Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
"I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
Sadly, this is not true. American's run on class resentment, although they will completely deny that there is such a thing as class in America. The average American operates on the "Well, you is no gooder than me!" when it comes to politics. And the dumber and more regular a fella is (or pretends to be), the more we like 'em.
Bush, McCain, Obama are all elites in one way or another (and I'm not saying "elite" is neccessarily bad, as elites come in different flavors) who play the populist card as it suits them. Palin however really is dumb and regular. But she's Alaska dumb and regular and not lower 48 states dumb and regular. She's an outlier on the dumb US american scale. Which makes her nothing at all like regular folks, except in the sketchiest of biographical details. The fact as, Matt Damon put it, she could be a hair-breath away from the nuclear codes is fucking simply insane.
- In a coup you need a pretty face with a cold heart.********
- Beware the Gorgon in the room. She's never what she appears to be, even to those who think they're manipulating her.TheBlueOne
- ..her.TheBlueOne
- the last american corporation standing:
http://www.centcom.m…********
- In a coup you need a pretty face with a cold heart.
- ********0
lol
- hallelujah0
"Focusing on Palin was the smart approach
No one can doubt that McCain's choice of Palin rejuvenated a listless, dying campaign. She excited the Theocon Right and brought them home, and being a fresh new face with an interesting bio, she captivated the nation's attention. Her initial numbers were sky high, and she packed them in for McCain. Suddenly, what had been a large Obama post-DNCC bounce turned on a dime, and Palin delivered a huge surge for her ticket.
Bloggers and tradmed reporters took a hard look at Sarah Palin and began raking her over the coals for myriad transgressions. She is a liar with theocratic tendencies, sports an intellect that makes Bush look like a Mensa member, and features an obvious fondness for Cheney-style abuses of power. And that's not even the worst of it.
But then the worriers began to question, "Why are we focusing on Palin? McCain is getting a pass! We're tilting at windmills, since she's too popular to damage!" We were told to stop talking altogether about Palin, as if ignoring her would remove the spell she had cast on America. This Andrew Sullivan post must've been emailed to me two dozen times by panicked worrywarts. A few bad polls, and people seemed to be losing their minds and sense.
But we continued to focus on Palin. Republicans were busy trying to build a positive narrative about Palin -- the "hockey mom" who was so folksy she could "field dress a moose" and had "said no to the Bridge to Nowhere and other government waste" and was overflowing with "small town values". McCain had shot up in the polls because of Palin. Common sense dictated it would be hard to knock him back down as long as she consolidated her popularity. So we set out to build the negative narratives about Palin. This is stuff straight out of Taking on the System. I have a whole chapter on it, in fact.
So we focused heavily on Palin, and make no mistake, it's exactly that intense focus that has taken its toll on her numbers:
Approve Disapprove No Opinion
9/11: 52 35 13 +17
9/12: 51 37 12 +14
9/13: 49 40 11 +9
9/14: 47 42 11 +5
9/15: 47 43 10 +4
9/16: 45 44 11 +1
9/17: 44 45 11 -1
9/18: 42 46 11 -4That's a shocking 18 21-point collapse in a single week. She went from being just about the most popular person on the top of the ticket, to the (lipstick wearing?) goat. And it's not just our Research 2000 polling showing this collapse.
In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say [..] By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).
But then a funny thing happened: Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four. [UPDATE: The Sept. 17 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll shows Palin at 47 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable--an even narrower +10 split.] Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.
The trendline is indisputable (it was just picked up by CBS). And just as Palin's initial popularity bolstered McCain, her sudden faltering is now bringing him back down to earth. You might have even noticed that the latest round of McCain ads don't even feature her or refer to "McCain/Palin". It's back to just "McCain". She was starting to drag him down.
Palin will continue to excite and energize the wingnut base. She was designed for that purpose, and won't fail at that task. But her cratering popularity now hampers McCain's efforts to expand beyond that core base.
All of this is happening because we did not relent on Palin, blocking Republican efforts to paint her in a positive light. The results are speaking for themselves."
- TheBlueOne0
- Zactly. I want libertarians in the white house from here on out. Slightly less nutty libertarians, but libertarians none the less.tommyo
- less nutty libertarians is like drinking diet coke********
- How about just reforming the GOP to actually represent something that can govern in the real world.Mimio
- Watch your mouth fucker.
:Dtommyo - I want 3 viable parties is all. That way we get out of this 200 years of team red vs team blue. Let's mix it up a bit.tommyo
- Actually, I want people i government who actually expect it to work...TheBlueOne
- ..and aren't trying to drown it in a bathtub. Rules out Libertarians. For now.TheBlueOne
- Presidenting is hard workMimio
- calcium0
Too long for a side note:
Every single one of these bailouts has been infuriating. The greed and ability to take advantage of people, albeit gullible people, is now going to cost us in every paycheck. I'm just really most surprised that they forecasted all of this and did nothing to prevent it because it was racking in billions.I bet the CEO's of every single one of these institutions is sitting fat and pretty at the end of the day, while their employees now have to scramble to find another job.
- lowimpakt0
billions in profits followed by billions in taxpayers support.
- the decision was made by bernanke on his own authority to bailout AIG.********
- http://www.aigcorpor…********
- the decision was made by bernanke on his own authority to bailout AIG.
- mikotondria30
still - when these now government owned corporations turn the corner and start making huge profits again, there'll be no need for taxation, right ?
- Not if the Dems are in charge ... when that profit comes in. Oh boy the social programs! I heard a rumor that they're ...tommyo
- planning on having Snickers Tuesdays! I'm so excited.tommyo
- So $100 Billion to fix healthcare no good, but $900 billion for rich is ok?TheBlueOne
- I see TommyO...hope you never get sick without insurance. I already went bankrupt once...TheBlueOne
- I actually don't have health care right now TBO. But that's MY responsibility, not the countries.tommyo
- By the way. If you can't afford health care now. Just wait until the government is giving it away for 'free.'tommyo
- You're the one who can't afford it, not me these days. Hope you don't need an operation like I did though.TheBlueOne
- Then all your manly "It's my problem" talk will just be pretty weak.TheBlueOne
- just wait until you get admitted to the emergency room and I pay for your care through my premiums if they admit you.********
- You're absolutely right. But that's on me. I'm actually getting health coverage in the next month. But the point ...tommyo
- You ain't invincible so will need some care at some point or are you hoping for a lover nurse?********
- being ... we shouldn't even let government get involved in health care. They aren't very adept at handling $$.tommyo
- good for you.********
- ********0
private profit, public debt. Qualms?
you are just in the wrong line, Jack
- tommyo0
Health care - let's talk.
We were chatting it up over in the comments and it's something I haven't seen on this board in a long time. I tied the comments together the way they were meant, hope you dont mind.
TBO: 'I see TommyO...hope you never get sick without insurance. I already went bankrupt once...'
Tommyo: 'I actually don't have health care right now TBO. But that's MY responsibility, not the countries.' 'By the way. If you can't afford health care now. Just wait until the government is giving it away for 'free.''
TBO: 'You're the one who can't afford it, not me these days. Hope you don't need an operation like I did though.' Then all your manly "It's my problem" talk will just be pretty weak.'
Tommyo 'You're absolutely right. But that's on me. I'm actually getting health coverage in the next month. But the point being we shouldn't even let government get involved in health care. They aren't very adept at handling $$.'
Capsize: 'just wait until you get admitted to the emergency room and I pay for your care through my premiums if they admit you.' You ain't invincible so will need some care at some point or are you hoping for a lover nurse?'
My point is this: How are our schools doing? How is our Social Security doing? How's the FED right now? I just can't even fathom how people think the government should provide 'free' health care which would undoubtedly be a bigger operation than all of these government run fuckups. Are they magically going to be fiscally responsible? Once we start 'free' healthcare is there EVER a way out of it, or are we then going to make the people even more tied to a run away spending machine called the US Government?
I want less government. Less involvement. Imagine the economy if the government wasn't taking 30% of what you make. If you had back even 10% of what you're giving them right now, would you be able to afford your own health care insurance with ease?
Let's talk.
- An extra 10% at the lower income levels wouldn't make a difference.Mimio
- Mimio0
They are plenty of examples of single payer health care systems that create value and efficiencies beyond out current private run system in the US.
- And you think our government can pull that off? Seriously? Schools, Soc Security, FED. All in the toilet. But health care okay?tommyo
- It should improve in the other areas as well. The problem is everyone is trying to dodge the tax burden.Mimio
- Right, so our Government is going to take all these new taxes and send it straight to the problem areas yeah?tommyo
- Where have you been the last 20 years? Idealism is dangerous. Look at the examples.tommyo
- mikotondria30
Is it entirely ethical to make 100s of millions of dollars of profit from people being sick ? I don't mean paying skilled medical staff a great salary, I mean mindless shareholders in effect just taking the money from sick people because they can.
- tommyo0
Also...sorry had an after thought.
I hate hate hate the argument that the mythical 'rich' people will be paying for it. That's just not right, imo. So our government spends it's ass off, allows litigiousness to run a muck, backroom deals and pork barrel spending. Thus basically raping our economy - which then insurance premiums go up, salaries stay steady - big surprise that health care coverage is not affordable to most...but now the rich are to bail out you while the government bails out the moronic mortgage industry.
Are these any different? You guys are mad about the government bailing out the mortgage industry, but you're okay with the rich bailing you out?
