OT: Dead On Arrival
daytripper
That was just plain *awful*.
Palin's pit-puppy recital was far more interesting, spirited, and "effective"
(although it may have done way more to inspire the opposition than the home
team, and likely turned off a whole lot of independents). McCain's act just
laid down and died, right there on the podium.
And did they actually fill that stadium with disinterested seat warmers?
/daytripper (and now, we wait...)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Well, not very long:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13168.html
Probably the most accurate poll to date, even if the numbers are a
little low (about equally so)...
Oh, I know this won't help...<SNICKER>,
R
Peaceful Bill
IMHO, we should to wait a week or so to get a more realistic picture. A
lot of polls are three-day or five-day running polls and won't reflect
the real post-convention sentiment equally for both parties.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
True enough. It appears McCain did well enough to get some sort of
bounce, but in a week, that bounce and Obama's will be long forgotten.
It's a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately thing, and "lately" means in the
last 24-48, sometimes 72, hours 99.99% of the time.
TC,
R
riverman
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:21:35 -0400, daytripper
>
Strange. Not only does that poll test the popular vote, which is
irrelevant, but it also states that the result is not replicated in
other polls (hmmmm), and the top menu bar clearly shows that the
Gallup poll has it at Obama, 49% McCain 42%. To declare "the race
knotted at 42%" seems to be wishful thinking at best, Orwellian
fantasy more likely.
Besides, the best amalgamated poll that I know of is www.electoral-vote.com,
which showed Obama surge ahead another 25 electoral votes AFTER Pulin
made her speech.
YMMV, and it probably will.
--riverman
Scott Seidman
news:vva1c410k8hdei36j...@4ax.com:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Peaceful Bill
That's a three-day to five-day running poll and will not reflect the
complete post-campaign sentiment until at least a week from now.
Currently it reflects the Democratic convention bounce but does not
reflect the Republican convention bounce (from an interview on CNBC).
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>"...the race knotted..."
There is your data from every major poll you'll find without paying for
it combined and condensed down to simple terms.
HTH,
R
daytripper
Nice that they provided that rather humongous disclaimer?
"Other polls have failed to show the same tightening of the race found by CBS.
Neither the Gallup or Rasmussen daily tracking polls have registered a
significant drop in Obama’s support from his post-convention bounce numbers.
The Gallup tracking poll, for example, still has Obama ahead of McCain 49
percent to 42 percent."
<snickerdoodle>
/daytripper (like I said, now, we wait...)
jc...@cs.nmsu.edu
> Besides, the best amalgamated poll that I know of is www.electoral-vote.com,
Nice, thanks. I bookmarked it -- it'll be fun to watch over the next
60 days. I noticed if you flip back a few days, though, even "strong"
states change their status quite often. I'm not making any bets
yet...imo the debates will be the clinchers.
Jon.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
And like I said, not very long. I don't know if it has been released to
the general public, but new Rasmussen data shows that Palin is polling
as more popular than either Obama or McCain, and the _initial_ data
indicates that Obama's bounce is gonna get wiped and then some. It
ought to be available at the site today or tomorrow.
<SNICKER VANG MU>,
R
...and like I said - "Sarah/Cindy '08...and oh, yeah, that old war hero
dude, too...yeah, you know who I mean, that guy that's married to one of
'em...I think he races beer trucks in the snow or something..."
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Tom Littleton
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vd43c4l5533sqktcf...@4ax.com...
> Not long at all:
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama_mccain
>
Rasmussen?? Objective? You're just yanking chains, I realize, but yeeesh.
Tom
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
Yeah, you're right...let's look at one the of the real objective
sources...howsabout CBS:
Obama 44%, McCain 44%
HTH,
R
...and another one - for good or bad, more people watched McCain's spech
than Obama's - about 600,000 more.
riverman
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:16:19 GMT, "Tom Littleton" <tjl...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:vd43c4l5533sqktcf...@4ax.com...
> >> Not long at all:
>
>
> >Rasmussen?? Objective? You're just yanking chains, I realize, but yeeesh.
> > Tom
>
> Yeah, you're right...let's look at one the of the real objective
> sources...howsabout CBS:
>
> Obama 44%, McCain 44%
>
> HTH,
> R
> ...and another one - for good or bad, more people watched McCain's spech
> than Obama's - about 600,000 more.
