So....Will Biden Be VP?

@okie,

Of course, go ahead and follow up on it.

But don't forget to tell us how McCain voted.

okie,

Quote:

Attack the messenger, yes, thats the way to go, cyclops, just as Bill does.

okie from the previous page..

Quote:

Yes, Occom Bill, the great intellectual giant, only a moron would disagree with you, just ask you. I think alot of your trash talk has alot to do with you, sadly for you, Bill.

You could at least play by your own rules okie.

1 Reply

@parados,

Does McCain have a son working for the credit card industry, Parados?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Re: bumps. The polling is in hyperdrive to test any movement due to Biden. Of course, I suppose an additonal day's wait would be prudent... Sometimes, the general polled public is a bit slow to attach events to their answers...but I'm imagining the question would be forthright: Does the Biden selection change your vote?

Been done -

I posted a graph from an ABC/WaPo poll from Saturday HERE; showing that Biden as Veep candidate attracted as many as it put off, but that the overwhelming majority of respondents wasnt moved either way;
Gallup polled the question this weekend too and came to the same results: Biden Does No Harm, but May Not Help Much

1 Reply

@okie,

No, but he does have a wife working in the beer industry. Does that mean if McCain voted against increases in alcohol taxes he only did so because of his wife's connection to the beer industry?

By the way, I love the way you ignored your personal attacks when crying foul on others doing the same.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:

Big news, racists exist, and they vote. Glad to know it, Bill.

That's a step in the right direction, Okie. Now that you've admitted that, try admitting:

That many racists will vote against Obama.

That Obama must overcome this simple matter of fact in order to win.

It's amazing, isn't it?

These three points -> there are still many racists, many racists will vote against Obama, and this means an extra bump in the road for Obama to overcome, which another candidate wouldnt have faced; they are so ... basic.

And of course, they are also pretty much all you ever said here in this conversation.

And yet, mention them, and you will have people with as varied modes of expression as Georgeob1 and Okie go off on you with lengthy, dismissive exposes about -- well, pretty much everything except the simple three points you actually made here. Setting up elaborate straw men about how it's wrong to suggest that if Obama loses, it must only be because of racism - as if that's what you said.

Just three simple points -- points that you'd think anyone could agree on -- and yet there's a whole set of conservatives here that will run away from them as far as they can and argue tangents and straw men as long as they need just not to acknowledge this simple fact: yes, there is still racism; yes, there will be people voting against Obama for it; and yes, in an election where even a small slice of voters can constitute the tipping point, that's an extra hurdle for him to overcome other candidates don't face. Nothing more than that.

Not, if he loses it must be because of racism; not, if someone votes against him it must be because he's racist; nothing like that. Just this acknowledgement that yes, race is still an issue, and yes, it's one of a bunch of hurdles Obama faces. Point it out and indignation will erupt. Like even the merest of acknowledgement that race will play a role is a political taboo to them.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Attack the messenger, yes, thats the way to go, cyclops, just as Bill does. Perhaps you would like to examine the problems with Hunter Biden, take Rush out of it. And if Rush and others didn't report it, it would go unreported, and you guys would still be comfortable with your heads in the sand.

Address the issue, guys, and the issue is Biden, not Rush, Rush only reports whats out there, just as other people do. If it isn't true, provide the evidence.

You seem to have a real problem figuring out whose burden it is to provide evidence for your claims. It is ridiculous for you put forward a claim and then demand that others prove it untrue. Completely ridiculous, Okie.

okie wrote:

I think there may be a problem, but I will continue to look into it, even if you guys don't care. Of course, you want to ignore anything negative. I'm sure you wouldn't if it was McCains son being a lobbyist, and McCain was carrying water for bills to benefit his son and his interest. Because you guys are hopelessly partisan. Clinton could have robbed a bank, and you wouldn't have cared. Same story now, different people.

By my estimation; Cinton did rob a bank... and I did care.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL -

I think that we (perhaps okie too) have gotten stuck on some significant, but in the larger scheme of things, small points with more emotional than intellectual or practical import. Racism has indeed been one of the stains of American history, and it remains an imperfectly, and as yet inadequately, solved problem for us. To a large extent we have reached the point where more than anything we simply need the passage of time to let processes already underway have their beneficial effects, and in some areas let old ways of thinking, speaking and acting pass from the scene with the generations whose experiences created them. However, it is also true that this country is more likely to meaningfully deal with and solve this problem than any other, and in many ways the Obama campaign illustrates the point and the attendant process - a point to which I am sensitive. I suspect we would all agree (or at least come close to it) on these points.

With all this in mind perhaps we can focus more on areas where we agree.

I wouldn't agree that "this country is more likely to meaningfully deal with and solve this problem than any other", but I have no problem with the rest of your summary. I don't see how this addresses the straw man you guys were beating down, but I'm content to leave well enough alone if that's your wish. Regards.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Then fuggetaboutit

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Then fuggetaboutit

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I Googled "Bradley Effect to see what this bit of jargon means. Apparently it refers to excuses pollsters offer for the failures of their polls & statistical analyses to accurately predict outcomes. How scientific of them to blame the subjects of their sampling & analysis for the failures of their, at best, approximate forecasting methods.

