[Al_U_Card]

McCain and Palin, mavericks both. Determined not to follow the "crowd". The civilized, humanist and realistic crowd of nations that continue on their course towards social justice and equality.

Mavericks? If being wrong-headed, ignorant and stubborn are the qualities of the maverick, then they have them. The question is, do we need them?

[jdonn]

Yesterday's Saturday Night Live portrayal of the debate was really funny. I liked at the end when Palin whipped out her flute and asked if it was the talent portion of the debate yet.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

Yesterday's Saturday Night Live portrayal of the debate was really funny. I liked at the end when Palin whipped out her flute and asked if it was the talent portion of the debate yet.

Yup this one was great. Also in the closing statement: "For you Joe Sixpacks out there playing a drinking game, let me say 'Maverick' just one more time."
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...n-biden/727421/

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 5 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

McCain and Palin, mavericks both. Determined not to follow the "crowd". The civilized, humanist and realistic crowd of nations that continue on their course towards social justice and equality.

Mavericks? If being wrong-headed, ignorant and stubborn are the qualities of the maverick, then they have them. The question is, do we need them?

for my own understanding, how do you define social justice and equality (in this context)?

[kenberg]

cherdano, on Oct 5 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 5 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

Yesterday's Saturday Night Live portrayal of the debate was really funny. I liked at the end when Palin whipped out her flute and asked if it was the talent portion of the debate yet.

Yup this one was great. Also in the closing statement: "For you Joe Sixpacks out there playing a drinking game, let me say 'Maverick' just one more time."
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...n-biden/727421/

This is absolutely hysterical.

[JoAnneM]

I think she did great. We have a new word - "mavickry", and global warming is solved - "the end of days". It confirmed everything I felt about her.

In balance I thought the spoof on Biden was pretty good, especially the bit about Scranton since that is the city where "The Office" is situated.

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Oct 5 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

for my own understanding, how do you define social justice and equality (in this context)?

Don't know you know your Ten Years After?



"...tax the rich
feed the poor
'til there are no
rich no more..."

[jdonn]

I have a different quote, and I don't know if it should make me gasp, cringe, laugh, or cry.

"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

- John McCain

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I have a different quote, and I don't know if it should make me gasp, cringe, laugh, or cry.

"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

- John McCain

Laugh.


1. Life is too short not to.

2. It's pretty funny.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I have a different quote, and I don't know if it should make me gasp, cringe, laugh, or cry.

"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

- John McCain

where/when?

[awm]

matmat, on Oct 6 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I have a different quote, and I don't know if it should make me gasp, cringe, laugh, or cry.

"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

- John McCain

where/when?

It was during the 2000 Republican Primary, when Bush went negative (to the extreme of claiming that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi child was biologically McCain's and born out of wedlock).

This quote is apparently now being used in a DNC attack ad against McCain, although it may be one of those "web ads" that never really airs anywhere.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 6 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

I have a different quote, and I don't know if it should make me gasp, cringe, laugh, or cry.

"Sooner or later people are going to figure out that if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it."

- John McCain

Laugh.


1. Life is too short not to.

2. It's pretty funny.

What's funny is he was right when he said it, and he is right now, but I'm sure the disconnect is too large to overcome.

[Lobowolf]

I'd add "Or you think that it gives you a better chance to get elected than discussing policy does," though having said that, I still appreciate the irony, and I'm not claiming that my caveat applies to McCain.

OTOH, I'm not sure why it is that people think glorious change is going to come from a guy who's pretty much a lock-step voter with the majority party of one house of an unpopular Congress. But maybe intelligence and eloquence is enough for a while. Currently, I'd put it at about 3-2 that we're going to find out. Going to make it 2-1 barring a very rapid, very significant change on Wall Street.

[Al_U_Card]

They are petrified of discussing the root causes of the economic crisis for it will be told that McCain led the charge (well, he was directly involved with Gramm) in having the sub-prime maneuvers deregulated.

Who is to blame..(and he voted in lock-step with W)...he is, he is.

[awm]

Lobowolf, on Oct 6 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

OTOH, I'm not sure why it is that people think glorious change is going to come from a guy who's pretty much a lock-step voter with the majority party of one house of an unpopular Congress.

I remain confused by this. First, where does this idea come from that being able to "reach across the aisle" somehow depends on disagreeing with the majority of your own party on major issues? That might make someone a centrist, or a free-thinker, but reaching across the aisle means that you actually do hold your party's position but are able to construct some sort of compromise bill that receives broad bipartisan support, not that you defect from your own party on critical issues.

