As Good As It Gets for McCain

Email Print posted by Cenk 06/13/2008 11:00:16 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
About a month ago, I said on the show that this as good as it gets for John McCain. That was in the middle of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton melee. At that point Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the polls, and some polls even had McCain up by a few points. There's a good chance you will never see that again.

I believed that then and I believe it even more strongly now. The main problem wasn't all the damage that Hillary Clinton was inflicting on Obama (though she did do some), it was that the press wasn't paying any attention to McCain. Once you turn the spotlight on McCain, it isn't pretty.

He has flip-flopped on nearly every issue. He has betrayed nearly every principle has ever had. No one knows where he really stands on any of the issues. The two perfect examples are torture and immigration. Senator McCain had been against torture his whole life, for very good reason, until recently when he voted to allow the CIA to torture detainees. He was for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers, until he said he would vote against his own bill on that issue.

His positions are both ever-changing and indefensible at the same time. And they are made less defensible every day that he flips and flops them. It's bad enough to be the pro-torture candidate, but when you're the lying pro-torture candidate, that's tough to swallow.

Plus, he is against 80% of the people in the country on the Iraq War (that's the percentage that want to leave Iraq in two years, whereas McCain says he will stay at least through 2013 when his first term ends). He is running based on experience when everyone wants change. And he doesn't even have his own side excited by his candidacy. And oh yeah, did I mention he is going to have so much less money than Obama?

Anything can happen. We could have a world changing event. Big Brown lost the Belmont Stakes. The Patriots lost the Superbowl. Overwhelming favorites lose all the time. Hyper-vigilance is absolutely essential.

That being said, if nothing substantial changes, Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain. It's going to be a landslide. Obama already jumped to a six to seven point lead as soon as he locked up the Democratic nomination. Now a new Gallup poll shows he is up 13 points among women. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicates people prefer change to experience in large numbers. McCain has nothing on his side. This is going to be a bloodbath.

John McCain was tied with Obama based mainly on name recognition before. This was similar to Joe Lieberman's lead in the 2004 Democratic primary before the race really began. You knew it wasn't going to last. It was an empty lead with no substance backing it up. That's where McCain sat for a few precious moments, but now the rug is slipping out from underneath him. From now on, he can only go downhill.

I predicted a couple of years ago that George Bush's popularity would never recover. That seems obvious in hindsight but at the time the media was talking about the narrative of comeback and everyone was used to politicians whose popularity went up and down over time. I said Bush wouldn't make a comeback because he didn't have it in him. And McCain won't be able to comeback against Obama because he doesn't have anything to base that comeback on. He's got nothing in his arsenal. This race won't go back and forth as most races do. McCain will just keep slip sliding away until he gets routed in November.

The Republicans can - and will - go negative. But people are tired of it. It doesn't have the same punch it used to. It looks craven and backward. I think McCain could be down as many twenty points before the summer is over.

This is not to say that Democrats should get complacent. That would be disastrous. In fact, other than a world calamity, the only other thing that can put McCain back in the game is arrogance and complacency. If you need any motivation to keep fighting all the way, just imagine how you'll feel if John McCain is being sworn in as the next president of the United States on January 20th and we'll be looking forward to staying in Iraq indefinitely and nothing will change for another four years. It's too painful to even consider. So, it's a good thing Obama is going to crush him.

Young Turks on You Tube

< The Supreme Court According To Bush. | You thought the Fox body language experts were bad >
 Display:
As Good As It Gets for McCain | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
i wouldnt get too comfortable (none / 0)
These poll numbers are meaningless at this point - a lot can happen in 5 months Like Mccain suddenly learning how to speak without that creepy smile - I'm sure that will get him 2-3 more votes! :)

by bobo1 on 06/14/2008 09:12:20 PM EST

The problem is (none / 0)

Right now your choices seem to be violent, obscenity, filled tirade or creepy fake smile.  You know how they say put your best face forward.  That is his best face.

You think the man is gonna bust open a whole new bag of tricks?  At the age of 72? After having been running for office for approaching three decades?

We'll see. 

