Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: What is more important to you: Foreign or Domestic policy?
Foreign Policy (war, alliances, tariffs, etc)
5
27.78%
Domestic Policy (taxes, constitutional adherance, poverty, etc)
13
72.22%
Gah!
0
0%
Some other choice
0
0%
Voters: 18. This poll is closed
Originally Posted by woad&fangs:
I can think of 3 possible explanations for McCain's higher ratings.
1. Obama probably had more people watching via video streaming or youtube videos then McCain did. The nielson ratings wouldn't count those.
2. Sarah Palin got everyone excited to hear McCain speak.
3. Blue Staters watched both speeches whereas Red Staters only watched McCain.
It was probably a combination of the 3.
Maybe, just maybe, more people wanted to hear what McCain had to say. Once you've heard an Obama speech, having to hear about hope and change and hope and change and a little more about hope and change is equivalent to a weekend at Gitmo. The man is a broken record of weak platitudes...I can think of 3 possible explanations for McCain's higher ratings.
1. Obama probably had more people watching via video streaming or youtube videos then McCain did. The nielson ratings wouldn't count those.
2. Sarah Palin got everyone excited to hear McCain speak.
3. Blue Staters watched both speeches whereas Red Staters only watched McCain.
It was probably a combination of the 3.
Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing PJ getting this bubbly about ratings news if it were going any other way. But hey, if his ticket gets good ratings, that's it! Everybody line up for the victory party!
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Maybe, just maybe, more people wanted to hear what McCain had to say. Once you've heard an Obama speech, having to hear about hope and change and hope and change and a little more about hope and change is equivolent to a weekend at Gitmo. The man is a broken record of weak platitudes...
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain?Maybe, just maybe, more people wanted to hear what McCain had to say. Once you've heard an Obama speech, having to hear about hope and change and hope and change and a little more about hope and change is equivolent to a weekend at Gitmo. The man is a broken record of weak platitudes...
The difference in ratings is easy to understand....Palin.....her positions might be crap but DAMN!!!!
I´d tune in to watch that
Who knows why the ratings were higher. Woad and Fangs is probably right, aside for the 3rd claim that implies red-staters are ignorant and not interested in options. Maybe more people are available on Thursday nights?
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
Not to pay too much attention to this ratings silliness, but I believe the numbers also omit PBS. Since we all know that Dems are a bunch of gorp-eating, chablis-swilling, hippie-cuddling Trotskyites, which channel do you figure they'd favor?
Meanwhile, looks like Governor Palin is going to play out the clock on Troopergate. I don't think anyone can prevent her, either.
Meanwhile, looks like Governor Palin is going to play out the clock on Troopergate. I don't think anyone can prevent her, either.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing PJ getting this bubbly about ratings news if it were going any other way. But hey, if his ticket gets good ratings, that's it! Everybody line up for the victory party!
You say that like you're revealing something I'm trying to keep under wraps. Unlike certain folks.. err.. you, I'm not attempting to feign objectivity or independence or whatever you're calling it. Somehow I'm having a hard time picturing PJ getting this bubbly about ratings news if it were going any other way. But hey, if his ticket gets good ratings, that's it! Everybody line up for the victory party!
It is very cool that McCain's numbers actually beat the Rockstar's. Who would have thought old, boring, telepromter challenged John would crush Osama? Maybe Americans do value substance over style. What's even cooler is that Sarah essentially tied him, and is even more popular that The One himself! Fun times.
Originally Posted by :
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain
I'd rather hear a compelling story such as his than vague references to community organization masking a rather inglorious climb through chicago machine politics.you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain
There is a new ad out linking Obama with Kilpatrick. I think it lacks scope - the phrase "know who Barack's friends are" is weak. What should be said of the video is "this is what Barack's rhetoric is worth". He used beautiful praise for kilpatricks promise when the reality was much different and his administration was a crappy disgrace. Just some thoughts - simply linking the men isn't really too fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SODIFZXIPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SODIFZXIPA
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Not to pay too much attention to this ratings silliness, but I believe the numbers also omit PBS. Since we all know that Dems are a bunch of gorp-eating, chablis-swilling, hippie-cuddling Trotskyites, which channel do you figure they'd favor?
