Biden / Palin VP Debate, Oct 2nd @ 9PM EST

[nittanyalum]

Ah, now I see why our GOP friends are in a frenzy, I've been buried for a couple of days and have only caught tidbits of news here and there, am just catching up today -- just stopped by here for the first time in a while: Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Electoral College projections now show Obama leading 217-163. However, when “leaners” are included, Obama leads 300-174. A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House.

Voters now trust Democrats more than Republicans on all ten key issues tracked regularly by Rasmussen Reports.

I understand the panic now. Everybody, breathe and reboot (quoting Carrie Bradshaw), it's gonna be ok.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

See, this is where you're losing me. How can he be influential (very or just plain influential) without shaping Obama's views (i.e., exerting influence)?

I think we're both thinking of influence in different terms. Perhaps that's my fault for imprecise wording?

At any rate, to influence Obama's political career, to my mind doesn't mean that someone has to shape his world view, just that he has to have a substantial effect.

Using the more precise "substantial effect" language understanding, I don't think there's any way around concluding that Ayers had a substantial effect (had influence) on Obama's political career. That we can know. As to what effect Ayers had on shaping Obama's world views? No one, outside of Ayers and Obama knows that. I think it's possible though, that both sorts of influence existed, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Apparently, neither were the Annenbergs or others associated with the Annenberg Foundation. Neither was former Illinois State Diana Nelson (R), who said "It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that [Ayers] had led a fugitive life years earlier." (She added that fellow Republicans "might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life . . . but beyond just snorting, I don't think anyone gives it another thought.")

Indeed, based on what I've seen and what Sen. Nelson says, no one was bothered about it before Hillary Clinton's campaign.

If associating with a domestic terrorist doesn't bother those folks, fantastic. It bothers me quite a bit.

As for what Nelson said, politicians say the craziest things and for the craziest reasons. An Illinois Republican state elected official saying very nice things about the probable future president which might substantially improve his standing in the eyes of the doubting public might possibly have motives beyond giving the public a truthful account about how everyone feels about former domestic terrorists.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ah, now I see why our GOP friends are in a frenzy, I've been buried for a couple of days and have only caught tidbits of news here and there, am just catching up today -- just stopped by here for the first time in a while: Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Check out FiveThirtyEight.com. Even more reason to be worried there.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think we're both thinking of influence in different terms. Perhaps that's my fault for imprecise wording?

Well, surely you're not suggesting it's my fault?!

But I see what you're saying.

As for what Nelson said, politicians say the craziest things and for the craziest reasons. An Illinois Republican state elected official saying very nice things about the probable future president which might substantially improve his standing in the eyes of the doubting public might possibly have motives beyond giving the public a truthful account about how everyone feels about former domestic terrorists.

Politics does indeed make for strange bed-fellows. (But she's a former State Senator, not a current one. FWIW)

Still, though, her point still stands. So far as I can tell, pretty much everyone who dealt with Ayers (who is a professor at U of Illinois-Chicago -- I know, insert joke here), whether Democrat or Republican, treated his WU activities as part of the past and did not view them as impediments to dealing with him now. I can't help but take that into account when the charge is made now that Obama should have had nothing to do with him.

As I said, politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Still, though, her point still stands.

And you don't think it's mitigated at all by the fact that she could stand to gain quite a bit by being the 'Republican who is not standing upon partisanship, but telling the truth because it's what's best for our country!'?

When listening to politicians who are saying unlikely things, a good rule of thumb is to assume that whatever the most cynical person could come up with as a motive for the politician to say what she said is probably true.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And you don't think it's mitigated at all by the fact that she could stand to gain quite a bit by being the 'Republican who is not standing upon partisanship, but telling the truth because it's what's best for our country!'?

When listening to politicians who are saying unlikely things, a good rule of thumb is to assume that whatever the most cynical person could come up with as a motive for the politician to say what she said is probably true.

Maybe, but

• when that politician is saying that pretty much nobody, Republican or Democrat ever expressed a problem with working with Ayers before this year's campaign, and

• when such a statement can be easily proven untrue if it is indeed untrue, and

• when nobody seems to be disputing that claim, and what record I can find, at least, doesn't dispute it, and

• when it is undisputable that it didn't bother the Annenberg people (hardly a hot-bed of liberalism, and this was long before Obama as president looked like a possibility), and

• it's undisputable that Ayers' past didn't keep him from becoming a distinguished professor of education at a major university (their graduate program in education was ranked 42 in the country by USN&WR in 2007),

then an equally good if not better rule of thumb might be to consider the possibility that what she's saying is, in fact, true.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ah, now I see why our GOP friends are in a frenzy, I've been buried for a couple of days and have only caught tidbits of news here and there, am just catching up today -- just stopped by here for the first time in a while: Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


I understand the panic now. Everybody, breathe and reboot (quoting Carrie Bradshaw), it's gonna be ok.