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 01:25:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not so fast Cenk (none / 0)
Gallop Tracking consistently offers the most accurate snapshot of presidential horse races. Gallop's track record is as good as it gets (excpet for the Ed Goes - Celinda Lake Battleground Poll). Obama got his long anticipated bump after he clinched the nomination, but it's fading fast.
ooopsie dooopsie!

Obama is not polling well with white women of all ages, old people, and econo mically downscale white men.

There are no "Republicans for Obama" in this election. Conversely, there are a hell of a lot of "Democrats for McCain". I think McCain will select a Democrat for his VP.

by KenTX on 06/15/2008 06:21:32 PM EST

Actually (none / 0)

Gallup is horribly innacurate compared to ther polls.

Here is 538.com's statistical analysis weighted for past accuracy.

Quit talking out your ass!!! 

Just for the record, there Ken.

Are people can listen to whatever you pull out your ass. 

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 07:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You wanna debate numbers? (none / 0)
Because as usual, you picked the wrong guy to argue with.

Here's a detailed statistical analysis, comparing the accuracy of the various polling organizations in the 2004 election.

As I said, the most accurate pollsters were:

Battleground: 51.2% - 47.8%
Pew Research: 51% - 48%
Gallop USAToday: 49% - 47%
Actual Bush Victory: 50.7% - 48.3%

Results from the 2000 election look similar.

Now then, would you care to provide a link with similar data for comparison? I would like to see how your results were calculated. For all we know, your numbers didn't even involve presidential elections. 

by KenTX on 06/15/2008 08:33:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here ya go (none / 0)

Methodology

Go nuts.  And yes he included those two elections.

And sooooooo much more.

Prepare to be crushed (again). 

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 10:46:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just as I suspected. (none / 0)
"And sooooooo much more."

I'll say. So much more that it renders your data completely irrelevant to the discussion. 

Your rankings were determined by polling performance in the 2008 primaries, with weighting given to past general elections. (You weren't too good with math and statistics, were you?)

If you want to know how a polling organization performed in predicting the outcome of the general election on the weekend prior to election all you have to do is look at the final polling data. It's readily available, without all the mumbo jumbo.

2004
2000
trendlines

Note that in 2000, Gallup's last poll was on the weekend, because they do a five day average. As a result, they didn't calculate the impact of the Bush DUI story.

by KenTX on 06/15/2008 11:30:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Congrats (none / 0)

You just proved that we should pay a lot of attention to the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll on the first Monday in November!!!

Brilliant. 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 12:16:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
polls (none / 0)
Polls are a merely snapshot of dynamic public opinion.

Gallop says that if the election was held today, Obama would win by 2%. That's probably as accurate as any of the current polls.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 12:29:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As much fun as it is to pick the poll... (none / 0)

That tells you what you want to hear, the RCP average has Obama by 3.7% and the 538 weighted average has it Obama by 2.8%.  The 2% of Gallup is actually the most favorable McCain outlier of all of June.

The other major daily tracking poll (the Conservative Rasmussen Report) had Obama by 6% today.

Maybe it is 2% right now, but that has to be seen as the absolute best case scenario for Grampa Death, not as an irrefutable, scientifically derived consensus.

Tomorrow's Gallp Daily will be interesting.  If Obama widens his lead we have to suspect that McCain beneifted from a good day of polling.  If it remains at 2% or tightens we can start wondering if it represents a shift.

Also, if Rasmussen moves to a tighter race, we can learn a lot.

I have watched polls compulsively for a long time (unlike everyone else who seems to hate them) and the Gallup movement looks like one good poll day so far.  Time will tell. 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 12:45:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I am standing by this post (none / 0)

Apparently McCain's "virtual tie" was a bit of a mirage.

One good day 

Like I said, MCCain had a good day of polling.  That was all.

And Ken ruined a good pair of undershorts over nothing.  Tough break. 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 02:44:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
polls (none / 0)
How well do polls represent young people who might only have cell phones?  I haven't read up on this, but I assume most polling is done by calling landlines?

by desertpear on 06/16/2008 04:26:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cell phones and polls (none / 0)

This was hotly discussed in the 04 election with a widespread belief among pollwatchers that the young (and Dem) vote was significantly underrepresented.  Zogby really went out of his way to find the landlineless peeps.  On the eve of the election many pundits gave the Dems a point or three extra based solely on this phenomenon.