- How do you not realize the rich are the ones that made all the money off of all these issues?jasontroj
- Oh boy really? So every rich person is involved in heath care? How do you not see that your gov is the one to blame?tommyo
- Seriously? You listed more than just health care, and even got to use a political buzzword "pork barrel spending"jasontroj
- Uhhh so wait, I was talking about our crooked gov. NOT rich people. They are two different things.tommyo
- jasontroj0
It's funny, because everyone I talk to in Europe or Canada is fairly appreciative of the healthcare they can receive from the government if needed. We sit here and focus on the bad stories that we hear. Like if you have taken a bullet to the chest in Canada you will literally be sitting in a waiting room for 20+ hrs. bleeding out.
Lets get real. Our health care system is completely controlled by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, who will not make their billions of dollars if the government is offering assistance. The pushback by Republicans is an argument about "less government" but it's really just a wool over your eyes about how much money is going into their pockets at the end of the day.
Do you really think if we offered free healthcare to those that can't afford it or need help paying for it that all of the sudden our system is going to come to it's knees? You think the next day the hospital is going to be filled to the brim? I don't because the people that can't afford it still go now, it's just they risk becoming bankrupt while a few suits pick out a new set of golf clubs.
- exador10
no one is an island Tommyo....
you speak as though universal healthcare was some kind of horrific doomsday scenario....
we're all interconnected....we're all in this together....
i guess there will always be a sizeable amount of folks that have a 'me' first and fuck everyone else attitude, but you know what?...part of being in the 'human race' club is actually giving a toss about the people around you...its not enough to look at someone in the gutter and think 'well..fuck them...its all their own fault anyhow...
everyone..and i mean everyone needs some help at one part of their lives or another...
we have free healthcare here in canada....and yes...its got it's fare share of problems..not denying that....
but...
there have been more than a few times when myself or someone in the family has needed something...and guess what...its a big relief when you get to the hospital and there's no hassles, no worrying about money, no worrying about coverage of this or that....sorry if this is a rant...but i get a little tired of hearing the same old 'universal healthcare is a bad idea' from folks that have never had it.
its a good thing for the vast majority of people...besides...after you've been watching your country's finances go down the fucking tubes for the past few weeks, don't you think that line of 'less government involvement' is getting ridiculous?
a little more government involvment might have kept a lot of 401k's (or whatever the fuck they're called) from turning into worthless paper...just a thought...
(and my appologies if this feels like any kind of attack or anything, i dont' even know you tommyo, so i'm not trying to start a flame war or anything)
cheers
ex
- colin_s0
"I want less government. Less involvement. Imagine the economy if the government wasn't taking 30% of what you make. If you had back even 10% of what you're giving them right now, would you be able to afford your own health care insurance with ease?"
& "rich bailing out" comments...
for one thing, living in america doesn't take that much money. any moron can live comfortably (or more than such) on $150 - $200k a year, so long as they don't get caught up in excessive consumer luxury spending. finance management is essential.
a democracy can be viewed by how it takes care of it's weakest, not strongest. the foundations of america, to not have people starving and dying and going uneducated and forgotten; that is what we should strive for as a nation.
the idea of the individual and free market capitalism and greed is sort of what ruins america, not what makes it. if you're making such ridiculous sums of money, i can't see how you'd even be able to spend it, much less be pissed that your government (which, by the way, provides you with the necessary freedoms to earn that much) takes more from you than those who can't feed their families or keep their houses.
- tommyo0
I hear what you guys are saying, trust me I do. BUT...my question has not been answered.
Our government has fucked up Schools, Social Security and just about every financially related social issue it has touched. Why is health care going to be different? Riddle me that Batman.
Here in California almost 20 years ago we started the state lottery so that it could 'fund schools.' That was how they sold it to us. Our schools are in worse shape than they were before the government wanted to get better funding for schools. Social Security is a complete joke. We're paying so that the elderly can live, there will be none for us when we're elderly, what then?
- tommyo0
Okay I'm out to run some errands. When I get back I would LOVE to hear about how health care is going to be run smoothly. How they're going to sell us on the rich paying for it when you all know damn well that us common folk are going to foot the bill soon enough. I'd love to hear why you guys think that somehow the Gov is NOT going to fuck this up...because if they do (which I'm convinced they will) can you imagine the long term liability a 'free' health care system is to the tax payer? I for one can't wait to pay 50% taxes when 3% - 6% of my yearly income can buy me health insurance.
- 50% of taxes? You need one of these: http://www.forumspil…jasontroj
- Get it?jasontroj
- I'm chill now thanks. :)
tommyo
- jasontroj0
Tommyo:
You have to distinguish between a government run by Republicans and Democrats and you may have your answer right there. Republicans get into office, the town criers of "less government", and they start pulling funding and regulations from our public services. They come up with witty rhetoric like "No Child Left Behind" while completely cutting programs and federal funding. And then we go "wait, why is everything not working?"
Clinton left office with a $236 billion surplus, and we now sit with close to $450 in the red. How can we fix things now, with negative money?
My guess is funding a $555 billion war doesn't help either.
