PDA

View Full Version : so now Obama picked Biden, Who does Mccain get to counter?



Doc Fluty
08-24-2008, 06:22 PM
Do you guys think this decision impacts Mccains options?

or does he just go with what he was going to do anyway...

papipapsmanny
08-24-2008, 06:48 PM
who would he pick, the guy will have to be more conservative

he cant pick huckabee the man is crazy, romney looks like a bit of a fool after the primaries

maybe giuliani i bet people would like that

or take a chance on fred thompson to get conservative and some star power

who knows what he will do

yaowowrocket11
08-24-2008, 07:57 PM
Ignore Obama's pick and get the guy/gal he always wanted anyway

Doesn't really matter about Obama's pick. Just pick the person who gives him the best chance to win, and honestly, I'm not sure who that is. Perhaps Romney or Lieberman.

carson005
08-24-2008, 08:02 PM
Romney strengthens his weakness in economy. But weakens the Christian base.
Huckabee strengthens the Christian and conservative vote. But is batshit crazy

yaowowrocket11
08-24-2008, 08:06 PM
Romney strengthens his weakness in economy. But weakens the Christian base.
Huckabee strengthens the Christian and conservative vote. But is batshit crazy

Which is why I think he might go with someone like Lieberman, Pawlenty, Jindal, or Crist, who really doesn't affect the vote like Romney or Huckabee. Those people pretty much dismiss the chance of McCain's support decreasing.

SmthBluCitrus
08-24-2008, 08:20 PM
I don't see him going out and tabbing Fred :yawn: Thompson. The guy was supposed to be the savior of the GOP brand. But, I don't think he woke up. Then again, it was during the writers strike. Maybe he just didn't have a script (I still haven't gotten tired of that joke).

Really, I believe it's going to be Tim Pawlenty (Gov MN). The guy brings a youthful exuberance ... if only he could get his wife to have sex with him. :D


"I have a wife who genuinely loves to fish. I mean, she will take the lead and ask me to go out fishing, and joyfully comes here. She loves football, she'll go to hockey games ... Now, if I could only get her to have sex with me."

http://wcco.com/local/pawlenty.sex.joke.2.721251.html

rhino17
08-24-2008, 08:32 PM
I want Mitt Romney, my original 1st choice for the republican nomination

nascar10294
08-24-2008, 09:16 PM
I want Romney, and it has to be Romney.

He's inexpiernced, but I like Bobby Jindal

CubsGirl
08-24-2008, 11:29 PM
I'd assume that he's so far along in the selection process that he chooses the person who is the right fit for his campaign, and not the person who would look best compared to Obama's selection.

OnWisconsin2007
08-24-2008, 11:35 PM
Huckabee thinks the earth is 6,000 years old. The guy is very obviously an idiot.

blenderboy5
08-24-2008, 11:56 PM
Yeah anyone who believes in a being higher than Barack Obama's just ********.

McCain should just pick the candidate he was going to go with anyway.

DenButsu
08-25-2008, 12:27 AM
Let's not derail this thread, please.

carson005
08-25-2008, 12:31 AM
Which is why I think he might go with someone like Lieberman, Pawlenty, Jindal, or Crist, who really doesn't affect the vote like Romney or Huckabee. Those people pretty much dismiss the chance of McCain's support decreasing.

I love Jindal, he'd be the perfect candidate,plus it gets the public familiar with him for a future presidential run. But hasn't he said publicly he won't be the VP?

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 12:39 AM
Biden said it wouldn't be him too. All VP candidates deny they're the one until the official announcement. But I hope it's not Jindal. Because he has a really bright future in politics.

gcoll
08-25-2008, 12:47 AM
Jindal is a weirdo.

About the subject. If Obama had picked Hillary, Mccain would have to "counter" that move with something big. But really....at this point, it doesn't matter who he picks.

I got money on Lieberman as the pick. But I'm already down $10 because I was sure that Hillary would be Obama's pick. And 4 years ago, I really thought Kerry was going to pick Gephardt. I suck at guessing VP choices.

NotVeryOriginal
08-25-2008, 12:49 AM
Does anyone know why Condi Rice isnt running for VP?

I think this would be McCains dream ticket. She has experience and is a familiar face, yet isnt so far up in the Bush admin that she can really take any blame for whats happened the past 8 years. She can get a slice of the black vote because there are conservatives who are voting for Obama just cause hes black, she also secures the female vote from the disenfranchised Hillary femi-nazis, and she attracts the GOP base. I cant see any reason why the RNC isnt doing everything they can to get her to join the ticket? Anyone?