And it didn't pan out.  Zogby did a horrible job predicting and the cell phone generation was a bust.

As for polling today, I know they say they are trying like hell to incorporate this factor in but I couldn't tell you exactly how as of yet.  Of course, one could argue that the kids are gonna show up and vote this time and that will wreck all the models (which tune down young respondents due to previous election turnout anyway).  But then, the polls won't matter much, if the younguns show up, its an Obama blowout.  

Me, I wouldn't be shocked, but I wouldn't bet on it either.

I am a lot more interested in the Likely Voter/Registered Voter splits.  I think a lot of previously unlikely voters might vote.  Of course, the entire GOP strategy is to convince people not to care, so they might shut that (voter participation) down, which is always their goal. 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 04:58:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
sampling error (none / 0)
The problem with polls has always been sampling error.

Affluent people aren't home as much as poor people. They are either out working or recreating.

Affluent people are less likely to answer phone calls or participate in polls than poor people. They pay for caller id and call blocking features.

You think kids are hard to reach by phone? Try calling a wealthy guy. They don't take calls, they make calls.

With enough phone calls, you can find 2000 people to participate in a poll, but who are you talking to? 2000 Democrats who are home on Saturday night because the price of gas is too high to go out, and it's cheaper to stay home and watch netflix?

The best way to sample a poll is to ask: "Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004?" 50% of your sample should include people who voted for George Bush. 

The remaining sampling challenge is estimating turnout. You have to weight disenchanted people who will sit out the election versus potential new participants who never voted before.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 05:20:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Geez (none / 0)
and I thought McCain was a master flip flopper.

by z1p101 on 06/16/2008 05:26:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
June 8, 2004 (none / 0)
Kerry was dominating Bush in the Gallup Polls. Kerry continued to lead until August.

And then the swiftboats appeared.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 06:12:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What (none / 0)
the hell does that have to do with the conversation?

by z1p101 on 06/16/2008 09:08:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wha..huh? (none / 0)

First, you posted the poll you are now trying to discredit.

Second, that article is from June 8, 2004.  How does show what happened in August?

Third, suggesting Bush roared back because his slimy campaign tactics does absolutely nothing to cast doubt on the poll.

What a bizarre post. 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 09:28:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gallup is great. (none / 0)
I have no problem with the poll. I'm just saying that Kerry was leading in June by a similar margin. And then the forces of slime went to work on Kerry. JFK was a decent guy, and it was very difficult to dig up any dirt on him, but he was utterly destroyed by September. I don't know if the formula will work again, but they're gonna try.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 09:46:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't argue with any of that (none / 0)

We shall see.

I would ask you though, just on a gut level, does this election feel like 2004 to you?

I am not asking who is gonna win, just asking if the basic lay of the land seems at all similar to you? 

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 11:21:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
2008 is not like 2004. (none / 0)
The 2004 election was a referendum on George Bush.

The 2008 election is a referendum on Barack Obama.

John McCain will spend the next five months explaining that he is not George Bush. He will distance himself from Bush on every issue. He will hug the center as a plain vanilla centrist-moderate. He might even select a Democrat running mate (which would be great idea).

Then the focus will turn to the inexperienced, untested, young man with the extremely light resume. The issues will be his radical, far-left, ultra-liberal viewpoin t, and his questionable associates.

The voters of OH, PA, MI will be asked whether the nation's security can be entrusted to a man with so many unanswered questions. If any of these states hesitate, the Obama campaign is in trouble. 

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 12:06:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jane Harman (none / 0)
What do you guys think about Jane Harman?

She seems tough and smart, and she likes killing al Qaeda. I always admire that in a woman.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 12:20:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

I'm glad you brought this up...

"John McCain will spend the next five months explaining that he is not George Bush. He will distance himself from Bush on every issue. He will hug the center as a plain vanilla centrist-moderate. He might even select a Democrat running mate (which would be great idea)."

...because there was an article on this very issue 2 days ago.

I know you won't read it but basically it says that he is quickly loosing his "Maverick" image with the American people and they are seeing him as another Bush.

Why? Because he is backing Bush on everything and since times are uncertain right now, people are paying attention. So if the big plan is for McSame to separate himself from Bush and convince people that he is a moderate he better get his ass in gear. However, that would prove to the dwindling base that he is the media hound back stabber that the righty talk radio heads have always called him.

by z1p101 on 06/17/2008 12:32:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Remember (none / 0)

When he talked about change in his "Please, dear God, someone pay attention to me" speech the night Obama and Clinton spoke the right wing machine went apeshit and told him they were jumping ship if he went anti-Bush.

McCain is fucked.  Can't go left, can't stay right. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 01:18:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain (none / 0)
McCain comes from a long line of military officers with a history of audacious attack.

McCain will go for the centrist moderate vote. Period. Pundits think he will take a right wing VP. I don't think so. He needs the Hillary Democrats. Hell, he needs Hillary.

Right wingers will have no choice but to vote for him, or else sit out the election and take the blame when Obama becomes president.

Ask yourself who ProfRich would vote for if Joe Lieberman somehow won the Democrat nomination this year, and his opponent was George Macaca Allen, whose campaign promise was a hangman's noose in every couthouse square. You would vote Lieberman, because the alternative would be unthinkable.

Well that's Barack Obama in a nutshell. Unthinkable.

My advice to McCain is to take the center by storm, and force Obama far left.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 01:35:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can you show me (none / 0)

One Dem who has expressed interest in running with McCain since the primaries ended?

This What If? shit just makes you look like a fool.

You do realize that what you have devolved into is fantasizing that your candidate will tie himself to one of our guys in an attempt to fool  people into thinking he is one of us but you insist the country is conservative and everyone agrees with you and your side is right.

This is the shit you are shovelling, Ken.  Get a good whiff.

Here's a What If for ya, Uatu.  What if Obama chose McCain for his VP.

I just blew your mind, huh? 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 02:06:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX responds to ProfRich (none / 0)
“You do realize that what you have devolved into is fantasizing that your candidate will tie himself to one of our guys.”
Fantasizing? Has anything like this ever been proposed before?

“Can you show me one Dem who has expressed interest in running with McCain since the primaries ended?”

I’ll show you a Dem who expressed interest long before the primaries ended.

I’ll show you leading conservatives proposing a unity ticket.

Your energetic reaction tells me you’re concerned about the possibility. This makes me think that it might be a good idea. Thanks for being a sounding board.
Democrat Party unity is highly questionable.

I invite you to contribute to my favorite charity. It’s a very large and growing organization.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 08:23:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What am I gonna do with this guy (none / 0)

I responded because it is low hanging fruit and I am pretty busy.  And I think its funny.

So lets see you showed us McCain would like to be a Democrat's running mate.  I suggested that at the end.  So, how is that a response to my argument.  I was pretty clear that McCain would love to be a Dem's bitch.  I was trying to point out no serious Dem wants to be McCain's bitch.

So I asked if any Dem has even hinted at being willing since McCain became the nominee?  You responded with an article about a Connecticutt for Lieberman Senator talking about signing up pre-nomnation and McCain's embracing of the neocons.  How the hell is that even remotely relevant?

And yeah, yeah, yeah, the Dems need to unite a bit more, we've only been at this about a week here.  And we are still winning the damn election, Ken.

But good luck running to the left, finding a high profile Dem to buddy up with Grampa Death and shoring up your base.  Can't wait to see it. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 10:22:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There you go with that claim again. (none / 0)
"I was trying to point out no serious Dem wants to be McCain's bitch."

All McCain has to do is ask one of them. They'll accept.

Now it's true that John Kerry begged and begged and begged and begged and John McCain still turned him down flat. But that's because he knew that Kerry was an absolute loser.

Joe Lieberman plans to attend the Republican Convention and give the keynote speech.

He says he won't accept the Veep spot, but that's what he said in 2000, before he accepted the Veep spot. That's what all politicians say, before they accept the Veep spot.

There are much better Democrats than Joe Lieberman to choose from. The objective of selecting a Democrat is to win the election. So McCain should pick a Democrat who will help him win.

