Printable View
Apparently the GOP has spent $150,000 at Neiman-Marcus and Saks for clothing for Sara Palin so she will not appear shabby and ordinary on the campaign trail. Her make-up person was paid $22,000 and her hair person $10,000 for the first two weeks of October. Might this money have been better spent on a course in political science at a good university so that she could be informed as to the duties of the Vice President? But then again, she has rallied the wing-nut base.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]Of course they're going to take away your 401k.[/QUOTE]Now, mine is more like a 1K after the last few weeks!
Suerte!
Polvo
One of the most interesting and informative white flags rising from Republicans as we start to see more of their backsides heading into an ignominius future. Here David Frum gives marching orders to the inhabitants of the Alamo.
"We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington."
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html?hpid=opinionsbox1[/url]
McCain / Palin apparently is not only sucking the life out of their own campaign prospects but Republican senators and house reps as well.
Maybe it won't be necessary to send two time Bush voters to Guantanamo after all. 8 long years of a Democrat president and Congress would have them leaping off of tall buildings or locking themselves up in their bomb shelters. What a bonanza.
Here is the next installment. The average is 7.8%
[QUOTE=]- Battleground (Obama +3)
- Diageo (Obama +7)
- Gallup expanded (Obama +7)
- IDB (Obama +4)
- Newsweek (Obama +12)
- Rasmussen (Obama +7)
- Research 2000 (Obama +12)
- WaPo / ABC (Obama +9)
- Zogby (Obama +9) [/QUOTE]Regards,
BM.
Will the Repub slate for this election be known as "McPain" when future generations study it?
This will one will most likely be very close indeed. When you factor in liberal based media plus liberal based polls, I'm guessing that Obama needs almost a double digit lead to pull it off. As voting day approachs, the voter base always starts leaning towards the more conservative candidate. Obama does very poorly in maybe the most important last minute voting metric. Keeping America safe. I'll be in BA during the election and look forward to a close one. Happy Mongering All.
Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann]This will one will most likely be very close indeed. When you factor in liberal based media plus liberal based polls, I'm guessing that Obama needs almost a double digit lead to pull it off. As voting day approachs, the voter base always starts leaning towards the more conservative candidate. Obama does very poorly in maybe the most important last minute voting metric. Keeping America safe. I'll be in BA during the election and look forward to a close one. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Polls are important only in discerning trends, and only then when methodology is consistent over time. There is no good social science to suggest that averaging all polls together gives a correct picture.
Many polls now adjust their "party weighting" on a monthly basis, and in this cycle the practice has generally been to ascribe larger and larger shares of the electorate to the Democrats. This would not be a problem to discern trends IF the party weighting by pollsters was not shifting on a regular basis. The problem with this is that we know for certain that party affiliation does not change dramatically in a month's time.
What I can say to you is this: Obama's polling numbers in this campaign season almost always were inflated against his actual results. Whether this is because of pollster bias or because of respondents not telling the truth is not clear.
For example, some of Obama's last polling results before the New Hampshire primary showed him up by as much as 13% the day before the election. He actually lost by -3%.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0433304720080108[/url]
(This is Zogby, whose poll has of late been all over the place, going from Obama +2 to +13 and now back to +5).
The same thing happened before Pennsylvania. According to one pollster, he was leading by +3% the day before the primary. He lost by -9%.
[url]http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_042108.pdf[/url]
This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.
[QUOTE=Hunt99]This race is not over.[/QUOTE]Keep hope alive my friend, keep hope alive.
Regards,
BM.
[QUOTE=Pablo Neruda] And meanwhile,
We men,
Touch the water,
Struggling and hoping,
We touch the sea.
Hoping.
And the waves tell the firm coast;
"Everything will be fulfilled".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hunt99]This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.[/QUOTE]Something like "I'm not interested in some washed up radical from the 60's." sic (Isn't sic what you write when you have the content correct but perhaps the wording is wrong?
And then having your ads and mouthpiece do nothing but repeat that as a fucking mantra for a month. What a lack of balls that McAngryOldGuy has. Face to face in a debate he dismisses what is essentially the only plank in his platform.
Liberal bias in the media my ass, the only news program that even mentioned that was on the freaking comedy channel!
This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.
In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.
Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.
In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.
This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than some think.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.
In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.
Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.
In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.
This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than many think.[/QUOTE]One possible scenario would be the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few days.
[QUOTE=Jackson]One possible scenario would be the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few days.[/QUOTE]Like there isn't enough to fuggen worry about.
[url]http://www.borowitzreport.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Isn't sic what you write when you have the content correct but perhaps the wording is wrong?[/QUOTE]I think you have the definition right. It is used when you are exactly quoting someone else, but are leaving any spelling or grammatical errors or unusual usage that they used in their quote.
Specifically, that the quote is word-for-word from the original source, and the wording used in your quote is indeed not due to an error you made when quoting it but is exactly as the original material.
Should be used like [sic] after the quote.