Is it really that infathomable? If we're counting PBS, we also have to factor in all the elderly who watch, and the Are You Being Served? crowd... Liberals aren't the only ones who watch, especially later at night.Not to pay too much attention to this ratings silliness, but I believe the numbers also omit PBS. Since we all know that Dems are a bunch of gorp-eating, chablis-swilling, hippie-cuddling Trotskyites, which channel do you figure they'd favor?
The Kilpatrick ad was good as it used Obama's own words. I wish they'd start taking quotes out of his books. Scary stuff.
Hey, just because your pet statistic omits online viewers as well as PBS viewers, don't let that stop your party. Mission accomplished, baby! Woo-hoo!
-edit-
You know, if you want to do some chest-thumping and victory laps, why not look into numbers that actually mean something? Ask CountArch about the lost art of poll-smoking ...
-edit-
You know, if you want to do some chest-thumping and victory laps, why not look into numbers that actually mean something? Ask CountArch about the lost art of poll-smoking ...
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Who knows why the ratings were higher. Woad and Fangs is probably right, aside for the 3rd claim that implies red-staters are ignorant and not interested in options. Maybe more people are available on Thursday nights?
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
I was also implying that blue staters are nasty creatures without a social life who only watched McCain's speech so they could mock every little hypocrisy, and bushism in it by posting arrogant snarky comments on their blogs* the next day.Who knows why the ratings were higher. Woad and Fangs is probably right, aside for the 3rd claim that implies red-staters are ignorant and not interested in options. Maybe more people are available on Thursday nights?
I would agree that more people had probably heard about how good Palin's speech was and it piqued their interests for a while.
On the other hand, red staters prefer to mock Obama for being an American hating, communist, Muslim, celebrity. They don't need to watch Obama's speech to continue these accusations. They then had that evening free to drink beer, go to the beach, or gaze into the mirror and remember how awsome it is to be Texan.
*the only reader of this waste of the internet being the author himself
Ye gods, another brilliant line from a conservative blog:
"Is she the one we've been waiting for?" So asks the Weekly Standard (with, I assume, at least a touch of irony) on the cover of its September 8 issue.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
There's a very simple reason why the ratings were higher, and McCain had to be loving the way the schedules worked out. McCain's speech on NBC followed the first NFL game of the season on the very same network. If Obama's speech had followed American Idol, he would have killed in the ratings as well.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Ye gods, another brilliant line from a conservative blog:
That's true to an extent. I don't think the Sarah Palin thing is the same at all. People went full bore into attacking her.Ye gods, another brilliant line from a conservative blog:
"Is she the one we've been waiting for?" So asks the Weekly Standard (with, I assume, at least a touch of irony) on the cover of its September 8 issue.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
We conservatives have had a good time ridiculing the Obama phenomenon, especially its messianic feel -- the willingness of its adherents to pour so much hope and belief into such an empty, or at least incomplete, vessel -- and its elevation of "narrative" over substance.
It turns out that we were dying to have basically the same experience.
My main point about Palin is that it is good to see that we arn't dead. We've got guys like Jindal, and Ryan in the works who have an intellectual, clear and charismatic view of conservatism. We've got gifted people and Sarah Palin and she is only the tip of the iceberg. Liberals are used to having bright and young representatives. Conservatives are an older group and have hangups about that.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Hey, just because your pet statistic omits online viewers as well as PBS viewers, don't let that stop your party. Mission accomplished, baby! Woo-hoo!
I'm intrigued at your reaction. Obama's much hyped speech set a record, and then, surprisingly Palin met it and McCain broke it. As this is supposed to be the year of the Democrat and Barack's Rockstar status is a media fact, it seemed like an interesting topic. You seem offended that I even posted it.Hey, just because your pet statistic omits online viewers as well as PBS viewers, don't let that stop your party. Mission accomplished, baby! Woo-hoo!
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
My main point about Palin is that it is good to see that we arn't dead. We've got guys like Jindal, and Ryan in the works who have an intellectual, clear and charismatic view of conservatism.
Yeah, I can see that; there's a good crop of Republicans coming up, and they will do good things in time. But they're going to need to outlast the shadow of Bush 43, in much the same way that Democrats had to outlive the legacy of Carter.My main point about Palin is that it is good to see that we arn't dead. We've got guys like Jindal, and Ryan in the works who have an intellectual, clear and charismatic view of conservatism.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
If you're just preaching to the choir, you ain't gonna be very funny. Certainly not night after night. Just look at the grizzled remains of the ½ hour news hour.