Personally, I like the idea of Hillary Clinton. She's got nothing better to do for the next four years but get older. I say we let her be McCain's Cheney.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 11:10:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So basically you concede (none / 0)

You can't find any evidence whatsoever that any significant Dem is willing to be McCain's Veep.

Thanks for playing. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 11:27:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I clearly won the point. (none / 0)
The burden was on you to prove that no Democrat wants to be McCain's VP. You didn't prove the negative statement. The fact that you're so troubled by the possibility that McCain might select a Democrat makes me certain that this is the best course. McCain is targeting moderates, because he has the base.

by KenTX on 06/18/2008 12:18:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So let me get this straight (none / 0)

You started by claiming Dems would be lining up to be McCain's VP.

I said that was stupid.  Show me one.

You said I don't have to show you one, you (PR) have to prove every single Dem is unwilling or I (KnTx) win.

Yeah, that is how the world works, Ken.  Fucking brilliant.

Oh, I heard you sucked a guy off at Stubb's Saturday night.  I guess you have to produce every male who was at Stubb's Saturday night and have them each convince us you didn't or I have proven you did.  That sound about right?

This thread reveals a lot about why you have such a hard time understanding simple judicial concepts like habeus corpus. 

by ProfRich on 06/18/2008 12:25:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
there's no logic in your position (none / 0)
This is the direction you chose to take the conversation.
“Can you show me one Dem who has expressed interest in running with McCain since the primaries ended?”

The reason I replied with a contemptuous answer is because you posed such a ridiculous question in the first place.

When Hillary Clinton made the unusual remark that she might be interested in the job it was stop the presses time. It froze the campaign, because politicians generally don’t do that kind of thing. It is unseemly to openly campaign for the VP position.
 
So, has any Democrat openly expressed interest in running with McCain? What does that have to do with whether McCain will offer the job to a Democrat.
I have proven beyond question that Democrats and Republicans explore these issues, usually in private.
There is plenty of talk about McCain selecting a Democrat running mate.

There is nothing strange about the suggestion that McCain’s running mate could be a Democrat. There is even talk that Obama’s VP could be a Republican.

So if you want to be ridiculous, I will challenge you to prove a negative, which is impossible.

by KenTX on 06/18/2008 03:15:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's see what we got here (none / 0)

You "prove" no one campaigns for the VP spot by posting a link to someone campaigning for the VP spot.  Nice.  And let's not forget Biden said yesterday he would be a great VP.

Now its true no one campaigns for McCain's VP spot but thats just cause he smells like a loser at this point.

I think the rule you are confusing this with is no one campaigns for the VP spot while they are still running for president.

Then you proved that the opposite VP party pick turns this shit down because its a dumbass move for your career.  Are you trying to help me or argue against me?

Then you showed that the right wing National Review seems to acknowledge people hate Republicans so much there only chance is to pretend to be Democrats.  Which was one of my arguments as well. 

And your big killing blow? Pundits talk a lot about mixed party tickets!  Wow.  A Pundit's job is to find interesting shit to say.  None of it actually has to be based on anything.  Where in the article does it even imply Obama or Hagel are considering this?  Some douchebags who have to find some shit to say on their Sunday morning gabfest said wouldn't it be cool if...?  and that is your proof?

Oh, and how are you coming on proving you're not a cocksucker?

I was thinking more about this and I applied your concept of burden of proof to the legal system.

In the Kengaroo Kourt if you were accused of murder you would have to prove everyone in the world was either (a) still alive or (b) dead but you didn't kill them.  Ken might have to raise his rich guy tax to pay for all those new prisons.

Of course, Ken also believe a lie is saying something not everyone in the world agrees is true so there you have it. 

I got more, but that is enough for now. 

by ProfRich on 06/18/2008 11:01:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dear Rich, (none / 0)
Everday the drumbeat continues for a McCain-Lieberman ticket or an Obama-Hagel ticket.

The reason is because smart people who study politics for a living recognize that 2008 will not be like 2004. The last election was about energizing and turning out the base. This election is about attracting independent, moderate, centrists.

If Barack Obama is marginalized as a far left, extremist, socialist kook, while John McCain positions himself as a moderate centrist, it will make for an interesting race.

The Democrat Party is highly divided, and it is imperative that the McCain Campign attract Hillary Democrats.

