SuperJerk

Apparently they think they can get people to believe it if Palin says it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/pal...bama/index.html CNN Fact Check: Is Obama 'palling around with terrorists'?

I was just kidding around earlier when I said McCain sounded like ...now he really will. This didn't work before, why would it work now? Mudslinging this late in the game isn't going to accomplish anything except piss EVERYONE off, especially voters. That goes for bringing up Tony Rezko (Obama) or Charles Keating (McCain), especially since neither senator was ever charged with any actual wrong-doing. Its based on a logical fallacy, that because someone knows someone who is guilty of something, they must be guilty of something too. The Bill Ayers thing, as I've noted before, is just dumb because Obama was a little kid when Ayers was active in the Weathermen, and nothing Obama has ever said or done could lead any rational person to believe just KNOWING Ayers makes him guilty of anything. Here's a really awesome idea...forget harping on "experience" (because it seems like all you have is experience at being wrong), and forget being a "MAVERICK~!!!!!" (because all you've managed to do is piss off both sides, i.e. the bail-out). McCain needs to explain why Obama is wrong on the ISSUES. Obama is wrong about this because ________________________. I am right about this because ____________________. Present a case, not just an vague accusation that he's "too liberal" or "is going to raise YOUR taxes." McCain can win is by changing people's minds on who's plans are best to handle the important issues. He's tried everything so far BUT this, and it's no wonder he's losing.

Factcheck.org looks at the causes of the economic crisis: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wh...mic_crisis.html

I'm not all "OMG SEXISM~!" because I know it wasn't a serious comment, but I am going to remember this the next time a McCain supporter falsely accuses someone of sexism. Factcheck.org's article about the VP Debate: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/fa...lin_debate.html

Something near and dear to my heart: grade equivalency levels. Here's one for the two candidates at the dabate last Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/deb...ords/index.html The measure is typically used to indicate what a student is capable of reading the equivalent to. The school version of Microsoft Word also has the ability to measure grade equivalency. I've had to do a lot of tampering with sections of written text to lower their reading level, and basically we're looking at simple vs. compond and complex sentences, syllables per word, and words per sentence, to determine grase level equivalency. Grammatically, though, I would hate to see Palin's score.

edit:

Analysis of the content of Palin's answers last night. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/ros...ref=mpstoryview From Peggy Noonan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122300786229301597.html from teh internets...

Which would probably lead to a shortage of doctors in a decade or so. The financial incentive to become a doctor is very strong, and taking that away would result in a lot of people jumping ship on the medical program. Not to mention we already have a shortage of nurses as it is. There have to be a million other options to improve healthcare ahead of going to to Government Run Universal Healthcare. One way to bring down health care costs? Free medical school for qualifying students.

Source? I'd like to read more.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma..._mccain/?map=10 (Not mine...Based on state by state polling.)

My reasoning: My Louisiana prediction was based on the fact its 1/3 African-American, but this is also the state that elected Bobby Jindal, so who knows? Missouri has gone with the winner in every election for the last 100 years except 1956, and I think Obama's going to win, therefore Missouri will move his way. Your map is a bit odd, since you give NC to Obama but SC to McCain, when conventional wisdom has them flipped around. Yeah, that's true. State by state there's a few changes I should make, but I still think it'll be in the 319 electoral vote range. That's not the map I'd make if I were doing one today.

What's the margin of error on that poll?

CBS Poll... Who won tonight's debate? Biden 46% Palin 21% Tie 33% CNN Poll... Who won tonight's debate? Biden 51% Palin 36% I don't, but I've been posting exclusively at the other board for the past few years. Explain? I made this map about 3 or months ago and everyone said I was being too pro-Obama, and it'd be a lot closer to 270. I guess we'll see, right?

Dick Morris? bwahahahaha Just so you know, I thought of you a few weeks ago when Dick Morris put up this map on his NewsMax page: Anyone remember THIS? In retrospect, I think I was being PESSIMISTIC.

I can only think of 3 losing VP candidates to ever win a presidential nomination, and the only one to win the nomination the very next election had been the incumbent VP before losing. He was credited as pulling Clinton to the right, and he worked for several Republicans before 1996 (such as Trent Lott, IIRC).

Funny how the conventional wisdom 3 weeks ago was "If only Obama had picked Hillary Clinton, he'd be winning right now."

People usually only say "let's not play the blame game" when it's their fault.

Someone just made a good point on MSNBC...Palin talked about how it was wrong to focus on "the past" regarding the Bush Administration, but the Bush Administration isn't over yet and Bush will still be president for another 4 months.

Winner.

I was only half right. She deflected attention away from non-answers by talking about oil and taxes.

I think I might watch trhe replay on CNN so I can follow their Lower-Screen Bullshitometer.

"My friends, I would like to send a shout out to my good friends I made as a P.O.W."

On MSNBC, Senator Kit Bond just called Biden a "smooth talker." Boy, this debate sure changed a lot of perceptions, I guess.

I agree, too.