So Palin has been worth 3 points so far?

There's already rumors of them dropping her off the ticket.

There's already rumors of them dropping her off the ticket.

If they do that, Obama wins by 20+ points.

 

If they do that, Obama wins by 20+ points.

What do you base this on?

What do you base this on?

DailyKos has started a pool to guess when she will drop out or be removed.

DailyKos has started a pool to guess when she will drop out or be removed.

I'm just wondering why he thinks that happening would hurt McCain so much.

you know I think you conservatives read dailykos more than any of us do.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

 

Is it now?

Wealth -> Arrogance -> Apathy -> 2008

I'm just wondering why he thinks that happening would hurt McCain so much.

When it happened to McGovern it slaughtered any chance he ever had.

What do you base this on?

Intrade prediction market has people putting money down on this option.

 

http://www.intrade.com/

Intrade prediction market has people putting money down on this option.

 

http://www.intrade.com/

Awww snap somebody read their HuffPost this morning!

 

I dont think they'll drop her unless the corruption really starts to seep through. Like Stevens throws her under the bus to save his own ass or Troopergate goes nuclear. This family issue stuff wont do it even if there is sex involved.

So Palin has been worth 3 points so far?

 

you are confusing polls.

Awww snap somebody read their HuffPost this morning!

 

I dont think they'll drop her unless the corruption really starts to seep through. Like Stevens throws her under the bus to save his own ass or Troopergate goes nuclear. This family issue stuff wont do it even if there is sex involved.

 

but it's already poor. It should all be pos. for the republicans now, it's their convention week. And all you are getting is defensiveness about Palin.

 

but even with all this, I still say the most important part is McCain's judgment. Now the NYT is saying that McCain only had people go up to Alaska one day before she was selected. She was a very rushed pick.

Let's be honest, anybody who cares about the issues has their mind made up by now. The rest of the campaign will be dictated by gotcha bulls*** so if the other side wants to play this game I'm down.

 

This is why democracy is a failed concept.

 

I would be very curious as to what form of government you would advocate.

I would be very curious as to what form of government you would advocate.

 

you'll enjoy it.

 

 

Also, LOL from huff post:

 

It turns out she had a somewhat different approach. If a small-town mayor ever ruled with an iron fist -- it was Palin. Eleven days after taking office in 1996, she mailed letters to each of the city's top managers requesting that they resign as a test of loyalty.

 

but it's already poor. It should all be pos. for the republicans now, it's their convention week. And all you are getting is defensiveness about Palin.

 

but even with all this, I still say the most important part is McCain's judgment. Now the NYT is saying that McCain only had people go up to Alaska one day before she was selected. She was a very rushed pick.

Well isn't that kind of the risk they assumed when they made the pick? Remember everybody saying this was going to either make or break the election for McCain. Of course the McCain camp could've done a better job assessing the risk if they knew jack s*** about her (it took the left-wing blogs about 24 hours to scrape up enough dirt on her to force a public announcement).

 

But who would replace her? If you kick her off and put in Pawlenty or Romney that wouldn't generate much buzz in the base and talk about alienating the woman vote. It's a screwed up situation for them, keep Palin and just hope the bleeding stops or just save some of the parties image and try not to lose damn near all of their seats in Congress?

I would be very curious as to what form of government you would advocate.

A kind of parliamentary system who's chief executive is really nothing more than a figurehead.

 

Putting one man in charge of the largest military in the world is just dumb.

Edited September 2, 200817 yr by DukeNukeEm

A kind of parliamentary system who's chief executive is really nothing more than a figurehead.

 

Putting one man in charge of the largest military in the world is just dumb.

 

A team of brothers would be better. Like the Coen Brothers.

A team of brothers would be better. Like the Coen Brothers.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Hardy Boyz.

Well isn't that kind of the risk they assumed when they made the pick? Remember everybody saying this was going to either make or break the election for McCain. Of course the McCain camp could've done a better job assessing the risk if they knew jack s*** about her (it took the left-wing blogs about 24 hours to scrape up enough dirt on her to force a public announcement).

 

But who would replace her? If you kick her off and put in Pawlenty or Romney that wouldn't generate much buzz in the base and talk about alienating the woman vote. It's a screwed up situation for them, keep Palin and just hope the bleeding stops or just save some of the parties image and try not to lose damn near all of their seats in Congress?

 

I'm just wondering how much they weighed the risk at all. I mean McCain won this thing back in late march. He's had 5 months to pick a VP, did he really not know how mad conservatives would be with Ridge or Lieberman for FIVE mo.? NY Times said he had one interview with Palin and gave it to her soon thereafter. In my mind, all they saw was pro-choice, woman, you can get Clinton, alright go with it.

 

In the modern presidency the pick of VP means a lot, and if this is the amount of consideration that went into it, it's certainly telling.

A kind of parliamentary system who's chief executive is really nothing more than a figurehead.

 

Putting one man in charge of the largest military in the world is just dumb.

 

What does China's military have to do with this conversation?

What does China's military have to do with this conversation?

Bah I was going to post this, but not nearly as cleverly.

When it happened to McGovern it slaughtered any chance he ever had.

 

To be frank, McGovern slaughtered any chance McGovern had.

I'm just wondering how much they weighed the risk at all. I mean McCain won this thing back in late march. He's had 5 months to pick a VP, did he really not know how mad conservatives would be with Ridge or Lieberman for FIVE mo.? NY Times said he had one interview with Palin and gave it to her soon thereafter. In my mind, all they saw was pro-choice, woman, you can get Clinton, alright go with it.

 

In the modern presidency the pick of VP means a lot, and if this is the amount of consideration that went into it, it's certainly telling.

 

 

I find it increasingly frustrating that people assume that no thought or vetting went into this VP pick. Clearly, there are numerous news articles about "how much" vetting was done and how it was conducted. However, there seems to be this impression out there that Palin was picked on some whim in order to attract Clinton supporters. Palin was brought in to energize the Republican base (which I believe she has), solidify the social conservative vote (her issue positions certainly match here), to reinforce McCain's "maverick" nature (which she does to some degree, though maybe not as much as picking Lieberman), and to represent change (both from the current administration and in general from business as usual).

 

As for the lack of vetting, so far the "dirt" on her is that she has conservative social views (e.g. creationism, pro-life), has been affiliated with a party that might support Alaskan seccession, has a pregnant teenage daughter, that her issue positions do not 100% match McCain's, and that she is potentially involved in the least scandalous political "scandal" that I've heard about in some time.

 

If this is the worst that can be found on her, I'd say she (and the McCain/Palin) ticket are in pretty good shape. For someone that was virtually unknown in the general public (though she'd been discussed as VP candidate for months), it is not unusual at all for these things to appear surprising to the general public (who didn't know her anyway).

I think being involved with a secessionist movement is a big deal if someone is running for one of the two highest offices in the country. I think its more important than her State Trooper escapade (which would be an impeachable offense in many states). It's becoming apparent that the McCain campaign didn't think there was a lot to vet. I think what they and the rest of the country is starting to find out is that there just might be.

I find it increasingly frustrating that people assume that no thought or vetting went into this VP pick. Clearly, there are numerous news articles about "how much" vetting was done and how it was conducted. However, there seems to be this impression out there that Palin was picked on some whim in order to attract Clinton supporters. Palin was brought in to energize the Republican base (which I believe she has), solidify the social conservative vote (her issue positions certainly match here), to reinforce McCain's "maverick" nature (which she does to some degree, though maybe not as much as picking Lieberman), and to represent change (both from the current administration and in general from business as usual).

 

As for the lack of vetting, so far the "dirt" on her is that she has conservative social views (e.g. creationism, pro-life), has been affiliated with a party that might support Alaskan seccession, has a pregnant teenage daughter, that her issue positions do not 100% match McCain's, and that she is potentially involved in the least scandalous political "scandal" that I've heard about in some time.

 

If this is the worst that can be found on her, I'd say she (and the McCain/Palin) ticket are in pretty good shape. For someone that was virtually unknown in the general public (though she'd been discussed as VP candidate for months), it is not unusual at all for these things to appear surprising to the general public (who didn't know her anyway).

 

In other words, she was a completely political pick with no thoughts as to whether she could run the country.

 

"Least scandalous scandal" ever...maybe if you didn't pay attention to the BUsh administration. Maybe if you think you should be allowed to use your political power to take care of family differences. Maybe If you would like another presidential administration that again acts like it was just their aides. But I remember the U.S. attorney scandal and the politicization of most every department during the Bush administration, and I don't want it repeated.