When your last hope is mass-mailing (awful) powerpoints to beg for support, it's time to go

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images ... rpoint.pdf

Woody wrote:When your last hope is mass-mailing (awful) powerpoints to beg for support, it's time to go

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images ... rpoint.pdf

Do pages 5-8 look like crap for anyone else? Crap, like this:

Here's a couple of YouTubes...

"I will slow the development of future combat systems", "a world without nuclear weapons", "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals", etc.

Never called a meeting

Sure, the first one is from some righty radio show and many non-righties will just dismiss it as wingnuts speaking to their chior with a pinch of fear. And the second seems it might be from a Hillraiser, and will thus be dismissed as such. But these may illustrate some of the "bullet points" the GOP will likely use to paint Obama as a soft on defense "Kumbaya peacenick" ultra liberal, etc. and/or all talk no walk. If handled correctly (i.e., un-wingnut-illy), stuff like this could really hinder Obama with the "Reagan Democrats", "Clinton Republicans", non-college bluecollars, folks that voted GWB for the "have a beer with" reason, etc.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Here's a couple of YouTubes...

"I will slow the development of future combat systems", "a world without nuclear weapons", "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals", etc.

Never called a meeting

Sure, the first one is from some righty radio show and many non-righties will just dismiss it as wingnuts speaking to their chior with a pinch of fear. And the second seems it might be from a Hillraiser, and will thus be dismissed as such. But these may illustrate some of the "bullet points" the GOP will likely use to paint Obama as a soft on defense "Kumbaya peacenick" ultra liberal, etc. and/or all talk no walk. If handled correctly (i.e., un-wingnut-illy), stuff like this could really hinder Obama with the "Reagan Democrats", "Clinton Republicans", non-college bluecollars, folks that voted GWB for the "have a beer with" reason, etc.

well, what are you going to do ? at a certain point you cannot pander to every person who thinks a beer with W would be fun cause he's a good ole boy.... is 60% of America that guy/gal?? I hope not... Obama has a lot of challenges ahead... and i doubt he will swing hard to the left if he gets in office, it's too controlled, but it would be a heckofah statement if he could stick to who he is, more or less AND win?!

Woody wrote:I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

This was empirically proven in 2004 when some organization tested the views of Kerry and Bush voters. There were a bunch of jaw-droppers, but the one that sticks out for me is that something like 20 percent of Bush's voters believed he was pro-choice.

Maybe Paul remembers/can cite or link to the study I'm talking about.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

This was empirically proven in 2004 when some organization tested the views of Kerry and Bush voters. There were a bunch of jaw-droppers, but the one that sticks out for me is that something like 20 percent of Bush's voters believed he was pro-choice.

Maybe Paul remembers/can cite or link to the study I'm talking about.

Can one of the mods change my screen name to Kid Politics. Thx

Woody wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

This was empirically proven in 2004 when some organization tested the views of Kerry and Bush voters. There were a bunch of jaw-droppers, but the one that sticks out for me is that something like 20 percent of Bush's voters believed he was pro-choice.

Maybe Paul remembers/can cite or link to the study I'm talking about.

Can one of the mods change my screen name to Kid Politics. Thx

I could, but I won't. The brand equity you've built with "Woody" should not, nay will not, lightly be tossed aside.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

This was empirically proven in 2004 when some organization tested the views of Kerry and Bush voters. There were a bunch of jaw-droppers, but the one that sticks out for me is that something like 20 percent of Bush's voters believed he was pro-choice.

Maybe Paul remembers/can cite or link to the study I'm talking about.

Can one of the mods change my screen name to Kid Politics. Thx

I could, but I won't. The brand equity you've built with "Woody" should not, nay will not, lightly be tossed aside.

Spoken like a marketer after my own heart. There's also a lesson here for PhutureRockheadFloppyNuts

Don't think I haven't made said case to him. At least in my head.

You only ditch the brand when you reject what it stands for. Like I did.

pacino wrote:Think about this. Obama and Clinton have fairly similar ideas on domestic policy and differ on international policy.

McCain and Obama/Clinton differ on most everything (except Clinton and McCain are clueless on Iran).

Then what is the reason that someone would actually jump from Democrat to Republican in this election if they were planning on voting for Clinton and the nominee is Obama? What is their big reason? HMMMM?

They don't identify with Obama. He's young. He's from Hawaii. He went to Harvard. To them he looks like he's never worked a real day's work in his life. Granted Hillary hasn't either and she to Wellesley. She's of their generation. I guess she comes off as more working class. I'm sure they feel Bill Clinton did right by them. So vote for Hillary.

