• 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.

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I don't know what it is about her, but part of it is that she is named "Campbell." If she were named something like Tina or Susan, she would not be so bewitching.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Chris does a better job hiding his bias but he usually seems more interested in the more romantic aspect of politics than any substantial discussion, although when he does discuss meaty topics he does a good job. Olberman is a disgrace, but I'm sure everyone disagrees with my disdain for his emotional bullshit.

Lets see how Gregory does. He kinda strikes me as a blank slate but now that he's in the big seat who knows. It's not like the anchors set the agenda/narrative anyway though

I feel roughly about the same about both of them. To me at least Olberman is at least upfront with his bias. Matthews likes to hide his behind being cute or faux historical. Also I'm not a fan of talking head yelling television that Hardball popularizes but whatever.
 

thekad

Banned
scorcho said:
and that's the attitude that could cost Democrats this election.
I know it's been said a million times already in this thread, but "no one has ever lost an election by underestimating the ntelligejce of the American people." I like that Obama has mostly spoken to the Ameican people as free-thinking, reasonable adults, but if he loses...I don't see a reason for the Democrats to run such a positive campaign again. Perhaps we aren't ready.
 
msnbc is great fun, but its just way biased.

it's all good in 2008, because they're on the right side of the fight. but as the years go on and the left makes a hiccup here and there and they rush to spin it, their credibility will be diminished.
 

laserbeam

Banned
NBC is finally coming to a wall where their own employees are complaining about the actions of Olbermann etc.

Brokaw and Williams are not happy with the direction Olbermann is trying to pull things and they have considerable pull with the corporation make no mistake.

This is not just a slap on the wrist over on air squabbles. They had a hell of alot more cast losing it on the air that are not being punished. Ratings showed Olbermann is a problem that while popular with a small set he does not attract large numbers.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
thekad said:
but if he loses...I don't see a reason for the Democrats to run such a positive campaign again. Perhaps we aren't ready.

The only way to improve the tone of the debate is to improve the tone of the debate. it won't have been worthless. And if he wins, that aspect will have propelled us forward again as a nation.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Ether_Snake said:
Well enjoy getting swift boated again! Hope for you it won't be another 4 years, which really means another 8 years.
And you enjoy that pyrrhic victory, or something.

This isn't about parties for me, Ether. I prefer the candidate that has shown the most honor and integrity to be in office, so naturally that means the tactics you described are off limits. I'd just as soon vote for the Republican candidate if the tables were turned and McCain wasn't the one being absolutely disingenuous with the American people.
 
if people are expecting Obama to win the "cable news chatter" battle, you're gonna be disappointed. I think that voter registration and turnout, state-to-state campaigning (I include targeted ads in this category), and debates will matter more. So I don't think there needs to be a huge emphasis on "attacking" in the Republican sense.

I know people like to say "bu bu, what about Kerry", but Kerry's campaign was nowhere near as energetic or organized as Obama's is right now. And even then, Kerry only lost by a few points nationally (and the election came down to one state). Also, as I've seen said before, most people just saw Kerry as "not Bush" so there wasn't really any motivation there. Obama is actually someone people seem to want to vote for, so that makes a big difference.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
kaching said:
And you enjoy that pyrrhic victory, or something.

This isn't about parties for me, Ether. I prefer the candidate that has shown the most honor and integrity in office, so naturally that means the tactics you described are off limits. I'd just as soon vote for the Republican candidate if the tables were turned and McCain wasn't the one being absolutely disingenuous with the American people.

Well you lost two elections in a row doing that. Like I said, enjoy the next four (I mean eight) years, along with what it will mean for the economy, for student debt, for job opportunities, for the schools' curriculum, for the foreign policy, for scientific research, and for the environment.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Ether_Snake said:
Well you lost two elections in a row doing that.
It'd be hard for me to lose two elections when I didn't vote in one of them. You're making a silly generalization here that's the fundamental flaw in your argument.

Like I said, enjoy the next four (I mean eight) years, along with what it will mean for the economy, for student debt, for job opportunities, for the schools' curriculum, for the foreign policy, for scientific research, and for the environment.
And like I said, likewise.
 

gkryhewy

Member
kaching said:
It'd be hard for me to lose two elections when I didn't vote in one of them. You're making a silly generalization here that's the fundamental flaw in your argument.

