Discuss Veep candidates

[/dev/null]

Do you have to be at least 35 to be VP?

 

If not I'll be McCain (or Obama's) running mate. I'll start telling folks about some change they need to believe in. Yes you should!

[KD in CA]

I'll start telling folks about some change they need to believe in. Yes you should!

 

Reminds me of today's Mallard Fillmore;

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp

 

 

[jimshiz]

I did not read this whole thread yet, but holy sh--, nobody mentioned Romney?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

I did not read this whole thread yet, but holy sh--, nobody mentioned Romney?

 

 

I really like Romney and think he makes perfect sense.

[PastaJoe]

I really like Romney and think he makes perfect sense.

 

McCain doesn't like Romney, and unfortunately for Romney the recent Mormon sect underage marriage problem might make it tough for evangelicals to support him if they generalize about his faith.

[Endzone Animal]

McCain-Feingold? Just sayin...

[/dev/null]

McCain doesn't like Romney

 

Something McCain and I actually agree on

[ieatcrayonz]

McCain doesn't like Romney, and unfortunately for Romney the recent Mormon sect underage marriage problem might make it tough for evangelicals to support him if they generalize about his faith.

Don't you think Mormon underage marriage is the least of his problems? Muslim terrorism is much more unpopular and I think Mormons can't absolve themselves just because they use a different word for the same religion?

[/dev/null]

McCain doesn't like Romney, and unfortunately for Romney the recent Mormon sect underage marriage problem might make it tough for evangelicals to support him if they generalize about his faith.

 

I think it may help with the Evangelicals. Both have an understanding of how to manipulate faith to their own ends, Evangelicals for politics and Mormons for underage poon

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

VP choices historically don't convince many people to vote for a Presidential candidate.

 

Au Contraire. I think Cheyney's complete dismantling of John Edwards in the VP debate 4 years ago went a long way to sinking Kerry's ship.

[SilverNRed]

Au Contraire. I think Cheyney's complete dismantling of John Edwards in the VP debate 4 years ago went a long way to sinking Kerry's ship.

Cheney versus Edwards was like watching a naive 15 year old get slapped down by his dad.

 

At some point in the debate, Edwards said "They care about insurance companies, but we care.....about people!" and I couldn't stop laughing at how cheesy and shallow his points were.

[Chilly]

Au Contraire. I think Cheney's complete dismantling of John Edwards in the VP debate 4 years ago went a long way to sinking Kerry's ship.

 

Polling results from 2004 showed no significant bump for either candidate from any of the debates following the first one on September 30th. Take a look at Polling Report.

 

Here are the dates for the debates:

 

- Sept 30 (Kerry got a boost from this one)

- Oct 5 (VP)

- Oct 8

- Oct 13

 

In addition, the post-VP debate polling in 2004 put the percentage of people who felt Cheney won at only an average of 5% higher or so. CBS' focus group of uncommitted voters put Edwards winning at 41% and Cheney at 28%, with a 31% tie.

 

It was the ineptitude of Kerry to portray himself as something other than a flip-flopper, elitist, and naive liberal that lost him the election.

[/dev/null]

It was the ineptitude of Kerry to portray himself as something other than a flip-flopper, elitist, and naive liberal that lost him the election.

 

In 2004 the flip-flopping elitist naive liberal lost the election

In 2008 one flip-flopping elitist naive liberal will lose but the other will win

[SilverNRed]

Polling results from 2004 showed

I don't think it's the type of thing that would show up in polling results, or if you should trust polls at all.

[Chilly]

I don't think it's the type of thing that would show up in polling results or if you should trust polls at all.

 

Whats the theory behind both of those comments?

[ieatcrayonz]

Whats the theory behind both of those comments?

If it ain't Fark, does it really matter?

[SilverNRed]

Whats the theory behind both of those comments?

Here's part of it:

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=8531

 

I guess I also don't think that a vice-presidential debate would cause a sudden shift in "polling results" as much as it would reinforce ideas that people may have been leaning towards.

[Chilly]

Here's part of it:

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=8531

 

The 2004 exit polling situation was an interesting, and unique, case. Basically, the exit polling system was blown up after 2000 and remodeled and remade. For a number of reasons, it was remade absolutely horribly, and all sorts of biases were introduced, leading to completely inaccurate numbers.

 

One of the problems with that thread is RCow posted the tabulations using the Best Geo estimate, and neglected to mention that there are other estimates that can be made based on exit polling. The PA poll he posted experienced a much greater red shift than the composite estimate, which was the most accurate estimate that year (though still not as accurate as other years).

 

The Best Geo estimate is basically determined by interviewing voters after exit polls release only, and then adjusting for past turnout and past results. The problem was that the new network in 2004 was so horribly mismanaged that the interviewers in most cases had very little, if any, actual training in how to conduct the interviews in person, and introduced all sorts of participation biases that shouldn't have existed. As a result, the results were horribly slanted towards Kerry in areas where they shouldn't have been.

 

If you took that PA example, and ran the composite estimate (which includes polls leading up to the election in addition to the surveys), it had Kerry up by 8.5 instead of 14. In addition, if you took a look at the polls taken just before election day, they put the vote at Kerry +1. The final results were at Kerry +2.5 - making them pretty accurate.

 

In fact, if you had taken the pre-election poll averages, and made an electoral map off of that, only one state would have been wrong, Wisconsin, and that was at Bush +0.9 instead of Kerry +1 (well within the MoE).

 

After the 2004 disaster, they blew up the exit polling model again, and made a new system. 2006 was the first test, and there were mixed results. I'm highly skeptical of whether exit polling is going to improve in November this year or not.

 

I guess I also don't think that a vice-presidential debate would cause a sudden shift in "polling results" as much as it would reinforce ideas that people may have been leaning towards.

 

Which would mean that it didn't make any difference if it simply reinforced campaign messages. Is anyone going to vote for a Presidential candidate because of the way their VP candidate did during the debate? Maybe vote against them if they are batshit insane, but generally it doesn't work the other way around.

 

To specifically look at the 2004 VP debate (which were the ones we were talking about), here is a quote from ABCNews:

 

"Among these groups, 70 percent of Republicans said Cheney was the winner, 68 percent of Democrats said it was Edwards, and independents split 42 percent-37 percent, Cheney-Edwards."

 

What they don't say is whether those independent numbers included leaners or not. If they included leaners, since more Republicans tuned into the debate, that difference could easily be accounted for there.

 

While it was entertaining, I don't think the debates back in 04 did much of anything among true independents, who were apt to call them ties.

[Bishop Hedd]

Had a thread on this a few months ago. How could it be anyone but Lieberman? Still like Richardson for Obama.