How to lose an election - Page 3

Definition of pun.


Stunning analysis. It's also patently false. There are millions of Republicans that will vote for McCain. True, it's a Democratic cycle right now...but that alone will not win the election.


Cite. That's the second time you've done that.


A selfish bastard? That's really classless of you. And what, specifically has Bush done to "make a mess" of things for his party? He's unpopular, but he doesn't things that will knowingly hurt the party...has he?


I think he's bottomed out. There is only so much damage such information can do to McCain anyway.


Your ignorance is amazing. I am merely quoting data for you. It's not my fault you don't like the numbers. 12% of Oregon Dems say they won't vote for Obama. Therefore, we can say the following:

1. The number will likely change as the general election approaches.
2. Since Oregon is a liberal state, we can assume that same type of poll would not be more favorable to Obama, especially if that state in question was a swing state.
3. Even if only HALF the number of poll participants follow through on their threat not to vote for Obama, it would still be a statistically significant number.


Why is about "spite?" Some don't like Obama. Some Republicans won't vote for McCain either, it's just that number is not as great, especially given the alternatives.


First, the "hundred years" comment is out of context. It's intellectually dishonest for you to use it, yet you keep doing so. And how many views are "enough?" He didn't support the Bush tax cuts, he opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, he wanted MORE troops in Iraq from day one, he opposes drilling ANWR, he pushed campaign finance reform (which Bush signed, but reluctantly) and he was part of the Gang of 14 on nominees. He's not Bush at all.


Look, I agree with that. Why can you not admit the same about the significant number of people that say they will not vote for Obama?


True.


He's no Kennedy, but a lot of dems think he is, so OK.

[quote]He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes.[quote]

Really? He lost 6 of the last 13 primaries. Magic?


I think you mean CHANGE!


Yes, most democrats love Obama's CHANGE message. They have no clue what Change is, but they want it.


That's a terrible thing to say. Assassination of any candidate or office holder is unthinkable and horrifying. Your implication is that some politicians deserve it. What was the word you used? Oh yes, bastard. That's what I would say anyone is who wishes such a thing on another.


They're worried about the future of the party, and rightly so. Most aren't too worried about Obama himself.

As for your spelling, you know full well it's not just that. You consistently use words that you don't understand. You make glaring grammatical errors repeatedly, such as "site" vs. "cite."


Yeah, it's not like Obama's campaign has been stumbling all over the place. Reverend Wright. Guest pastors. Not really opposing NAFTA. Quitting his church. Saying he won't denounce Wright, then doing exactly that a month later.

By the way, did you know that Obama didn't know what memorial day was?


Awesome, flawless candidate you have there. Apparently he thought Veterans Day and Memorial Day are the same.


So your prediction is that McCain will take fewer Democratic and independent votes than Bush did? You think that ALL of these people will go for Obama, despite the polling data and Obama's problems in certain swing states and among white, working class voters? That's simply delusional, not to mention unrealistic and unlikely. Even Bush got some of those votes, and that was without utter Democratic turmoil.


Why? I meant McCain. Please attempt to read an comprehend.

[QUOTE=SDW2001;1258725]Definition of pun.



Stunning analysis. It's also patently false. There are millions of Republicans that will vote for McCain. True, it's a Democratic cycle right now...but that alone will not win the election.



Cite. That's the second time you've done that.



A selfish bastard? That's really classless of you. And what, specifically has Bush done to "make a mess" of things for his party? He's unpopular, but he doesn't things that will knowingly hurt the party...has he?



I think he's bottomed out. There is only so much damage such information can do to McCain anyway.



Your ignorance is amazing. I am merely quoting data for you. It's not my fault you don't like the numbers. 12% of Oregon Dems say they won't vote for Obama. Therefore, we can say the following:

1. The number will likely change as the general election approaches.
2. Since Oregon is a liberal state, we can assume that same type of poll would not be more favorable to Obama, especially if that state in question was a swing state.
3. Even if only HALF the number of poll participants follow through on their threat not to vote for Obama, it would still be a statistically significant number.



Why is about "spite?" Some don't like Obama. Some Republicans won't vote for McCain either, it's just that number is not as great, especially given the alternatives.