And like I said, likewise.

He is crazy (polls are for getting the public ready for bogus election results via electronic voting), but you are replying to him as if he were rational. I don't understand.
 

capslock

Is jealous of Matlock's emoticon
soul creator said:
if people are expecting Obama to win the "cable news chatter" battle, you're gonna be disappointed. I think that voter registration and turnout, state-to-state campaigning (I include targeted ads in this category), and debates will matter more. So I don't think there needs to be a huge emphasis on "attacking" in the Republican sense.

I know people like to say "bu bu, what about Kerry", but Kerry's campaign was nowhere near as energetic or organized as Obama's is right now. And even then, Kerry only lost by a few points nationally (and the election came down to one state). Also, as I've seen said before, most people just saw Kerry as "not Bush" so there wasn't really any motivation there. Obama is actually someone people seem to want to vote for, so that makes a big difference.

This.
 
Guileless said:
I have been watching CNN because that Campbell Brown is really something.

She's gotten better recently.

I thought the same about Andrea Mitchell for a while. It's like she recognizes how disingenuous the McCain campaign is (and they've even just about attacked her for stating something the Obama campaign said as well), but you know the saying...

As a dog returns to its vomit,so a fool repeats his folly.
 

Trurl

Banned
minus_273 said:
who ended the cold war?
Harry Truman.

I'm no historian but it's always seemed to me that internal failings of the USSR had a lot more to do with the end of the cold war than any American president.

On a side note, I just made my first contribution of this election of $15 to Obama. I am very poor at this stage in my life so I think that might be it for me as far as donations. I should be getting a car magnet. :)
 

minus_273

Banned
MoxManiac said:
Guys, Obama is definitely going to get my state..is it still worth it for me to vote?

Serious question. I'm under the impression that electoral votes are everything, and maine is barely even worth anything anyways.


Honestly, its maine and like california or MA or any other state with an entrenched party, what you think doesnt matter. obama and mccain are guaranteed certain states its not like you live in florida, ohio or new hampshire
 

Cloudy

Banned
qwertybob said:

Wow, that is kind of awesome. If Congress was that good, I'd be watching C-SPAN all day :lol

They are essentially arguing their case as two attorneys would in court.

It's even better with the crowd interaction :lol

ps. That Cameron guy is awesome. I bet he's equivalent to a Republican over there from his viewpoints. He's a total dick but I love his delivery :lol
 
PhoenixDark said:
Chris does a better job hiding his bias but he usually seems more interested in the more romantic aspect of politics than any substantial discussion, although when he does discuss meaty topics he does a good job. Olberman is a disgrace, but I'm sure everyone disagrees with my disdain for his emotional bullshit.

Lets see how Gregory does. He kinda strikes me as a blank slate but now that he's in the big seat who knows. It's not like the anchors set the agenda/narrative anyway though

Gregory is terrible. He spins everything as a negative for Obama and a positive for McCain. Even Andrea Mitchell on a bad day can seem balanced compared to that guy. If he ever got MTP I would refuse to watch.

Olberman is melodramatic and can't his bias. This is well known. At least he doesn't just repeat talking points and level the discourse to that of a 5 year old like most Fox hacks. Matthews is just bipolar. You just never know what he'll say next or where the wind will take him for that day.
 
laserbeam said:
NBC is finally coming to a wall where their own employees are complaining about the actions of Olbermann etc.

Brokaw and Williams are not happy with the direction Olbermann is trying to pull things and they have considerable pull with the corporation make no mistake.

This is not just a slap on the wrist over on air squabbles. They had a hell of alot more cast losing it on the air that are not being punished. Ratings showed Olbermann is a problem that while popular with a small set he does not attract large numbers.

I'm fine with Williams but keep Brokaw away from any decision making.
 
The Lamonster said:
Is it even a remote possibility that Bob Barr would take Ron Paul for his vice presidential running-mate? Is that even possible?
Nobody responded to this - I think it would be a game changer.
 

kevm3

Member
Ether_Snake said:
Well you lost two elections in a row doing that. Like I said, enjoy the next four (I mean eight) years, along with what it will mean for the economy, for student debt, for job opportunities, for the schools' curriculum, for the foreign policy, for scientific research, and for the environment.

Pretty much. What's moreimporant? Getting in the white house so we can get some real change on significant issues, or is it more important to look like a 'good guy'?

