs said:
Just like Obama's historic GOTV drive, or the insane increases in Democratic registration that has occurred over the primary season? Republicans are positively fucking TERRIFIED at what is going on, even if it's in private. This is not Kerry, this is not Gore. Obama has a ridiculously powerful grasp of the grassroots movement and he will not be undone by Christian puppets.
Chiggs said:
It won't be, this country is too split ideologically. But we can all mostly agree on one thing: The Bush years were atrocious, and the Republican brand at the moment is shit. Most Americans would agree with these two parts, as polls suggest.
So the victory is most certainly leaning in one direction. "Resoundingly", no.
Son of Godzilla said:
No no. You misunderstood. By any metric available - how voters identify themselves politically, the economy, unpopular president, unpopular war - Obama WILL win. The odds are so stacked against McCain that it's absurd. If he wins, it will be amazing. And a sign of dark times to come.
LOLed last night. For yet another election year, TDS is the only "news" show to dig into video archive footage. In 2004, they tore Dubya a new one just on quotes from the 2000 presidential debates. This is why Jon Stewart was right to go on Crossfire and blast those guys. TDS is a comedy show, but it's the only place you'll see candidates called out on blatant hypocrisy. It's embarassing b/c that file footage comes from the MSM, not the TDS archives.Alyssa DeJour said:
PEACE.I'm not convinced that Obama will win by blowout (or win at all), but I absolutely disagree that Obama should be going after Palin. If he goes after her experience, he's being hypocritical. If he attacks the scandals that've been coming out, he's getting into personal stuff AND piling on when he should let the media attack for him. If he talks about her only being a heartbeat away from the presidency, he's playing the age card.Chiggs said:
There are very few politically safe attacks for him to make on Palin, and you don't take a risk attacking the person on the bottom of the ticket. It just doesn't make sense. Leave the media to talk endlessly about her scandals, and leave Biden to rip into her, Obama should be focused on getting out the vote, helping people learn what he's about, and attacking McCain.
typhonsentra
Banned
Armchair campaign managers are wrong on this one, he's right to focus on McCain or Hillary and let the media continue to vet Palin the way McCain did during the primaries. Saying anything himself now will just bring negative attention to him. Wait to save those attacks for when you need it, not when you're still ahead in the polls.
The dems have to control the Palin narrative before the GOP is able to establish her. It's a dumb move to sit back and allow the enemy to gain strength when you have an opportunity to control her now. I woudln't count on the media to handle Palin. They change directions with the wind and can blow Palin up as an all star just as quickly as they tore her down. You handle her now while she's down by controlling her narrative. Pound her on her 'what does a VP do statements. Get on her about not knowing about Iraq.' McCain absolutely cannot win this without Palin, so if you control her, you win this election. We already know McCain is Bush 2.0 yada yada, It's Palin that can be the gamechanger. Ignoring her could be.. I'll even go as far to say WILL be disasterous. She's the "unknown' that can give legitimacy in the mind ofvoters of 'change.'
Chiggs said:
I've only recently started following this thread because I noticed that the Democrats were still neck and neck with the Republicans, when the gap should be much wider considering that they are doing a much better job in addressing the issues, secondly in terms of having a better solution to said issues, and finally in understanding the issues to greater depth.
I followed the thread to see exactly why this is the case.
Since following it around a week ago, I don't remember seeing many people claiming a landslide for Obama. I think I've seen one or two, but wouldn't consider that "quite a few" or "a throng of liberals" by any definition of those phrases.
So I think it is up to you to post some examples here.
As far as Palin is concerned, I think the Democrats should simply include her when they compare McCain to Bush. Drawing a parallel between Palin and Bush shouldn't be hard at all.
Drawing a parallel between a cut-throat Palin, and a cut-throat Cheney, would be even easier.
Socreges said:
It has been funny, but it has become more and more bias ever since 2004. Both parties are completely retarded and should be fair game, however they still try to make the Democrats look like they are somehow the good guys who will magically make America ten times better. Notice how when they make "jokes" about Obama it is always a joke about how great he is and a play on the whole savior of the party thing. When they make fun of McCain it is more about incompetence, scandal, metal abilities and the like. I could be wrong but I remember them being way more impartial during the 2000 election and it won them a ton of awards and was hilarious, they should go back to it rather than trying to swing votes for whatever reason. Also, Jon Stewart doesn't seem to know what an earmark is.
typhonsentra
Banned
More on what I was talking about yesterday:
For those of you uninterested in reading her dreck the concept is simple and an old standby for anyone losing an argument: Pick out a small aspect of a true story that isn't true and focus on that rather than the big issue. The article from Anchorage she linked to clearly states the librarian was fired due to lack of loyalty and Malkin even quotes it but.... she doesn't view it as suspicious. Oh, they also made this, which she uses in almost every post now!