In the end I think he goes with Romney but then again I though Obama would pick Bloomberg

gcoll
08-25-2008, 01:04 AM
I cant see any reason why the RNC isnt doing everything they can to get her to join the ticket? Anyone?

Perhaps too much of a Bush association.

But...yeah. She'd be a pretty good pick.

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 01:19 AM
Hell, I'd vote for Condi for president. She's such an incredibly smart woman. But that would really cement the "Mccain=Bush" argument.

gcoll
08-25-2008, 01:22 AM
Hell, I'd vote for Condi for president. She's such an incredibly smart woman. But that would really cement the "Mccain=Bush" argument.

Yes, but I think she may be able to skate by on that. I think people may have a positive view of her. As opposed to picking someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld.

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 01:27 AM
Other than being slandered and attacked while testifying before Congress, she definitely doesn't have the name recognition that brings about feelings of rage than Cheney or Rummy have. So maybe you're right/

DenButsu
08-25-2008, 03:30 AM
Yes, but I think she may be able to skate by on that. I think people may have a positive view of her. As opposed to picking someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I'd probably agree with "more popular than Cheney or Rumsfeld", but then, that's setting the bar pretty damn low. She at least has done herself a favor by (at least by appearances) staying abroad and out of Washington, and appearing often with foreign leaders and never with Bush.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 08:25 AM
she also secures the female vote from the disenfranchised Hillary femi-nazis

No, she doesn't. Disenfranchised Hillary voters would stay home before they'd vote for somebody within the Bush administration.

NotVeryOriginal
08-25-2008, 11:46 AM
No, she doesn't. Disenfranchised Hillary voters would stay home before they'd vote for somebody within the Bush administration.

Thats a nice use of selective memory there.

Notice the word 'femi-nazi' anywhere in that post?

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 11:56 AM
Thats a nice use of selective memory there.

Notice the word 'femi-nazi' anywhere in that post?

Ok, I really don't know what you're trying to say here or where you're going ... but I will say this.

It doesn't matter if Condi is tabbed as the VP pick. They're not going to pick up those Clinton supporters (femi-nazi's ... to use your disparaging uber-conservative buzzword).

Feminists are not going to vote for McCain en masse. Sure, a couple will break from the mold as a protest to the Obama nomination, but not enough will side with the furvently "anti-choice" McCain -- regardless of a female sidekick. They will stay home.

I don't know what was so "selective" about my memory based upon my previous post.

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 12:08 PM
And to add to SBC's post.

There are women who will vote for McCain because Hillary was snubbed. That's going to happen regardless of who McCain picks.

But if McCain picks a female running mate, it's not going to make more women vote for McCain. Jane Smith won't say "I'm okay with Hillary being snubbed, I don't agree with McCain on anything and Obama agrees with me on A, B, and C. OMG ESTROGEN! Now I have to vote for McCain."

It just won't happen.

And I'm sorry for typing omg. And I'm sorry for typing it that time.

NotVeryOriginal
08-25-2008, 12:09 PM
Ok, I really don't know what you're trying to say here or where you're going ... but I will say this.

It doesn't matter if Condi is tabbed as the VP pick. They're not going to pick up those Clinton supporters (femi-nazi's ... to use your disparaging uber-conservative buzzword).

Feminists are not going to vote for McCain en masse. Sure, a couple will break from the mold as a protest to the Obama nomination, but not enough will side with the furvently "anti-choice" McCain -- regardless of a female sidekick. They will stay home.

I don't know what was so "selective" about my memory based upon my previous post.

Femi-nazi isnt a a conservative word and from what Ive read up to 25% of Hillary supporters are swtiching over because mainly of the percieved sexism in picking Obama.

NotVeryOriginal
08-25-2008, 12:10 PM
And to add to SBC's post.

There are women who will vote for McCain because Hillary was snubbed. That's going to happen regardless of who McCain picks.

But if McCain picks a female running mate, it's not going to make more women vote for McCain. Jane Smith won't say "I'm okay with Hillary being snubbed, I don't agree with McCain on anything and Obama agrees with me on A, B, and C. OMG ESTROGEN! Now I have to vote for McCain."

It just won't happen.

