USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
The fact that it isn't even original is all the better.
WeWantMore
New member
WeWantMore
New member
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
That's weird. Why would a campaign shoot itself like that?
That's weird. Why would a campaign shoot itself like that?
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
BTW my sister is watching the Massachusetts Governor Debate.
Governor Dummer should not have been retired.
Because it can?That's weird. Why would a campaign shoot itself like that?
BTW my sister is watching the Massachusetts Governor Debate.
Governor Dummer should not have been retired.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
I continue to be fascinated with the Delaware primary. Is anybody out here from there? What would normally be a big asset (moderate, long term incumbent GOP'er trying to win in blue state) seems the very thing that's getting incumbents picked off right and left. Especially after Castle dissed the Tea Party this week. I still don't see him losing, but like Alaska in a small state you don't have to flip that many voters to win. Could a Palin endorsement put Castle's opponent over the top?
Also word that Murkowski is considering a write in campaign...
I continue to be fascinated with the Delaware primary. Is anybody out here from there? What would normally be a big asset (moderate, long term incumbent GOP'er trying to win in blue state) seems the very thing that's getting incumbents picked off right and left. Especially after Castle dissed the Tea Party this week. I still don't see him losing, but like Alaska in a small state you don't have to flip that many voters to win. Could a Palin endorsement put Castle's opponent over the top?
Also word that Murkowski is considering a write in campaign...
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
I dont see how...she is dumb as a stump. She blanked out in the middle of her opening statement
Goddard must have eaten baby kittens he stole from retarded orphans or something!
I dont see how...she is dumb as a stump. She blanked out in the middle of her opening statement
Goddard must have eaten baby kittens he stole from retarded orphans or something!
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
Yeah, I generally believe that Rasmussen is a good pollster, but this poll does seem a little weird.
In the last poll before the debate, Brewer lead 57-38. Now, she leads 60-38.
Maybe her debate performance is being blown out of proportion, but I still find it kind of hard to believe she didn't lose any votes.
I dont see how...she is dumb as a stump. She blanked out in the middle of her opening statement
Goddard must have eaten baby kittens he stole from retarded orphans or something!
Yeah, I generally believe that Rasmussen is a good pollster, but this poll does seem a little weird.
In the last poll before the debate, Brewer lead 57-38. Now, she leads 60-38.
Maybe her debate performance is being blown out of proportion, but I still find it kind of hard to believe she didn't lose any votes.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
Maybe Arizonans are focused on the issues (and Goddard is wrong on almost all of them) instead of a little stage fright in her first ever debate.
Even though it's not entirely relevant here, I've seen "the smartest leader in the history of the world" look a little shakey without his teleprompter.
Possibly Arizonans aren't so shallow as to make judgements about who should be their governor based on something as trivial as a televised debate.
I dont see how...she is dumb as a stump. She blanked out in the middle of her opening statement
Goddard must have eaten baby kittens he stole from retarded orphans or something!
Maybe Arizonans are focused on the issues (and Goddard is wrong on almost all of them) instead of a little stage fright in her first ever debate.
Even though it's not entirely relevant here, I've seen "the smartest leader in the history of the world" look a little shakey without his teleprompter.
Possibly Arizonans aren't so shallow as to make judgements about who should be their governor based on something as trivial as a televised debate.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
I don't know whether Brewer is intellectually indistinguishable from a doorknob, but anybody can blank out like that. I'm glad she didn't crater just because of a human moment in what is usually an orchestrated, artificial dog and pony show.
I dont see how...she is dumb as a stump. She blanked out in the middle of her opening statement
I don't know whether Brewer is intellectually indistinguishable from a doorknob, but anybody can blank out like that. I'm glad she didn't crater just because of a human moment in what is usually an orchestrated, artificial dog and pony show.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
"Debates" are highly overrated as a way of chosing a president, senator or governor. Trivial mistakes and sophomoric put downs are portrayed by the media as "epic confrontations." It's blood sport, pure and simple. And while some of these moments ARE entertaining, they really have nothing to do with predicting how someone will perform if elected. Presidents, for instance, don't make their decisions with a 60 second time limit, under the lights, with an audience.
The media perpetuate the myth of the importance of debates based on Kennedy/Nixon. Well, those debates WERE important and featured two very bright guys. We haven't seen anything comparable since then and are unlikely to in the future.
Plus, Nixon learned a painful lesson about American TV audiences. He thought the audience would grow as the debates went on, when in fact they declined. That's why he chose "foreign policy" for the final debate topic. He figured that was his strong suit and he'd show JFK as a callow, inexperienced dude. Well, he did get Kennedy to imply that he wouldn't defend the off shore islands of Quemoy and Matsu (look it up) but the audience was much smaller than for the first debate. Also, Nixon had been ill, and that along with his choice of "beardstick" over makeup made him look worse than he needed to.
One last irony, polling of people who heard the debates on radio had Nixon winning.
So we're apparantly stuck with debates. Challengers generally want as many a possible, incumbents generally would skip them if possible. It's all just political reality TV and really not a very good way to pick winners. Besides, most voters dont even watch, they just wait for Brian Williams to tell them who "won" using short tape snippets of the "important" moments.
"Debates" are highly overrated as a way of chosing a president, senator or governor. Trivial mistakes and sophomoric put downs are portrayed by the media as "epic confrontations." It's blood sport, pure and simple. And while some of these moments ARE entertaining, they really have nothing to do with predicting how someone will perform if elected. Presidents, for instance, don't make their decisions with a 60 second time limit, under the lights, with an audience.
The media perpetuate the myth of the importance of debates based on Kennedy/Nixon. Well, those debates WERE important and featured two very bright guys. We haven't seen anything comparable since then and are unlikely to in the future.
Plus, Nixon learned a painful lesson about American TV audiences. He thought the audience would grow as the debates went on, when in fact they declined. That's why he chose "foreign policy" for the final debate topic. He figured that was his strong suit and he'd show JFK as a callow, inexperienced dude. Well, he did get Kennedy to imply that he wouldn't defend the off shore islands of Quemoy and Matsu (look it up) but the audience was much smaller than for the first debate. Also, Nixon had been ill, and that along with his choice of "beardstick" over makeup made him look worse than he needed to.
One last irony, polling of people who heard the debates on radio had Nixon winning.
So we're apparantly stuck with debates. Challengers generally want as many a possible, incumbents generally would skip them if possible. It's all just political reality TV and really not a very good way to pick winners. Besides, most voters dont even watch, they just wait for Brian Williams to tell them who "won" using short tape snippets of the "important" moments.
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
If we went back to the old Lincoln/Douglas style debates I would watch (highlights) of those...this crap they spew now is nothing. It is like watching Jay Leno interview someone...basically they ask a leading question in the hopes of getting a long-winded stump answer that is on message.
Otherwise it is the opposite where they ask a question that is just accusatory in hopes of making the candidate look foolish. It can be funny sometimes but it is not constructive.
The Obama/McCain debates were just horrid...between Obama-worship and McCains rambling incoherence I could hardly watch!
If we went back to the old Lincoln/Douglas style debates I would watch (highlights) of those...this crap they spew now is nothing. It is like watching Jay Leno interview someone...basically they ask a leading question in the hopes of getting a long-winded stump answer that is on message.
Otherwise it is the opposite where they ask a question that is just accusatory in hopes of making the candidate look foolish. It can be funny sometimes but it is not constructive.
The Obama/McCain debates were just horrid...between Obama-worship and McCains rambling incoherence I could hardly watch!
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
Palin endorses O'Connell over Castle in Delaware....
This is an easy call for her, as Castle is the only moderate Republican running for Senate this year. Still though, this follows a similar pattern. Endorse right before the primary, get lots of buzz and funding, but don't allow the establishment candidate time to define his/her previously unknown opponent.
Palin endorses O'Connell over Castle in Delaware....
This is an easy call for her, as Castle is the only moderate Republican running for Senate this year. Still though, this follows a similar pattern. Endorse right before the primary, get lots of buzz and funding, but don't allow the establishment candidate time to define his/her previously unknown opponent.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
I've never even seen a network declare a "winner" for fear of appearing "biased," so the post-game analysis is always couched in terms of "how well do you think this played." So it isn't even the opinion of the idiots they have doing "analysis" -- it those idiots' opinion of what other idiots' opinion is.
It's a mugs' game, anyway, since all debates do is reinforce the bias of the people watching them. Republicans don't need Fox telling them their candidate "won" a debate -- they'll think it all by themselves.
I've never even seen a network declare a "winner" for fear of appearing "biased," so the post-game analysis is always couched in terms of "how well do you think this played." So it isn't even the opinion of the idiots they have doing "analysis" -- it those idiots' opinion of what other idiots' opinion is.
It's a mugs' game, anyway, since all debates do is reinforce the bias of the people watching them. Republicans don't need Fox telling them their candidate "won" a debate -- they'll think it all by themselves.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
This was predicted. Now we'll see.
Palin endorses O'Connell over Castle in Delaware....
This is an easy call for her, as Castle is the only moderate Republican running for Senate this year. Still though, this follows a similar pattern. Endorse right before the primary, get lots of buzz and funding, but don't allow the establishment candidate time to define his/her previously unknown opponent.
This was predicted. Now we'll see.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
Oh really? Mark Kirk? Linda McMahon? Dan Coats?
Anyways, O'Donnell isn't winning.
Oh really? Mark Kirk? Linda McMahon? Dan Coats?
Anyways, O'Donnell isn't winning.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
I don't consider McMahon or Coats to be "moderates" unless that definition is someone to the left of Attila the Hun, but point taken on Kirk.
I don't consider McMahon or Coats to be "moderates" unless that definition is someone to the left of Attila the Hun, but point taken on Kirk.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries
It's a little more subtle than actually declaring who won. The selection of "panelists," the choice of questions asked of the "panelists," the choice of which tape snippets to use. "Brian, we only have time for one more clip, do you want to use that one where Bentsen and Quayle discuss the nuclear non proliferation treaty or the one where Bentsen slam dunks him for not being JFK?"
I've never even seen a network declare a "winner" for fear of appearing "biased," so the post-game analysis is always couched in terms of "how well do you think this played." So it isn't even the opinion of the idiots they have doing "analysis" -- it those idiots' opinion of what other idiots' opinion is.
It's a mugs' game, anyway, since all debates do is reinforce the bias of the people watching them. Republicans don't need Fox telling them their candidate "won" a debate -- they'll think it all by themselves.
It's a little more subtle than actually declaring who won. The selection of "panelists," the choice of questions asked of the "panelists," the choice of which tape snippets to use. "Brian, we only have time for one more clip, do you want to use that one where Bentsen and Quayle discuss the nuclear non proliferation treaty or the one where Bentsen slam dunks him for not being JFK?"
- Status