 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
    |
||||
NO PALIN COSTUME signs spotted in the wild
Last chance to download your own copy. Before it's too late.
(P.S. This blog proudly uses Movable Type)
Vote, North Carolina. For the glory of Satan.
If you recognize the narrator's voice, that because it's Dave Willis, narrator of Squidbillies and co-creator of Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
Poll positions
I realize that pollsters have partisan leans and they vary a little bit, but I really don't get the people who have been wailing for over a week now that almost every poll showing huge leads for Obama is inaccurate or biased or whatever. It's not that I disagree that it's possible for them all to be totally wrong; it's just that I really don't see the logic in it.
Let's say that in reality, McCain and Obama are 50-50 in Ohio. Now, a poll can lean a few points either way based on sample bias or error or whatever, but even if it's 48-52 McCain or vice-versa, the point is still clear: this is a close race that both candidates need to campaign in Ohio to address. Now, a majority of polls currently have Obama up by an average of over five points in Ohio. It's of no benefit to either candidate for that to be wildly inaccurate. Yes, it implies that McCain needs to do more work in Ohio than he needs to, but conversely it also claims that Obama has less work to do than he needs to. The wrong poll benefits neither campaign. This is kind of a microcosm of the downside to the "Obama landslide" poll analysis; it creates the illusion of a reduced need to be as engaged for Obama.
My point is, on the whole, I understand that polls can have minor biases and/or inaccuracies. But it's not in anyone's current interest for the polls all saying Obama is crushing McCain right now to be totally wrong. Anyway, that's probably the only thing I'll say about polls for the remainder of the week, and probably the most optimistic thing I'll say about the race in general.
"Bloggers continue to get everything right"
This weekend a female McCain volunteer who, for lack of a better conclusion, is fucking crazy, decided to claim that a big scary black man attacked her at an ATM and stabbed her in the face because he was an Obama supporter. A large handful of right-wing blogs, naturally, leapt on this (not to mention the McCain campaign itself, the decision of a communications director who for reasons no one could truly fathom still has a job), and many were angry when it turned out she was, as noted just a sentence ago, fucking crazy. But who were they angry at? That dastardly media, of course, for making light of the story only after they had, you know, the facts. Witness, well of fucking course he'd say this, that schmuck, Glenn Reynolds note that the real issue here was that if this story that wasn't true wasn't true about McCain, the news would be all over this untrue story that he was because even though it wasn't true, at least it was about how bad Obama was, in that "this has almost nothing to actually do with Barack Obama" kind of way.
Oh, I have a new book. You should buy it.
"Code of conduct"
Cindy McCain- you know- the one who stole from her own charity to fuel her illicit drug addiction after breaking up her husband's first marriage- questions Barack Obama's character.
Also, her stabbed her at an ATM. Did you hear that one too?
(By the way, might as well get this off my chest since it's been bugging me for a while: anyone else notice those stupid webads on a few blogs that link to some kind of survey/marketing site or something, and the message on the banner is "take our survey- which candidate is more likely to cheat?" Wouldn't the answer, you know, be by default McCain- the candidate who actually did cheat on his wife? But whatever.)