WWTBAM Bored

And this is why I'm not a professional political pundit.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:And this is why I'm not a professional political pundit.

Yeah, the fact that you can admit it when you're wrong pretty much rules you out.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:And this is why I'm not a professional political pundit.

Well, the professional early exit polls were way off, too. This was one of those "Dewey Beats Truman" moments.

Many news organizations were saying the same thing as you.

They were wrong too.

The next primary is in Michigan. Any prognostications, Nelly?

Maybe the pollees took the advice of the late great Mike Royko, Chicago columnist: "Just lie to the sonsabitches..."

earendel wrote:The next primary is in Michigan. Any prognostications, Nelly?

I read this morning that most of the Democrats have pulled out of Michigan due to a date issue with the Democratic Party.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I read this morning that most of the Democrats have pulled out of Michigan due to a date issue with the Democratic Party.

I mentioned this earlier this week in the New Hampshire thread. The following comes directly from Wikipedia:

"Michigan has moved its primary to January 15, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s delegates will not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moves its primary to a later date."

ne1410s wrote:Maybe the pollees took the advice of the late great Mike Royko, Chicago columnist: "Just lie to the sonsabitches..."

I've threatened for years to create an organization of LEPers - "Lie to Exit Pollsters." Wear the button saying "I'm a LEPer", and they won't even approach you. Of course nowadays, the victims of Hansen's Disease would come after me for the political incorrectness.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I read this morning that most of the Democrats have pulled out of Michigan due to a date issue with the Democratic Party.

I mentioned this earlier this week in the New Hampshire thread. The following comes directly from Wikipedia:

"Michigan has moved its primary to January 15, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s delegates will not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moves its primary to a later date."

I know that's the official story but I don't believe the decision will stand; and I imagine that the candidates will pursue delegates there even if they don't go there in person to campaign.

One of the most racist people I have ever encountered wanted to move to New Hampshire due to the high concentration of whites there. If you had Obama winning NH, you were hosed.

gsabc wrote:

ne1410s wrote:Maybe the pollees took the advice of the late great Mike Royko, Chicago columnist: "Just lie to the sonsabitches..."

I've threatened for years to create an organization of LEPers - "Lie to Exit Pollsters." Wear the button saying "I'm a LEPer", and they won't even approach you. Of course nowadays, the victims of Hansen's Disease would come after me for the political incorrectness.

I have lied to exit pollers in person.

Now that I vote permanent absentee, I get phone calls asking how I have voted.

Polls are always one or two days behind events because of their very nature. Essentially, this entire campaign turned several times in a five day period. When there is a big swing to one candidate after a major event, it's likely to be very soft support. People who were on the fence heard Obama in Iowa winning or felt they should support a winner and "sorta" favored him. Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

Every election, a candidate gets a big (10-20 point) bump after his convention. Then, after the other convention, the other candidate gets the same bump and things go a lot slower from there.

Another factor that can't be discounted is the number of people who got upset about the way the media was piling on Hillary. Apparently, somewhere in the last couple of days, especially among women voters, there was an "enough's enough" moment that made up their minds, either to vote in the first place, or to come out for Hillary.

Not me. Everything turned out pretty much the way I figured.

I'll say this, though: the boys in Prediction Services were off. That really pisses me off, too. That kind of sloppy thinking can end up hurting business pretty bad. They got lucky this time because the competition was off. Still, though. Any more goof ups like that and I'm gonna have to go back to being more hands-on with that division, meaning that I'll have to delegate some of the things that I enjoy doing more than political analysis.

I swanee!

I'll give them credit for nailing their prediction that McCain's speech would be really sucky, though.

silverscreenselect wrote: Another factor that can't be discounted is the number of people who got upset about the way the media was piling on Hillary. Apparently, somewhere in the last couple of days, especially among women voters, there was an "enough's enough" moment that made up their minds, either to vote in the first place, or to come out for Hillary.

This morning on NPR I heard many women interviewed who felt that the media was being harsh on Hillary so they decided to vote for her.

Emma wanted me to order her a Hillary t-shirt to wear to school and the site is very slow today. Maybe a lot of people are jumping on her bandwagon and donating money.

silverscreenselect wrote: Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

The question was very incongruent with Hillary suddenly tearing up and showing "a softer side".

So, the Democrats clearly are down to 2, while the GOP still is looking at a 4-5 person "some chance to win" field.

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

I don't think that they were crocodile tears.

People believe what they want to believe though.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

I don't think that they were crocodile tears.

People believe what they want to believe though.

I believe that Hillary is human.

But, "Who does your hair, and how do you get up in the morning", and Hillary starts crying (during the hair-part of her answer)? C'mon.

I will let Fred take this one.

"Clintons don't take a dump, missy, without a plan, let alone start to cry."

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

Choose your favorite right wing/sexist talking point about Hillary's tears:

1) They are proof that women can't handle the pressure of being president without flying off the handle or breaking down (cue her anger at the debate)

2) A calculated manipulative ploy by a woman who has no emotions (cue William Hurt in Broadcast News)

3) Genuine emotion at the thought that the Clinton dynasty was coming to an end and she would be deprived her rightful place on the throne.

It's so much fun to be a Hillary basher, you can take anything she does and ascribe so many bad connotations to that.

I do encourage Appa and everyone else who feels like him, especially those in swing states, to say things like that about Hillary as loudly and as often as possible. Those dumb women voters in those states just can't think clearly on their own and need the help of geniuses like Appa and Chris Matthews to help them make up their minds. Maybe carrying a few Iron My Shirt posters would help too.

Appa23 wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

Appa23 wrote: I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

I don't think that they were crocodile tears.

People believe what they want to believe though.

I believe that Hillary is human.

But, "Who does your hair, and how do you get up in the morning", and Hillary starts crying (during the hair-part of her answer)? C'mon.

I will let Fred take this one.

"Clintons don't take a dump, missy, without a plan, let alone start to cry."

It is disingenuous for you to say that she cried while talking about her hair.

She was talking about what she wants to do for the country and how much she cares about this country.

I'm ALMOST on board with #2 on SSS's poll.

I don't think Hillary has no emotions.

I do think the tears were a practiced, managed effort on her part to follow her staff's advice. Terry McAuliffe (sp?) as much as admitted same on CNBC last night. Is this something she should be dinged for? Only if you ding Romney for flip-flopping, Gore for his rolled-up shirtsleeves and creepy kiss, or Huckabee for his hunting photo opp a few weeks ago. Each was following the considered advice of one or more staffers, to more or less effect.

The fact that many people (not just women) seem to think this was a spontaneous, emotional moment for a woman who didn't even cry when her husband was exposed in front of her on national television as a philanderer seems unbelievable to me. But then there seem to be a lot of people who believe that Roger Clemens taping his "spontaneous" phone call with his former trainer was not a planned, manipulative ploy also.

So I guess manipulation wins again.

silverscreenselect wrote:It's so much fun to be a Hillary basher, you can take anything she does and ascribe so many bad connotations to that.

Looking for a birthday card the other day, I came across this one:

Outside: A drawing of Hillary sitting at a desk with a smug expression. On the desk stands a nameplate reading "President Hillary Clinton".
Inside: "See! There are some things scarier than birthdays!"

I have a generally favorable view of her, and I still laughed.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Then, after hearing Hillary at the debate or at her emotional moment, they swung the other way.

I find it hard to believe that very many people were tricked by Hillary's crocodile tears.

Choose your favorite right wing/sexist talking point about Hillary's tears:

1) They are proof that women can't handle the pressure of being president without flying off the handle or breaking down (cue her anger at the debate)

2) A calculated manipulative ploy by a woman who has no emotions (cue William Hurt in Broadcast News)

3) Genuine emotion at the thought that the Clinton dynasty was coming to an end and she would be deprived her rightful place on the throne.

It's so much fun to be a Hillary basher, you can take anything she does and ascribe so many bad connotations to that.

I do encourage Appa and everyone else who feels like him, especially those in swing states, to say things like that about Hillary as loudly and as often as possible. Those dumb women voters in those states just can't think clearly on their own and need the help of geniuses like Appa and Chris Matthews to help them make up their minds. Maybe carrying a few Iron My Shirt posters would help too.

LOL.

Sadly, I live in a "ultimate Red" state where the nomination will be decided long before we hold our primary.

I sorry that I hurt your feelings by noting that Hillary Clinton is a politiciian who is known to try about every trick available to win (as politicians do). See Leaked E-Mails about Obama

On a similar note, I wonder if SSS may have been one of those people who saw a subliminal floating cross in the Huckabee Christmas ad.

gsabc wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It's so much fun to be a Hillary basher, you can take anything she does and ascribe so many bad connotations to that.

Looking for a birthday card the other day, I came across this one:

Outside: A drawing of Hillary sitting at a desk with a smug expression. On the desk stands a nameplate reading "President Hillary Clinton".
Inside: "See! There are some things scarier than birthdays!"

I have a generally favorable view of her, and I still laughed.

Not as hard as I did when I saw the cover of my Wintr "What on Earth?" catalog:

http://tinyurl.com/24fcww

mrkelley23 wrote: The fact that many people (not just women) seem to think this was a spontaneous, emotional moment for a woman who didn't even cry when her husband was exposed in front of her on national television as a philanderer seems unbelievable to me. But then there seem to be a lot of people who believe that Roger Clemens taping his "spontaneous" phone call with his former trainer was not a planned, manipulative ploy also.

There are times when I cry because the cat has thrown up a nasty hairball after I've just cleaned the floor, yet when my Dad died, I didn't cry for days.

If my husband cheated on me, I would be angry and would cut off his nuts, but I wouldn't cry.