I like Palin, she's definitely a VPILF, but she's still clueless.

10/3/2008 2:52:57 PM

Quote :

"and yes nutsmackr, i am actually independent...but i'm sure thats a difficult concept for you to understand with your holier-than-thou pro-union pro afl-cio socialist mentality "

Just because you either aren't registered, or you are registered as an independent, doesn't mean you aren't partisan. Let's just examine a few words in this last sentence that proves this point.

1. socialist

2. Pro-union

3. pro-AFL-CIO (p.s. isn't that a little redundant)

I can call myself the Pope, that doesn't mean I'm Catholic and that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm the Pope.

10/3/2008 2:53:38 PM

TreeTwista is an "independent" who takes every opportunity to bash every liberal or democrat and defend every conservative... please show me one example where you have ever criticized the GOP, otherwise i'm not buying your claim that you're an "independent"

10/3/2008 2:56:35 PM

last i checked, realizing the flaws in socialism and modern unions wasnt an indication that someone is partisan

10/3/2008 2:58:00 PM

the fact that you use the term socialism in such a cavalier manner proves my point. As does your hackneyed insults towards labor unions.

10/3/2008 2:59:51 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista is an "independent" who takes every opportunity to bash every liberal or democrat and defend every conservative"

thats about as true as saying the soap box takes every opportunity to bash every conservative or republican and defend every liberal

^do you still think interest is tax free? cause you still sound like someone who has mommy and daddy pay your bills and certainly doesnt realize how bad labor unions are

you guys get so frustrated when you come across someone who doesn't have some typical political viewpoint that can be defined by one of your familiar stereotypes...when someone who actually does think independently like i do comes along, its like you cant even imagine someone who doesnt think in some typical narrow manner, and therefore you just start bashing me

10/3/2008 3:00:48 PM

look, twista is trying to change the subject because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

FYI, I've been self-sufficient for more than 7 years now, but thanks for looking after my best interest.

Also, i've done work with Labor unions. Your anti-labor union rhetoric is the same trite nonsense that gets spit forth from the foaming mouths of neckbeards everywhere. Many of whom have never had any interaction with organized labor in any form.

Quote :

"when someone who actually does think independently like i do comes along, its like you cant even imagine someone who doesnt think in some typical narrow manner, and therefore you just start bashing me "

What you are registered doesn't matter. You still spit the same Republican talking points. That isn't being an independent minded individual

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 3:08:15 PM

Quote :

"twista is trying to change the subject because he doesn't have a leg to stand on."

fuck you, i've been trying to talk about the VP debate while dickbags like you have been bashing me personally...get a fucking life already, god dammit

Quote :

"Also, i've done work with Labor unions. Your anti-labor union rhetoric is the same trite nonsense that gets spit forth from the foaming mouths of neckbeards everywhere. Many of whom have never had any interaction with organized labor in any form."

i've had tons of union interactions, let alone the fact that half of our workforce is from the northeast and lost their jobs BECAUSE of unions and are down here working where performance and ability dictate your job, not being a member of a union...but what does someone like you with a government job know about that?

i just wish you could shut the fuck up with all your personal insults towards me, that have absolutely jack shit to do with any thread, and exactly 100% to do with you trolling me personally

10/3/2008 3:10:28 PM

Quote :

"i've had tons of union interactions, let alone the fact that half of our workforce is from the northeast and lost their jobs BECAUSE of unions...but what does someone like you with a government job know about that?"

The Northeast has been bleeding jobs for a long time, not because of unions, but because of difference conditions altogether.

What does me working in government have anything to do with anything? Your ramblings are sounding like Sarah Palin's.

Quote :

"fuck you, i've been trying to talk about the VP debate while dickbags like you have been bashing me personally...get a fucking life already, god dammit"

What a cute statement coming from someone who pulled up something from a different thread in an attempt to insult me, only to have it thrown back into your face.

Quote :

"i just wish you could shut the fuck up with all your personal insults towards me, that have absolutely jack shit to do with any thread, and exactly 100% to do with you trolling me personally"

so your comment about me living off mommy and daddy's dime had everything to do with the debate and not attacking me personally, and your statement about my current place of employment had everything to do with the debate and not attacking me personally?

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 3:13:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm Treetwista and I am a Sophist."

i never called out anyone by name until after this post of yours

can i just ask you to fucking ignore me and not respond to my posts? is that too much to ask of you? please, seriously, leave me the fuck alone

10/3/2008 3:16:31 PM

interesting. You propose that I ignore your posts, whilst you are incapable of ignoring mine.

