This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
tobetbaa
It will either be President Clinton or President McBush, is there any
other plausible choice here? You can't buy the White House or stage a
Florida rally after getting a pathetic vote count in Kentucky, and
claim victory. Get real, this is an election, not a Madona concert !
tobetbaa
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.
Immortalist
##############################
> http://surftofind.com/obama
>
> Republicans are supporting Obama because they
> have already planned their October Surprise.
> According to Dick Morris, the plans are in the
> works to bomb Iran in October, just before
> the presidential election.
>
> When that happens, they will merely destroy Obama`s
> chances because Republicans are planning to put
> him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
> the way they did with Dukakis.
>
> Don`t let it happen, if you love Obama, get him in the
> White House as Hillary`s VP, that will thwart their
> October Surprise, and if you fully want to understand
> Obama's insurmountable barriers, study this
> very, very carefully.
>
##############################
If an October surprise is American political jargon describing a news
event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election,
particularly one for the presidency, while events shortly before the
election have greater potential to swing votes, but since the 1980
election, the term has been pre-emptively used to discredit late-
campaign news by one side or the other, then would such a tactic be
enough to make people change their minds that have been firmly made up
for many months? People might vote more for Obama since with the
terible shape of the economy and the consequences of the costs of war
so recently in the minds of the people, it would be more reasonable to
chose someone who will end the result of the surprise as quickly as
possible. As for trying to do the Dukakis routine, both parties will
be trying to do that to each other, whoever is running.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise
Posing as a marketing researcher, Brehm showed several women eight
different appliances (a toaster, an electric coffee maker, a sandwich
grill, and the like) and asked that they rate them in terms of how
attractive each appliance was. As a reward, each woman was told she
could have one of the appliances as a gift—and she was given a choice
between two of the products she had rated as being equally attractive.
After she chose one, it was wrapped up and given to her. Several
minutes later, she was asked to rate the products again. It was found
that after receiving the appliance of her choice, each woman rated the
attractiveness of that appliance somewhat higher and decreased the
rating of the appliance she had a chance to own but rejected. Again,
making a decision produces dissonance: Cognitions about any negative
aspects of the preferred object are dissonant with having chosen it,
and cognitions about the positive aspects of the unchosen object are
dissonant with not having chosen it. To reduce dissonance, people
cognitively spread apart the alternatives. That is, after making their
decision, the women in Brehm's study emphasized the positive
attributes of the appliance they decided to own while deemphasizing
its negative attributes; for the appliance they decided not to own,
they emphasized its negative attributes and deemphasized its positive
attributes.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Daniel T.
Please, the presidential election hasn't occurred yet. Currently in the
USA the parties are going through the process of deciding who will
represent them in the national election, how the parties choose to do
that is up to them and has little to do with counting votes.
The candidates for the Democratic ticket knew the rules at the beginning
and now the looser (Clinton) is insisting that they be broken (but only
because she is loosing.) Frankly, the fact that Clinton is pushing to
have the rules broken for her benefit is yet another example of why she
is unfit to be president.
Bret Cahill
Obama's appeal is more like Sinatra than Madonna.
Bret Cahill
Immortalist
> On May 21, 9:01 pm, tobetbaa <tobet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >http://surftofind.com/obama
>
> > Republicans are supporting Obama because they
> > have already planned their October Surprise.
> > According to Dick Morris, the plans are in the
> > works to bomb Iran in October, just before
> > the presidential election.
>
> > When that happens, they will merely destroy Obama`s
> > chances because Republicans are planning to put
> > him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
> > the way they did with Dukakis.
>
> > Don`t let it happen, if you love Obama, get him in the
> > White House as Hillary`s VP, that will thwart their
> > October Surprise, and if you fully want to understand
> > Obama's insurmountable barriers, study this
> > very, very carefully.
>
>
> If an October surprise is American political jargon describing a news
> event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election,
> particularly one for the presidency, while events shortly before the
> election have greater potential to swing votes,
######################################
> but since the 1980 election, the term has been pre-emptively used
> to discredit late- campaign news by one side or the other,..
> > ....Republicans are planning to put
> > him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
> > the way they did with Dukakis.
In both cases, the innoculation effect would counter a surprise since
people would already be primed to what is happening and even the media
would play the similrities over and over so much, the tactic will be
useless.
...In an interesting field experiment, Alfred McAlister and his
colleagues inoculated seventh-grade students against existing peer
pressure to smoke cigarettes. For example, the students were shown
advertisements (popular at the time) implying that truly liberated
women are smokers—"You've come a long way, baby!" They were then
inoculated by being taught that a woman couldn't possibly be liberated
if she were hooked on nicotine. Similarly, because many teenagers
begin smoking, in part, because it seems "cool" or "tough" (like the
Marlboro man), peer pressure took the form of being called "chicken"
if one didn't smoke.
Accordingly, McAlister set up a situation to counteract that process;
the seventh graders role-played a situation in which they practiced
countering that argument by saying something like "I'd be a real
chicken if I smoked just to impress you." This inoculation against
peer pressure proved to be very effective. By the time the students
were in the ninth grade, they were half as likely to smoke as those in
a control group from a similar junior high school.
Sometimes it can be helpful to prepare another for the opposite so
that they have the ability to resit it with rational thinking.
The Social Animal
by Elliot Aronson
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-Elliot-Aronson/dp/1429203161/
http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/ino.htm
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/inocul.htm
> ...then would such a tactic be
why?
On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:01:32 -0700 (PDT), tobetbaa wrote:
>There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
1 twerp or another.
>climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
<snip>
If there wasn't enough rubbish about the election, the daft situation
where 1 party can't even pick a canidate amongst themselves. The aim
seems to win over the other party not beat up on people in your own
party.
Me
Bret Cahill
She is merely drawing attention to the fact that Obama will be weaker
than her in critical states. In a close election -- and Democrats
have been planning for close elections -- this comes down to a matter
of if we get a Democrat or 4 mores years of quagmire.
I personally like to listen to the feel good "hope and change and
change and hope and hope and change and change and hope and hope and
change and hope change hope" talk myself but it's a complete farce to
nominate someone who is clueless as to why the jingoistic media ("9/11
changed AAAAVERYthing") were singing "Obama, you are soooo
beEEeauUUutiful" in late 2006.
They did it for the same reason they were pumping another vain
unaccomplished unknown senator in late 2002:
They knew the weaker candidate would be just the ticked in stay in
Iraq four more years.
That's why the eternal jihad corp. media want Hillary out _now_.
They are chomping at the bit to start hyping madrasses and black
ministers along with their old standbys, abortion, gay marriage, naked
nazi flagburner parades, terrorism, etc.
We'll be in Iraq until Democrats learn how to think critically.
Bret Cahill
Daniel T.
> Hillary is not and can not violate any rules.
She's whining because the rules don't favor her, and wants them changed
because they don't favor her. She's been whining and boo-hooing a lot
this year.
> She is merely drawing attention to the fact that Obama will be weaker
> than her in critical states.
I don't see how her whining about the rules infers that Obama will be
weaker than her in "critical states". Maybe you can enlighten me?
[snipped rant about media bias.]