First, the "hundred years" comment is out of context. It's intellectually dishonest for you to use it, yet you keep doing so. And how many views are "enough?" He didn't support the Bush tax cuts, he opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, he wanted MORE troops in Iraq from day one, he opposes drilling ANWR, he pushed campaign finance reform (which Bush signed, but reluctantly) and he was part of the Gang of 14 on nominees. He's not Bush at all.



Look, I agree with that. Why can you not admit the same about the significant number of people that say they will not vote for Obama?



True.



He's no Kennedy, but a lot of dems think he is, so OK.

[quote]He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes.
" a phrase that deliberately exploits confusion between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical effect. "

" Term "- turn. And your point is?????

The rest is your highly skewed viewpoint. Colored of course with your Bush glasses.

The problem with your whole analysis is that it's based on your viewpoint. Which doesn't match reality. We've tried to tell you. You're assuming alot will just go they way you see it.

And you're correcting me again. Should I just wait until you don't proof read something and then point it out to you? You really must be worried.

" Why? I meant McCain. Please attempt to read an comprehend. "

My comment was meant as a " No? Really! ".

Man are you not going to like November. I'm sorry you don't understand what's happening. But it's expected and not necessary for you to.

And I don't mind calling someone who thinks torture is just ok when it's us doing it a Bastard. I think the whole torture thing is pretty classless itself.

jimmac:


OK, fair enough. Weak, but fair enough.


Bush is not even freakin' running! WTF?!?


Actually, no...it's not. It's based on math and knowledge of state voting trends, demographics, etc.


Please explain which assumptions are unreasonable. Really, I'm waiting.


jimmac, it's pretty clear you have little understand of the English language. I hope it's not indicative of the people working in your profession.


I was simply trying to clarify what I was saying wrt dems going for McCain. The vat majority won't, but a significant number will.


Actually, the Dems sweeping might be a good thing. As long as Iran doesn't run off and nuke Israel, the dems will likely screw things up far worse than the GOP ever could. Maybe it will help my party find its soul again.

As for not understanding, I think I understand it fine. Your position is that a wave of "change" is sweeping the country, elections are cyclical, and that there is a lot of anger towards Bush and GOP. I agree with ALL of that. But while I acknowledge the very real advantages the Dems have, you refuse to see their equally real weaknesses, especially Obama's weaknesses.


So the President of the United States is a bastard. That's what you're saying. Man, you've got a comfortable seat on the looney wagon.

But hey, let's get back to your election predictions vs. mine. Yours are based on this:

1. Change!
2. Anger at Bush
3. McCain=Bush

Which, of course...is pretty much the Dems' entire platform for this election.

Now, mine are based on exit polls and demographics.

1. A significant number of Democrats in liberal states say they won't support Obama.
2. That number MUST be even higher in more moderate swing states.
3. Obama has real weakness among working class, white voters, elderly voters, etc.
4. Obama has real weakness is traditionally conservative states.
5. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, et al have hurt Obama, even among Democrats.
6. There is a small percentage of the electorate that will not vote for a black man.
7. McCain's strength is Obama's weakness: Strong conservative states and moderate swing voters. These states are the key to the election.

Now, refute those, please. And I assume you agree that if Obama loses PA, OH and FL that he cannot win the general election. You can spout off all the "change" rhetoric you'd like...you can't overcome the math.

Thought franksargent went through all this. Have you been paying attention or have you become an ignorant troll full time?

Obama clinches Democratic nomination

SDW.

A small part of you must know we're right about this. I mean coorecting me on my spelling?

Which by the way I told you this would come back and bite you in the ass!

" The vat majority won't, but a significant number will. "

I don't know who the " Vat " majority is but they sound scary.

I know you forgot the " S " but it was fun!

" 1. Change!
2. Anger at Bush
3. McCain=Bush

Which, of course...is pretty much the Dems' entire platform for this election. "

Well given how much crap Bush has pulled ( and other republicans ) that's really all that's needed. You don't see Bush in the same light the rest of the world does so you draw a different conclusion. With most people out there what he's done is pretty serious stuff.

