Quote :

"you mean kind of like James Hansen? Or the proponents of the original hockey stick? Seems to me that you have no problem believing people who won't disclose their methodologies when it suits your agenda"

every other website that does composite polling provides their methodology for you to read. RCP doesn't. They include and disclude polls whenever it suites them. Earlier this year they refused to put ARG polls in their composite polls, now all of the sudden they are including them without an explanation.

10/10/2008 11:05:31 AM

socks, how do you respond to the fact that McCain is not running a single positive ad now? He has recently pulled the Maverick ad from the air.

how do you respond to that?

10/10/2008 11:08:46 AM

Who is Barack Obama?

10/10/2008 11:22:36 AM

Quote :

"WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T FORGOT THEM THURR COMMIE DEMOCRATS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES AND THATS A FACT GIT THURR DUN! "

It is "GIT ERR DUN!"

Don't forgot those spend happy liberals also are letting the mexicans; dey tukkin errr jerbs!

10/10/2008 11:42:44 AM

carzak Saying someone has a funny name doesn't make you racist (though McCain has never said that either). However, Obama said his opponent would make an issue of the fact he doesn't look like previous Presidents (that he's black). And McCain simply has not done that.

Lord knows the Obama campaign wishes he did. Tuesday Obama's campaign sent out an e-mail blast about referring to Obama as "that one". hahah CLEARLY RACISTTT!!!!

There is really only one candidate that's playing up race and it isn't John McCain.

10/10/2008 11:49:35 AM

Quote :

"socks, how do you respond to the fact that McCain is not running a single positive ad now? He has recently pulled the Maverick ad from the air. how do you respond to that?"

The same way I respond to all his and Obama's negative ads. That I don't think they will work at this point (especially not now that people are more concerned about the economy than Obama's association with Ayers) and it goes back on their promises to run "clean" campaigns.

But, really, I don't care that much about negative campaigning. It actually irks me more when people piss and moan about the "other guy". "OHhhhh our guy may run attack ads, but only because he needs to!! And they are never as bad as that evil other guy's!!! Boo Hoo Hoo"

All I can say is "Man the Fuck Up! Politics Ain't Bean Bag."

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 11:52:00 AM

so technically mccain is like 3x more negative?

10/10/2008 11:54:33 AM

No, you missed the point. McCain's television ad campaign is no 100% negative. This isn't a subjective measure this is objective. He isn't running a single positive ad, where as Obama is about 33% negative in his ad campaigns on TV.

Are you still playing the little game of both are being just as negative as the other one?

10/10/2008 11:56:05 AM

um, are you asking me to characterize the level of negativity in the two campaigns based on a single week of a 2 year campaign for the White House???? Are you suggesting that I ignore months of Barack's attacks on McCain when making my assessment because he's lightened up a bit since the economy tanked and he rose in the polls??????? And are you fruther suggesting that we only evaluate television ads and not speeches or other media that are broadcast to millions!??!?!?

Sorry. I don't think I want to play that game. It's pretty clear you're going to keep changing the rule until you get the answer you want.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 11:58:26 AM

this is more than just 2 weeks. This isn't something that can just be passed off so casually as you are doing. McCain isn't running a campaign on what he wants to do for the country. His campaign is now 100%, you can't trust "that one."

10/10/2008 12:03:08 PM

Quote :

"Frank Schaeffer, writing in the Baltimore Sun ... John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence. At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman. Shame! John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain. You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate."

10/10/2008 12:08:24 PM

^ "now" != 2 year campaign.

Also, you are forgetting the NUMBER OF TIMES each ad is being run. Obama has several times more dough than John McCain. So he could easily be running his negative ads more often than John McCain is running all of his ads. I don't know if that's the case, but it's a possibility you are apparently ignoring.

Of course, I'm sure you will want to change the rules again. "No No No. What REALLY matters is the unquatifiable tone of McCain's campaign that I personally, as an ardent Obama lover, perceive!!!!"

If you want to argue with someone how Obama should be excused for negative attacks because McCain's attacks are "worse", you probably got the wrong guy.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:10:19 PM

do you have a link for that whole article?

10/10/2008 12:11:18 PM

Kainen,

You do realize that Frank Schaeffer is also a blogger on Huffington Post and has been attacking McCain and endorsing Obama for almost a year now, yes???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer

This article should shock no one. At least not any more so than the Daily Kos continually calling for McCain's head.

PS* Can anyone even prove that McCain or Palin even heard those people saying "terrorist" or "kill him"!??!?!?! I mean, on that lesbian chick's show on NBC she had to replay it saying "did you hear that? Someone yelled terrorist. Listen again." If you have to instruct the viewer on what is being said, I don't you can trust the speaker at the podium heard that over all the noise (everyone does realize that we don't hear like microphones, yes?).

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:16:37 PM

I didn't cite the quote because I wanted you to be shocked at who he is, I cited the quote becuase I thought what he had to say was stark and worth reading.

Socks, I have a real problem with the frenzy the McCain campaign is going for right now. I don't deny Obama has learned a lesson from Kerry and fought back with lots of zeal (chicago tough politics) with his own negative ads, but I just think that McCain has taken a FAR worse direction in particular the association and culture issues which are all hail marys to get people to distrust him.

Hussein + Associations + Swahili Name = Terror Cell.

It's sleazy and downright dangerous. All they are doing is stirring up the base and scaring the indies (and us).

10/10/2008 12:20:25 PM

^^Blatant diversion from the issue, as you continue to do.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2008 12:20:42 PM

Kainen,

How is THAT worth reading????

Can anyone even prove that McCain or Palin even heard those people saying "terrorist" or "kill him"!??!?!?! I mean, on that lesbian chick's show on NBC she had to replay it saying "did you hear that? Someone yelled terrorist. Listen again." If you have to instruct the viewer on what is being said, I don't think you can trust that the speaker at the podium heard that over all the noise (everyone does realize that we don't hear like microphones, yes?).

And btw, it's really surprise that YOU of all people think that McCain has run a more negative campaign than Barack. I mean, you are by far the most objective person here. I mean, most days I can't even tell who you are voting for. So, seeing as you are so objective, I'm sure you can show how McCain is more negative than Barry, yes???? I mean, you can quantify this right. If it's just a series of anecdotes, I don't think you would be able to make that argument.

So please teach me. Show me the quantifiable data you have compiled on how McCain is more negative than Obama over the past 2 years. Please. I am very curious.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:26:10 PM

Quote :

"Saying someone has a funny name doesn't make you racist (though McCain has never said that either). "

Thats not the point in contention. I'm saying they are willing to play off people's racist fears.

"For example, when he told a crowd that his opponent would try and scare them by reminding them he has a "funny name""

And it is true, though McCain himself has not done so, his surrogates have. You know how they mention his middle name?

10/10/2008 12:27:08 PM

^ seems like a pretty low criteria of proof. By simply saying his name it makes him guilty. Barack Obama is a funny name. What should McCain do????
Just call him Senator??? Maybe use his initials?????

But look. I'm sure you came to your opinion based on a reasonable ammount of quantifiable evidence and not just a string of anecdotes you found on the Daily Kos. So I will ask you think same question I asked Kainen.

Quote :

"So please teach me. Show me the quantifiable data you have compiled on how McCain is more negative than Obama over the past 2 years. Please. I am very curious."

The moment you can quantify that McCain has run a more negative campaign than Obama OR that McCain has been racist toward Obama, I will, quite simply, Kiss Your Ass.

And that doesn't just mean counting the number of negative ads or even how often they run. I mean stump speeches, interviews, surrogates, the whole works.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:29:46 PM

Why are we bothering to try to argue with this tool? I mean its not like he's ever going to concede anything.

10/10/2008 12:31:31 PM

^ I'm asking myself the same question. I mean, it's not like you will support your argument with any evidence.

"McCain said Barack Obama's name!!!! HOW RACIST!!!!" heheh how can I argue with stuff like this?

10/10/2008 12:32:21 PM

i was just about to ask him if he'd concede that mccain is at least a "little" more negative than obama

10/10/2008 12:32:28 PM

DNL, And I would say that I don't know. I simply don't have the data to make a quantifiable judgement of who is MORE negative than the other. That is why I stick to the much weaker argument, that they have both used similar negative attack techniques over the past 2 years.

That is a very hard statement to disagree with. That's why carzack and Kainen keep insisting that Obama may be negative but he isn't AS negative as McCain. They simply can't accept even the suggestion that McCain and Obama are equally guilty, even if they can't prove their own argument.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:34:54 PM

Hey tool, there is no reason to call Obama by his full name. Does the Obama camp go around calling McCain John Sydney McCain? No. Because middle names are irrelevant. Do people traditionally call eachother by their full names? No. They are doing it because his middle name is Hussien, and it plays off peoples fears.

10/10/2008 12:39:45 PM

You're right it's not like anyone knows FDR's JFK's RFK's or LBJ's middle names!! Oh wait, almost EVERYONE knows theM! MAYBE FITZGERALD IS MUSLIM FOR SOMETHING!?!??!?!?

Well, um, maybe it's old timey thing. It's not like anyone know George Bush's middle name. OOPS!!! Most Republicans actually love calling Bush "Dubya" after his middle initial--Walker.

OH SHIT!!!!



Like I said. This standard of proof is too low. If saying Barry's name is racist, then everyone is guilty.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 12:44:38 PM

people who make a point of using his name are doing it to incite fear or make him appear less american

son't be such a fucking dolt

10/10/2008 12:46:39 PM

^ I see. Mind reading sure is fun, isn't it kids????

10/10/2008 12:48:05 PM

^^^ I wouldn't argue against that- the assertion that they have both used similar campaign styles for the last two years. While not definably negative, their campaigns have relied on the obfuscation of each other's record.

I would argue that their referencing Obama's middle name, their rehashing of a fairly casual and passing connection to a radical, and their attempts to spread FUD regarding what is known about him represent a new tack for their campaign. The difference is the apparent attempt to appeal to the basest and most abhorrent instincts of a small minority of Americans. I just wish they'd get back to twisting the truth about the issues rather than appealing to ignorance. Same game, but different content.

^^^ Sounds like you've found evidence of a long practiced strategy of the right using democrats' middle names to try to discredit them. The only republican middle name I can think of off the top of my head is George W. Bush- but we know that because it's useful in distinguishing him from his father. Thanks for pointing out this middle-name conspiracy.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : sarcasm]

10/10/2008 12:48:34 PM

Does anyone call them by their middle names? NO. We say John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush. We dont call them by their full names. You are useless.

10/10/2008 12:48:48 PM

^ are you saying you've never ever ever once heard someone saying John Fitzgerald Kennedy???? Or George Walker Bush?????

You must not get out much. Or this is just your first election and you're taking everything personal. Guess which one I'm betting?

10/10/2008 12:50:06 PM

republican surrogates sometimes even slow down and put the emphasis on the middle name. you are a fucking retard if you don't think thats to make him sound less american.

10/10/2008 12:51:15 PM

^ excellent argument.

10/10/2008 12:54:33 PM

10/10/2008 12:55:48 PM

I think the real link the pundits are trying to create comes from Obama's initials. Obviously people will start thinking "BHO" which everyone knows are a major source of security holes in web browsers. After a while of people calling him Barrack Hussein Obama, they'll get lazy and say Barrack H. Obama and eventually BHO. Then people will start associating him with spyware and viruses. That's when people will make the link and question whether it's the best thing for our national security to have a BHO that we just don't know anything about installed in the white house. It's a brilliant plan to win over IT workers for McCain.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_Helper_Object]

10/10/2008 12:58:25 PM

My oh my it seems I touched a nerve.

Ginning up Fear. William Ayers, Domestic Terrorism, quotes from Palin saying ‘he doesn’t see America like the rest of us do”, questioning his patriotism, saying Obama ‘wants us to lose the war in IRAQ’ is all deplorable and beyond anything Obama has suggested on comparison. The closest Obama got was the Keating 5 ad which was a reactionary measure. Insinuating Obama as not an honorable American is awful. I guess he is ‘THAT ONE’

Not repudiating crowd mob comments when we know we heard them. The ‘HE’S A TERRORIST’ is on youtube and you can clearly see McCain react to it, you can see his face scrunch up, but he did NOTHING about it – spineless and dishonorable.

“lipstick on a pig” – shameless bullshit, the gender card Obama would get TOASTED if he went on record playing a card like that.

McCain ad about Obama ‘made time to go to gym but didn’t care about our wounded troops when cameras weren’t around’ Implications are FALSE. “Obama had previously visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and in Baghdad – both without cameras in tow. He did cancel a visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany after the Pentagon told him that Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Jonathan Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser, would not be permitted to accompany him. Obama said afterward that he had "a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political."

Kindergarten Sex Education ad completely trashed by all quarters of the media and press for being what it is (even Karl Rove called it out) – an attempt to paint Obama as some scary guy that wants to teach kids about sex, when in fact we all know that’s not what it was about, it was designed for comprehensive sex protection education against predators. This wasn't kids putting condoms on bananas despite the way the ad with the scary guy's voiceover is trying to mislead people into believing. That was a bunch of bullshit.

Ads accusing Obama of voting against funding our toops and endangering them FALSE and bullshit considering where McCain stood. “The ad refers to a single 2007 vote against a war funding bill. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. President Bush vetoed it. (McCain supported that veto, but didn't call it "vetoing support for our troops.") What Obama voted against was the same bill without withdrawal language. And he had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote.”

Publishing lies about Obama’s tax plan Factcheck derailed every single ad McCain ran about Obama’s stance on taxes, but he couldn’t give a shit about the truth. :Sen. Barack Obama has voted to raise taxes on families earning as little as $32,000 per year (FALSE), that Obama wants to tax your electricity and your heating oil (FALSE), that he has voted for "higher" taxes 94 times (FALSE), and that he will raise taxes for 23 million small-business owners (FALSE).

Allowing surrogates at directly sponsored campaign events to highlight and push Obama’s middle name to suggest it’s foreign nature, to promoted fear. You see, his campaign went on a record to DENOUNCE this multiple times, once right after the primaries against that Cincinatti radio host, and twice a couple weeks back – yet do you see them doing anything about it? If it happens three times in campaign events in a week, it is coordinated or they aren’t doing anything about it. Bottom line.

This compares to what I see as Obama’s worst moments. Sorry but I just don’t think they compare socks.

- Spanish Radio ad misdirecting Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
-- Keating 5 video (which I still don’t think was that bad).
- 100 years in Iraq misdirection
- Obama mocking McCain for not being in touch, can’t use a computer. Insinuations and double use verbiage that implies and reinforces an ‘age’ issue (e.g. erratic, out of touch, so forth)

10/10/2008 12:59:43 PM

carzak,

It's funny you took it down this road. You know that Barry said that McCain would make an issue of his skin color. Funny you haven't come up with examples of that, huh????

Look. Even if you want to argue that saying Obama's middle name is racist or playing off people's fears....if that's YOUR BEST example of McCain's campaign being racist, I don't think you have much of a case.

And since you can't this makes Obama's comment pure character assination. Even if Obama can't show McCain himself or his campaign is racist, he said they were. That's pretty bad.

But I will stop here. There is really no point in going further.

10/10/2008 1:00:32 PM

here is what McCains campaign spokesman said:

Quote :

"We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November "

inappropriate rhetoric?

BUT WHY IS USING A MIDDLE NAME INAPPROPRIATE DURRR!??!

10/10/2008 1:01:38 PM

John Sidney McCain.

Or, as I like say, Cosy Djinn Machine.

(That's why he'll win the election, folks. Free wishes for everyone!)

10/10/2008 1:02:58 PM

^^^ When did Obama say that John McCain would use race? I vaugely remember him implying that some misguided supports of his might- but there's often a difference between what a candidate does/wants and what their more independent supporters do. I thought his gist was that people not directly part of the campaign might try to use race.

^Wishes are always free.*

*Efficacy of wishes may vary.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 1:03:41 PM

Kainen,

Quote :

"This compares to what I see as Obama’s worst moments. Sorry but I just don’t think they compare socks."

That is a string of anecdotes about which you made a subjective judgment that just so happens to fits your choice of who should be President.

Sorry if that doesn't meet my standards of proof. Your argument really has no legs at all. If you want to actually QUANTIFY your argument with real STATISTICS that encompass all the tools available to the campaigns (commercials, the number of times they ran, speeches, interviews, surrogates, etc) THEN I will consider your argument valid.

Until then, this is a game about who can pretend to be the most outraged at a particular anecdote. And I don't play those types of games.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 1:03:51 PM

Quote :

"Sorry if that doesn't meet my standards of proof. You argument really has no legs at all. If you want to actually QUANTIFY your argument with real STATISTICS that encompass all the tools available to the campaigns"

LOL. You have set up impossible or nearly impossible stadards of proof, which is a tactic you continue to use to try to remain on the winning side of the argument.

10/10/2008 1:11:53 PM

This is bullshit socks. You call me out for repeatedly belaboring McCain with what I feel is a nasty campaign and not backing it up, so I take a lot of time out of my day at work to compile my argument out of respect of you asking for it ....and you just dismiss it away. I don't get it, I have no idea why I fall for your little traps to waste my fucking time.

5 of the 8 of my bullets back there have been proven FALSE with real verifiable and quantifiable (Boolean) means, and yes the other three were my rationale and color as to why I think his campaign is a bunch of sleazy bastards that had to be mentioned. God knows you've put the halo over top of his head and will deny all of it, but I made that post not to convert a stubborn ass like yourself, but to justify the way I feel the way I do. It gets under my skin when you insinuate that I haven't thought about this and arrive at my conclusion just based on my worship of Obama.

Even if there were quantifiable data to make the case on levels of sleaze in campaigns (which there isn't), I'm sure the stats pertaining to this would be partisan. This topic is subjective in every fucking manner...you can't make science out of it.

10/10/2008 1:14:53 PM

Quote :

"“He’s spending an awful lot of time talking about me. You notice that?” Obama asked a crowd of just over one thousand seated in a university gym. “I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s going to do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things." “They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency..."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-don%E2%80%99t-let-other-side-scare-you/

Despite initial denials, an Obama aide later admited that Obama was referring to his race (does that mean they were lying when they denied it? naahhhh).
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=5495348&page=1

I think the context indicates that he was referring to McCain's campaign, but he could be talking about Republicans in general. Either way, McCain and his campaign would fall in either group, so it is clearly an attack on his opponent.

I call that a pretty low blow. I know you will disagree. I really don't care.

10/10/2008 1:17:10 PM

Quote :

"*Efficacy of wishes may vary."

I think the anagram means McCain will produce nanotechnology with genies if elected.

In other words, Cosy Djinn Machine '08!

10/10/2008 1:17:14 PM

Since the things beign compared are subjective, it's even more impossible to prove the argument of their campaigns being equally negative. With subjective things you can show examples where one is orders of magnitude worse than another. For example, the holocaust was much worse than shoplifting. Arguing that two things are equally bad requires an exactness in moral weight that only works if your moral judgment is truly catholic.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:18 PM. Reason : lowercase c]

10/10/2008 1:17:31 PM

Kainen

I made it clear in the beginning I wasn't look for a comparison of anecdotes. That's why I said QUANTIFIABLE arguments need only apply. I can list a bunch of Obama's anecdotes too and piss and moan about it. Doesn't mean they are any worse than McCain's.

10/10/2008 1:18:49 PM

Chary,

My argument is only that they both engaged in negative campaigning. Like I told DNL, I don't make any claim about who is worse. That is much easier to say than to try and talk about magnitudes of negativity. Equal or otherwise.

10/10/2008 1:20:07 PM

really gotta work folks. Peace out.

10/10/2008 1:21:36 PM

Sure that's easier to defend in some ways, but it's a position that is gauranteed to be incorrect. It's like when someone says they don't vote because both candidates are just as bad. Sure it's impossible to disprove that since you don't know how bad either of them truly is until they've served through their term (even then it's subjective.) Surely though, even if this negativity were quantifiable, the likelihood of them being equally so is roughly 0. This means that holding the position of sameness is ultimately almost always wrong. At least if you pick one and go with it you've got a statistical chance of being correct. Choosing the positing that, while impossible to disprove, is almost impossible to be correct does not give you the high ground to demand logical quantifiable arguments.

Similarly, trying to argue that the magnitude of their negativity is meaningless unless people give quantifiable proof is also untenable. What you are saying is that while you can not quantify the thing you also will not hear a word about the thing unless it is quantified. What you are effectively saying is that you are incapable of considering and debating it. If that is true, please kindly remove yourself from the debate since you have admitted you are incapable of processing it.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2008 1:24:51 PM

Quote :

"I can list a bunch of Obama's anecdotes too and piss and moan about it. Doesn't mean they are any worse than McCain's."

Oh really? Pin em up to a billboard next to my list and feed them to some measure of objective people. Be sure to remove the Obama and McCain campaign names and add some salt.

I bet you the farm where the consensus would be. I'm not anymore objective than you are. But I try to be honest.

For the record....I think that currency line is unfair, but I don't think it's a low blow. It's a prototypical political response where there is no reason to believe outright any race implication, but yet just phrasing it that way leaves people with ideas to interpret it in bad ways...kinda like that whole 'punished my 11 year old with a baby' - Most understood what he was getting out, but why phrase it in anyway to hand hand clips to your enemies. That's the area of politics that drives me nuts.

I remember when that happened thinking that I didn't favor the line. It's kinda like that thing, if there's a fire you are trying to suppress, definitely don't throw gas on it...but don't blow air on it either

10/10/2008 1:37:37 PM