Last week, while everyone was saying that the Democrats were not getting a bounce from their convention, I was one of the first people to note that there were hints of a big 8-10% bounce toward Obama, based on changes in the last day of one 3-day tracking poll.
Now I’m seeing the same thing for the same reasons in the Republican direction (though because of a CBS poll conducted before Palin’s speech but released yesterday showing a dead heat, I am far from the first to note a probable Republican bounce).
Today, both the Gallup and the Rasmussen tracking polls are showing a 3% move in McCain’s direction from the day before. That means that respondents polled on Thursday were 8-10% more favorable for the Republicans than those polled on Monday. If polling on Friday and Saturday continues in the same direction, that would point to a dead heat or insignificant lead for McCain by the 3-day tracking polls released on Sunday.
As I noted before, this might well not happen. There is a reason that the polling agencies use three-day averages.
OT, I understand there are quite a few lawyers around these parts voting for McCain, not because he utters anything remotely coherent, but because they are fans of divided government. Presumably, that means they voted for John Kerry in 2004.
So if your politically minded friends ask how it is possible that Kerry supporters might vote for McCain, you can just give the URL for this site.
The crazy part is that it is becoming increasingly more clear that Obama is acting as a drag on the Democrats this cycle. Hillary might not be 15 ahead, but there's no way that Generic White Male Democratic Senator is not double digits up on McCain right now nationally. No way. For Christ's sake, Kerry, Gore, and the Duke all had double digit leads at this point. Obama is a sensation, undoubtedly. He has lit a fire under a lot of people. But it seems like he's lit a fire under former Kerry voters. That may be enough given turnout effects, and he may yet close the deal with conservative dems and independents, but for a prez candidate to be running this far behind the generic congressional poll is just wierd.
Surely, racial/ethnic/muslim/urban/harvard/funny name issues are a big part of it. But it can't help that people are split on whether he's more experienced than Palin. That's disturbing! Bad move of the week was the dems defending "community organizing"; regardless of the actual nature of that job (which isn't that impressive when you get down to it), it sounds way too much like a condescending elite bullshit racket. They'd be better off just calling him a labor leader or political ground game operative.
The news would be if no bounce occurred.
Why should pretty heads be bothered?
Neither conference of the political football league addresses one of the more significant points, in any case:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14
But aren't we still in the realm of polling people as to the best TV show ever right after the season finale of American Idol? That is, I've been seeing polls that say all kinds of things for the past week, which tells me that there really isn't any settled methodology, or at least anything I can base an opinion on (besides "gut").
Lack of imagination is symptomatic of conservatives in general. I'll help you out though: liberals tend to be realists who don't fret about early September opinion polls, because historically they don't correlate with the final outcome.
Liberals also do not condescend, but then I never claimed to be a liberal.
I find the Gallup poll interesting as it finds much more support for Palin from men than women. So if it is women they are after, yeesh. On the other hand, the first poll since her speech hardly represents a trend in any direction. Those polls are also not always informative since I would rate Palin very highly, and she seems like a perfectly decent person and politician, that I disagree with on so many levels - but decent nonetheless.
.
I think McCain has the same positions, except the one that you flag as "probably the biggest stopper." And even there, the difference plays out not so much in whether they believe global warming [exists, or is man made] as in the energy policies they advocate. I believe both McCain and Palin advocate "drill drill drill" and increased use of US minerals as sources of energy.
And I don't really think McCain believes the "drill, drill, drill" refrain, but he has to parrot it to have a shot at winning.
Yeah, the liberal usually (at least in recent history) ends up losing despite the big lead in the September opinion polls.
Wow, and I mean WOW! THIS is comedy!
1. Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
__ Legal to save the life of the mother.
__ Legal in case of rape and incest.
__ Legal if the baby is handicapped.
__ Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
__ Legal in the first trimester.
__ Legal in the second trimester.
__ Legal in the third trimester.
__ Other:__________________
Palin replied:
"I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life."
She pretty much rejected the option for rape/incest electing only the first.
Link
"Liberals also do not condescend"
Wow, and I mean WOW! THIS is comedy!"
Skip, did you consider the irony in your post before making said post?
Ah, you fell for the trap. I imagine Skip is not a liberal, but you are!
Really?
How does the inability to credit "the surge" and the US successes in Iraq fit into that meme?
They have been refraining from voting recently, because they are the "taxes suck" Republicans - I'd say Goldwater types, not the social conservative type.