Second, having a democratic congress and presidency will certainly lead to change. We have not had this combination since early in the Clinton years. In general when the congress is controlled by one party and the presidency by the other, it becomes hard for congress to get things done (too many vetoes). A big part of why the current congress is unpopular is a lack of major accomplishments (in particular an inability to end the Iraq war, the unpopularity of which swept the democrats into power in 2006). Of course, we can argue about whether this change will be for the better.

Third, Barack Obama actually has a pretty interesting resume. He often seems to support more transparency in politics, managing to find bipartisan support for ideas that seem like just common sense. For example, the parties may disagree about the death penalty but no one wants it applied to innocent people, so Obama sponsored and passed (in Illinois) a bill to require that all interrogations of people suspected of death penalty offenses be videotaped (to prevent police forcing a false confession, or appeals lawyers claiming they did). For example, the parties may disagree about exactly which forms of government spending are "pork" and should be slashed from the budget but it seems very fair to make all such spending public knowledge and let the voters decide, so Obama sponsored (with Dick Lugar) his "google for government" allowing us to search through federal spending. Admittedly Obama's track record is short, but there is quite a bit more in this vein and it says a lot about the ability to reach out to the other party with sensible ideas. McCain's record shows that he has been willing to go against his own party on a few major issues (although he seems to have reversed some of the key positions in the last year, including on immigration, oil drilling, and the Bush tax cuts) but while that takes some political courage it is not the same as crafting logical compromise agreements that both parties can support.

[cherdano]

awm, on Oct 6 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

McCain's record shows that he has been willing to go against his own party on a few major issues (although he seems to have reversed some of the key positions in the last year, including on immigration, oil drilling, and the Bush tax cuts) but while that takes some political courage it is not the same as crafting logical compromise agreements that both parties can support.

Is it really true that this requires political courage? Probably McCain is right that he doesn't have all that many friends among the Republican senators. (But then there may be other reasons for that...) But OTOH it always got McCain the attention by the media.

[MickyB]

Despite a pretty big lead for Obama in the polls, the bookies seem to think he is only about 75% to win. Is this because it takes a relatively small percentage of voters to change sides to swing it, or because there's a belief that some people are saying that they will vote for Obama because they think doing otherwise would make them appear racist? Or something else that I've missed?

[cherdano]

MickyB, on Oct 6 2008, 11:53 PM, said:

Despite a pretty big lead for Obama in the polls, the bookies seem to think he is only about 75% to win. Is this because it takes a relatively small percentage of voters to change sides to swing it, or because there's a belief that some people are saying that they will vote for Obama because they think doing otherwise would make them appear racist? Or something else that I've missed?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com probably has a much better model of predicting the election result based on all polls than any bookie. Today, it gives Obama a 88% chance of winning the election.

If I had to make a bet, I would say the polls are underestimating Obama's likely voting percentage.
Many pollsters are conservative in taking the effects of voter registrations this year into account, which have increased the number of registered young or minority voters. Also, Obama's "ground game" (hundreds of thousands of volunteers making phone calls or knocking on doors to get people registered, help them request absentee ballots or just asking them to come to vote on election day) is apparently much bigger the one organized by McCain's campaign/the Republican party. [For Non-US readers: in a state with a turnout rate as low as in the US, this can apparently make a big difference.]
The "Bradley effect" (overstating the vote share of black candidates in polls due to latent racism as you describe) does not appear to exist anymore.

The prediction market at http://iemweb.biz.ui...s08_quotes.html seems to agree with that, it expects an Obama win by 9.5%, which is slightly higher than current polls.

In order to guess how this translates into a winning probability, one would have to know the expected variance between voter tendency today and on election day. Fivethirtyeight.com uses historical data for this, bookies and everyone else their gut feeling. I haven't followed previous US elections as closely so I have no idea why this variance should be higher this time.

[MickyB]

Cheers Arend. In that case I'm sticking some money on Obama and blaming you if he loses

[mike777]

hmm let us back up


probably(what ever that means) has a much better model of predicting the election result based on all polls than any bookie. Today, it gives Obama a 88% chance of win


Of course none of us bridge players ever bet or gamble but.............

but we are told by a PHD math guy .......88% is not a good model...we should assume much much more than 88%