Blimey. If you're just preaching to the choir, you ain't gonna be very funny. Certainly not night after night. Just look at the grizzled remains of the ½ hour news hour.
It hurts to watch that. Simply embarrasing.
emo-con does in fact mean "emotional conservative", and is essentially my play on terms like "neocon", "theocon", "corporatecon" etc.
Tuff, you have always struck me as a bit of an emotional lad, and i've gotten the sense that much of your conservativism stems from that temperament. but i haven't been around the backroom much recently, and that assessment is based on the Tuff of about a year or two past.
also, 'emos' strike me as a fairly humorless sort, or at least i imagine they would strike me so, if i knew any (based on the popular representations of 'emos').
Tuff, you have always struck me as a bit of an emotional lad, and i've gotten the sense that much of your conservativism stems from that temperament. but i haven't been around the backroom much recently, and that assessment is based on the Tuff of about a year or two past.
also, 'emos' strike me as a fairly humorless sort, or at least i imagine they would strike me so, if i knew any (based on the popular representations of 'emos').
Originally Posted by drone:
There's a very simple reason why the ratings were higher, and McCain had to be loving the way the schedules worked out. McCain's speech on NBC followed the first NFL game of the season on the very same network. If Obama's speech had followed American Idol, he would have killed in the ratings as well.
drone nails it, I think. The fellas at work (with whom I'm in an NFL Pool) all said they watched McCain after the Wash-NYGiants matchup.There's a very simple reason why the ratings were higher, and McCain had to be loving the way the schedules worked out. McCain's speech on NBC followed the first NFL game of the season on the very same network. If Obama's speech had followed American Idol, he would have killed in the ratings as well.
how the states are voting
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
graph of electoral college votes
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...raph-2008.html
Obama has gained 25 electoral college votes since the RNC started. Apparently the 41 million who saw McCain speak didn't like what they saw
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
graph of electoral college votes
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...raph-2008.html
Obama has gained 25 electoral college votes since the RNC started. Apparently the 41 million who saw McCain speak didn't like what they saw
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
You just can't help yourself can you?
It is interesting that Johnny Mac pulled in more people than Barack's soaring(and unusually angry) rhetoric, spectacle, and lame fireworks show.
What's even more interesting are the numbers for Sarah Palin's speech, and the subsequent polling, despite the liberal onslaught.
Actually her numbers, and Biden's numbers, are relatively poor for a VP Candidate:You just can't help yourself can you?
It is interesting that Johnny Mac pulled in more people than Barack's soaring(and unusually angry) rhetoric, spectacle, and lame fireworks show.
What's even more interesting are the numbers for Sarah Palin's speech, and the subsequent polling, despite the liberal onslaught.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...an-cheney.html
Palin: +17.3
Biden: +17
Cheney (2000): +28
Lieberman (2000): +33
Edwards: +25
And of course:
Originally Posted by :
And on preparedness measures, Palin polls unusually poorly: by a 42-50 margin (-8), voters in the ABC poll did not think she has the right experience to serve effectively as President; Biden's rating is 66-21 (+43).
EDIT: And if anyone wants a good read about why the Tracking Poll results are very bad for the Republicans, then read this article. To summarise - even with the Convention bounce and Palin's speech, Obama still won the night by 1 point. It is just that prior to that, Obama's lead was much higher, because it was coming off his own convention bounce. The GOP can expect these to be their best nights of polling because of their own bounces, and if Obama won last night it is not good news for the Republicans.And on preparedness measures, Palin polls unusually poorly: by a 42-50 margin (-8), voters in the ABC poll did not think she has the right experience to serve effectively as President; Biden's rating is 66-21 (+43).
Good post from NRO about why Palin shouldn't hide from the press.
Did you happen to see this clip featuring Jay Carney of Time and Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign? If not, do please click - it's very short. Carney asks when Palin will take questions from the press. Wallace dismisses the idea. "Who cares?" she answers.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Good post from NRO about why Palin shouldn't hide from the press.