And I'm sorry for typing omg. And I'm sorry for typing it that time.

Yeah Im sure it wont happen like THAT.

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Femi-nazi is a conservative word. It is a sometimes accurate description of crazy feminists who can't handle reality. Like sometimes a father is good in a child's life. Or sometimes aborting a baby isn't for the best. Or maybe genetically women are different than men, especially in math and science.

But it is a conservative buzzword. It was coined by Rush Limbaugh, who is a what?

That's right. A conservative.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 12:21 PM
Femi-nazi isnt a a conservative word and from what Ive read up to 25% of Hillary supporters are swtiching over because mainly of the percieved sexism in picking Obama.

Then why is it that only conservative talking heads (like Rush) use it?

And, although I'm glad that you're reading, you're talking about a huge portion of rank-and-file Democrats. They aren't going to cross the line and vote for John McCain.

I still think it's funny (and this isn't a response to your post at all) ...

Hillary Clinton beats out five and a half white guys (Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson -- see, half a white guy if we're playing this whole half-white/half-hispanic thing) and ultimately loses to the one black guy, and people are complaining of sexism on the campaign trail. Were there some gaffes by guys like Chris Matthews and other political pundits as well as t-shirt makers (bros before hos)? Sure! Just the same as we saw the racial-bias of the primary campaign against Obama.

But, that's not why Hillary lost. She had the support of greater than 50% of white male working class likely-Dems voters.

No, Hillary lost because she ran an incredibly poor primary strategy. She was running as a general election candidate before the Iowa Caucus and she never initiated a primary game plan until the had all but lost the nomination ... then she turned it into a burnt earth strategy.

No, feminists won't go to McCain. They'll vote for Obama -- or that Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney (GA). Or they'll just stay home.

DenButsu
08-25-2008, 12:24 PM
And I'm sorry for typing omg. And I'm sorry for typing it that time.

:laugh2:

ari1013
08-25-2008, 12:38 PM
IMO it's going to be Lieberman. McCain's still rolling with the maverick theme and there's no reason for him to pick a Romney, Huckabee, or Jindal and remind voters that he's not really as much a maverick as the media portrays him to be.

Randy West
08-25-2008, 12:50 PM
McCain should pick Hillary as his running mate

That would really shake things up

b1e9a8r5s
08-25-2008, 01:51 PM
It's going to be Romney in my opinion. He can go toe to toe with Biden. He strengthens McCain on the economy. He could provide a boost out west (Neveda, Colorado, New Mexico) as he's from the area as well as being a mormon. I don't think there's anyway he can choose a pro-choice candidate after the rights reaction to Tom Ridge being mentioned. Romney seems to have become the good soilder since dropping out and has really put the diferences between him and McCain behind him. I'm sure that the dems will use some of what Romney and McCain said about each other against them, but the same is allready being done by the repulicans about Biden/Obama so I think that would be a wash. At this point, I'd be really shocked if it wasn't Roomney.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 02:06 PM
McCain should pick Hillary as his running mate

That would really shake things up

LoL -- then McCain would really lose the conservative right.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 02:11 PM
It's going to be Romney in my opinion. He can go toe to toe with Biden. He strengthens McCain on the economy. He could provide a boost out west (Neveda, Colorado, New Mexico) as he's from the area as well as being a mormon. I don't think there's anyway he can choose a pro-choice candidate after the rights reaction to Tom Ridge being mentioned. Romney seems to have become the good soilder since dropping out and has really put the diferences between him and McCain behind him. I'm sure that the dems will use some of what Romney and McCain said about each other against them, but the same is allready being done by the repulicans about Biden/Obama so I think that would be a wash. At this point, I'd be really shocked if it wasn't Roomney.

Being a Mormon is about the extent of Romney's western ties. He went to school at BYU, I really don't think that'll help him in Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. It would boost the McCain ticket in Utah ... but I don't think McCain needs much help there.

Other than that, Romney is a Michigan and Massachusetts boy, plain and simple.

Then again ... he could give McCain a boost in that ever important suburban white rapper segment. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1P0WBlVAIA

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 02:22 PM
Then why is it that only conservative talking heads (like Rush) use it?

And, although I'm glad that you're reading, you're talking about a huge portion of rank-and-file Democrats. They aren't going to cross the line and vote for John McCain.

I still think it's funny (and this isn't a response to your post at all) ...

Hillary Clinton beats out five and a half white guys (Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson -- see, half a white guy if we're playing this whole half-white/half-hispanic thing) and ultimately loses to the one black guy, and people are complaining of sexism on the campaign trail. Were there some gaffes by guys like Chris Matthews and other political pundits as well as t-shirt makers (bros before hos)? Sure! Just the same as we saw the racial-bias of the primary campaign against Obama.

But, that's not why Hillary lost. She had the support of greater than 50% of white male working class likely-Dems voters.

No, Hillary lost because she ran an incredibly poor primary strategy. She was running as a general election candidate before the Iowa Caucus and she never initiated a primary game plan until the had all but lost the nomination ... then she turned it into a burnt earth strategy.

No, feminists won't go to McCain. They'll vote for Obama -- or that Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney (GA). Or they'll just stay home.

Did you happen to read Donna Brazille's column on this today? Really good column.

b1e9a8r5s
08-25-2008, 02:22 PM
Being a Mormon is about the extent of Romney's western ties. He went to school at BYU, I really don't think that'll help him in Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. It would boost the McCain ticket in Utah ... but I don't think McCain needs much help there.

Other than that, Romney is a Michigan and Massachusetts boy, plain and simple.

Then again ... he could give McCain a boost in that ever important suburban white rapper segment. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1P0WBlVAIA

Hate to disagree with you, but ....

"It's going to make a big difference if Mitt Romney is the V.P." for McCain, said Nick Isenberg, a Democratic activist from Glenwood Springs. "We have a lot of Mormons in Colorado."

Nevada's mormon population is 7% btw, which is no small number considering the polls show the state is a toss up.

You do mention Michigan, which is something I forgot to mention as another plus for Romney.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/25/MNDR12HM1O.DTL&type=politics

Randy West
08-25-2008, 02:31 PM
LoL -- then McCain would really lose the conservative right.

Yeah but I wonder how many votes Hillary would end up stealing??

And I know it is a total joke but really what would happen?? That would end up being a fairly middle of the road ticket

One rebublican and a donothingcrat all cramed on the same ticket

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 02:33 PM
Did you happen to read Donna Brazille's column on this today? Really good column.

Didn't. And honestly have never really read Donna Brazile ... don't know why. Where do I find her, anyhow?


Hate to disagree with you, but ....

"It's going to make a big difference if Mitt Romney is the V.P." for McCain, said Nick Isenberg, a Democratic activist from Glenwood Springs. "We have a lot of Mormons in Colorado."

Neveda's mormon population is 7% btw, which is no small number considering the polls show the state is a toss up.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/25/MNDR12HM1O.DTL&type=politics


Wow, you really hate to disagree with me? Thanks.

I don't disagree that there is a greater mormon population out west. But, these are people that are generally part of the conservative right based on social issues.

It actually says right in the article ...


"We've been voting Republican for a long time," Isenberg said, and a lot of Coloradans - especially independents - still don't know much about Obama.

Those aren't the people that were going to vote for Obama to begin with. Romney on the ticket may inspire a few more of them to vote, but don't mormons already have a fairly decent voting record (and usually vote Republican)? I think so.

It isn't "mormon Nevada" that is going to define how the state turns out. It's the ever-expanding greater Las Vegas area.

Again, an influx of typically Republican mormon voters voting for a Republican ticket they'd likely vote for in any other year isn't shocking ... it's expected.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 02:40 PM
Yeah but I wonder how many votes Hillary would end up stealing??

And I know it is a total joke but really what would happen?? That would end up being a fairly middle of the road ticket

One rebublican and a donothingcrat all cramed on the same ticket

I think you actually might secure a Democrat victory, actually. But, I also think McCain would be kicked out of the Republican party (after the election -- joke). If there is one thing that the Republican base loves to do, it's hate Clintons. If hating Clintons was an Olympic event ... well, they just hate Clintons.

A lot of the conservative base vote could likely swing over to Bob Barr, giving him a fairly decent margin ... maybe even taking a few EVs from generally red states.

That would be interesting though. And, possibly a decent way to actually get a "centered" third party going. But, I think your Dem base stays with the Dem ticket, maybe pulling a few of the sore Clintonites -- but I don't think enough to swing the election around to compensate for the loss of the GOP base.

But, that's just my idea of that scenerio.

b1e9a8r5s
08-25-2008, 02:46 PM
I don't disagree that there is a greater mormon population out west. But, these are people that are generally part of the conservative right based on social issues.

It actually says right in the article ...



Those aren't the people that were going to vote for Obama to begin with. Romney on the ticket may inspire a few more of them to vote, but don't mormons already have a fairly decent voting record (and usually vote Republican)? I think so.

It isn't "mormon Nevada" that is going to define how the state turns out. It's the ever-expanding greater Las Vegas area.

Again, an influx of typically Republican mormon voters voting for a Republican ticket they'd likely vote for in any other year isn't shocking ... it's expected.

So mormons don't matter because they are going to vote republican anyways, but blacks somehow matter when they were going to vote democrate anyways? Or young people for that matter? It's not just about winning a demographic but by the margin you can produce. For instance, I believe black voters supported Kerry at around 87 % and polling suggests that Obama has pushed that number to about 92%. Does it not matter because he was allready going to win those voters? Of course not.

These are states (New Mexico, Colarado and Nevada) that are very close according to polling and will most likely be won by a slim margin. While I don't know the voting numbers of mormons in past elections, I think it is safe to assume that Romney on the ticket would increase the percantages.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 02:58 PM
So mormons don't matter because they are going to vote republican anyways, but blacks somehow matter when they were going to vote democrate anyways? Or young people for that matter? It's not just about winning a demographic but by the margin you can produce. For instance, I believe black voters supported Kerry at around 87 % and polling suggests that Obama has pushed that number to about 92%. Does it not matter because he was allready going to win those voters? Of course not.

These are states (New Mexico, Colarado and Nevada) that are very close according to polling and will most likely be won by a slim margin. While I don't know the voting numbers of mormons in past elections, I think it is safe to assume that Romney on the ticket would increase the percantages.

I didn't say that mormons didn't matter. Of course their votes matter. However, there is a difference. The argument that you're making assumes that the same number of people are going to vote that voted in 2004 or 2000. But, that won't be the case.

Historically, mormons have a fairly active voting record. So, bumping up the percentage of mormons will have less of an impact on overall voting trends than an influx of the black population (which, historically has a somewhat low voting turnout). So, even though mormons support the GOP 90% of the time and the black population supports the Dems 87% of the time, you have to look at the respective numbers of total eligible and total likely when you're looking at trending.

So, yes. Increasing the percentage of mormon voters that choose to vote for a McCain/Romney ticket is going to have a much less dramatic effect than the black population that vote for Obama/Biden.

b1e9a8r5s
08-25-2008, 03:14 PM
I didn't say that mormons didn't matter. Of course their votes matter. However, there is a difference. The argument that you're making assumes that the same number of people are going to vote that voted in 2004 or 2000. But, that won't be the case.

Historically, mormons have a fairly active voting record. So, bumping up the percentage of mormons will have less of an impact on overall voting trends than an influx of the black population (which, historically has a somewhat low voting turnout). So, even though mormons support the GOP 90% of the time and the black population supports the Dems 87% of the time, you have to look at the respective numbers of total eligible and total likely when you're looking at trending.

So, yes. Increasing the percentage of mormon voters that choose to vote for a McCain/Romney ticket is going to have a much less dramatic effect than the black population that vote for Obama/Biden.


I am not assuming anything regarding voter turnout in the past and my arguement was not that the "mormon card" would trump the "black card" or "young card", just that it could make a difference in those 3 states out west. You said it wouldn't matter outside of Utah and I disagree.

SmthBluCitrus
08-25-2008, 03:19 PM
I am not assuming anything regarding voter turnout in the past and my arguement was not that the "mormon card" would trump the "black card" or "young card", just that it could make a difference in those 3 states out west. You said it wouldn't matter outside of Utah and I disagree.

And that's fine. Sorry I tried to make it a demographic battle. Sure, having Romney on the ticket could help McCain in those western "battleground" states. Feel free to make that argument. My only remark on that is they were voting Republican anyway ... they've always voted Republican.

blenderboy5
08-25-2008, 03:48 PM
Didn't. And honestly have never really read Donna Brazile ... don't know why. Where do I find her, anyhow?

I'm sure she has a website. I usually read her every monday in the newspaper. But she's a pretty intelligent columnist from what I've read/

PHX-SOXFAN
08-25-2008, 04:05 PM
I am not assuming anything regarding voter turnout in the past and my arguement was not that the "mormon card" would trump the "black card" or "young card", just that it could make a difference in those 3 states out west. You said it wouldn't matter outside of Utah and I disagree.

mormon's already turn out and vote for republicans regardless of any factor. they are an extension of the religious right. besides, they are plenty energized with gay marriage bans on ballots to make sure they can discriminate gays at no gain to their own mormon cause.

NotVeryOriginal
08-26-2008, 12:02 AM
Then why is it that only conservative talking heads (like Rush) use it?


Maybe over there they do but everyone uses it over. There is a world outside of the US you know.



And, although I'm glad that you're reading,

Nice attempt to slide an insult in there. This is why I hate college libs, you act all high and mighty yet the minute someone disagrees with you you become just as -itcy as the fundies. If you cant articulate your point well enough that you have to resort to insults, I pity you.


you're talking about a huge portion of rank-and-file Democrats. They aren't going to cross the line and vote for John McCain.

What Ive read says differently.




I still think it's funny (and this isn't a response to your post at all) ...

Hillary Clinton beats out five and a half white guys (Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson -- see, half a white guy if we're playing this whole half-white/half-hispanic thing) and ultimately loses to the one black guy, and people are complaining of sexism on the campaign trail. Were there some gaffes by guys like Chris Matthews and other political pundits as well as t-shirt makers (bros before hos)? Sure! Just the same as we saw the racial-bias of the primary campaign against Obama.

But, that's not why Hillary lost. She had the support of greater than 50% of white male working class likely-Dems voters.

No, Hillary lost because she ran an incredibly poor primary strategy. She was running as a general election candidate before the Iowa Caucus and she never initiated a primary game plan until the had all but lost the nomination ... then she turned it into a burnt earth strategy.

No, feminists won't go to McCain. They'll vote for Obama -- or that Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney (GA). Or they'll just stay home.

What Ive read says differently.

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 12:19 AM
Maybe over there they do but everyone uses it over. There is a world outside of the US you know.

LoL! Is there? Wow, wasn't aware.

Fact of the matter is, this is a US Politics discussion and the context in which it was used was about Hillary Clinton supporters. Now, assuming European "feminazis" don't vote in the American political forum, I'm pretty sure that it's safe to assume that it's the conservative side of the aisle that uses the term here in the US.

Oh, and even my favorite conservative on the site backed me up. Thanks BB.


Nice attempt to slide an insult in there. This is why I hate ***** *** libs like you, you act all high and mighty yet the minute someone disagrees with you you become just as *****y as the fundies. If you cant articulate your point well enough that you have to resort to insults, I pity you.

Yea, wasn't an insult. I really am happy that you're reading; I wish more people would. But, I might take that back now that you've resulted in starred personal insults directed at me.

No, many people throw around buzz terms that generally classify a specific group in a derogatory manner yet ultimately prove themselves uneducated on the general subject. I'm not saying this applies specifically to you, but I am defending my "glad your reading" comment. You made it very obvious that you've studied the subject and I was acknowledging that. Sorry it was miscontrued so poorly.


What Ive read says differently.

Great! Again, I'm glad that you're reading and not making baseless claims. If you'd care to cite a source, I'd appreciate it. But, as a traditional Democrat, I don't see our base (the typical Clinton voter) revolting and joining McCain by electing him in the voting booths.

It's not that I haven't read articles or blogs that claim similar ideas (of a quarter of Hillary backers crossing over and voting for McCain). It's that I don't believe them. There's no evidence to support that other than a few disgruntled backers. And, even those are waning (despite the McCain ad released today). They're certainly not as popular as they were a month and a half ago.

blenderboy5
08-26-2008, 12:49 AM
While I didn't think "glad you're reading" was a personal insult. I sorta see why one could interpret it that way. But it was a stretch. SBC usually isn't demeaning in her posts. And I'm confused about the "can't articulate your point" insult.

DenButsu
08-26-2008, 01:18 AM
NVO, you edited your post before I saw the original, but personal insults (and compounding the insult with profanity is a twofer) are not tolerated here, and if I or another mod sees that again you will get an infraction.

This is in response to your post above, but as always, these rules apply to everybody.

NotVeryOriginal
08-26-2008, 02:26 AM
LoL! Is there? Wow, wasn't aware.