It's foolish to wait until the GOP establishes Palin as a credible candidate to the masses before attacking her. When you attack her then, you start to look desperate. They need to make her look incompetent by tying her pick into McCain's judgment. "McCain doesn't know much about the economy and Palin has no opinion on the Iraq war. Is this a team you can trust to lead America the next 4 years?"
the Dems have to get her now. Why do you think the republicans shooed her away to Alaska and has her avoiding interviews? So they can 'train her' so that she'll have a positive narrative in the media. Do NOT depend on the media to handle Palin. They can change directions immediately. I'm not saying to completely focus on Palin, but you need to knock her while knocking McCain. McCain can't win without Palin, so you take her out of the game, and you take the election. There are ways to attack her without looking 'scared'. Just simply point out areas where she's not competent.
the Dems have to get her now. Why do you think the republicans shooed her away to Alaska and has her avoiding interviews? So they can 'train her' so that she'll have a positive narrative in the media. Do NOT depend on the media to handle Palin. They can change directions immediately. I'm not saying to completely focus on Palin, but you need to knock her while knocking McCain. McCain can't win without Palin, so you take her out of the game, and you take the election. There are ways to attack her without looking 'scared'. Just simply point out areas where she's not competent.
Nash said:Palin wouldn't be taken seriously over here at all. Politics is so totally different. Women in politics over here are still meant to be Thatcher
Someone like Thatcher would probably still do really well at the moment, Tony Blair and New Labour destroyed everyone's trust in politcians, especially over Iraq. New Labour was all about spin, and presentation, hiding the issues and instead talking about vague stuff like "Change". The parallels with Obama are very strong actually. And he has to be very careful about promising too much. No one over here believes ANYTHING politicans say at the moment, on either side.
Tony Blair also messed up by not delivering on that change he promised, in a way that was perceivable to the public. Everyone is VERY disillusioned with Labour. And if someone turned up like Thatcher basically saying "This is bullshit", people would probably vote for it in droves, even if it was very right-wing. People are fed up of politicians trying to please everyone.
As far as American politics works though, I can see why McCain chose Palin as I explained above. I believe she is the big threat to Obama winning actually, and they are attacking her all wrong. She is meant to seem more like a member of the public, and the more they point out her flaws, the more people will rally behind her. Palin is basically a trap and a distraction, and could be highly effective. The best thing they could do probably, is ignore her.
Just like to clarify that the only thing that Blair did wrong was Iraq. From that point on he had alienated massive sections of his own party and the collapse began from there. Prior to Iraq New Labour remained popular, as popular as a poltical party can hope to be in the UK. He had won two landslides and comfortable victory in 2005 even with Iraq, without Iraq he would have won three landslides.
Palin would be savaged way beyond what you see TDS or Maher doing by the media in the UK. You would not be able to get away with the blatent lies and obfuscation displayed by the GOP.
worldrunover
Member
typhonsentra said:More on what I was talking about yesterday:
For those of you uninterested in reading her dreck the concept is simple and an old standby for anyone losing an argument: Pick out a small aspect of a true story that isn't true and focus on that rather than the big issue. The article from Anchorage she linked to clearly states the librarian was fired due to lack of loyalty and Malkin even quotes it but.... she doesn't view it as suspicious. Oh, they also made this, which she uses in almost every post now!
While she may or may not be right I refuse to listen to someone who defended American internment camps. She has no credibility with me.
syllogism said:
Astonishing. Historically, the days immediately following McCain's acceptance speech should be his strongest polling days of all year. Meanwhile, Obama's numbers hold steady at above 48%, despite several days of media-amplified blistering attacks.
It's not panic time for McCain's people yet. But if he can't get a small lead from his friggin' convention bounce in the next day or two, it's curtains for him.
On second thought, strike that - it's curtains for Michelle. As in White House curtains..
Can you imagine Pickles turning-over the keys to Michelle? :lol
HylianTom said:
I always just tell my friends and fellow volunteers to just keep pushing back. The problem is there is never any spine with Democrats, we get so disillusioned so quickly. This campaign is a eyeball infusion of hope and forced change. We have to push back, topple the walls and when they punch, punch ten times harder. Knock on a hundred more doors. Call a thousand more homes. Sign up a thousand more voters. Raise a thousand more dollars.
Eventually, at the end of all things, we may still lose. But if we don't fight for it, we will have deserved that loss.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Chiggs said:
The media is doing all the non-ignoring so there's no need yet for the Dems to go for her throat. How does that make any of us here delusional?
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=168923
Conan O'Brien told a rather, erm, interesting joke about the Palin daughter last night. Check-out the comments. :lol
Conan O'Brien told a rather, erm, interesting joke about the Palin daughter last night. Check-out the comments. :lol
bob_arctor said:
Besides the fact that I haven't seen anyone predict a blowout, particularly in terms of popular vote. Electoral has a CHANCE to not be close.
In an election about the economy, Obama/Biden should be emphasizing the scant attention paid to it at the RNC, and emphasizing McCain/Palin's agreement with W on every major economic issue. Which is precisely what they're doing.
Going negative is for when you're BEHIND, and hoping to bring your opponent down to your level. Hence the RNC.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked