Please explain why annexation of Georgian territory was "completely justified"??


Yes. It was just a coincidence that Russia had a large invasion force ready to roll as soon as the "incident" occur, and immediately began the invasion. There is, of course, no possibility that they played a large part in inciting Georgia to do what they did.

Of course, I'm not saying that what Georgia did was the right move; clearly it wasn't, and it was exactly what Russia wanted and expected them to do. But I honestly can't for the life of me see how you can consider their actions justified, given how much they have encouraged and incited the problems between Georgia and South Ossetia.

What other one just released? The one that shows McCain up by 20 is the one I already called an outlier. And at the time I said that, there were two polls showing McCain with a 3-4 point lead, and one of them was a Republican poll. I certainly don't think it was unreasonable to call the +20 an outlier at that point.

The Research 2000 poll certainly makes things very confusing in NC. We have two polls with wide margins (+17 and +20) and two polls with small margins (+3 and +4). I wonder what's going on there.

What's going on there is that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance now in North Carolina. There just isn't a big enough coalition of African Americans statewide and elitist liberals and college students in Charlotte and the Research Triangle Park area to pull it off.

John Edwards didn't even win his own precinct for John Kerry in 2004, and North Carolina has been a solid Republican state in modern presidential elections, with the lone exception being Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976.

So you're just going to skip past your smarmy "outlier" comment because you realized you didn't know what you were talking about? That's fine, but I would have preferred a real answer to the question. I'm wondering why we have two polls with +3 and +4 and two other polls with +17 and +20. That seems strange to me, but I understand if you just want to believe the latter two polls.


Okay, but that's not really true if the Republican poll that shows a 3pt difference in NC is correct. I mean it's certainly possible that the Republicans just don't have a fucking clue and are actually 14-17 pts off in their polling.


Again, this doesn't mean much if, as I've said, the Republican poll is accurate. I could be wrong, but at least I'm trying to analyze the data instead of just throwing out generalities.

-- Somebody's screwing with the pollsters?
-- Some really quirky responses that happened twice in four tries? (wonder if one of our probability grognards could work out the chances of that happening)
-- Different methodology for either selection of respondents and/or attribution of answers that are common to each pair of polls
-- Difference in timeframe for gathering of responses

There's any number of reasons that could account for the gap.

But why would the number of people deciding screwing with pollsters vary so widely over a few polls?


See above. I'm not a probability grognard, but I'd say it's pretty low, but sure it's not impossible.


They were all measures of likely voters. I haven't looked beyond that, but sure the methodology could be different. I do wonder why the Republican poll wouldn't use a methodology that would be favorable to them, especially since they obviously intended to release the poll.


What's odd about that is the earliest timeframe is the +20, the +3 and the +4 covered were in the middle, and the +17 is the end. I doubt North Carolina is that schizophrenic.


Sure, but I'm wondering why we're getting such a wide gap here, and I'm also wondering which of these is correct.

That could go right back to selection of respondents.


Yeah, I'd think so too. I was just curious to see what the actual odds might be, how low it really was, figured I'd throw that out there & see if a grognard might have pity on me.


The latter could be strategic. Closer races might stave off voter apathy (a big issue for the GOP with this candidate), also might lure Obama into wasting money in a state that isn't really in play.


When you talk about those timeframes, is that the release of the data or the gathering of the data? Presumably you meant the latter but I just wanted to make sure.

Research 2000 (09/08-09/10) - McCain +17
Civitas R (09/06/-09/10) - McCain +3
PPP D (09/09-09/09) - McCain +4
SurveyUSA (09/06-09/08) - McCain +20

I counted the Civitas as earlier than R2000 because it contains earlier data.
I'm not sure it much matters, though. The better point to note might be that the latter 3 polls all contain more recent data than the SurveyUSA one.

I guess what kind of bugs me about this thread is people want to mix the two different discussions we're having. There's a political discussion about who is the better candidate, and it's expected that strong personalities will clash with varying viewpoints. The other discussion is analyzing the race and how the candidates are doing. However, it seems that people want to be snarky and attack someone's analysis because they're supporting candidate X or Y. I would hope we could separate the two discussions, but if not maybe there should be a separate thread.

However, if anyone's interested, I've called an Obama poll an outlier in the past and will continue to do so in the future if I see one...

Quote reported by the mainstream media:

Actual quote from Palin:

Minor context left out there...

As neutral as Saddleback.

