The enquirer is reporting that he had a pretty tricked out bondage suit on under that well cut suit.Originally Posted by mraynrand
It would have been nice if the Rat would have been in the command center when the towers went down.
The enquirer is reporting that he had a pretty tricked out bondage suit on under that well cut suit.Originally Posted by mraynrand
It would have been nice if the Rat would have been in the command center when the towers went down.
C.H.U.D.
Originally Posted by Freak Out
Maybe Tim Russert could have been next to him, eh?
A great American like him? Better ask Tex.Originally Posted by mraynrand
This is classic. "Are we still live?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
C.H.U.D.
McCain really needs to milk Palin's popularity ever step of the way. A recent poll I saw on Yahoo said 4 in 10 see Palin as qualified. Better than I expected. Obama's camp is at odds over her sudden popularity, so McCain needs to take advantage of it.
Pushed out of the party? How so?Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
When you lose and then decide to run as an independent..you aren't part of the party.
Joe has always been about joe.
So you're OK with being for the death of Giuliani in the collapse of the towers? That's your position?Originally Posted by Freak Out
He didn't lose, you idiot, his party RECRUITED someone to run against him. He ran as an independent and won in a 3 way race with 50% of the vote, and he beat LaMont by 10 points.....Originally Posted by Tyrone Bigguns
Is there anything you don't twist? Good grief.
Twist. LOL You are doing it now.Originally Posted by retailguy
Joe was endorsed officially by the Conn Dem party..how is that being pushed out. Lamont however received 33% of the delegates..which forced a runoff.
Did he lose to lamont in the democratic runoff. Yes. Whether lamont was recruited isn't relevant...he wasn't pushed out. Voters voted, they didn't choose him.
Joe ran as an independent...care to explain how that is being part of the party?
I wonder what Tex thinks about all this? No one else seems to care.Originally Posted by mraynrand
Oh, that's horrible. I'm simply shocked and appalled--and downright offended (hey Howard, my first attempt at "bold"--thanks) that anybody could possibly wish anybody else could get DEAD. How awful!Originally Posted by mraynrand
Did you notice that not ONE other person was offended, Tex? Imagine that.
I've kinda flip-flopped back and forth on the degree of intentional wrongness for propaganda value or political gain in polling. There probably isn't any or much. After all, most of the media polls have one supposed conservative organization working together with a liberal one. And Gallup and Rasmussen supposedly are scrupulously unbiased. Just the same, most seem to think it's legitimate to poll more Democrats than Republicans. Also, the wording of questions can obviously make a great deal of difference. At this point, I think competition to appear correct is a stronger motivation than trying to influence outcomes. The shameful exit polling data they put out in "04, however, is a different story.Originally Posted by LL2
What I will say with certainty, though, is that the polls are notoriously unreliable. It may be the sample size; It may be procedures; But most likely of all, it is the nature of the people being polled.
We've all heard of the Bradley Syndrome--people telling pollsters they will vote for the black candidate, then doing the opposite. I know from first hand knowledge that something similar is prevalent with hispanics. I've got a Mexican son-in-law who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy, but would never allow himself to appear racist to a pollster ...... and he's hardly exceptional. Add to that the natural human impulse to be 100% certain one day, and just as certain of just the opposite the next day.
I've said all along that as the real unfiltered views, values, and positions of both sides get to the people by way of the convention speeches, ads, and debates, the Dem/lib prospect nosedive and the good guys skyrocket. It happened in 2000; It happened again in 2004; And things are on track for it to happen in 2008--I think by a larger margin this time with the Sarah Palin factor.
Much is being made of the Dems' big push to register new voters. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Palin factor causes more of those newbie to vote for her and McCain than for Obama and ..... what's that old fogie's name?