Well, the abortion issue is kind of important to a lot of voters now, as is health care, Iraq, and other issues. So it is relevant.
It's not relevant to being a mayor either, but apparently it was a position Gov. Palin ran on.
However, we won't have 3 post-Palin speech polling days until Sunday, and by then we might see a small McCain lead (+2-4 range) if the 8-10 "Palin bounce" holds. By Monday, we'll be able to measure that against the "McCain bounce".
If the Palin bounce holds, and if McCain is at least not a drag on that bounce, we'll see a dead-even race tomorrow from Gallup and Rasmussen (probably even in Ras and +1 Obama in Gallup).
Thanks, I had previously only seen a question about what she would want her own daughter to do in such circumstances.
Doesn't that violate the GOP platform?
Though the party's commitment to "drilling" in *that* sense has a fair amount of empirical support -- Larry Craig, that intern-texting guy, ....
.
She was asked about it ... I have no idea if it was a substantive issue in the gubernatorial race, and even if it was, she won.
.
I have to admit seeing a difference between her position and that of McCain on this point. I personally don't see much difference in the position (at least not so that I think McCain has to distance himself from Palin's position), and figure there are very few people whose vote hinges on PRECISELY that single point. I.e., a candidate's stated position on the "rape or incest" exception.
JK: I'm going with Barr by 20 points. I'm a maverick!
Note, I'm not saying I think it's a person.
Also, I really thought Palin was composed and honest and looked things in the eye when asked about this position in 2006 debates. She knows a weasely position would help her more, but she doesn't think it makes intellectual sense. Good girl. Volokh-heads should appreciate that. Y'all are so damn logical and all.
If you think it's a person the logical conclusion would be to charge any woman that gets an abortion for capital murder...
.
My sense of the calculus pertaining to the rape/incest exception is that the pregnant woman didn't have a choice (to get laid) in the cases of incest and rape, hence, she shouldn't be accountable or responsible to carry out the burden of pregnancy.
.
But, as you point out, when the rock bottom isn't accountability of the mother, but the care that ought to be given to "nature" in the form of a potential human, then the line must be drawn in a different place.
"[L]iberals tend to be realists", meet "Liberals also do not condescend."
Actually, Liberals give policy to God and are outraged when He doesn't comply.
McCain's a creationist?
That's a good line too.
Somehow I had a feeling that a mocking, dissonant phrase like "liberals don't condescend" would draw reactions, while the direct insult of "conservatives lack imagination" would go unremarked.
Have a good weekend all. And for God's sake watch those polls, you don't want to miss anything.
.
Beats me. The political question is whether creationism should appear in a child's education.
.
John McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don't think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.
Transcript of John McCain's roundtable discussion with Star editors - 2005
Hat tip to: McCain To Deliver Keynote Speech For Creationists
.
[Cindy] McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools.
CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric Interviews Cindy McCain - Sept 3, 2008
.
Palin: creationism (should be discussed in schools)
Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation
You gotta remember they did some awful things to McCain in Nam, they treated him like a monkey. LOL. Now when a man like McCain fell that low in a cage he had to survive the best he could. He had to deny his cousins - the other primates he shared his cell with. "I'm a human being damit.", he protested as the Cong poked him with a stick.
After dumping wife #1 he went to being a real man and every one knew that a man that married a woman that was good looking and rich knows something about money and the world and is smarter than most no matter his career record or class rank.
Every now &then I have a moment of clarity, &wonder why stuff like that hasn't resulted in Bush's being lynched. By his GOP faithful, no less.
These cultural issues really are where liberals are in a bubble. They think everyone thinks like them and decide to attack the Republicans on these issues. Then it blows up in their face. Time and time again, polls and election results show that as to those voters who actuaally vote on abortion, guns, etc. more of them support the conservative position.
With the nomination of Palin the GOP is saying "Please don't make abortion an issue, please don't makes guns an issue and please don't through me in that briar patch." I can't believe the libs will fall into this trap.
Cheney said it best. He said it on TV news. He said that our military are all volunteers. In another point he said, "So what!?" It's all so sad, funny and tragic at the same time.
My wife does workers comp. She can tell you how much an arm or part of a finger is worth. She works it out by age, income, career etc. She even does it for the dead. Corporate America talks about wounded vets, but they do not hire many except for window dress. Most they claim are ill prepared for the real world so they get juiced on drugs, booze and all of the wicked things of the mind. Some exit with suicide or kill their wives, or just simmer with Depression.
This is what you get when Bush demands that we go shopping and not worry about war.
The media and the GOP does not want the sheep to know that McCain does not want to talk about social issues and that means the economy and abortion too. If he opens his mouth he must talk about Enron, the S&L scandal and Phil Gramm, Palin must address her failure as a mama and a leader as to sex education, and she must talk about public censorship by the state.
2. McCain is a bottom of the class type.
3. His resistance to torture was brave.
4. The boots and kerfuffle about Veterans Admin and stuff is a misdirection. The troops are relatively well supplied. There have always been issues. Always been people buying things on their own. As someone with many years service (up to 2007), I hated the whole veterans crap. It is such a money hole. Such a meme sink. War is about killing the enemy. Not about GI Bills. And definitely not about Family Service Centers.
5. Given that the War is a mistake, strategically, the thing that makes me sad is the lives and limbs we are spending inefficiently. Really wish that we could end this Bushian Feithian silliness. This refusal to face facts. It's disgusting. Makes me want to (literally) klop heads.
I can not speak for Libs, but if you ask me I think if the government wants to get into the birth control and abortion biz they gotta play Big Daddy and start being a more active parent. Provide for day care, early education, latch key kid help, early medical help and prenatal care. How about better family leave and home care. How about helping foster kids, orphans and their families. How about special programs for special needs kids and their families. It's easy to ban abortion and birth control, but the consequences takes more work
It is a fact that the National Guard and the Reserves (our Other military) operate in a different universe from the regular Army and they do not have the same equipment. When we entered the war it is a fact that our Other army/marines was ill prepared and equipped for the the initial fight or occupation. Most folks do not know that the Other military do not enjoy the same benefits in many areas as the regular army. Since this is not a Declared War even the death benefits are not the same.
I thought that both Houses are currently under democratic control. The questions is: Do we want another 4 years of Democratic rule? I say no.
Without a line item veto the President is pretty much powerless under this situation. I say give Palin (and McCain) a line item veto.
Bush has been the president for the past 8 years. While Democrats have a slight majority in both houses they can not muster to over come a single veto because they need a super majority. Thus they alone can not impeach Bush or pass any bill that Bush does not like.
BOTH of MD's Republicans are your friends?! Now THAT'S reaching across the aisle.
(Alcohol is illegal? When the f*** did that happen?)
It is the case that the Democrats became congressional majorities only in 2005, but they are not super majorities and that means by law they alone can that overcome an executive veto. In the USA congress, one needs a two thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override a Presidential veto of legislation.
(The Constitution has been amended again? When the f*** did that happen?)
It is still illegal for you to make and sell booze with out a permit and you can face sever penalties from your state as well as the USA government, and if you ask any wine maker he'll tell you that booze is also overly regulated product. You can not buy mass quantities of booze with out a permit. There is a fire wall between beer, wine and liquor sales, marketing and distribution.
The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution. Per U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7 all legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as head of state.
If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it (sign into law). If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.
If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.
1. Palin stopped the bridge to nowhere
2. Palin sold the jet on Ebay for a profit (she didn't manage to sell it on Ebay, and it wasn't at a profit when she finally did)
-and-
then McCain uncorked a new one I hadn't heard before. He said that Obama had never reached across party lines to pass bipartisan legislation. Maybe McCain is senile or something, but I guess he doesn't remember the 2006 "Transparency Act" co-authored by Tom Coburn, Tom Carper, Barack Obama, and...John McCain.
Note that the GOP this year has no vision or mission and no one wants to talk about the record, bt they do want to talk about hope, faith, touchy things of metaphysics.
I cringe when they say no taxes because that means more debt and asking China to write a check. Drilling for more oil means a long wait for it and melting ice
CB55:But let's have some compassion for poor CB55. He's fighting an uphill battle against this irresistible force.
Juicy, isn't it?
Like a peach.
Do I dare to . . . ?
(No. Todd looks like he could kick my arse.)
Unlike McCain I'm not into Pumas.
Ah, forget about it.
You nailed me. Ouch!
I wish I knew and understood the American attitude toward drugs (of any kind) and alcohol. To me it's a study of a dysfunctional personality.
The head does not match the body - the execution was done well
But does the carpet match the curtains?
George Bush’s name was uttered once—once!—throughout the entire RNC in speeches reviewed by Slate.
slate.com
Funny. That's exactly the opposite of what they said about Mary Queen of Scots.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.