I wasn't aware that John McCain attended college at Saddleback.

I wasn't aware that Evangelicals supported Obama.

I've found more details on the different respondent data for two of the polls, I think it gets even more odd when you look at those since conventional wisdom would seem to make an older/whiter poll skew McCain.


Research 2k has McCain +17%
Their sample included 29% of answers from 18-29 year olds and was 28% non-white voters (african-american & "other" combined).

Civitas has McCain +3
Their sample included only 4% of answers from 18-25 year olds and was 25% non-white voters

*note that the ages I've typed here are correct, the two polls broke their demographic cells down differently

So the somewhat whiter & older poll skews Obama. WTF?

Meanwhile, some of the source of the different totals in the two are pretty easily spotted FWIW.

White voters
R2k - McCain 74-21
Civ - McCain 58-33

Afr-Amer voters
R2k - Obama 87-6
Civ - Obama 94-1

Data for the Civitas was broken down by 6 geographic regions, while I don't see respondent geography for R2k but only response broken down for three areas ("Charlotte", "Ral-Dur", and GBO-WS) so I don't know if they only polled those areas or if they classified everyone as one of the three (unlikely) or if they only showed partial data there. But if the geographies are the same, there's another dramatic difference showing there too.

Charlotte -- R2k has McCain 60-34, Civ has it 52-36
RDU -- R2k has McCain 49-43, *Civ has it 58-36 Obama
GBO-WS - R2k has McCain 62-33, Civ has it 49-44
* if Civitas "Research Triangle" corresponds to Ral-Dur for R2k. With that skew, my guess would be that Civ included Chapel Hill in the area while R2k did not.

Very minor.

Shaking her fist, at the interviewer....constantly...scary. Over-ambitious soccer mom becomes Veep. Barf.

I would say that if someone says they "pray that the war is god's plan"; it is quite a bit different than stating "the war is god's plan". JFK, FDR, Lincoln and Gen Grant all prayed that they were indeed doing god's plan/will. There's nothing "scary" in that.

Coming out and being so presumptuous and stating that an action we are taking is indeed god's will is a much different comment (which is how Palin is being depicted by the media).

Eh, people are going to believe what they want to believe about Palin. She's pretty much a cipher to everybody.

...because this is the line before it, "task that is from God" and yes, hard as it is to believe in your stubborness but that can be 'scary' to people who aren't exactly like you. spinster. You'll never say, "it is what it is" because it's gotta go through the Arles machine first.

The interview occured over 1 1/2 days. I'm really not interested in watching a minimum of 4-6 hours of interview video. I understand what you're saying, but there's no way that any skeptic of Palin wouldn't complain if they saw any hint of editing, which there were plenty. I have no doubt that any sound bites that would be of note are in the video.

nook-lee-er

nook-yoo-ler

Honestly, is this a red/blue issue?

I don't know who else watch the 9/11 forum last night. Outside of both candidates calling out Columbia University for the fact that they still don't have the ROTC on campus, the interviews were rather uneventful.

One thing I'm always struck by is the Jeckyl/Hyde transformation that occurs with McCain depending on the forum. When doing a pre-written speech, McCain is about as stiff as they come. It's like he's so worried that he's going to miss something that he involves himself in reading every single word while showing less than average presentation skills. But when he gets into a forum like last night where he doesn't have a script, he's very good and comes across as very knowledgable and likeable, politics aside. His brief 'nap' on the stage provided for great comic relief.

FWIW......Obama also performed well. Looked very comfortable back at his alma matter. The stark policy differences between the two candidates were very apparant. Obama says more programs, McCain says more personal involvement.

Oh, Judy Woodruff and the editor from Time were absolutely TERRIBLE. I'm surprised the candidates did so well given the woeful moderation of the forum.

It has nothing to do with being a Palin skeptic, plenty of folks on the right have the same complaint. I also don't think you understand what I'm talking about. They can jump from question to question all they want, but when they ask a question the full answer should be provided. It's especially troubling when there is an initial edit before the answer starts.

IMO, regardless of the candidate, it's bad journalistic practice. At a minimum, if you're going to edit answers at least post the full video the same day.

I agree that you don't use normal tables for presidents, but I think there's other factors that go into it, too. Being President is different from being a normal old man in a lot of ways -- I'd imagine the stress level is much higher, and the schedule is much different than most people his age.

