• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Ryan Bump

Calm down there, Sparky. I was going off of the graph, which seems to be a bit imprecise. However, looking at the listed numbers, the bump still comes to 9.2 points -- not 6.1.

Specifically, Obama's post convention bump peaked on September 2, when he led 49.2 to 42.8: a 6.3% advantage. McCain's post convention bump peaked on September 8, when he led 48.3 to 45.4: a 2.9% advantage.

In what world does 6.3 + 2.9 = 6.1?
We are talking about Palin here, not what Obama lost after the convention. The comparison you make there would only be fair if Obama just had his convention after Romney nominated Ryan. However, his convention is actually at September 4.

And 6.4 + 2.9 is still not even close to 11 and I am using the graph. You should apologise and stop making excuses.
 
Last edited:
You have two idiots on your ticket.. Stupid Joe makes Palin look like a GENIUS... I can see Stupid Joes plugs from my door..only if the light hits his frozen botoxed forhead right tho..

Your Libtard heros are finished..

No one with any sense EVER believed that Palin made anyone look stupid. McCain had no chance to begin with. Palin put all of the nails in his coffin.
 
Glad you enjoyed the chuckle.. I hope one day you will throw off the chains of "liberalism" and free yourself and help the country, but I really hold not much for hope for many here.. they are mezmarized by empty rhetoric and idiotic sayings like "forward"...thats very intellectual..forward.. wow..

This post is ironic.
 
He is an excellent representative of what the Right has to offer.

I know.....

when the spell of arrested development and lack of anything of truth to your posts lifts , I wont have to worry about my sides splitting ovre the idiocy you try to spin here.... but the best comedians are raging libs as we know..
 
Calm down there, Sparky. I was going off of the graph, which seems to be a bit imprecise. However, looking at the listed numbers, the bump still comes to 9.2 points -- not 6.1.

Specifically, Obama's post convention bump peaked on September 2, when he led 49.2 to 42.8: a 6.3% advantage. McCain's post convention bump peaked on September 8, when he led 48.3 to 45.4: a 2.9% advantage.

In what world does 6.3 + 2.9 = 6.1?



wow shocker you and reality not able to co-exist....you got owned..
 
so is this post..

Not at all. Everything you said in the post I quoted applies to you... and we have OODLES of evidence at DP to prove your empty rhetoric and being mesmerized by idiotic sayings. The fact that you actually believe that Palin was anything other than a joke shows that you don't use critical thinking skills when assessing political situations. You just listen to conservative talking points, believe them without consideration, and move on.
 
Not at all. Everything you said in the post I quoted applies to you... and we have OODLES of evidence at DP to prove your empty rhetoric and being mesmerized by idiotic sayings. The fact that you actually believe that Palin was anything other than a joke shows that you don't use critical thinking skills when assessing political situations. You just listen to conservative talking points, believe them without consideration, and move on.

Your posts make Palin look like a genius.... your ego bloating judging of me tells me you are a self appointed all knowing uber fool

Palin was a Gov with more exec experience then Obama and Biden COMBINED... so mock away but remember your post is the punch line of an empty joke

Thanks in advance to again stay on subject
 
Your posts make Palin look like a genius.... your ego bloating judging of me tells me you are a self appointed all knowing uber fool

I understand that ad-homs are the best that you can do since you have nothing else, but since I have never debated you before, you are proving your ignorance since you have nothing to base your opinions on.

Palin was a Gov with more exec experience then Obama and Biden COMBINED... so mock away but remember your post is the punch line of an empty joke

Palin was a gaffe machine. The only people who didn't realize that were the conservative hacks who would have voted for a tree stump if it had an "R" next to it. Anyone with some sense of reasoning knows that there is more to being President than how much executive experience one has.

Thanks in advance to again stay on subject

Good. So let's see YOU stay on topic rather than just post your standard "I hate liberals because I say so" comments.
 
We are talking about Palin here, not what Obama lost after the convention. The comparison you make there would only be fair if Obama just had his convention after Romney nominated Ryan. However, his convention is actually at September 4.

And 6.4 + 2.9 is still not even close to 11 and I am using the graph. You should apologise and stop making excuses.

What I was talking about was the bump from the VP nomination and convention. And recall that Palin was announced just before the GOP convention.
 
wow shocker you and reality not able to co-exist....you got owned..

Wow, shocker -- you can't perform first grade arithmetic. :lol:
 
I understand that ad-homs are the best that you can do since you have nothing else, but since I have never debated you before, you are proving your ignorance since you have nothing to base your opinions on.



Palin was a gaffe machine. The only people who didn't realize that were the conservative hacks who would have voted for a tree stump if it had an "R" next to it. Anyone with some sense of reasoning knows that there is more to being President than how much executive experience one has.