Well, hopefully we're just getting ahead of ourselves...haha. I will admit, though, that the latest polling numbers have me very worried. I was watching "Meet the Press" this weekend and (I think it was on that show) they were talking about the different calculations being thrown around. In all of the calculations mentioned, Obama has a sizeable lead.

I'm hoping that the numbers are wrong, but I'm at least a little afraid that they're accurate.

[AGDee]

Yes, it was Meet the Press who was looking at the numbers by electoral college delegate votes and current polls. However, there is still a month left. I'm not resting easy yet.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Yes, it was Meet the Press who was looking at the numbers by electoral college delegate votes and current polls. However, there is still a month left. I'm not resting easy yet.

And I don't think you can rely on the polls anyway for a lot of different reasons although they're all we've got right now.

I'm not sure if it's possible for McCain to win, but I'd be surprised if Obama wins by some of the margins that he is presently showing in some states.

We'll see on election day.

[pinksirfidel]

Wow...i don't even know where to start, so i'll gladly respond to your questions below...

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Get the fuck over yourself. Racist? There is really no need to talk to anyone that way. It looks like you need to get over yourself. Yup...I consider it borderline racist when they use his last name as a scare tactic. Jesus Christ, Obamanation is a bunch of batshit crazy lunatics.

First of all, I doubt the McCain campaign can do anything about people yelling things at their rallies. Classless on both counts but hardly McCain's fault. No, he can't control the crowd, of course not. But what kind of response was he looking for?

You're pissed about people trying to bring down Black Jesus personally? Black Jesus? I would compare anyone to Jesus. I'm pissed off that we are talking about stupid issues that have nothing to do with what most of America actually care about. Wow, hypocrite.......what about what Obamessiah's camp has done to McCain...and Palin for that matter? Maybe you haven't read any of my posts, but I don't condone any campaign attacking politicians in areas that have nothing to do with how they will run this country. Pretty sure I've seen/listened to several ads from them that are fucking deplorable. The one making fun of McCain for not being able to use a computer was really cool. Your own VP candidate trashed it live on the air. The first thing Black Jesus did when Palin got announced as VP candidate was the deployment of a team of Obamabots to Alaska to dig up dirt on her. ...and I guess you think there isn't a McCain team doing the same w/ Barack Obama? If so, you're foolin' yourself. Black Jesus has been running a dirty campaign since day one and you're getting pissed about McCain wanting the United States to realize what kind of complete scum Black Jesus has associated with and used as mentors over the course of his life? I'd say shedding light on associations with radicals and domestic terrorists is completely fair game. Funny, McCain would disagree with you....well, that was the McCain a few months ago.

[texas*princess]

... but I will say, for the most part, that didn't seem like a debate.

A debate is someone asking a question, allowing Person A to answer, then allowing Person B to respond to that on the same line and then possibly Person A responding to that response.

A debate is NOT asking a question, allowing Person A to answer, then Person B say "I know I'm not answering the question, but I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about THIS instead".

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And I don't think you can rely on the polls anyway for a lot of different reasons although they're all we've got right now.

I'm not sure if it's possible for McCain to win, but I'd be surprised if Obama wins by some of the margins that he is presently showing in some states.

We'll see on election day.

I agree.... polls aren't the end all-be all. I don't want to get my hopes up! I believe this is still a very close race!

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

... but I will say, for the most part, that didn't seem like a debate.

A debate is someone asking a question, allowing Person A to answer, then allowing Person B to respond to that on the same line and then possibly Person A responding to that response.

A debate is NOT asking a question, allowing Person A to answer, then Person B say "I know I'm not answering the question, but I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about THIS instead".

She didn't say that she wasn't going to answer the question. Everyone keeps saying this...but what she actually said was "I'm not going to answer the way you want me to answer" (something to that effect). I guess it back-fired, but I thought it was pretty clever of Palin to look into the camera and say that she was going to answer straight to the American people! I actually thought that may be something she snagged from Hillary Clinton's playbook.

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

WOW. Regardless of whether or not McCain's ads are racist, or Obama's ad about computers was stupid, or who is doing what at which time and why it was deplorable - You need to tone that down. A lot.

There are a lot of ways that you can say "Obama's campaign has been just as negative if not more negative than McCain's" without using that many curse words and calling Obama "Black Jesus" all the way through.

If you want to add something worthwhile to the discussion, by all means, go ahead. But act like a mature adult.

I thought the very same thing. We've all been really mature while discussing political issues. The tone was not necessary.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The "Black Jesus" remarks are pretty spot-on with respect to how some Obama supporters feel about their 'great leader.'

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HMByO1RA4M

It's great that the next President already has his own version of the Hitler Youth

You said it best--The "Black Jesus" remarks are pretty spot-on with respect to how some Obama supporters feel about their 'great leader.' I, personally, don't know of anyone who considers Obama their savior.