I'm not saying the best answer is to go back to a 'normal' table. The best answer is to create a table consisting only of Presidents in office. The problem is that the data is ridiculously small, since there are few lives to look at (especially if you only use recent data), the few lives that do exist are limited to at most 8 years of data each, and the table ends at an age earlier than what McCain's age would be in 2016, since no one has reached it.

That's a really good point. In this day and age, it would be an easy thing for a media outlet to post online the raw interview for all to see. Of course, then people might visit your non-moneymaking website to view the story, rather than visiting your revenue-producing television station.

EXACTLY!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

So if Obama is the anti-christ, don't people have to vote for him to fulfill the prophecy?

I certainly won't fault McCain for every dodging an interview. He's a brave man to take on 'The View' ladies............

McCain Gets Grilled on ‘The View’ Over Palin - America’s Election HQ

Didn't expect that....

Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.

Edit: I expected Goldberg to be an idiot, didn't expect McCain to be on the view.

New Gallup poll has McCain ahead 48-45.

I get what you mean, but this is still one funny sentence.

Arles glad to see you were watchingnthe interview yesterday too and you also got that Abe Lincoln reference down too.:banghead:

Yeah, suggesting that slavery may be brought back under a McCain administration probably isn't the best way to establish credibility.

he's a walking talking point but at least he can make a good game.

More polls...

Hotline/FD has Obama up 45-44 and Rasmussen has McCain up 48-45

I'll agree that Whoopi is an idiot. Will you agree that McCain is a liar for saying Palin didn't request earmarks as a governor?

Apparently the new angle today is that Biden released 10 years of tax returns and is asking the McCain campaign, since theyre promoting their transparency and openness to change, to do the same. I guess its to show McCain's willingness to be open about it but also apparently to show that Palin collected Per Diem in AK while at home. If so she wouldve been obliged to pay taxes on it...we shall see but this, I think, is a pretty decent tactic to get something that main street wouldnt have "gotten", to actually put on their radar.

personally i don't understand how any candidate gets away with lying. with the staff's that they have, why not have someone watching every public appearance and every advertisement and every taped interview of the opponent and fact-checking EVERYTHING. Then you could put out a weekly list of "here's the lies : here's the truth". It really seems so damn obvious that I'm surprised that neither side does this.

way to go joe!

Oddly enough, I was just reading this page earlier today:

Fight the Smears | Fight the Smears Home

Palin's husband is being subpoened in AK Troopergate by the Special Council. Now bear in mind that this is not a right v. left issue as the legislature is a republican legislature that initiated the investigation.

aaaah! see! brilliant...brilliant i tell you!

and i suppose factcheck fits the picture too. i'm just surprised we don't see more of it referred to in ads or anything. and the ones on obama's campaign are all debunking lies about him -- why doesn't he (for example) have a staffer compiling lies that john mccain has told to voters in speeches or appearances or interviews, and then base an ad on those, or distrubte mailings with those on them to independent-registered voters or something?

I'm sure the spin will be that the Republicans in AK are out for revenge because she went against them in trying to clean up the corruption.

i highly doubt that that will be the spin, Lar.

Wow. I just watched he Palin interviews on Youtube and am not sure what I just heard. First off, the fact she had zero I mean zero, nil none NADA idea what the Bush Doctrine was tells me alot about her. It was really embarassing when Gibson had to tell her what it was.
The second thing that caught me was did she not only say if need be we should go to war against Russia but invade Pakistan if need be? I do agree with the later adneven the first could be necessary some day but this is not the place state those types of things.

If it's any consolation, I have no idea what "it" is, either.

I'm a Dubya supporter and I had honestly forgot what the Bush Doctrine was. I think the left are far more aware of its meaning because they disagree with it and have it transfixed in their mind. Once Gibson explained it, I knew what he was talking about, but I had the same reaction as her initially.

Well Gibson didn't really press her on it either. She stated support for a policy of pre-emptive attack, which has been the policy for generations. If there is overwhelming evidence of a strike, the US policy has never been that we have to be hit first.

What makes the Bush doctrine different, and what she failed to address, is that now the policy is that we don't have to wait for threats to develop. Remember the whole, smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud stuff? That's what she should have been pressed on as that's the significant difference in US policy over the last eight years.

Obama Camp Says "Enough is Enough" -- Political Wire

Given the backlash regarding the Iraq situation, it's going to be a lot more difficult for a president to make a pre-emptive move without much better intelligence proof that there is a threat. I think the public in general would have a much tougher reaction unless the president could make his case that it's needed.