Good. So let's see YOU stay on topic rather than just post your standard "I hate liberals because I say so" comments.


Plain made no gaffes really but you are a sheeple so you buy the "newspapers and I can see Russia comments"...as gaffes when both were either true and accurate or a metaphor
 
Plain made no gaffes really but you are a sheeple so you buy the "newspapers and I can see Russia comments"...as gaffes when both were either true and accurate or a metaphor

More empty rhetoric, Travis. I suppose that's what I should expect from you. I never said any of those things. You are a walking, talking Republican-talking-point tape recorder.

But how about Ryan? What do you like about him? How do you think he helps the GOP ticket?
 
More empty rhetoric, Travis. I suppose that's what I should expect from you. I never said any of those things. You are a walking, talking Republican-talking-point tape recorder.

But how about Ryan? What do you like about him? How do you think he helps the GOP ticket?

Hes a smart guy.... nothing to dislike about Ryan period.. Ryan makes Stupid Joe look like well...Stupid Joe
 
Hes a smart guy.... nothing to dislike about Ryan period.. Ryan makes Stupid Joe look like well...Stupid Joe

I didn't ask you about Biden. I asked you about Ryan... and you told me nothing. What do you like about him? How do you think he helps the GOP ticket?
 
Palin was easily the most hyped VP nominee I've witnessed in my (admittedly short) life time. To expect a bump from Ryan anywhere near on par with that is being ridiculous. He doesn't have the initial charisma, historical significance, or mysterious quality surrounding him that Palin did.

It's not a surprise that the few people I've seen honestly putting forth such a comparison or question always seems to be a liberal. I've not seen many conservatives prior to the selection, or after, suggesting it'd be akin to the Palin pick in terms of broad excitement and interest in the candidate.
 
No one with any sense EVER believed that Palin made anyone look stupid. McCain had no chance to begin with. Palin put all of the nails in his coffin.

Absolutely ridiculous.

McCain had a chance, but it was a small one. The pick of Palin actually significantly HELPED him initially, not hurt him. It was the horrendous handling of the campaign after that point, and the horrible political strategy on how to utilize the VP pick, that did the McCain campaign in.

Additionally, the idiotic condescension towards politician intelligence, both on the right and left, is beyond ridiculous due to the routine hyperbolic nature of it as is evident in your post, just not to the same ridiculous and over the top degree of Travis but it's still blatantly there. There are legions of people in this country who Sara Palin would look like a rocket scientist next to. The reality is that the intelligence of most of those in politics is likely to be at least average, at worst, to actually function successfully...especially when you're talking higher levels of politics.
 
Not at all. Everything you said in the post I quoted applies to you... and we have OODLES of evidence at DP to prove your empty rhetoric and being mesmerized by idiotic sayings. The fact that you actually believe that Palin was anything other than a joke shows that you don't use critical thinking skills when assessing political situations. You just listen to conservative talking points, believe them without consideration, and move on.

Im back on vaca... it was great to get your post..highly enjoyble as always...

peace..
 
What I was talking about was the bump from the VP nomination and convention. And recall that Palin was announced just before the GOP convention.
If that was what you were talking about, why didn't you measure from when Palin was picked, and not the democrat convention. It is just silly.

And even if you do this unfair comparison, you are still not anywhere close to 11%. Why don't you admit you are wrong?
 
Absolutely ridiculous.

McCain had a chance, but it was a small one. The pick of Palin actually significantly HELPED him initially, not hurt him. It was the horrendous handling of the campaign after that point, and the horrible political strategy on how to utilize the VP pick, that did the McCain campaign in.

Additionally, the idiotic condescension towards politician intelligence, both on the right and left, is beyond ridiculous due to the routine hyperbolic nature of it as is evident in your post, just not to the same ridiculous and over the top degree of Travis but it's still blatantly there. There are legions of people in this country who Sara Palin would look like a rocket scientist next to. The reality is that the intelligence of most of those in politics is likely to be at least average, at worst, to actually function successfully...especially when you're talking higher levels of politics.

Wrong. McCain had little or no chance from the get-go. Palin was a HORRIBLE choice... unknown, inexperienced, unpolished, and a very poor speaker. Remember... the first decision that a Presidential candidate does is choose a VP. This gives us some information on what his decision-making processes would be like. McCain failed at this.
 
Wrong. McCain had little or no chance from the get-go. Palin was a HORRIBLE choice... unknown, inexperienced, unpolished, and a very poor speaker.

Ppinion is not fact, and most of your critiques of Palin are just that...opinion.

Unknown is not inherently a negative nor an indication of a horrible choice. Indeed, an unknown candidate can provide excitement and attention to a candidate due to the relative mystery surrounding who they are.

Inexeperienced is arguable. I've had the debate in 2008 and would happily have it again now, but in terms of job related experience Palin was not significantly worse off as VP than the individual at the top of the democratic ticket. So while, in a general sense, experience could be suggested....one must take it into context of the election at hand in terms of it's importance and possible relevance.

Unpolished and poor speaker. Again...OPINION. While we all know that you hold your opinion to be worth its weight in platinum, that still doesn't make it fact. While I personally agree in terms of the unpolished, I significantly disagree with you in regards to speaking ability. Part of public speaking is simply ones charisma and ability to captivate the crowd...the crowds she managed to pull in to listen to her speak, all throughout the country, is at least an indication that she was at least average in terms of public speaking as it is would take a significant amount of other factors to get someone whose "very poor" as a speaker to pull in such amounts of people to listen to them speak.

Finally, what do you base your opinion regarding McCain's chances on? Polling indicated numerous times throughout the campaign that he was relatively close to Obama, even leading at times. To suggest there was "no shot" is utterly ridiculous hyperbole, and nothing more. Perhaps not a good shot? I'd be more apt to agree there. But "no chance"? Ridiculous.

Palin was hardly a "horrible" choice either. Politically, Palin was a very good choice in my mind and based on the actual factors that occured during the campaign such as poll numbers, donations, attendance at events, etc. Your opinions, which haven't been backed up and seem significantly off base, doesn't change my thoughts on that.

Palin provided numerous political advantages as a pick. She countered the "historic" nature of the Obama ticket, no longer allowing one side to be able to push that card. She injected the Republican ticket with a charismatic and young figure aimed at attempting to provide a "fresh" face in Washington, again attempting to counter that notion regarding the Obama ticket. It had the demogrpahic appeal to potentially assist McCain with Women and with the base, both of which he was weak with. She fueled increases in grassroots interest in the campaign, which is vital for word of mouth action and doubly so in an election cycle where grassroots enthusiasm was strongly in favor of the other side. She also spurred donation increases, adding to campaign coffers.

Furthermore, strategy wise, Palin was a godsend that was simply horribly botched by McCain. John McCain, for the majority of the early part of the elections, was trying his darndest to be "Joe Conservative" and get the base, which he had pushed away for 8 years, to come back to him. They weren't buying it. At the same time, he was losing his grip on independents that previously felt favorably for him during a time when Obama was already doing great with independents. The pick of Palin would've allowed for McCain to switch gears after it and push hardcore moderate...actually highlighting his bipartisan and independent credentials rather than simply shouting "maverick" all the time. The base would've been placated by Palin, turning up in droves...as they did anyways...to hear her speak around local places of the country. All the while, McCain would be speaking on a more national level, blazing a potential independent course.

McCain, prior to the VP pick, was in a horrible position of an amazingly unenthusiastic and angry base and a continued loss of ground with independents as he was (failing at) wooing the base. His best shot, politically, was to pick someone the base would like, that would give him political capital against the Obama campaign, and who would allow him to run full on moderate after the pick. Palin fit that bill. The McCain camp screwed up however when McCain tried to continue to go around as Joe Republican, continued to try and thrust Palin into the spot light instead of himself, and basically didn't change their campaign strategy at all compared to prior to making the pick.

One can go back and look at the polls prior to and after her selection. Look at funding numbers before and after. Look at the convention bounce after her particular speech and compare it to the bounce recieved after Obama's speech to see the impact it hand on motivation of individuals. Look at McCain's status with independents prior to the pick and after...and then at the end. The pick of Palin and the convention actually provided McCain with his biggest boon of independents. However, it was after that point that McCain did not capitalize by having a ticket that was him and Palin, two different individuals working together, but rather attempted to simply mimic Palin's message...despite it's contradiction with his own past message at times...and continued to run a campaign that made her seem like the top of the ticket. That was the problem imho based on a view of the polls at that time and basic political science theory.
 
Last edited:
Ppinion is not fact, and most of your critiques of Palin are just that...opinion.

Unknown is not inherently a negative nor an indication of a horrible choice. Indeed, an unknown candidate can provide excitement and attention to a candidate due to the relative mystery surrounding who they are.

Inexeperienced is arguable. I've had the debate in 2008 and would happily have it again now, but in terms of job related experience Palin was not significantly worse off as VP than the individual at the top of the democratic ticket. So while, in a general sense, experience could be suggested....one must take it into context of the election at hand in terms of it's importance and possible relevance.

Unpolished and poor speaker. Again...OPINION. While we all know that you hold your opinion to be worth its weight in platinum, that still doesn't make it fact. While I personally agree in terms of the unpolished, I significantly disagree with you in regards to speaking ability. Part of public speaking is simply ones charisma and ability to captivate the crowd...the crowds she managed to pull in to listen to her speak, all throughout the country, is at least an indication that she was at least average in terms of public speaking as it is would take a significant amount of other factors to get someone whose "very poor" as a speaker to pull in such amounts of people to listen to them speak.