So you don't see it well just sit back and watch what happens. About 7 months and counting until they remove a good portion of the garbage in Washington DC.

I'm not agreeing to anything because the general election hasn't even started yet. But I've been around long enough to get a sense on how things will go. I could be wrong but I really don't think so.

Hey everyone! Did you all hear? John McCain is going to make a major speech tonight where he declares that he's breaking from Bush and that HE is the true "change" agent.

McCain to break from Bush, take on Obama: In speech, GOP presidential nominee says he's right candidate for change

But, but, but .... Jubelum, Trumptman, SDW and few others have been furiously trying to teach me that "change" is a lame term, an unachievable goal, and ultimately something worthy of mockery and ridicule. How could John McCain want so desperately to be viewed as the "real" change agent if it's just silly platitudes and political populism? I didn't think he would stoop to that level.

That's what you've said all along? Right guys?

Guys, stop imagining that America is going to stop being anything less than a fading power after BHO gets in.

The American president actually doesn't control worldwide fungible commodity markets, or force people to take on billions in idiotically structured debt. He isn't making you fat, or late for work, he can't make your kids study harder or get in to better schools. He can't stop other countries from educating their kids better or working harder or having greater economies of scale. He can't give you "free" things either -- even if he's a Democrat.



Really.

Stop.

Does this mean you will be voting responsibly... for Ron Paul?

National Taxpayers Party, Libertarian, you name it.

But there is an entire ideology that thinks that the president is there to "make sure they are happy" or "give them stuff" or "make sure that they are alright." You know, this pathetic ethic where people are conned into looking to elected officials to make their smiles huge, their wallet fat, their cares disappear, and rainbows appear from horizon to horizon.

Like Jenny Ballantine.

Just one of the "unintended" (but very intended) consequences of US liberalism.

The President is there to make sure we don't go to war in Iraq, that we don't hold prisoners indefinitely in Gitmo and in other places across the globe, that we don't fail to respond to national emergencies like Katrina, that we don't nominate Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts, that we don't veto important legislation, and so on.

But you know, pshhh, the President ain't important or nothing.

The president's job is right there in the oath of office..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When's the last time that happened?

Tru dat..

no, shawn... the POTUS is there... not in theory, but in practice... to execute the will of the ruling elites. All three of these idiots are faces of much larger interests.

You know, it's funny that you ask that.

I would honestly answer that the last time it was the executive branch's job to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" was before the Supreme Court's power-grab in Marbury v. Madison. That decision established the principle of judicial review and made the Supreme Court the final arbiter on constitutional questions. Before that, it wasn't really clear which branch was responsible for interpreting the Constitution. Now I think that quoted language is just shorthand for "not to be really bad and shit."

Funny, that's the first thing that popped into The Jvbelvm's head as well...

Yeah that's rich!

No. You've obviously missed the lesson if you think it was to denigrate the idea of "change." Change, in and of itself, is not "worthy of mockery and ridicule." Change is unavoidable...

My problem is with Obama claiming to be the embodiment of "CHANGE" is because, in your fawning over The Big O, you miss that there is nothing new or innovative about BHO. His solutions are not "Change"- they are "Return," as in "Return to the policies of Mondale, Carter, LBJ, FDR, and Dukakis."

Barack Obama... "RETURN TO CARTER'S MALAISE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

ShawnJ, I'll be the first to say that BushCo has been substandard with the effectiveness of their foreign policy, and obviously the president is supposed to lead the country. But you have to admit blaming him for high oil prices, etc., is pretty delusional.

Really. Delusional.

I haven't followed BHO's rehtoric too closely, but if he is supporting things like the latest farm bill orgy, and, say, showing up at Senate hearings to grill oil executives on "why they keep the price of gas so high" -- then he's playing the country for fools.

And if that's the case, there is no hope. Then BHO is just an incredibly intelligent millionaire attorney, who knows how to hire the right people to get the job done, and knows how to play his cards. But if he tires to practice cargo cult economics, then he's simply giving free heroin to a country of junkies. We just don't have that much left to mortage before we hit the bus station bathrooms to pick up some cash for our next hit.

(That said, if BHO could play the foreign scene the way he played the Hillary, that would be something I'd pay to see.)

Look at the list of countries that make up OPEC. Where two thirds of the world's oil comes from.

Most of them don't like us mainly because of Bush. Now consider how you would treat a customer you don't like. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Look up the oil embargo in the early 70's. Also it's easy to do because larger profits are made all the way around. Maybe China's growing appetite is part of this but it's not enough to account for this rapid rise in price.

Ohh Jubelum you know I love ya and all but let me see if I can shift this a bit in another light.

Remember back not so long ago in 1994 when the freshman republican majority in congress took form after a couple of years President Bill Clinton being in office?

If you will recall at that time republicans were pretty much acting like republicans in a fiscal sense and Clinton even co-opted (triangulated) some of the progress resulting from the contract with america like welfare reform and balancing the budget etc.

So where am I going with this you may be asking,,, While not all things going on on Bush's watch are awful or dismal failures many in the country feel something is off with the direction our country is going. It can be argued that so-called conservatives have lost their way in congress and in the White House. Could it be possible that a shift to a majority democratic party in congress with a democratic president Barack Obama could be just the kick in the pants "kick start" if you will that republicans need to re-discover what helped them win elections and be successful in the past??

I would argue that conservatives (in recent history) have relied too heavily on the drumbeat of patriotism, war, wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage instead of focusing on policy which has mostly a focus on fiscal matters like they did in 1994.

After the backsliding of so many republicans from what once made them successful (staying on message not just in talk but in practice like in 1994) I am of the opinion the country needs more democrats in power if for no other reason to make the republicans realize they have to drop some of this neo-con agenda and return to what made them successful in history.

A President Obama is not automatically a bad thing if you lean republican. It could actually spark the much needed "change" the republicans need to make back to who they once were before they fell off the deep end into this neo-con version of conservatism.

Now you know I am making a valid point here...

Fellows

Well, some of this has to do with weakness in the dollar. Demand is going way up, just look at India and China. Also, If someone could make money selling for less, they'd do it. I don't know what the margins are for oil companies, but even if they are turning the traditional ~5%, that volume and price of what they are into makes those profits huge.

Edit: also, if they are prevented from plowing that income back into refineries, that just adds to their bottom line.

(Unless they're all in on it, the Oil Companies hoarding oil, Schlumberger hoarding exploration equipment, everybody hoarding oil in just the right amount, just the right number of Nigeria hostage takings and black-market oil.... )

But you forget, everybody is paying this higher price, the same goes for the commodity prices -- and it is a much bigger share when you're average wage is half or a third of what ours is. No one is getting off easy here.

jimmac:

Yeah, you really got me. Good one. Except of course, I'm not pointing out spelling errors. I'm pointing out major grammatical mistakes that show you have a poor comprehension of the written language.


On what do you base that? Your ass?


Yes, we'll see. And look...you may be right. Obama might win. I'm just saying that in terms of the math, I don't see how its possible given what we know today. In 6 months the polls could show something different. If Obama is leading in major swing states and nailing down the liberal base, my view will certainly change.


So you just said it: Your entire position is based on intuition. Man, I wish you were advising Obama. McCain's election would be friggin guaranteed.

True.


Ahhh, the "you must lose to win" argument. There is definitely something to that. The hardest part of this election season is that either we get the Obama-nation -OR- we demonstrate that liberal republicanism in the McCain/Graham/Snowe mould is actually the future of the GOP. Either way conservatives and libertarians are not going to see much that makes them happy. There are days that, if the stakes with a socialist like BHO were not so high, I would prefer the GOP to lose and lose big to teach them that they cannot shaft their conservative base. Like I said, either way... we're in for a GOP that is going to take 4-6 years to get itself together with what won big in 2000 and 2004.


Agreed. They stopped selling conservatism, started spending like hell, took their base for granted, and lately began to cozy up to people who have no interest in moderating at all. One could say that, as abhorrent as I find Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and Schumer, at least they stick to their guns. The GOP has not.


The problem is... McCain. The GOP does not yet "Get it" that the way to win is NOT to look just like Democrat-lite... all the spending, half the taxes. \


Yes, the NeoCons need to go... and we're seeing that now. Possibly the only productive thing that the northeastern elite version of the GOP is doing right at this point. As far as republican principles, Obama is a disaster. He's as far left as we have ever had nominated for high office in this country.


Of course, I have come to expect no less.

You flirt!



Fellows

This is an aside:

Interestingly, he's more of a millionaire author than a millionaire attorney, if we want to get specific. Obama was the Editor-in-Chief of the HLR; he could have gotten virtually any legal job in the country. He didn't go that route, and only made his money when he wrote his first autobiography.

No, Frank was being obtuse as usual. He spent his time arguing semantics and telling me that national polls were more valid than local ones. He dismissed the OR polls and the ones showing Obama's weaknesses. He further dismissed any anecdotal evidence. He's like jimmac with a better grasp of the English language.

I wish I knew how to quit you, Fellows.

That came out wrong -- I didn't mean to put him in the same category as Edwards. Point being, he's a brainy/crafty guy.

... what I presented was way over your head, as usual.

Meanwhile, you present exit polling data from what, two states, and by some as yet unheard of methods, extrapolate these exit poll data to the national general election, 5+ month's down the road. Laugh riot ensues at this end as you "explain" how these Democratic primary exit polls mean doom and gloom for the Democratic Party come the general election, 5+ month's down the road.

I think we all could use an encore presentation of your dissertation on why you use exit polling data from Democratic primaries, and apply them to the general election, 5+ month's down the road, sans any other polling data between when those exit polls were taken, and the general election 5+ month's down the road.

Remember we're talking about herding cats, not like the Republican dogs, who march in lockstep, once having made up their minds. You're not a Democrat, so don't tell us how they think, based on your Republican lockstep like thinking.

You don't even have a clue as to what the Democratic turnout will be like come the general election. In fact, you speak in such generalities, that it makes a moot point out of any so called "facts" that you do present. Otherwise known as a "leap of faith."

An honest person, would admit when they are engaged in wishful thinking (as I have done so in the aforementioned thread), and when I call you out, when you are clearly engaged in wishful thinking, you can't even admit it. Your points of "pretzel logic" like argumentation are rather obvious.

SDW != unbiased "analysis" (quotes around the word analysis because it wasn't an analysis per se, more like a big fresh hot steaming pile of conjectures and speculations applied to the general election 5+ month's down the road, somehow, someway, somewhere, and something)

I mean, who in the world can ever keep up with your brilliance.


So we should, conversely, accept your knowledge of these alleged "lockstep Republicans" from a democrat. Brilliance. (And BTW, you don't know jack shit about "lockstep Republicans" this cycle.)


Nor do you. Or any of us. Political tea leaves, ya know.


This is why it is not worth it to argue with you most of the time, frank. If someone posts a fact to back up their generalities, like you so often demand, then you say "that's moot." And if they speak in generalities, they are "not dealing in facts" like the erudite and (as we have already covered) brilliant franksargent. In short, make up your mind.


Um... political speculation is what we do here in an election season. Get used to it. I would think a brilliant scientist like yourself would be able to situate properly the topics of "analysis" and "conjecture," and realize that you do both as well.

... you know the drill, TYVM!

You make my points for me, like I stated from the get go, all wishful thinking, no serious analysis can be done using exit polling data from just two Democratic state primaries, that's also what I've been saying from the get go. The very facts that SDW used are in continuous flux, they are those individual's thoughts at a specific point in time, it is their opinion at that particular point in time. Get it?

This post (and my previous one) is targeted towards SDW, who rarely understands facts, and how to use them correctly, on those rare occasions where he actually presents "facts.' And offhand, look at who's calling the kettle black, someone who believes Alex Jones and The New World Order™. About 80% of what you post has overtones of TNWO™, seriously. Another laugh riot ensues at this end.

What's most funny about that comment is that you don't realize how truly insane it is.

I thinks "bonkers" fits... but it is exactly that kind of ignorance that the DNC is banking on come November.

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature Mr Beale!

AND I WON'T HAVE IT!