Believe it or not, Georgeob1, pollsters are extremely aware of the approximaty (sp?) of their results. That's why they attach all those conditionalities about margins of error (and that's just the most basic one), and that's why they always go on about how their polls do not, in fact, constitute "forecasting methods" and are not, in fact, intended to "predict" any outcome, but merely measures of the current opinion at the moment they were taken. (How the media runs with them is a different story.)

This near-obsession, in fact, with the "known unknowns and unknown unknowns", so to speak, involved in polling has led pollsters, statisticians etc to analyse their data and analyse any divergent patterns. The Wilder/Bradley effect, as a thesis, is one of those analyses. It's based on extensive comparisons between all the ways in which polling data diverge from actual results; they can diverge in countless ways, but when there's a sudden, collective spike of divergency in one direction, across all pollsters, they will look again. At some point, it turned out that the same, non-random, collective divergence took place time after time when a black candidate ran - different from all the regular ways in which results diverged from polls. Not just statistical noise.

Anyway, you're not interested in any of this. Which is perfectly your right. But if you prefer not to learn about the analyses underpinning a thesis, could you please just be honest and say, hey, I dont know bout all this and frankly, I dont care -- so I cant say anything about this? Rather than first, choose to be ignorant about the subject, and then sweepingly claiming that anyway, it's all BS anyway? I mean, that's like me quickly Googling some economic theory, reading a para or two and saying - ah - I'm not interested in this stuff and I'm not going to bother about learning about it - but it's obviously all bunkum anyway.

Re the Bradley/Wilder effect, in any case, for those who are interested -- it should be kept in mind that there is no conclusive evidence at hand that this effect is still at work today. The theory dates, as the name indicates, from races that took place fifteen, twenty, thirty years ago; data from recent elections are much more ambiguous.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Thanks for commenting, Nimh. It is amazing. I don't get how something so seemingly obvious can be disputed at all, and was starting to wonder if I could really be describing it so poorly that it was hard to understand. Amazing indeed.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Thanks, nimh. I was being poo pooed about expecting results so quickly. I thought they were out hrere...and yes, I didn't think he'd get a bump. And, yes, I think this is problematic for O.

However, I don't expect McC to be able to pull off any upward progress with his Veep, unless he pulls one out of his ass....

BTW--You are the pollster juggernaut.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

The biggest knocks on picking Hillary is still there with Biden: the "change" theme with an old Washington insider, the vote for Iraq etc.

Actually, I would have identified some of the biggest knocks on picking Hillary as:

Deeply entrenched antipathy, and not just among hardcore Republicans. The woman's got unfavourability ratings nearing 50%. If practically half the population already has a negative impression of you, you're going to have a very hard time helping Obama with his outreach. Opinions about her are just extremely polarised, so she'd help among wavering Democrats but would put off many of the independents and Republicans whom Obama is attracting. Someone like Biden, still an unknown to most voters, doesnt have the same pulling power among Dems but also doesnt carry any of that baggage, which means he can be much more freely used in the campaign as the moment demands.
Hillaryland versus "no drama Obama". If there's one thing that has characterised the Obama campaign is its discipline, its overriding commitment to "no drama", its team dominated by workers who keep their nose to the grindstone and out of the media. Hillaryland, as the whole political universe around her has been dubbed, is drama personified; a bonfire of vanities, a multitude of clashing egos, as the primary season has abundantly demonstrated. I think this alone counted as enough reason to Obama for keeping Clinton off the ticket.
Bill Clinton. The ego; the angry resentment apparently now consuming him; fear of a loose cannon. The fear of being outshone by the man, too; he's still a rhetorical genius. Either way the risk of someone in your back who, by his sheer power of rallying media attention alone, will be constantly stepping on your message. Then there's the possibility of scandal, the financial deals that have made the Clintons almost McCain-style rich since 2000, the friendly relations with dubious political folk overseas, the rumors of new affairs - all as many risks of losing control over your message and the focus of your campaign at any given time.

(All strategical and tactical questions yes, but there just isn't all that much light between Obama and Hillary ideologically.)

Meanwhile, re the two knocks on Hillary applying to Biden too, when it comes to Iraq this is certainly true. Not sure about the other one though. People who want a new start might or might not mind a long-term veteran standing behind the "fresh" face as back-up. But they certainly dont want to be reminded of Monica and all that. Not the same intensity in effect, I'd say.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Well, wait...

There are polls... which don't yet show a bump... but that doesn't mean there WON'T be a bump.

That's what happened with Iowa, overseas trip, etc. There were polls measuring stuff right after it happened, that didn't show a bump, which was then pointed to as "see, no bump!"

But then in a while there was a bump after all.

As has already been pointed out, it will be hard to distinguish a Biden-bump from a convention-bump, because they're so close together. I think there will be a combo bump though.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I know one thing that will bump Obama...

http://www.gopconvention.com/images/hpheaders/7.jpg

1 Reply

A combo bump ... hhmmm I could do with a combo bump.

2 Replies

Here's a guy who says there will be no bounce for either convention....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080825/ap_ca/on_deadline;_ylt=AqQlatGMf1cdbzj0zFyykqbCw5R4

2 Replies

@nimh,

Agreed with this...

Plus the "two firsts" thing.

Plus inexperience squared -- Hillary tried to claim the experience mantle in the Dem primary, but it's laughable vs. McCain.

Related to that, the idea of young upstart is leavened by the idea of a sage elder at his right hand.

So....Will Biden Be VP?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know