Finally, what do you base your opinion regarding McCain's chances on? Polling indicated numerous times throughout the campaign that he was relatively close to Obama, even leading at times. To suggest there was "no shot" is utterly ridiculous hyperbole, and nothing more. Perhaps not a good shot? I'd be more apt to agree there. But "no chance"? Ridiculous.

Palin was hardly a "horrible" choice either. Politically, Palin was a very good choice in my mind and based on the actual factors that occured during the campaign such as poll numbers, donations, attendance at events, etc. Your opinions, which haven't been backed up and seem significantly off base, doesn't change my thoughts on that.

Palin provided numerous political advantages as a pick. She countered the "historic" nature of the Obama ticket, no longer allowing one side to be able to push that card. She injected the Republican ticket with a charismatic and young figure aimed at attempting to provide a "fresh" face in Washington, again attempting to counter that notion regarding the Obama ticket. It had the demogrpahic appeal to potentially assist McCain with Women and with the base, both of which he was weak with. She fueled increases in grassroots interest in the campaign, which is vital for word of mouth action and doubly so in an election cycle where grassroots enthusiasm was strongly in favor of the other side. She also spurred donation increases, adding to campaign coffers.

Furthermore, strategy wise, Palin was a godsend that was simply horribly botched by McCain. John McCain, for the majority of the early part of the elections, was trying his darndest to be "Joe Conservative" and get the base, which he had pushed away for 8 years, to come back to him. They weren't buying it. At the same time, he was losing his grip on independents that previously felt favorably for him during a time when Obama was already doing great with independents. The pick of Palin would've allowed for McCain to switch gears after it and push hardcore moderate...actually highlighting his bipartisan and independent credentials rather than simply shouting "maverick" all the time. The base would've been placated by Palin, turning up in droves...as they did anyways...to hear her speak around local places of the country. All the while, McCain would be speaking on a more national level, blazing a potential independent course.

McCain, prior to the VP pick, was in a horrible position of an amazingly unenthusiastic and angry base and a continued loss of ground with independents as he was (failing at) wooing the base. His best shot, politically, was to pick someone the base would like, that would give him political capital against the Obama campaign, and who would allow him to run full on moderate after the pick. Palin fit that bill. The McCain camp screwed up however when McCain tried to continue to go around as Joe Republican, continued to try and thrust Palin into the spot light instead of himself, and basically didn't change their campaign strategy at all compared to prior to making the pick.

One can go back and look at the polls prior to and after her selection. Look at funding numbers before and after. Look at the convention bounce after her particular speech and compare it to the bounce recieved after Obama's speech to see the impact it hand on motivation of individuals. Look at McCain's status with independents prior to the pick and after...and then at the end. The pick of Palin and the convention actually provided McCain with his biggest boon of independents. However, it was after that point that McCain did not capitalize by having a ticket that was him and Palin, two different individuals working together, but rather attempted to simply mimic Palin's message...despite it's contradiction with his own past message at times...and continued to run a campaign that made her seem like the top of the ticket. That was the problem imho based on a view of the polls at that time and basic political science theory.

I tend to not read walls of text, Zyph. In this case, the topic doesn't interest me enough. With the little I read, all you said was that I was making an opinion... which I was. One that I have no reason to re-evaluate. Palin was an awful choice for VP. Any "push" she gave McCain was due to the surprise/incredulousness of his choice. She was like Ferraro in 1984. She brought controversy and novelty which garnered attention. That's about it.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely ridiculous.

McCain had a chance, but it was a small one. The pick of Palin actually significantly HELPED him initially, not hurt him. It was the horrendous handling of the campaign after that point, and the horrible political strategy on how to utilize the VP pick, that did the McCain campaign in.

That depends on how you define help. Did it galvanize the base? Yes. Did it seriously alienate independents? Absolutely. How you measure the impact of both is what is up for grabs.
After the Biden-Palin debate, the independent poll numbers were landslide for Democrat. Palin ultimately hurt the McCain ticket. Granted, the epic failure that was his campaign did him in but Palin was one of the nails. He would have been far better off with Huckabee.

And I don't think McCain had a reasonable shot at winning. The Bush Presidency and general Republican ****ups pretty much did anyone in who had a R after their name and could be tied to Bush. Large youth votes going Democrat, independents wholly alienated by the GOP. Latino vote going solidly Democrat. The math itself renders it next to impossible for e Republican victory in 2008.

There are legions of people in this country who Sara Palin would look like a rocket scientist next to.

There are legions of people on this forum who Sara Palin would look like a rocket scientist next to.
 
Back
Top Bottom