2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

that said i think the 'pollsters underrepresent people with cell phones' thing is just as much of a myth

What's the evidence?

Let's hope that Silver is right and the Bradley effect is a relic of the '80s and '90s. The other stuff about voter suppression is still pretty outrageous though.

i have none, it just seems 1. screamingly obvious, so pollsters would pick up on and adjust for it, and 2. i remember ppl saying it in 2004 and it turned out to be negligible compared to gwb's ground game.

New Obama ad attacking McCain for being email illiterate and a relic of the '80s:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/09/obama-on-the-attack.html

Pros:
- Focuses on McCain rather than Palin
- Not overly partisan, crafted to appeal to independents

Cons:
- Might turn off some older voters (though they overwhelmingly support McCain anyway)

this is probably a fake ad that will run like twice, in one county - therefore oldies who don't use the internet will never see it

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-pali.html

“Have you ever met a foreign head of state?” Gibson asked Palin Thursday.

“I have not,” Palin said, “and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.”

However Palin, who obtained her first passport two years ago, would in fact be the first vice president in 32 years who hadn’t met a foreign head of state, if she were elected.

Palin is a throwback to an earlier, simpler age.

I cannot (this morning) fill in the zing that should come next.

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

lolz @ McCain "I'm divorced from the day-to-day struggles" of Americans comment

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

dunno, but if i had to guess, i'd say it's Dole, because 1) i'd guess that the info came from the campaign and that they're more wont to compare her to (and to have gotten the info from) Dole than Mondale, 2) Mondale had begun his Senate service a few years earlier than Dole, 3) Kansas is more insular than Minnesota, and 4) Dole is more hawkish than Mondale

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

I think Rockefeller. Dole was never VP.

I find it hard to believe Rockefeller would never have met a head of state.

Yeah, I know, but the link points out that Mondale had met with foreign leaders in his 16 years in the Senate prior to becoming VP.

yeah, we all could have read the article. an Ass't Sec'y of State probably doesn't meet with foreign heads of State.

So you're saying you think the article is wrong.

what are you talking about?

Was your previous post not sarcastic?

it was not

gabbneb, you're off your game today.

i'm the one who's right about Rockefeller, bro

On WNYC this morning they said the last VP candidate who hadn't met a foreign head of state was Spiro Agnew, though he may actually have had meetings with some fairly high-level people from foreign governments. And going back to the beginning of the 20th Century, they couldn't name a VP who had less foreign policy experience than Agnew. Sarah Palin-level inexperience is pretty much unprecedented in modern times.

its okay, McCain predates modern times anyway

may actually have had meetings with some fairly high-level people from foreign governments.

probably applies to Palin wrt to Canadian pipecock

xp rimshot.wav

if it is Agnew, then the ABC article is incorrect that Palin would be the first in 32 years, as Agnew resigned in '73. If the article is correct, then it would seem to be Rockefeller, who left office precisely 32 years before she would take office, and who certainly had a foreign affairs record, but held positions that would not necessarily have involved meeting with foreign heads of state, as they seem too junior or advisory. this is also what the ABC article implies, by listing the meetings held by every VP subsequent to Rockefeller. if you want, you can read the article to imply that the last was Mondale by finding a distinction between the foreign "leaders" it says he met and foreign "heads of state," but that's reading it within an inch of its life.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/12/historical_quote_of_the_day.html

awesome

It's not Rockefeller:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2393

nice one, gabb

Unless, of course, those Latin American "leaders" that Rockefeller met with were not in fact heads of state.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2545842739_f7f868d8ff.jpg

Latin American "leaders"

http://www.unafuente.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pablo-escobar.jpg

everyone knows those "handmade" signs are campaign generated, right?

(it's most certainly true of O as well)

googling indicates he met with at least one head of state. so the ABC article is wrong, unless Mondale had not met with a head of state.

I am kinda surprised that Dems haven't hit McCain harder about the flip-flopping thing - on torture, on abortion, on campaign finance reform, on so many issues he's pandered to the right to get this nomination; McCain is by far the more craven power-mad one in this election.

i know it's an outright lie and gotcha is really fun, but not having 1x clue about what the Bush Doctrine is or having any opinion on it is way way way way worse imo.

eyes on the prize guys.

Wednesday, May 14, 1969 New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller confers with Mexican President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz during his fact-finding tour of Latin America

http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=glp&search=%22nelson%20rockefeller%22%20%22gustavo%20diaz%22%201969&img=\na0016678983243138962_clean.html

OK, I don't know why those links don't work.

not having 1x clue about what the Bush Doctrine is or having any opinion on it is way way way way worse imo.

we can certainly spin this, but i don't think it's clear that this was in fact the case

am kinda surprised that Dems haven't hit McCain harder about the flip-flopping thing

I expect to see more of this as the race enters the home stretch. Supposedly the Axelrod-Plouffe master plan calls for steadily ratcheting up the intensity level of the attacks on McCain into the final weeks.

i think it's completely clear.

besides, the GOP has never waited for clarity and consensus-reality before hitting out on one thing or another -- like establishing the Bush Doctrine, for instance

per the gibson interview, palin sure hates blinking. i think we can use this.

bush himself tried to fudge the totally unprovoked war against iraq as just keeping with the old "imminent threat" rationale, so it's not that weird that palin wouldn't make a distinction.

plus it was biden and clinton who convinced NATO to change the rules of the game insofar as bombing other sovereign nations went. bush obviously went way farther than they went in kosovo, plus bush didn't really have NATO support, but the doctrine of invasion given (x) or (y) "imminent" factors (genocide, wmd, etc) got its first footholds of acceptance under democratic leadership.

I think that what you see emerging as the world has changed is that a Kerry administration would reflect a willingness to use force unilaterally if one of several conditions pertained: One, international conventions were being violated, they affected American interests and the international community would not step up to the ball. Case in point -- took me a while, and I think he would tell you this if you asked him, to convince Clinton to use force in Kosovo.

-- Joe Biden, summer 2004

can't send an e-mail isn't really a kicker is it?

can't do jumping jacks
can't wear a haircut with bangs
can't name more than 11 cable channels

538 has mccain over obama in electoral votes for the first time today

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/12/mccain-gets-grilled-on-the-view/

Two of those aren't really his fault. Not knowing how to send a damn e-mail isn't a physical handicap.

it's just that his keyboard is at eye level