That has always been my main criticism of the Bush administration. He wasn't a gifted think on your feet guy so they avoided discussing any policy moves on a detailed level at all. This made it seem mysterious in the begging, but later just made it seem like they were afraid to defend their positions. By the beginning of the second term, they literally gave up defending their policy in any way shape or form.Transparency is the name of the game in this election.Good post from NRO about why Palin shouldn't hide from the press.
Did you happen to see this clip featuring Jay Carney of Time and Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign? If not, do please click - it's very short. Carney asks when Palin will take questions from the press. Wallace dismisses the idea. "Who cares?" she answers.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
So here's why I care.
A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?
My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.
At first, this abdication did not much matter. The president was popular, the public was united. But once the administration encountered trouble and adversity, it discovered - it found itself disarmed. It had no advocates other than its own in-house communicators and the most committed partisans. There were pitifully few respected independent voices ready to join the discussion on behalf of the administration's policies. They could not convince, because they had not been convinced.
Speaking directly to the people works when the people are intensely engaged. But big publics pay only intermittent attention to politics and policy. When that attention is diverted, specialists and enthusiasts reclaim their usual disproportionate impact.
By that time however the argument may well have been lost among that portion of the public that is still paying attention.
A point for Palin in my book (and hopefully anyone who cares for an additional barricade against oppressive government):
http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=222
CR
http://www.fija.org//index.php?page=displaytxt&id=222
Originally Posted by :
Governors from Alaska, Washington and New Hampshire sign Proclamations commemorating Jury Rights Day. Other governors across the nation have signed such Proclamations in other years.
Friday marks the 338th anniversary of when jurors refused to convict William Penn of violating England's Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon. In refusing to convict Penn, the jurors ignored what they knew to be an unjust law. This is known as jury nullification.
And a point for Gregoire as well, even if its the only plus for her in my book.Governors from Alaska, Washington and New Hampshire sign Proclamations commemorating Jury Rights Day. Other governors across the nation have signed such Proclamations in other years.
Friday marks the 338th anniversary of when jurors refused to convict William Penn of violating England's Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon. In refusing to convict Penn, the jurors ignored what they knew to be an unjust law. This is known as jury nullification.
CR
Originally Posted by Ronin:
you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain?
You wonder (sneer at?) why he references this life-altering experience so often? Every day when McCain gets dressed someone has to help him put on his shirt; he can't even comb his own hair. With that kind of reminder, I'd assume its a little hard not to think about it a bit. you mean like Mr. "did I mention I was a POW before?" McCain?
McCain, however, was one of the first to work toward normalizing relations with Vietnam.
All in all, I think a little forbearance is due on this issue. He earned the right to bring it up if he wants to do so.
Obama and Obama supporters often reference his ethnic background. While some find it annoying, I believe a little forbearance is due there as well. He's the first major party nominee of African descent after more than 140 years since the end of the Civil War. He's entitled to bring it up a bit.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Can I have a w00t! please? Go Palin!
I already posted that exact article yesterday!Can I have a w00t! please? Go Palin!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1782
LEAVE PALIN ALONE! ALL SHE WANTS TO DO IS BECOME VP!!!!!1 YOU JERKS! 
I don't get it. Obama's been dealing with accusations of his background and former associations since he announced his running. Palin has been dealing with it for, what, a week? And already, it's turned into a "OH NOEZ U LIBERALZ R JUST HATIN AND U SHULDNT SAY THAT!!!!!1". While there are people who still think Obama is a Muslim Communist who will ressurect Lenin and let in all the Sharia Soviet Jihadist Nazis.
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
I don't get it. Obama's been dealing with accusations of his background and former associations since he announced his running. Palin has been dealing with it for, what, a week? And already, it's turned into a "OH NOEZ U LIBERALZ R JUST HATIN AND U SHULDNT SAY THAT!!!!!1". While there are people who still think Obama is a Muslim Communist who will ressurect Lenin and let in all the Sharia Soviet Jihadist Nazis.
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
I already posted that exact article yesterday!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1782
And I already pointed out why the numbers aren't good for her:I already posted that exact article yesterday!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1782
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1823
Originally Posted by :
And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
Speechless.And to McCain's, "IM A WAR HERO". I'm as sick of hearing this as hearing about Obama's race. I could care less. Spending the Vietnam War in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify one to be president, and it actually concerns me, seeing as sustaining that long of a torture can mess you up.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO