Laexile wrote:

meatball wrote:McCain said himself he doesn't know much about the economy. Then, recently no less, he said, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Seems pretty out of touch to me.

So, to you, "out of touch with the economy" = "palling around with terrorists".

Now, THAT'S out of touch.

McCain never said he doesn't know much about the economy.

Carly Fiorina, a top McCain adviser, acknowledged that McCain has said he knows little about the economy, noting that “he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice.”

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” McCain

Laexile wrote:I respect that people don't agree with fiscal conservatism, but I can't get that people think there's only one way to think. Yes, I think McCain's health plan is better. His jobs plan is better. I think we'll be more secure. I don't think many on here can say, "LA, I see where you're coming from. I see how that could work."

philliesphhan wrote:

Laexile wrote:

meatball wrote:McCain said himself he doesn't know much about the economy. Then, recently no less, he said, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Seems pretty out of touch to me.

So, to you, "out of touch with the economy" = "palling around with terrorists".

Now, THAT'S out of touch.

McCain never said he doesn't know much about the economy.

Carly Fiorina, a top McCain adviser, acknowledged that McCain has said he knows little about the economy, noting that “he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice.”

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” McCain

So, yes, he didn't word for word say that

phdave wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TgDanmWkg&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/11/philadelphia-flyers-fans-boo-hockey-mom-palin/[/youtube]

During his 1992 campaign, at the end of a long day, McCain's wife, Cindy, mussed his receding hair and needled him playfully that he was "getting a little thin up there." McCain reportedly blew his top, cutting his wife down with the kind of language that had gotten him hauled into court as a high schooler: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." Even though the incident was witnessed by three reporters, the McCain campaign denies it took place.

In the Senate — where, according to former GOP Sen. Bob Smith, McCain has "very few friends" — his volcanic temper has repeatedly led to explosive altercations with colleagues and constituents alike. In 1992, McCain got into a heated exchange with Sen. Chuck Grassley over the fate of missing American servicemen in Vietnam. "Are you calling me stupid?" Grassley demanded. "No, I'm calling you a fucking jerk!" yelled McCain. Sen. Bob Kerrey later told reporters that he feared McCain was "going to head-butt Grassley and drive the cartilage in his nose into his brain." The two were separated before they came to blows. Several years later, during another debate over servicemen missing in action, an elderly mother of an MIA soldier rolled up to McCain in her wheelchair to speak to him about her son's case. According to witnesses, McCain grew enraged, raising his hand as if to strike her before pushing her wheelchair away.

McCain has called Paul Weyrich, who helped steer the Republican Party to the right, a "pompous self-serving son of a bitch" who "possesses the attributes of a Dickensian villain." In 1999, he told Sen. Pete Domenici, the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, that "only an asshole would put together a budget like this."

Last year, after barging into a bipartisan meeting on immigration legislation and attempting to seize the reins, McCain was called out by fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line." McCain exploded: "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone in the room." The incident foreshadowed McCain's 11th-hour theatrics in September, when he abruptly "suspended" his campaign and inserted himself into the Wall Street bailout debate at the last minute, just as congressional leaders were attempting to finalize a bipartisan agreement.

At least three of McCain's GOP colleagues have gone on record to say that they consider him temperamentally unsuited to be commander in chief. Smith, the former senator from New Hampshire, has said that McCain's "temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." Sen. Domenici of New Mexico has said he doesn't "want this guy anywhere near a trigger." And Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi weighed in that "the thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded."

pacino wrote:she actually says 'oh my god they're booing me' at the beginning

priceless

TenuredVulture wrote:Vox will probably call me a liar again for posting this, but I found it interesting.

So it was just me and Barry O'Bomber yesterday in the small tent near the Vernon Park stage. That was his nickname in high school, because some other people on the basketball team, including the coach on occasion, thought he might have shot the ball a touch too often.

dajafi wrote:Question for jerseyhoya or anyone else who might have direct knowledge of this: Are campaigns' "internal polls" necessarily better or worse than what the likes of SUSA, Rasmussen, Gallup et al run out there?

I ask because I could see it either way: maybe they pay more to get a larger or more representative sample, but it also makes sense that any poll commissioned by a particular client would have some "lean" to it, maybe painting a more positive picture than is really the case.

dajafi wrote:Question for jerseyhoya or anyone else who might have direct knowledge of this: Are campaigns' "internal polls" necessarily better or worse than what the likes of SUSA, Rasmussen, Gallup et al run out there?

I ask because I could see it either way: maybe they pay more to get a larger or more representative sample, but it also makes sense that any poll commissioned by a particular client would have some "lean" to it, maybe painting a more positive picture than is really the case.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Question for jerseyhoya or anyone else who might have direct knowledge of this: Are campaigns' "internal polls" necessarily better or worse than what the likes of SUSA, Rasmussen, Gallup et al run out there?

I ask because I could see it either way: maybe they pay more to get a larger or more representative sample, but it also makes sense that any poll commissioned by a particular client would have some "lean" to it, maybe painting a more positive picture than is really the case.

Internal polls aren't necessarily better or worse than independent polls, but since they're used differently, they will be designed differently. Generally, an independent poll is designed to give people an idea of who is ahead in an election, while an internal poll is used to guide campaign strategy. As a consequence, you will do all kinds of things differently--you might say oversample evangelicals, or you might try to find out if a certain demographic is moving in one direction or another, and thus take steps to prevent or encourage that motion. For instance, McCain's campaign may very well have internal polls that showed them getting wiped out in Michigan, but with a better chance somewhere else, so they "abandoned" Michigan.

Campaigns do not benefit from polls that aren't accurate. But campaigns will be very selective in releasing internal results, and they can manipulate them a bit to make their candidate appear to be doing better than they otherwise would be doing.