These men are of the age where they may have served in Vietnam. McCain served too. Granted he was an officer, but spending five years as a POW gets their respect. If any Democrats favor staying in Iraq, they may come from this group. They are called Reagan Democrats because they tend to be fiscally liberal but socially conservative on many issues. They're probably more conservative than McCain on social issues. Obama gives eloquent speeches. McCain favors town hall Q & A. People want to vote for someone they can relate to. For them, that person might be McCain.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

This was empirically proven in 2004 when some organization tested the views of Kerry and Bush voters. There were a bunch of jaw-droppers, but the one that sticks out for me is that something like 20 percent of Bush's voters believed he was pro-choice.

Maybe Paul remembers/can cite or link to the study I'm talking about.

There are dozens of studies along these lines. In grad school, I did some work as a researcher assistant on information processing during campaigns. The basic idea is that people absorb information, but then forget it. However, it leaves an impression in terms of the evaluation of a candidate.

We did all kinds of fun stuff. You know what's really fun? Teach some 85 year old woman how to use a computer mouse. Good times.

For what it's worth -- I had dinner tonight with a buddy and his parents visiting from small town Mass. His father is 69 and an ex-green-beret, later worked for the post office. He told me he voted for Obama because he felt he was "sincere" and he really didn't trust or care for Hilary. This guy is not reading books, zines or web in a major way. He's a nuts n bolts type.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Here's a couple of YouTubes...

"I will slow the development of future combat systems", "a world without nuclear weapons", "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals", etc.

Never called a meeting

Sure, the first one is from some righty radio show and many non-righties will just dismiss it as wingnuts speaking to their chior with a pinch of fear. And the second seems it might be from a Hillraiser, and will thus be dismissed as such. But these may illustrate some of the "bullet points" the GOP will likely use to paint Obama as a soft on defense "Kumbaya peacenick" ultra liberal, etc. and/or all talk no walk. If handled correctly (i.e., un-wingnut-illy), stuff like this could really hinder Obama with the "Reagan Democrats", "Clinton Republicans", non-college bluecollars, folks that voted GWB for the "have a beer with" reason, etc.

well, what are you going to do ? at a certain point you cannot pander to every person who thinks a beer with W would be fun cause he's a good ole boy.... is 60% of America that guy/gal??

Sure 60% is high, but considering there are more American workers earning less than 30K per year than there are earning 60K or more per year, and more than 75% of Americans over the age of 25 (cvs file) don't have a college degree... perhaps some are underestimating the size of the "have a beer with" demographic.

(not saying these folks are "uneducated voters", just that some non-party-liners may not have the luxury of time to research candidates, or are not "into" politics, and thus may pick their vote by personality or impression or whatever reason).

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Here's a couple of YouTubes...

"I will slow the development of future combat systems", "a world without nuclear weapons", "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals", etc.

Never called a meeting

Sure, the first one is from some righty radio show and many non-righties will just dismiss it as wingnuts speaking to their chior with a pinch of fear. And the second seems it might be from a Hillraiser, and will thus be dismissed as such. But these may illustrate some of the "bullet points" the GOP will likely use to paint Obama as a soft on defense "Kumbaya peacenick" ultra liberal, etc. and/or all talk no walk. If handled correctly (i.e., un-wingnut-illy), stuff like this could really hinder Obama with the "Reagan Democrats", "Clinton Republicans", non-college bluecollars, folks that voted GWB for the "have a beer with" reason, etc.

well, what are you going to do ? at a certain point you cannot pander to every person who thinks a beer with W would be fun cause he's a good ole boy.... is 60% of America that guy/gal??

Sure 60% is high, but considering there are more American workers earning less than 30K per year than there are earning 60K or more per year, and more than 75% of Americans over the age of 25 (cvs file) don't have a college degree... perhaps some are underestimating the size of the "have a beer with" demographic.

(not saying these folks are "uneducated voters", just that some non-party-liners may not have the luxury of time to research candidates, or are not "into" politics, and thus may pick their vote by personality or impression or whatever reason).

If we know anything -- we know that people don't like to be thought of as stupid and they won't just put up with any thing. If McCain gets ridiculous, and if Obama seems sincere -- it might overcome some percentage of what yo uare talking about. But yes, it's a factor -- McCain may win...

I'm wondering if Obama can't capture a good chunk of the Perot voter types--these people don't vote in primaries, and I don't think they're voting for either McCain or Hillary. These voters aren't ideological, if they think in those terms at all, they're pragmatists. They probably don't have specific positions on many issues. I don't think anyone really knows a huge amount about Perot voters--but they're clearly a significant chunk of the electorate.

If McCain wins lets all go in on an island in teh Caribbean and call it Bahahovia

So, for VP:


Jim Webb
Ed Rendell
Al Gore
John Edwards
Joe Schmo
Jon Doe
???

Board's getting slow - go here.