BuddyGroom wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If Obama wins, what is Jon Stewart going to do?

Hopefully start mercilessly making fun of Obama and pointing it out when he lies or $#@! up.

I think everybody has gotten so used to the comprehensive tribalism of Bush-era politics that we've forgotten it doesn't have to be that way.

SNL has never had any problems lampooning Democrats. Hopefully, it will be the same with the Daily Show.

dajafi wrote:

An internal poll from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania has him just two points ahead of Sen. John McCain, according to The Hill.

"WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race." The Obama campaign "wouldn't confirm the internal poll numbers, but said that the e-mail was sent without permission."

From PoliticalWire. There's at least a chance this is gamesmanship, as Silver reported that McCain's internals have him 6-8 points down, and we know the outside polls have it more like 10-12.

If it's real, though, this whole thing is suddenly in question.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

FTN wrote:So the people who initially thought the Palin choice was "great", "fresh", and "smart" still agree? I mean, I know its an intricate point, but you'd think the potential VP would know the actual role of the VP.

I'm not sure how she hurt his ticket, it's kind of like trying to prove a negative. We'd have to be able to somehow determine where he'd be in the polls if he had selected Romney or whomever. I don't think anyone here expected him to win, so it's hard to argue that he'd be winning now if he selected someone else anyway. His only real jumps in the polls surrounded his slection of her as VP, and the convention where she played a big roll in the end. If the best he can claim occurred in the 2008 election are his two jumps in the polls, it's tough to argue that she didn't play a role in both.

I don't know how exactly one would quantify it, but I do think she hurt, in at least two and maybe three ways.

One, the sense among independents that she isn't qualified is really damaging--both because McCain's no spring chicken and has some health concerns, so the prospect of her taking office isn't at all beyond the realm of the plausible, and because it says something about his judgment.

Two, while she fired up the Republican base, she also fired up the Dem base--and this isn't a good year for the Rs to run a base polarization strategy. The Dem base is bigger, evidently deeper-pocketed (if for no other reason than because Obama opted out of public financing), and more highly motivated. And if you believe that antipathy is a more powerful motivator, Palin provided that--which wasn't really there with McCain.

The possible third way is opportunity cost. If he'd picked Romney, he would have had a more compelling surrogate on economic issues. If he'd picked Ridge (almost wrote "Lidge"...) or Lieberman, he would have reinforced the bipartisan/post-partisan messaging--which would have helped him make the closing argument that voters shouldn't give the Democrats unified control of the federal government, and probably would have preserved his amen corner in the media, which I think deserted him over Palin more than any other one thing.

(Admittedly, Lieberman might have ginned up as much agita on the left as Palin has. But I don't think Romney or Ridge or Pawlenty, all former/current blue-state governors, would have done so.)

This all seems like a lot to give up to make James Dobson happy.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

An internal poll from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania has him just two points ahead of Sen. John McCain, according to The Hill.

"WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race." The Obama campaign "wouldn't confirm the internal poll numbers, but said that the e-mail was sent without permission."

From PoliticalWire. There's at least a chance this is gamesmanship, as Silver reported that McCain's internals have him 6-8 points down, and we know the outside polls have it more like 10-12.

If it's real, though, this whole thing is suddenly in question.

Until national polls consistently show the race within 5 points, it's not worth getting too worried about individual results in states. Even if he loses Pennsylvania, they'll make it up by picking up VA, CO, IA, NM (is that enough?) and probably Ohio. Or Florida. Or Indiana.

Once you get past like 3% of a difference nationally, it becomes borderline impossible for the popular vote winner not to win the electoral college.

VoxOrion wrote:ng Obama should have chosen a pro-life VP, it ain't gonna happen). Pawlenty, IMO, would have received the same "inexperienced idiot" treatment Palin is getting.

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:ng Obama should have chosen a pro-life VP, it ain't gonna happen). Pawlenty, IMO, would have received the same "inexperienced idiot" treatment Palin is getting.

you may be right but that seems extremely unlikely to me, given his bigger state & more extensive political experience

and of course his utter lack of hotness

mpmcgraw wrote:I honestly don't understand why people care so much about abortion one way or another.

VoxOrion wrote:I agree with your first two observations but I don't agree with the effect. Up until that point McCain was running a flaccid campaign that attempted to appeal mostly to independents and it wasn't going well. Bush and Obama both solidified their base first, then went for the indy's - in my opinion McCain realized too late that he hadn't accomplished the first part. As for energizing the Dem base, I don't see them energized any more than they were before the Palin pick.

On your third point I think we're back to trying to prove what can't be proven. Romney might have been nice if he could have predicted the economic meltdown, but remember that Romney is this handsome well spoken man with millions of dollars... that couldn't win a primary to save his life (for the most part). Whether it was the Mormon thing or the New England thing or the compromized position on abortion, the base just didn't like the guy. In terms of selecting a pro-choice running mate like Ridge or as social liberal like Lieberman, you're back to square one - how does it help McCain to chase off his base? Yeah, it might have reinforced a "bipartisan" commitment but at that point, why vote Republican? I think that's a position that makes sense to someone who tends to vote Democrat but makes no sense at all to a Republican (imagine my suggesting Obama should have chosen a pro-life VP, it ain't gonna happen). Pawlenty, IMO, would have received the same "inexperienced idiot" treatment Palin is getting.

But again, I don't want to fall into speaking against my own warning that there's no way to know what would have happened.

VoxOrion wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:I honestly don't understand why people care so much about abortion one way or another.

I question why I'm even writing this - but seriously, there's something to be said for understanding why people who don't agree with you believe what they do. Frequently learning where your opponents are coming from serves to challenge and strengthen your own beliefs.

Woody wrote:Abortion isn't necessarily a religious issue, tho. But anyway the World Series is on so kthxbai

mpmcgraw wrote:thats what im asking. id like an opinion based on facts and not beliefs that gives me reasons to be pro-"life".

dajafi wrote:I think you can be pro-life without having any religious inclination. Religion isn't the only source of morality.

Gah, WORLDSERIESWORLDSERIES