Fact of the matter is, this is a US Politics discussion and the context in which it was used was about Hillary Clinton supporters. Now, assuming European "feminazis" don't vote in the American political forum, I'm pretty sure that it's safe to assume that it's the conservative side of the aisle that uses the term here in the US.
.


Sure.



Yea, wasn't an insult. I really am happy that you're reading; I wish more people would. But, I might take that back now that you've resulted in starred personal insults directed at me.

No, many people throw around buzz terms that generally classify a specific group in a derogatory manner yet ultimately prove themselves uneducated on the general subject. I'm not saying this applies specifically to you, but I am defending my "glad your reading" comment. You made it very obvious that you've studied the subject and I was acknowledging that. Sorry it was miscontrued so poorly. But hey, pity me all you want. I'm just a ***** *** lib. :rolleyes:


Yeah the term is insulting, and it is directed at a specific group. No not women, feminists, not the rational post-feminist kind either, the sexist man hating ***** kind. If someone thinks that Im a pariah of the world just cause I got a penis then Im gunna make no attempt to veil my detest for them. Judging by the popularity of the phrase amonst not just guys, but females of my generation, then Im assuming Im not alone either.



Great! Again, I'm glad that you're reading and not making baseless claims. If you'd care to cite a source, I'd appreciate it. But, as a traditional Democrat, I don't see our base (the typical Clinton voter) revolting and joining McCain by electing him in the voting booths.


Here, (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/obama+trails+mccain+in+the+polls+as+hillarys+suppo rters+switch+sides/2425912) Here, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90755773) Here, (http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=18582) Here, (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/04/politics/fromtheroad/entry4154628.shtml) Here, (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/03/pew/) and Here. (http://essenceofpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-john-mccain-ad-debra-former-clinton.html) Thats just from the 1st page of google too, I CBA going into the next pages but Im sure 6 sources is enough right?



It's not that I haven't read articles or blogs that claim similar ideas (of a quarter of Hillary backers crossing over and voting for McCain). It's that I don't believe them. There's no evidence to support that other than a few disgruntled backers. And, even those are waning (despite the McCain ad released today). They're certainly not as popular as they were a month and a half ago.

In the 2nd (or maybe 3rd) source it has a link to a (gallup?) poll. Listen not that I can vote or owt but Im hoping for Obama to win too, Im just not gunna look at the world through rose coloured glasses whilst Im hoping, especially when I accuse the fundies of looking through rose coloured glasses too.


NVO, you edited your post before I saw the original, but personal insults (and compounding the insult with profanity is a twofer) are not tolerated here, and if I or another mod sees that again you will get an infraction.

This is in response to your post above, but as always, these rules apply to everybody.

Thats good to know

blenderboy5
08-26-2008, 02:47 AM
By the way, that second like is the only time you'll ever see me agree with Chris Matthews on. Like a lot of things Hillary did in her life, she only became a senator and then a candidate for president because of Bill.

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 09:17 AM
Yeah the term is insulting, and it is directed at a specific group. No not women, faminists, not the rational post-feminist kind either, the sexist man hating ***** kind. If someone thinks that Im a pariah of the world just cause I got a penis then Im gunna make no attempt to veil my detest for them. Judging by the popularity of the phrase amonst not just guys, but females of my generation, then Im assuming Im not alone either.

And, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, as are the other people that believe that. I personally find it a derogatory buzzterm that I will, more than likely, never use (or never care to hear used). But, that's just me.

[QUOTE]Thats just from the 1st page of google too, I CBA going into the next pages but Im sure 6 sources is enough right?

I've actually seen a couple of those before. And, I'm not dissing your sources, but a few of them are from back in March when the Obama/Clinton battle was getting pretty heated.

I talked with a lot of these people ... the disgruntled Hillary supporters ... when I worked for our states coordinated campaign. We reached out to get in touch with them to bring them back into the Democratic fold. Now, this was right when she dropped out. There were a lot of very hurt feelings (and a lot of swearing and hanging up ... lol). But, as the days went by the feeling became less and less. Once we get into October, I just don't see the hard feelings holding up. Especially not enough that a quarter of Hill supporters vote for him. If they do, fine; then I'm wrong and I'll admit it. Their numbers will be offset by the indies, cross-overs, and new Democrats.


In the 2nd (or maybe 3rd) source it has a link to a (gallup?) poll. Listen not that I can vote or owt but Im hoping for Obama to win too, Im just not gunna look at the world through rose coloured glasses whilst Im hoping, especially when I accuse the fundies of looking through rose coloured glasses too.

Good, and I wish we could look forward to your vote. But, your support counts, too. But, I'd disagree that I'm looking at the world through "rose coloured glasses" (and I like the way you spell coloured). I like to try and analyze situations from multiple sides if at all possible. But, my Democratic back ground does put a spin on things. I'll admit that. But, I know everything isn't all rosey. I'm not one of these Dems that believe we're going to win every single seat that's up for grabs -- trust me, they're out there, they exist.

Actually, the candidate I'm getting geared up to work for is probably going to lose ... lol. But, I need the exposure.

ari1013
08-26-2008, 09:34 AM
I'm sure she has a website. I usually read her every monday in the newspaper. But she's a pretty intelligent columnist from what I've read/
Well she's been around for a long time. She's seen ups and downs. It's good to have realists like that around.

NotVeryOriginal
08-26-2008, 09:47 AM
[QUOTE=NotVeryOriginal;6415097]Yeah the term is insulting, and it is directed at a specific group. No not women, faminists, not the rational post-feminist kind either, the sexist man hating ***** kind. If someone thinks that Im a pariah of the world just cause I got a penis then Im gunna make no attempt to veil my detest for them. Judging by the popularity of the phrase amonst not just guys, but females of my generation, then Im assuming Im not alone either.

And, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, as are the other people that believe that. I personally find it a derogatory buzzterm that I will, more than likely, never use (or never care to hear used). But, that's just me.



I've actually seen a couple of those before. And, I'm not dissing your sources, but a few of them are from back in March when the Obama/Clinton battle was getting pretty heated.

I talked with a lot of these people ... the disgruntled Hillary supporters ... when I worked for our states coordinated campaign. We reached out to get in touch with them to bring them back into the Democratic fold. Now, this was right when she dropped out. There were a lot of very hurt feelings (and a lot of swearing and hanging up ... lol). But, as the days went by the feeling became less and less. Once we get into October, I just don't see the hard feelings holding up. Especially not enough that a quarter of Hill supporters vote for him. If they do, fine; then I'm wrong and I'll admit it. Their numbers will be offset by the indies, cross-overs, and new Democrats.



Good, and I wish we could look forward to your vote. But, your support counts, too. But, I'd disagree that I'm looking at the world through "rose coloured glasses" (and I like the way you spell coloured). I like to try and analyze situations from multiple sides if at all possible. But, my Democratic back ground does put a spin on things. I'll admit that. But, I know everything isn't all rosey. I'm not one of these Dems that believe we're going to win every single seat that's up for grabs -- trust me, they're out there, they exist.

Actually, the candidate I'm getting geared up to work for is probably going to lose ... lol. But, I need the exposure.

Who you campaigning for ?

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 09:57 AM
I'm about to take over the campaign manager position (very late in the campaign season :rolleyes:) for a local state house district candidate. I'd rather not get into the specifics -- like his/her name -- for no other reason than the Iowa state party would no longer allow me to post in here or on the other sites that I visit.

Anyhoo - the Dem candidate is running in a district that has been Republican held for awhile. And, although the state as a whole is trending Dem, it's not likely that this seat is going to be overturned ... even though there's no incumbent GOP candidate running.

Then again, I could be really wrong, this district had a massive turnout for Obama in the caucus, and we might ride that wave. But, two of the zip codes we're trying to represent are two of the wealthiest zips in the state.

NotVeryOriginal
08-26-2008, 10:37 AM
I'm about to take over the campaign manager position (very late in the campaign season :rolleyes:) for a local state house district candidate. I'd rather not get into the specifics -- like his/her name -- for no other reason than the Iowa state party would no longer allow me to post in here or on the other sites that I visit.

Anyhoo - the Dem candidate is running in a district that has been Republican held for awhile. And, although the state as a whole is trending Dem, it's not likely that this seat is going to be overturned ... even though there's no incumbent GOP candidate running.

Then again, I could be really wrong, this district had a massive turnout for Obama in the caucus, and we might ride that wave. But, two of the zip codes we're trying to represent are two of the wealthiest zips in the state.

Ah the tax dodgers. Lol

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 10:47 AM
Ah the tax dodgers. Lol

LoL!

No comment. :cool:

fishfan79
08-26-2008, 11:57 AM
can I vote for Neil Patrick Harris?

Doogie Howser for VP!