10/3/2008 3:24:17 PM

so anyway back to the topic

Neither candidate had any major fuckups last night and neither candidate had any huge winning arguments...it was a pretty even debate

10/3/2008 3:31:02 PM

^ These people on here are mad at society in general. They live in fantasy land and have very limited concepts of how things work. I use to actually listen to their opinions before I realized this.

10/3/2008 3:32:09 PM

I consider Palin misstating the campaign's positions on civil unions, the wall street bailout, along with being 100% incorrect when it came to General McKiernan's stance on Afghanistan to be major fuck ups. The fact that minutes after the debate the Obama team had an advertisement ready to go proves that.

Then again, with the expectations the way they were, all Sarah Palin had to do was spell her name correctly and people would think she covered the spread. Sad indeed.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 3:32:58 PM

Quote :

"Neither candidate had any major fuckups last night and neither candidate had any huge winning arguments...it was a pretty even debate"

I agree.

10/3/2008 3:42:10 PM

Biden won global warming, taxes, healthcare and afghanistan and following the format of the debate.

Palin won Iraq, and overall speaking to the people.

foreign relations was a tie

10/3/2008 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Neither candidate had any major fuckups last night and neither candidate had any huge winning arguments...it was a pretty even debate but I'd still say Biden won big."

None of the candidates had any amazingly obvious mistakes or successes. They both hovered somewhere around unimpressive, but neither was obviously bad at a glance...

From all that I watched (about 40 minutes somewhere around the beginning/middle), though, Biden was consistently answering questions with relevant information, even if he did throw out some lies and a lot of things that I disagree with. I learned some things about the guy, too.

Palin, for the most part, didn't make a shit worth of sense. It's not that she ignored the questions or didn't address them, it's that she couldn't form a coherent sentence for >50% of the time. To me this contributes approximately nothing at all to the debates, though it doesn't stand out as a major gaffe to most people. I learned nothing from her. Maybe I'm below average at interpreting and deciphering the word soup that comes from her mouth, but typically when she finished talking I would try to find meaning in it and be at a loss. I honestly wanted to figure out what she was saying, but I couldn't.

On a scale of 1 to 10: I'd give Biden a 2/10, for saying a lot of things I disagree with and occasionally lieing outright or ignoring the question. I'd give Palin a DNE/10... As in, "Did not enter". She may as well have not even been in the debate and the same points would have come across (sure, she didn't make any major gaffes... but you can do that without showing up, too). Because of this, I say that Biden dominated the debate solidly, given that any positive number is infinitely greater than zero.

This rating is, of course, in terms of my own personal opinion, and how much I liked their performance, not how much news analysts or the general population will like their performance.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 4:59:36 PM

According to Hannity, Palin pwnt. FACT.

I love listening to these guys when they're losing.

10/3/2008 5:09:56 PM

Boone how do you think Palin did in the debate? Do you agree that neither candidate convincingly won or lost?

10/3/2008 5:29:06 PM

They both exceeded expectations.

Expectations aside, I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that Palin won. She stumbled her way through it, and rarely answered a question directly... even by Washington standards. The polls are reflecting this.

Oh wait, you don't accept polls.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2008 5:32:35 PM

I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that either Palin or Biden won if they watched the debate with an objective viewpoint

10/3/2008 5:34:43 PM

Well, one could look at the scientific polls done on it.

Or they could count the times each candidate answered the question asked.

10/3/2008 5:36:18 PM

Let me put it this way, the debate between Biden and Palin was even closer than that of Obama and McCain. They both had good jabs, they both made decent points, and they both held the party line.

I do not believe Palin is ready to be the Vice President of the United States and I would never vote for a McCain/Palin ticket, however the debate was indeed extremely close.

Just look at the polls, 51% Biden? That margin is almost 11% lower than Obama's win. There were post-debate polls as high as 62% for Obama.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM. Reason : -]

10/3/2008 5:38:17 PM

^^I prefer watching the debates rather than relying on polls to tell me how the world works

I got a call from 'Out of Area' last night. I didn't answer it. I wonder if it was a pollster.

10/3/2008 5:38:27 PM

^^it's only dead even if you make the mistake of assuming that the remaining 49% think Palin won, which they most certainly do not.

10/3/2008 5:39:46 PM

Quote :

"if you make the mistake of assuming that the remaining 49% think Palin won, which they most certainly do not."

true, but the whole premise of trusting a poll to determine who won a subjective debate is assuming that a representative sample of people were polled in the first place

10/3/2008 5:41:20 PM

Quote :

"Just look at the polls, 51% Biden? "

v. 36%

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/biden.palin.analysis/index.html

Quote :

"is assuming that a representative sample of people were polled in the first place"

And we just can't trust math or science when it come to things that conflict with the party line, can we?

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2008 5:42:26 PM

^^you can argue the reliability and legitimacy of the polling methods all you want, i was just simply responding to the above poster who clearly only responded to one portion of the poll and chose to ignore the remaining statistics within the same exact poll.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:44 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/3/2008 5:42:41 PM

Quote :

"Just look at the polls, 51% Biden? That margin is almost 11% lower than Obama's win. There were post-debate polls as high as 62% for Obama."

10/3/2008 5:44:24 PM

Quote :

"And we just can't trust math or science when it come to things that conflict with the party line, can we?"

please Boone, explain with your infinite wisdom how mathematically you can assure a representative sample population for such a diverse and subjective issue? and you have the nerve to accuse ME of towing the party line? lol thats a good one...you sure are confident in the absolute certainty of your CNN.com opinion poll arent you? Is there a scientific consensus that Biden won the debate?

^^i agree, but he's also saying the subjective poll numbers were still a lot closer in the VP debate than in the first McCain/Obama debate...and I didn't realize 62% of people supposedly thought Obama won the first Presidential debate...I thought that one was very even as well

but thats probably me just towing the party line right? admitting that neither candidate blew the other out of the water is probably me just being a partisan hack right? I guess the only way to truly be viewed as non biased in TSB is to admit that Biden blew Palin out of the water?

10/3/2008 5:46:14 PM

^^

Quote :

"[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM. Reason : -]"

did you just go back and edit your post and then quote the revised portion? i seem to remember the original post saying something to the effect of: 51%? that's almost dead even

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/3/2008 5:47:41 PM

This Post-Debate CNN poll in regards to who is ready to be the next Vice President of the United States is far more compelling:

Quote :

"Perhaps most significant, the CNN survey found that 87 percent thought the Delaware senator was qualified to be president, while 42 percent saw Palin that way."

When considering "...heartbeat away from the Presidency..." who is the most dangerous choice?

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : -]

10/3/2008 5:52:16 PM

here's another aspect of the CNN poll

Quote :

"But respondents said the folksy Palin was more likable, scoring 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent. Seventy percent said Biden was more of a typical politician."

10/3/2008 5:53:46 PM

Quote :

"I don't expect much from the organization that through Joe Biden was making up a word when he called Bosniacs, Bosniacs."

Yo nutsmackr, did CNN really say that "Bosniac" is a made-up word?

WTF?

Can you please link it, so that I can email the morons?

10/3/2008 5:55:25 PM

Quote :

"for such a diverse and subjective issue?"

You're missing the point. Surprise!

Who "won" is based on which candidate the majority of people believes won.

It's a simple yes or no question, and Biden won 51-36 in a scientific poll among undecided voters. Is there any more-objective evidence you'd like to propose?

10/3/2008 5:55:50 PM

Quote :

"Who "won" is based on which candidate the majority of people believes won."

the majority of people, who were polled, and of those, who chose to answer

Quote :

"You're missing the point. Surprise!"

10/3/2008 5:57:52 PM

You guys are arguing about who won the battle, when you ought to be focusing on the polls that win the War for the White House.

People don't believe that Palin could be President if McCain dies. The polls are quite clear on that point.

10/3/2008 5:58:17 PM

Quote :

"the majority of people, who were polled, and of those, who chose to answer"

There you go again. (I just quoted Reagan. Does that mean I win this debate?)

I'm sure that they don't have a scientific method of choosing people, and I'm sure there's not a pool of alternates.

10/3/2008 5:59:55 PM

^^wrong...true conservatives would probably shoot McCain if he were the President just so that Palin could take over

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2008 6:00:42 PM

That's absurd.

10/3/2008 6:01:32 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure that they don't have a scientific method of choosing people, and I'm sure there's not a pool of alternates."

why don't you tell us what scientific method they used to choose people and assure that they got a representative sample of the population, cause you continue to make it sound like this poll is infallible and its science so you cant possibly know more about science than cnn.com pollsters! and a pool of alternates? "yeah if these people dont answer the phone, call these alternates"...wtf are you talking about?

did you notice how foxnews' and drudge's polls all said palin won the debate? you dont think maybe there was some bias and error in those polls? of course there was...but you dont think there was bias in the cnn or msnbc or other polls? but I'M the one sticking to the party line, right?

10/3/2008 6:03:34 PM

She's really fucking hot though, so at least that made the debate better to watch.

10/3/2008 6:07:27 PM

^^ web polls v. scientific polls.

durrrr

10/3/2008 6:09:04 PM

Me and my co-workers had a good chuckle about this. Seems very truthful.

10/3/2008 6:15:19 PM

I hate to tell you guys but polls are inherently inaccurate. I took enough stats classes in college to know this and it really shouldn't be a newsflash. The only problem is that there seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy when polls are used....and sometimes it has the opposite affect.

Let's say that it's voting day, and it's raining and shit and you're still at work...and you are going to vote for Obama. But all the exit polls seem to be saying that Obama is winning by a landslide so by the time you get off work...you're tired, it's raining and you figure that at this point, your vote isn't needed......well then you don't vote at all. Meanwhile, your coworker wants to vote McCain and after hearing the poll numbers they think, 'well fuck! I'd better get my vote in!' so if they weren't sure whether they felt like going to vote after work, it becomes an absolute.

That's just one example....

Also, their margins of error are notoriously low when they conduct these kind of polls.

Further....think about it....do you really think that any of the media outlets (because let's not kid around...they're all leaning hard one way or the other) want accurate results or just results that agree with them. Again, this shouldn't be a newsflash

10/3/2008 6:24:04 PM

Quote :

"Also, their margins of error are notoriously low when they conduct these kind of polls."

I don't know if you meant notoriously HIGH or not but I'd like to see all the factors that went into CNN's supposedly "scientific" poll...I looked around that webpage for any type of background details and information on methods of data collection but didn't see any, but I might have just overlooked them.

ok i just checked again...somebody please tell me that CNN has more of an explanation of their "scientific" polling process than this

Quote :

"Only 26 percent of those surveyed said that Palin was more intelligent in the debate, compared with 57 percent who chose Biden, according to the poll of 611 adult Americans who tuned in to watch it. The poll had a sampling error of 4 percentage points."

Quote :

"^^ web polls v. scientific polls. durrrr"

so are you saying CNN's infallible scientific poll was in fact a web poll, or are you just saying you have no idea what you're talking about?

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 6:56:06 PM

A larger sampling size of your total population can increase the statistical significance of your simple-random sample with a p value of less than .05. The common understanding of the p-value is that you would expect 1 out of 20 samples to show a correlation when there really wasn't a correlation at all. So that means as long as you can get a population that meets that basic statistical requirement, you're golden. So the basic question is, did the poll have a statistical significance of a p value of less than .05?

If it did, it's scientific.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : -]

10/3/2008 7:08:58 PM

and how does a sampling of 611 people achieve that? did they poll people from all 50 states? did they poll both men and women and people of all cultural and financial backgrounds? did they poll people of all age ranges? the CNN.com article doesn't mention any details that I can find, and I'm naturally skeptical that ANY poll of 611 people could be an accurate representation of what 300,000,000 Americans think, let alone the 130,000,000 Americans who vote

10/3/2008 7:22:25 PM

Quote :

"and how does a sampling of 611 people achieve that?"

That depends on the research question itself and the way the variables were selected; neither of which we have access too. However, assuming that they did this without scientific reliability is less likely than assuming that they did. The drudge report is not a reliable news agency, CNN is.

10/3/2008 7:31:22 PM

Quote :

"assuming that they did this without scientific reliability is less likely than assuming that they did"

why wouldn't both assumptions be equally as likely?

and i'm not trying to compare the validity of CNN versus drudge, but if they both had web polls, you'd naturally expect visitors of each site to be skewed differently based on what type of visitors the site attracts and the other alternative sites

but when you've got over 100 million people voting, it seems pretty silly to put much stock in the answers of ~600 people

actually though i doubt any of the news websites, from cnn to msnbc to fox to whoever, didnt disclose their sampling and polling methods...cause theres a serious lack of journalism in the country nowadays...it should be their due diligence to post their methods or at least have a link to the methods which again i have not been able to find

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 7:44:10 PM