Dems Try to Sell Biden After Poll Loss
Wide Eyed in Wonder
was already a tough sell) after skipping Hillary to put an apparent
lead balloon on the ticket. Usually, there is a bump up in the polls
after a VP addition. However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead. Gallup
has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
CNN has Obama going from a 7 percent lead last month to a tie...now.
It seems the party faithful are abandoning the ticket, after Hillary
was ignored (not even vetted to be VP) in the search for the VP
candidate. Indeed, even CNN is running stories critical of Obama,
like this one...
...that says Bill Clinton will not even attend Obama's speech night at
the convention.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
ayatollah obama
> Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama (which
> was already a tough sell) after skipping Hillary to put an apparent
> lead balloon on the ticket. Usually, there is a bump up in the polls
> after a VP addition. However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
> going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead. Gallup
> has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
> CNN has Obama going from a 7 percent lead last month to a tie...now.
> It seems the party faithful are abandoning the ticket, after Hillary
> was ignored (not even vetted to be VP) in the search for the VP
> candidate. Indeed, even CNN is running stories critical of Obama,
> like this one...
>
>
> ...that says Bill Clinton will not even attend Obama's speech night at
> the convention.
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com
I guess the 'O' stands for
OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttt!
Hugh Wood
>
> - Show quoted text -
HHHAAAHHHHAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one !!!
Bob LeChevalier
>Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama
Obama by tradition has no public role in the convention until the last
day. Therefore, he has rather little ability to "work hard" until
then.
>(which was already a tough sell)
only to jerks like you who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
>after skipping Hillary to put an apparent lead balloon on the ticket.
Your confusing Biden with your brain cavity, which is the only lead
balloon in evidence.
>Usually, there is a bump up in the polls after a VP addition.
Not instantly.
>However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
>going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
<The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday
< shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote
< for the second straight day. When "leaners" are included, though,
< McCain picked up another point since yesterday and now has a
< statistically insignificant one-point advantage over Obama, 47% to
< 46%
What part of "statistically insignificant" don't you understand?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
<The candidates have been within two points of each other on every day
< but two for the past month
2 points is also statistically insignificant.
McCain has been a point a head on 3 other days this month
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
so if Obama was 3 points ahead, that would require you to admit that
Obama had been gaining on McCain up until his selection of Biden.
>Gallup
>has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
>CNN has Obama going from a 7 percent lead last month to a tie...now.
CNN's poll shows only a 2% difference if the other candidates are
included, and the two points are a gain for McCain and not a loss of
support for Obama.
Zogby shows Obama with a constant 2 point lead:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_zogby_national_82324.php
Diageo shows a two point gain for Obama since June
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_diageohotline_national_81.php
ABC?Post National shows a 2 point loss with RV, and a 1 point gain
with LV
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_abcpost_national_81922.php
In short, the polls aren't saying a damned thing.
>It seems the party faithful are abandoning the ticket,
Not hardly.
>after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
>Indeed, even CNN is running stories critical of Obama,
Blogs are NOT news stories.
>like this one...
>
>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/
I see nothing critical of Obama. I see an unattributed source saying
that Clinton wouldn't attend the big speech.
That MIGHT be taken as critical of Clinton for not being a team
player, but I don't think CNN is doing that either.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Wide Eyed in Wonder
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama
>
> Obama by tradition has no public role in the convention until the last
> day. Therefore, he has rather little ability to "work hard" until
> then.
>
> >(which was already a tough sell)
>
> only to jerks like you who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
>
> >after skipping Hillary to put an apparent lead balloon on the ticket.
>
> Your confusing Biden with your brain cavity, which is the only lead
> balloon in evidence.
>
> >Usually, there is a bump up in the polls after a VP addition.
>
> Not instantly.
>
> >However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
> >going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead.
>
> <The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday
> < shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote
> < for the second straight day. When "leaners" are included, though,
> < McCain picked up another point since yesterday and now has a
> < statistically insignificant one-point advantage over Obama, 47% to
> < 46%
>
> What part of "statistically insignificant" don't you understand?
>
> <The candidates have been within two points of each other on every day
> < but two for the past month
>
> 2 points is also statistically insignificant.
>
> so if Obama was 3 points ahead, that would require you to admit that
> Obama had been gaining on McCain up until his selection of Biden.
>
> >Gallup
> >has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
> >CNN has Obama going from a 7 percent lead last month to a tie...now.
>
> CNN's poll shows only a 2% difference if the other candidates are
> included, and the two points are a gain for McCain and not a loss of
> support for Obama.
>
> Zogby shows Obama with a constant 2 point lead:http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_zogby_national_82324.php
>
>
> ABC?Post National shows a 2 point loss with RV, and a 1 point gain
>
> In short, the polls aren't saying a damned thing.
>
> >It seems the party faithful are abandoning the ticket,
>
> Not hardly.
>
> >after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
>
> She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
> being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
>
> >Indeed, even CNN is running stories critical of Obama,
>
> Blogs are NOT news stories.
>
> >like this one...
>
>
> I see nothing critical of Obama. I see an unattributed source saying
> that Clinton wouldn't attend the big speech.
>
> That MIGHT be taken as critical of Clinton for not being a team
> player, but I don't think CNN is doing that either.
Of course not. In your little world, you are the expert of every
field and everyone loves Democrats and don't mind the lies they tell.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Bob LeChevalier
>>
>> >It seems the party faithful are abandoning the ticket,
>>
>> Not hardly.
>>
>> >after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
>>
>> She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
>> being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
>>
>> >Indeed, even CNN is running stories critical of Obama,
>>
>> Blogs are NOT news stories.
>>
>> >like this one...
>>
>> >http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-w...
>>
>> I see nothing critical of Obama. I see an unattributed source saying
>> that Clinton wouldn't attend the big speech.
>>
>> That MIGHT be taken as critical of Clinton for not being a team
>> player, but I don't think CNN is doing that either.
>
>Of course not.
You're getting there.
>In your little world,
My world is large. I don't wear Kennie blinders.
>you are the expert of every field
Not hardly. Just smarter than you, and a helluva lot wiser.
>and everyone loves Democrats
This year, more of them than love Republicans.
>and don't mind the lies they tell.
You are the primary liar in this discussion. Are you a Democrat? Or
a hypocrite?
Bob LeChevalier
>was already a tough sell) after skipping Hillary to put an apparent
>lead balloon on the ticket. Usually, there is a bump up in the polls
>after a VP addition. However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
>going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead.
And now has it back to a tie.
>Gallup has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
And now has Obama back in the lead.
>...that says Bill Clinton will not even attend Obama's speech night at
>the convention.
He probably watched it on TV and avoided the security lines.
Meanwhile on the BBC Blog during The Speech
<2035 The BBC's Justin Webb: "By the way - it's a stunning evening here
< in Denver. I mention this because some fundamentalist Christians of a
< right-wing persuasion prayed for rain - proof that God is a
< Democrat?"
Which was about the same time that the Republicans said that they
might delay their convention due to hurricane. Since Kennie is the
big believer that God sends hurricanes to punish sinners, maybe he
should switch to Obama, because God seems to be speaking directly to
Kennie on this
%^)
Bob LeChevalier
>Wide Eyed in Wonder <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama (which
>>was already a tough sell) after skipping Hillary to put an apparent
>>lead balloon on the ticket. Usually, there is a bump up in the polls
>>after a VP addition. However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
>>going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead.
>
>And now has it back to a tie.
>
>>Gallup has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain lead.
>
>And now has Obama back in the lead.
And today Gallup gives Obama an 8 point lead, 49% to 41%, while
Rasmussen gives Obama 4 points. And this was based on polling BEFORE
the Speech (and since it is a three day average, it will take 3 more
days before we know the full effects of last night).
And opinions of Biden have gotten more positive as well:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/47_now_say_biden_was_good_veep_choice_for_democrats
Larry Hewitt
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:td9fb41u6ahqq3cel...@4ax.com...
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama (which
>>was already a tough sell) after skipping Hillary to put an apparent
>>lead balloon on the ticket. Usually, there is a bump up in the polls
>>after a VP addition. However, since adding Biden, Rasmussen has it
>>going from a 3 percent Obama lead to a 1 percent McCain lead.
>
> And now has it back to a tie.
>
>>Gallup has it going from a 2 percent Obama lead to a 2 percent McCain
>>lead.
>
> And now has Obama back in the lead.
>
>>...that says Bill Clinton will not even attend Obama's speech night at
>>the convention.
>
> He probably watched it on TV and avoided the security lines.
>
away the night of the nominee's speech so they do not steal his thunder.
Larry
Jerry Okamura
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Democrats seem to be working harder to sell Biden than Obama
>
> Obama by tradition has no public role in the convention until the last
> day. Therefore, he has rather little ability to "work hard" until
> then.
>
the platform that they wants to run on, which is developed during the
conventions.
Bob LeChevalier
That may have been true 50 years ago, but unless there is some
specific controversial issue that warrants a platform fight, the
platform is settled before the convention starts by the platform
committee. I didn't even notice any amendments being offered to the
Platform Committee report (but then I haven't ever paid much attention
to the inner workings of the Democratic Party).
Even when there has been a platform fight, any involvement by the
candidates tends to be behind the scenes.
On the other hand, Obama is the CEO of his campaign, and probably had
decision-making power in virtually all major decisions. The fact that
he got nominated and pulled of the sort of convention that he did,
despite the Clintons and their supporters strikes me as being about as
strong evidence of executive ability and crisis-management ability as
one could look for in a commander-in-chief - certainly more than one
typically gets as a Senator or mayor or governor unless there is a
major disaster.
Info Junkie
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Wide Eyed in Wonder <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"snip"
>>after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
>
>She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
>being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
"(S)he asked not to be vetted unless she was being seriously
considered"? Cite please.
Bob LeChevalier
AP story:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-CVN-Veep-Tick-Tock.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
<Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary,
< was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the
< search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked,
< the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to
< describe the private discussions.
Bob
> Info Junkie <bond...@ifx.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:50:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Wide Eyed in Wonder <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"snip"
>>
>>>>after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
>>>
>>>She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
>>>being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
>>
>>"(S)he asked not to be vetted unless she was being seriously
>>considered"? Cite please.
>
> AP story:
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-CVN-Veep-Tick-Tock.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> <Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary,
> < was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the
> < search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked,
> < the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to
> < describe the private discussions.
That makes no sense. You don't decide until
after vetting.
Bob LeChevalier
It makes perfect sense - to her. Vetting means a lot of digging into
her private matters, and she wanted none of it unless she was in the
final running.
CliffB
> "Bob" <n...@email.add> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:ofqib41d4hn38svpk...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:50:01 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> >>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>>"snip"
>
> >>>>>after Hillary was ignored (not even vetted to be VP)
>
> >>>>She was not ignored, and she asked not to be vetted unless she was
> >>>>being seriously considered, which she wasn't.
>
> >>>"(S)he asked not to be vetted unless she was being seriously
> >>>considered"? Cite please.
>
> >> AP story:
> >> <Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary,
> >> < was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the
> >> < search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked,
> >> < the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to
> >> < describe the private discussions.
>
> >That makes no sense. You don't decide until
> >after vetting.
>
> It makes perfect sense - to her. Vetting means a lot of digging into
> her private matters, and she wanted none of it unless she was in the
> final running.
>
> lojbab
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
It's Obama's party now (until he loses); Clintons not welcome unless
they wish to worship at the Temple of Barack. Obama was definitely
more comfortable with a felllow blabbermouth male senator like Bidet,
I mean Biden.