When I say to attack the Republicans, I'm not saying to go all out on flat out lies and distortion. I'm saying to put material out there that the republican candidates have SAID themselves on video showing why they are unfit to lead. When Obama won the democratic primaries, he did the things that appealed to the DEMOCRATS. Same thing with Kerry. He appealed to the Democrats. Now, Obama has to expand his base to people who may not know much about him, You don't have to get nasty and false. You can do it with FACTS.
 

deadbeef

Member
The Lamonster said:
Nobody responded to this - I think it would be a game changer.

Libertarians are a fringe party, and this is from someone who has voted Libertarian for 3 presidential elections.
 

Beavertown

Garbage
minus_273 said:
Honestly, its maine and like california or MA or any other state with an entrenched party, what you think doesnt matter. obama and mccain are guaranteed certain states its not like you live in florida, ohio or new hampshire



It's still important to get out and vote. We need congressmen and senators just as bad as we need Obama. Even if he gets elected, he can't do it all alone.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
gkrykewy said:
He is crazy (polls are for getting the public ready for bogus election results via electronic voting), but you are replying to him as if he were rational. I don't understand.

I didn't say that's what polls ARE for, it's what they open the door to. They are useless. All they can be good for is creating expectations that would muddy the waters if the results were tempered with in a state. I'm not the one who believes in Big Foots, UFOs, and Swedish prophets.
 

deadbeef

Member
Beavertown said:
It's still important to get out and vote. We need congressmen and senators just as bad as we need Obama. Even if he gets elected, he can't do it all alone.

Speaking of congressmen and senators, can you imagine how many investigations we're going to have once Obama wins? Clinton years all over again.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
minus_273 said:
who ended the cold war?

Probably a mix of CIA, military might, foreign policy established behind the scene, some people in Russia, and a couple of politicians in Washington, but not Reagan.

EDIT: And yeah, a lot of incompetence and a failed economic system in Russia
 

Cloudy

Banned
This is scary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/education/08students.html?ref=us

The widespread practice of students’ registering to vote at their college address has set off a fracas in Virginia, a battleground state in the presidential election.

Late last month, as a voter-registration drive by supporters of Senator Barack Obama was signing up thousands of students at Virginia Tech, the local registrar of elections issued two releases incorrectly suggesting a range of dire possibilities for students who registered to vote at their college.

The releases warned that such students could no longer be claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns, a statement the Internal Revenue Service says is incorrect, and could lose scholarships or coverage under their parents’ car and health insurance.


After some inquiries from students and parents, and more pointed questions from civil rights lawyers, the state board of elections said Friday that it was “modifying and clarifying” the state guidelines on which the county registrar had based his releases.

Ugh...
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
ryutaro's mama said:
The Brits have us beat here.

They are essentially arguing their case as two attorneys would in court.

As it should be.

Sort of like in Canada:)
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Tyrone Slothrop said:
msnbc is great fun, but its just way biased.

it's all good in 2008, because they're on the right side of the fight. but as the years go on and the left makes a hiccup here and there and they rush to spin it, their credibility will be diminished.

Yeah, god forbid there's some sort of counterbalance to Fox News.

And Olbermann's reaction to that video was utterly appropriate, and I respect him for that. There are some things that just go beyond a certain threshold- and even a newsanchor shouldnt have completely shield his reaction for faux-objectivity. That video was truly offensive and sickening, and Im glad he said what most viewers were probably thinking instead of acting like it was cool.
 

minus_273

Banned
Slurpy said:
Yeah, god forbid there's some sort of counterbalance to Fox News.

i believe foxnews was intended as the counterbalance to everything else. MSNBC is just another liberal outlet among many others.
 

eznark

Banned
Slurpy said:
Yeah, god forbid there's some sort of counterbalance to Fox News.

so you don't think there is anything wrong with fox news, you just with they were on your side.

At least it's an honest answer.
 

JCX

Member
Cloudy said:
This is scary:




Ugh...

wtf?! The people at my school are encouraging people to register here. I didn't do absentee because I wanted to be sure that my vote gets counted on election day.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
minus_273 said:
i believe foxnews was intended as the counterbalance to everything else. MSNBC is just another liberal outlet among many others.


Do you actually believe this? Because it wrecks your credibility in every opinion you express, as if your avatar didn't already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom