parah salin?

[dubman]

Originally Posted by kagenaki koe

the hillary supporters who will vote mccain just because obama beat clinton (and snubbed her for the vp spot)

i still say shes way too conservative to sway anyone enough to vote for them over the next two months. if she was on mccains clout level it might work for the sufficently dumb, but she's going to have to talk, and anyone who was all about hillary is going to have to do a LOT of rationalization to think voting republican at this stage is okay just because

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by Future Proof

Now, you tell me... what self-respecting female will cross party lines and go against their value system just to put "a woman" in office? Some will cross over because "OMG it's a chick, you go girl!!!" and general moronic gestures, but enough to sway an election?

exactly. most of the women who strongly supported clinton did so because clinton has worked so hard to uphold some very liberal ideals, particularly abortion and contraception rights. you don't see, say, nancy pelosi carrying the same approval rating among women that hillary clinton does.

it's just interesting how it always comes down to women's inability to use their noggins. when bill clinton ran i remember how the media kept talking about how he would bring in the female voters because he's attractive (so they say). i remember the same thing being said about dan quayle, that he would bring in valuable female votes because he was young and attractive. i remember recently that there were predictions of john edwards' success because he's young and attractive.

so now you've got a young attractive female candidate and no one's saying, "men are going to flock to her because she's young and attractive." no, once again it's women being totally brainless and voting for her because she's a chick.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by kagenaki koe

the hillary supporters who will vote mccain just because obama beat clinton (and snubbed her for the vp spot)

an overblown media myth. the actual proportion of the voting population who fits this description is infinitesimally small. don't buy into it.

[cacophony]

triple post.

interesting abstract i found about gender issues and voting. unfortunately you have to be a member in order to access the full study but the abstract alone was informative.

We examine how male and female voters differ in their use of issue salience in congressional voting. We use American National Election Survey (ANES) data for 1994, 1996, and 1998 to construct a multivariate model of gender differences in partisan voting in U.S. House races. We use four categories of independent variables: demographics, ideology, economic evaluations, and issue positions. A logistic regression for each election, by sex, was tested. Our results suggest that although there are similarities in how issues are politicized in presidential and congressional voting decisions, the patterns are not identical. Second, issue salience is not uniform across elections. Third, women are slightly more likely to attach greater weight to economic evaluations and social spending. Fourth, there is only weak evidence that group identity influences women’s congressional voting. Finally, we find that men focused on the Clinton scandal in 1998, but women also used other issues in choosing how to vote.

[dubman]

politicos are always desperates for talking points, they'll say any fucking thing. dan quayle was picked because bush sr. owed his family a favor. every demographic is as dumb as pundits need them to be to have something to say.


oh but look:
LOL

it'll be interesting if it goes anywhere. and as someone else said on the other board i stole this from: "not that this should matter in the election at all, but it would be lying to say that it won't if it's true"
even with that said, i dont know. claiming mamahood for a baby that isnt yours because it'd look bad for you if your teenage daughter got pregnant? wrong, rough, and sad.

take with the largest grain of salt you can, tho.

[kagenaki koe]

been reading this alaskan based guy's blog (i guess he moved there before Palin became governor). his last few posts have been about Palin.

some quick stuff he pointed out:
• her very high approval rating was when she first became governor (but has quickly gone downhill)
• those ratings were high cuz she was replacing a really awful governor (she was essentially the "anyone but" candidate)
• they don't remember her being against the bridge to nowhere

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/0...s-perspective/

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by dubman

claiming mamahood for a baby that isnt yours because it'd look bad for you if your teenage daughter got pregnant?

haha i was just coming here to post about this. seems like a terribly far-fetched conspiracy theory but funny to contemplate.

democrats have run a pretty clean and respectful campaign up until now. i hope it doesn't start getting nasty because that can only harm rather than help. true or not, there's no way to parlay this into an advantage.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by cacophony

democrats have run a pretty clean and respectful campaign up until now. i hope it doesn't start getting nasty because that can only harm rather than help.

Agreed. I thought the Obama campaign's initial reaction was a tad ungracious - was it Bill Burton or someone? Whoever it was, just leaping straight into a criticism of her lack of experience within barely an hour of the announcement was poor form. Good for Hillary for issuing a more generous congratulation.

[chuck]

Holy cow - TrooperGate, BabyGate, the bridge to nowhere.

And now from Josh Marshall - this story, with audio links - which if even slightly true has to make you wonder about the viability of Palin to hold the VP gig.

Or it could make you agree - that she's following in the footsteps of all the great ones - and will fit right into the Washington system. It's not like the abuse of powers over the last 8 years have led to much wringing of hands and/or gnashing of teeth amongst the conservative masses.


"We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas.

It's called an abuse of power.

There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss.

She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise.

The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government"

[Troy McClure]

It appears on the surface that Senator McCain and his campaign didn't do their due diligence, but not to worry as many are more than willing to do it for him.

The problem that I have with the troopergate stuff is Governor Palin's appearance of continued dishonesty about her role. I'd bet if she had been honest, this would go away.

Jason