And again, popular vote doesn't count. Electoral-vote.com, which takes
Rasmussen into account as well as a bunch of others, shows Obama still
ahead, and gaining ground, in the electoral vote. Pre-RNC it was
holding steady at BO-278, JM-247 Ties-13. Post-RNC (today), its at
BO-301, JM-224 Ties13. Remember, the magic number is only 270.
I think the graphs on the 'electoral college graphs' link at the
bottom are very insightful. Whereas in the last election, the number
of electoral votes when omitting the 'barely' states stayed well below
the 270 mark, in this one Obama has a much higher level of committed
votes than either McCain or any of the candidates from the last
election. And his 'solid' support has been climbing steadily since
April, while McCains has been steadily dropping. He has more support,
and his support base is more dedicated.
I don't think this race is as close as you want to paint it.
--riverman
Tom Littleton
"riverman" <myro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bc065030-1b52-4295...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think the graphs on the 'electoral college graphs' link at the
bottom are very insightful. Whereas in the last election, the number
of electoral votes when omitting the 'barely' states stayed well below
the 270 mark, in this one Obama has a much higher level of committed
votes than either McCain or any of the candidates from the last
election. And his 'solid' support has been climbing steadily since
April, while McCains has been steadily dropping. He has more support,
and his support base is more dedicated.
I don't think this race is as close as you want to paint it.
--riverman
Hush, Myron!!! Of course, anyone who follows how Obama and his folks play
the election game realizes that they are very clear about the rule-book.
This race is about electoral votes, nothing else. Note, among the stats that
McCain is a threat to change exactly ZERO of the Kerry states to his column,
at the moment. Obama has a good to fair shot of turning the following Bush
states to his: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa.
Further, here in PA, a state McCain desperately needs to win, the polls look
bad for him....but, as anyone who does this stuff knows, the race gets won
on the ground. In the past several election cycles, the GOP flat-out beat
the pants off the Dems in the trenches, election day. This year, in PA,
Obama has 8 to 10 times the volunteers that McCain has. Virginia, he has 3
to 1. This might prove to be a watershed year for the Dems, if they manage
to go 60 days without self-inflicted fatalities....
Tom
Ken Fortenberry
> <snip>
> I don't think this race is as close as you want to paint it.
Rick will post whatever link he thinks will yank liberal chains
the most. Most of his political posts should be taken with a
ton of salt. At least a ton.
The single best site I've found for getting a real clear picture
of US politics, including a fair compilation of the competing
and sundry polls, is this one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
--
Ken Fortenberry
Peaceful Bill
Today's polls don't reflect today. Most polls are three-day or five-day
running polls. So to spoil the thread, why not wait a week to see the
real post-convention(s) sentiment.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Your wish is my command - from RCP: public data shows no toss-ups Obama
273, McCain 265, within the MOE. The underlying pending subscription
data trending shows Obama 260, McCain 278, again MOE. Common sense and
expensive software extrapolation shows, and sorry for the very technical
terms, that it's a fucking toss-up...
HTH,
R
daytripper
[...]
>...and another one - for good or bad, more people watched McCain's spech
>than Obama's - about 600,000 more.
Not that it makes any difference what so ever, but to quote you: "Uh...no."
You got that from an article that quoted Nielson, but NMR doesn't meter PBS
outlets - PBS does that themselves.
The actual totals were:
Obama 42 million total viewers
McCain 41 million total viewers
Palin 40 million total viewers
"HTH"
/daytripper (or not...)
gregat...@fastmail.fm
Interesting site, thank you. It has a link to this video:
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:37:15 -0500, rdean3...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>[...]
>>...and another one - for good or bad, more people watched McCain's spech
>>than Obama's - about 600,000 more.
>
>Not that it makes any difference what so ever, but to quote you: "Uh...no."
Uh...yes.
>
>You got that from an article that quoted Nielson, but NMR doesn't meter PBS
>outlets - PBS does that themselves.
No, I didn't, and no, they don't, because they cannot. What PBS doesn't
do is pay Nielson for counts. The PBS totals were estimated. And the
Nielson numbers were something like 450-500K to McCain, not 600K.
>
>The actual totals were:
>
>Obama 42 million total viewers
>McCain 41 million total viewers
>Palin 40 million total viewers
No, they aren't the actual totals because there are no exact totals.
They appear to be Nielson plus PBS _estimates_, slightly rounded-up for
Obama, slightly rounded-down for McCain and Palin, and IAC, not
including C-Span and other outlets. The PBS totals are estimated from a
sampling of certain major markets, and the estimating is done by at
least three entities. Moreover, C-Span isn't in the Nielsons, either.
That to which I am referring is sub-only data, not public data released
from embargo.
>
>"HTH"
>
>/daytripper (or not...)
HTH,
R
JR
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:58:16 -0400, daytripper
> <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>> The actual totals were:
>>
>> Obama 42 million total viewers
>> McCain 41 million total viewers
>> Palin 40 million total viewers
>
> No, they aren't the actual totals because there are no exact totals.
> They appear to be Nielson plus PBS _estimates_, slightly rounded-up for
> Obama, slightly rounded-down for McCain and Palin, and IAC, not
> including C-Span and other outlets.
Truth is, I'm the only person in the universe who *knows* the
"true totals", which are that the cool skinny black dude had
three-fourths of a smidgen more viewers than the MILF, who was
just a wee hair's breadth ahead of Maverick.
- JR™
("....slightly rounded-up for Obama, slightly rounded-down for
McCain and Palin, and IAC, not including C-Span and other
outlets" ????? Do you not have a life, man?)
daytripper
Jesus, what a pant load...
/daytripper (Put it up or shut it up.)
Tom Littleton
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rav3c4tnl6496a8d3...@4ax.com...
agree on this: interest is very high among the general public over this
year's elections? More so than any I can remember. This level of interest,
and thus scrutiny, can work in a number of ways, but it IS a given that not
everyone viewing a speech(from anyone) is doing so because they are
sympathetic. For instance, every person in the room at a county committee
meeting for the Obama campaign Wednesday night intended to go home and watch
Palin. 15 sets of eyes, not a damned one intending to vote for her.....
Tom
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Yes, I do...in fact, data shows that it is about 5.4 smidgens more of a
life than folks who ask questions like that...and in a surprise spike,
trending shows a luxurious mane of auburn hair's breaths more than folks
who ask me to "put up or shut up"...
HTH,
R
>
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
Okey-dokey....
Nielsen:
During McCain's speech:
38,933,000
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Univision, Telemundo
During Obama's speech:
38,379,000
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, BET, TV One, Univision, Telemundo
(BET and TV One did not carry RNC)
which would appear to be a 554,000 viewer lead for McCain. But what
about PBS?
PBS:
Released viewer numbers are estimates from 4 "major metropolitan
market"sampling/estimates of the (hint, hint) entire 3 hour prime-time
slot, 8-11 Eastern, 7-10 Central:
Obama, 3.5 million, McCain 2.7 million
So that gives us:
Obama 41879000,
McCain 41633000
which would appear to now be a 246,000 viewer lead for Obama.
But gee, one might say, billions of ad dollars are riding on Nielsen's
very expensive numbers, so they are probably pretty accurate, but what
about PBS' numbers? What's this "estimate" of a 3 hour slot from a few
major markets stuff? Why don't they have Nielsen numbers? Well, you
say, PBS isn't a commercial network, so they don't really care about ad
dollars. They are just good, objective folks, like Jim Lehrer, who want
to help educate and inform, so surely we can count on those numbers as
being objective and accurate, right? Well... What about that
commercial-looking thing at the beginning of just about every PBS show
where some company sponsor brags about how much it cares? Surely THEY
care about who's watching, right? You bet your ass they do, and you
can bet your ass and an arm and a leg that folks with checkbooks that
big aren't about to trust the vendor themselves for the alleged numbers.
So guess what? There are ways to find out just who is watching what,
when on PBS, and guess what? Come speech time, slightly more folks were
still on PBS during McCain. And guess what also, there are ways to
track C-Span, too. And guess what also too, I didn't bother to look
because C-Span could have exclusive coverage of aliens landing and the
numbers would be very small. So what we have is the pretty solid
554,000 more for McCain via Nielsen and a fair but less-precise estimate
of slightly more speech time viewers on PBS, the total of which I'm
comfortable with calling "about 600,000 more."
Is that put up enough for ya, there, big guy?
HTH,
R
...oh, and BTW, PBS doesn't pay Nielsen for numbers - nobody can stop
whomever from collecting data, so just because any Nielsen PBS numbers
aren't...well, you know...
JR
> ...and in a surprise spike,
> trending shows a luxurious mane of auburn hair's breaths more than folks
> who ask me to "put up or shut up"...
Yeah? Who did that? Musta stung.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
<gregat...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:849db762-b5cd-4fbd...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=3845739
I don't know if y'all have the Sunday TV sermons up your way like we have
down South here, but Palin's little talk to her "Valley" church congregation
doesn't sound much, if any, different than what I might see if I were to
attend the church behind my house--and I mean directly behind my house, not
20 feet away--or watch the local Sunday TV sermons.
While I was raise a Methodist, up to the age of about 12--I refused to go to
church after that and my folks gave up trying to force me, as I made quite a
fuss! From my perspective, Christians, Jews, Muslims and any other
monotheisitic religious organizations worship no differently than those who
used to worship to the Greek and Roman gods (or still do for all I know),
except that they worship to one so-called true god of their preference.
People of old likely worshipped just as fervently in Zeus or Jupiter, as
Christians and Muslims worship in Jesus and Allah. The only difference is
that polytheism fell out of favor and monotheism is the shit because of a
change in religious doctrine.
So, yes, to the "non-believer"--her spiel sounds whacko. But to the true
"believer," her words are practically prophetic, unless of course the "true"
believer maintains a different religious belief, or possibly a differeent
religious denomination.
The funny thing to me is that many Christians, the ones that I am familiar
with, will damn another denomination of Christianity as blasphemous because
of their doctrinal differences. Yet they will come together, as one, if they
believe that some outside group is attacking Christianity in general?
Example: The guyz in my shop are primarily Southern Baptists and they will
openly tell you that anyone who is not a Southern Baptist is not a real
Christian. Yet, let an outside organization attack the Catholic Church,
Methodists, Lutherans, serpent handlers, or any other "so-called" Christian
denomination, for whatever reason, and all of a sudden the outsider is a
godless atheist and Communist, and all of the other former non-real
Christians are brethren in Christ.
Op --Religion: It's all Greek to me.--
daytripper
blah blah blah
Thanks for admitting you had nothing to back you up...
/daytripper (and duly noted....)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>blah blah blah
>
>/daytripper (and duly noted....)
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_speech_m.html
which naturally brings up:
HTH,
R (...and obviously ignored, right?) <BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!>
daytripper
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:05:12 -0400, daytripper
><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>blah blah blah
>>
>
>>/daytripper (and duly noted....)
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_speech_m.html
"That makes McCain's total audience nearly 41 million, compared to nearly 42
million for Obama and about 40 million for Palin."
As I quoted...
All you managed to do was make yourself look foolish - as usual...
/daytripper (but thanks for playing)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:15:49 -0500, rdean3...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:05:12 -0400, daytripper
>><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>blah blah blah
>>>
>>
>>>/daytripper (and duly noted....)
>>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_speech_m.html
>
>"That makes McCain's total audience nearly 41 million, compared to nearly 42
>million for Obama and about 40 million for Palin."
Hey, a billion is nearer to 41.6 million than a million-trillion, and
six is nearer to 41.9 million than a million-trillion, too, so:
That makes McCain's total audience nearly a billion people, compared to
nearly six for Obama...
...and 2 plus 2 equals 5...and if Obama has 500 billion in tax revenue,
he can spend 800 billion of it on change someone will believe in...
>
>As I quoted...
<BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! SNICKER SPLORK TEE-HEE VANG MU, SQUARED>
I figured as much. Is that "new math, Boston-style?"...must be outta
Harvard...
>
>All you managed to do was make yourself look foolish - as usual...
Uh, yeah...stick with that...
>
>/daytripper (but thanks for playing)
You're more than welcome,
R
sned...@msn.com
Richard
Do you think Palin will be more like Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle, or
Cheney as Republicrat Vice President?
So what do we have to look forward to: Agnew's bribery indictments and
death in Libya? Quayle's military prowess and spelling? Or Cheney's
"Im a fat assed phony quail hunter who can shoot you in the face with
a duck load while half crocked?"
Maybe some combo? Like Sara shooting other Republicrat "friends" from
a helo with moose loads, paid courtesy of BP oil, but spelled in
Esperantoes?
Dave
The possibilities are endless. I hope she might be more like Quayle,
annoying but harmless and ineffectual. And hopefully someone will
discretely provide this 44 year old a bit of "sex education" before
she breeds again.
daytripper
No problem.
I think it's cute to see you get all wound up when you get caught making shit
up - and you're getting caught more and more often, lately.
I think maybe the audience has you totally sussed out as a bullshit artist,
son. That's gonna be tough for you...
/daytripper (heck, I bet even Wolfie had to stifle a laugh)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, one of Whitey's Boston highsteppers, are ya? OK, let's get
serious. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and that says my
numbers are good - do you have the stones to belly on up in public? And
let me save myself some time - no, I'm not talking about pussing around
with 100 bucks US - if you can't scratch up some real money, go on back
to being a puss and arguing with Louie about reg vs. prem.
Hey, I like ya, but here's your big chance - if you wanna play the part
of being a real playa mofo, get out yer wallet and clean me out...
You wanted "put up or shut up," so let's get with it,
R
..,and if you ain't 5 figures certain, go back and play in the
sandbox....maybe "Wolfie" and his silly-assed nickels can help ya out...
sned...@msn.com
>
> Hey, I like ya, but here's your big chance - if you wanna play the part
> of being a real playa mofo, get out yer wallet and clean me out...
>
> You wanted "put up or shut up," so let's get with it,
> R
> ..,and if you ain't 5 figures certain, go back and play in the
>
Daytripper, Ill cover this one:
Dean, I'll bet you $FIVE quadrillion to your measly $10,001 you
friggin skin flint if you will throw in your cravat and let my dogs
have a go at your *ss. Deal?
Dave
Tripper, me thinks you really skinned em this time. He does this when
cornered in his fibben.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>On Sep 7, 8:29 pm, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> Hey, I like ya, but here's your big chance - if you wanna play the part
>> of being a real playa mofo, get out yer wallet and clean me out...
>>
>> You wanted "put up or shut up," so let's get with it,
>> R
>> ..,and if you ain't 5 figures certain, go back and play in the
>> sandbox....maybe "Wolfie" and his silly-assed nickels can help ya out...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Daytripper, Ill cover this one:
Oh, goody - loonies covering for pussies...
>Dean, I'll bet you $FIVE quadrillion to your measly $10,001 you
>friggin skin flint if you will throw in your cravat and let my dogs
>have a go at your *ss. Deal?
>
>Dave
>Tripper, me thinks you really skinned em this time. He does this when
>cornered in his fibben.
Uh-huh...I would have bet on it...
<SNICKER>
R
Wolfgang
"Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
news:2kmwk.20148$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Today's polls don't reflect today.
Today's pols don't reflect today either. Unfortunately, most of us have
found no way to live in anything other than today. Those of you who live on
other planets in times past and future, while providing interesting and
amusing diversions here in roff (for which we are all sufficiently grateful,
I think), can hardly be expected to understand the enormous burdens that
reality places on the rest of us.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
"JR" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6ifc4dF...@mid.individual.net...
> rdean3...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> ...and in a surprise spike,
>> trending shows a luxurious mane of auburn hair's breaths more than folks
>> who ask me to "put up or shut up"...
>
> Yeah?
Yep.
> Who did that?
Me. I do it all the time.
> Musta stung.
Drives the boy crazy. :)
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
> (heck, I bet even Wolfie had to stifle a laugh)
Stifling natural bodily processes leads to all sorts of somatic ailments. I
never do that. :)
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
<rdean3...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bq59c4tppue76km6m...@4ax.com...
I'l take $132,642,827,446.92 of that action.
> You wanted "put up or shut up," so let's get with it,
> R
> ..,and if you ain't 5 figures certain, go back and play in the
> sandbox....maybe "Wolfie" and his silly-assed nickels can help ya out...
Cretin.
Seriously.
Wolfgang
sned...@msn.com
Fine, if it is such a big deal for you, keep your fucking cravat.
Deal?
Dave
riverman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, you have one of those too? I used to hang mine on the doorknob to
tell my roommate not to come in.
We had a 'studying cravat' too, but used it less often.
--riverman
Ah, the good old days.
sned...@msn.com
>
> > Fine, if it is such a big deal for you, keep your fucking cravat.
> > Deal?
>
> Hey, you have one of those too? I used to hang mine on the doorknob to
> tell my roommate not to come in.
>
> We had a 'studying cravat' too, but used it less often.
>
> --riverman
> Ah, the good old days.- Hide quoted text -
>
I was hoping to get it for DNA testing when Cheney goes on trial. You
know, like the "blue dress" thing. But our guy wasn't going for it.
Anyway the cravat thing is a lot more negotiable than the dog thing.
Right Blackie?
Dave