Rich, imagine that instead of the weak, imbecilic, unsuccessful, highly-partisan, lowly-masculine, girly -man that you are, you were the campaign manager for John McCain. Would it make sense to have these conversations with Evan Bayh's people or Jim Webb's people or even Governor Strickland's people? You know them all. They're right down the hall in the Senate building. You go the the gym and to cocktail parties with these guys every day.

And what if, instead of an abject loser, you were Evan Bayh. A moderate, centrist, respected Democrat from a solidly Republican state. Would you consider a shot at the brass ring? If McCain wins, he might not make it through the first term, and definitely won't make it through the second term. And if McCain loses, you're still the well loved Senator from a very Republican state. You are guaranteed a job for life. The same argument goes for Jim Webb.

Rich, try to grow a set of balls and be a man. You'll think more clearly, and you'll be more successful in life.

Your Friend,
KenTX

by KenTX on 06/18/2008 01:36:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And..... (none / 0)

Ken is back the beginning of his loop of inane drivel.

Whatever, you are so virile and masculine and dominated Texas high school football, personal insult, gay, blah blah blah.

I've already crushed all this crap.  I will post a detailed explanation why Webb would have to be a complete moron to consider running with McCain when I have a minute but I think this thread has played itself out as you are now just repeating the same shit for the 30th time and adding ad hominen personal attacks. 

by ProfRich on 06/18/2008 02:40:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"adding ad hominen personal attacks" (none / 0)
This quote from Rich is simply hilarious! I invite all participants to review the exchange between KenTX and ProfRich in this thread.

I was attempting to offer the polite assertion that John McCain might offer the VP running mate position to a Democrat. That’s what Lincoln did in 1864, in order to foster civility in uncivil times. In fact, Lincoln frequently appointed political rivals to high positions.

Notice the tone of my posts throughout the thread. Then compare my tone with the numerous insults from Rich:
“Ken is a domestic engineer.”
“Prepare to be crushed (again).”
“This What If? shit just makes you look like a fool.”
“Yeah, that is how the world works, Ken.  Fucking brilliant.”
“I heard you sucked a guy off at Stubb's Saturday night.”
“This thread reveals a lot about why you have such a hard time understanding simple judicial concepts like habeus corpus.” 
“Oh, and how are you coming on proving you're not a cocksucker?”

I don’t mind a little good humored locker room towel snapping. I get that all the time in this room, and its never a problem as long as there is no malice intended. But when the volume and the tone of the insults escalates, there comes a time to “retaliation check” the offender, just like in hockey.

The funny part is when Rich started complaining with tears in his eyes and snot bubbles coming out his nose after he got tagged.
Priceless!

by KenTX on 06/18/2008 08:19:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh huh (none / 0)

Do you know what an ad hominem attack is?  It's not like he made the debate about you being a loser in highschool.  That would be ad hominem.  The thing about you sucking guys off is a metaphor for the current discussion (also it was funny, so relax).

Notice how you aren't debating the original issue anymore?  Funny that...  Just act outraged until this thread is forgotten.  That'll do it. 

by Spencer on 06/18/2008 08:35:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hard to believe (none / 0)

As I started reading this post I thought, "Well Ken is probably right in that I have levelled some ad hominem attacks" but is wrong if he claims he doesn't.

Then I read the examples.  To my astonishment, these are all at least tengentially related to the topic.

I am as surprised as anyone.  Not one of those was ad hominem.  Some were rude.  Probably uneccessary but each was either making a direct point or playing on the actual topic.

Unlike, say Ken declaring himself superior and the victor because he asserts I am ball-less sissy.  That was ad hominem.

Oh, and I wasn't crying about your stupid attack, I was pointing out you were using it instead of an argument, not to make or add flavor to an argument as I did.

But keep on posting.  We love the entertainment! 

by ProfRich on 06/18/2008 09:05:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You better believe it. (none / 0)
When I was in the seventh grade, my family moved to a town in South Texas, and I was once again the “new kid in school” for about the fiftieth time in my life. I had no trouble making the football team as a starter, because I had been playing in pads since the third grade in Oklahoma. The other kids were just starting out in pads.

The biggest kid in school was named Bill, and he played tackle on both offense and defense. He sat behind me in Spanish class, and he would repeatedly punch me in the back, just to get laughter from the other kids. I tried to ignore it, because I had learned to go along to get along as a perpetual “new kid”. I wanted people to like me. I thought Bill would grow tired of the game and stop.

One day he hit me hard, and it really pissed me off. I stood up and hit him in the face so hard that his head bounced off the floor. He was convulsing from the brain trauma. Luckily, I don’t get into much trouble because the teacher had seen what was going on, and Bill had a bad reputation as a bully.

Long story short, Bill and I became good friends, and the kids in school developed a lot of respect for me. Apparently, they had never witnessed a brain seizure before, but they knew they didn’t want any part of it. I also developed a lot of respect for myself.

I learned to stand up for myself, and not take abuse from anyone. After you punch me in the back around 100 times, you will probably experience memorable retaliation. You got that, Weak Person With A Big Mouth?

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 12:37:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All the crazy shit in Ken's post aside... (none / 0)

Ken is evidently from Oklahoma.

All the sudden everything makes sense.

And I don't really know where you are coming from here.  I have hit some guys in my life (almost always because they were getting violent with a woman) but I was never the kid getting picked on.  Or the one picking on people so I'll just have to take your word for it.

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 12:56:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nope (none / 0)
I was born in Victoria. I look forward to the day when you and I are good friends (without any confrontation).

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 01:40:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks, Ken (none / 0)

I have a great friend and singer/songwriter from Victoria.  Have a lot of good memories of visiting him and going to see him play.

I hope you understand, its not personal. Its not about you.  Its not about me.  Its just about the ideas and concepts. 

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 02:25:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OMG!!! Start a new thread you two. (none / 0)
And, Ken, seriously?  The burden of proof is on Rich to prove that something that hasn't happened in modern politics isn't going to happen this time and not on you saying that it is?  Really?

by richardshort2001 on 06/18/2008 12:26:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand (none / 0)

That is the fervent hope and desire of the GOP but time will tell if that is how it plays out.

We'll see if you can succeed in preventing the American people from thinking about Bush, Cheney, Iraq, corruption, gas prices. the economy, food prices, health care and, most desperately, John McCain. 

Its a big job but I am not going to underestimate the pack of thieves and degenerates we call the Republican Party again.

Oh, and as Cenk explained yesterday, the idea that McCain is somehow a moderate, aisle-crossing, middle of the road diplomat is gone.  He has successfully shed that image with his "Jerry's kids" public hugging of Bush. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 01:13:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
undecideds (none / 0)
That graph tells me that 12-14% of the electorate is undecided. That's a huge block of voters that could break in either direction.

It's gonna be a long 5 months.

by KenTX on 06/16/2008 06:06:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Or (none / 0)
just not show up at all.

by z1p101 on 06/16/2008 09:09:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is true (none / 0)

I am surprised the undecided number is so big considering there is a truly shockingly few number of people undcided on how they feel about Bush.

The fight for those 12-14% is what the campaign is all about.

So who will have the better campaign?

Keep in mind as of today Obama needs to get more than 5 of those (lets say) 13%.  McCain needs to swipe over 8.

by ProfRich on 06/16/2008 09:26:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ProfRich Predictions (none / 0)

"Apparently McCain's "virtual tie" was a bit of a mirage."

"Like I said, MCCain had a good day of polling.  That was all."

gallup

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 05:59:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 0)

That graph does make Cenk's point. His point is that it is as good as it gets for McCain and your graph shows that he is flat lining around 42 +/- 1.

Are you sure you are an engineer? 

by z1p101 on 06/15/2008 10:37:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We have established (none / 0)
Ken is a domestic engineer.

by ProfRich on 06/15/2008 10:42:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
political engineer (none / 0)
He's an engineer right up until it violates his neocon principles, then science and mathematics and common sense go right out the window.

by bfaul on 06/19/2008 02:55:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thread so big I cannot see past it (none / 0)
You know what I like best about this thread?  Its width.

by OneHitKill on 06/19/2008 01:10:08 PM EST

As Good As It Gets for McCain | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: