<p>
I guess it would be ok with you if we start discusing Hillary’s physical appearance?</p>
<p>This country will not elect anybody that looks like Fred Thompson. He doesn’t look healthy enough. He has zero chance.</p>
<p>When you look good enough to be a prominent TV actor, then you can talk about Fred’s appearance. :)</p>
<p>I look better than Fred Thompson. :)</p>
<p>I also have the same chance of being elected President of the United States as he does. I’m not kidding. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hi Obama!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Start?</p>
<p>I guess you missed the major Washington Post investigative article on her cleavage.</p>
<p>Or the Sunday a few days after the debate where John Edwards dissed her “coat” when every female talking head pundit on the Sunday shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.) wore coral colored jackets in a subtle protest of old white dudes in gray suits complaining about the female candidate’s colorful attire…</p>
<p>Hey I noticed Cokie’s and Andrea’s coral jackets that Sunday! How sweet–solidarity among the chattering class!</p>
<p>I got all excited thinking you were talking about Hunter. :D</p>
<p>
I said WE, meaning those of us on this forum. I was not referring to the media. Discussions of Hillary’s cleavage refers to her physical appearance, but her clothing is not her physical appearance.</p>
<p>What is noticable about Hillary’s physial appearance is that she is short and dumpy. Her face is too round. Her voice is shrill. Her legs and ankles merge. How about that fake blonde hair? Thus, no one should vote for Hillary because of her physical appearance; right ID? Isn’t that was you are suggesting by ridiculing Thompson’s physical appearance?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t vote for him because he would continue the same arrogant/idiotic neocon Republican foreign policy, because he can’t string three intelligent sentences together off the cuff, because he answers questions with bromides like “the flies start buzzin’ in the summertime”, because he doesn’t have the energy for a two hour campaign appearance at the Iowa state fair without riding around in a golf cart, and because he has non-Hodgkins lymphoma cancer. </p>
<p>I hope he gets the Republican nomination, though. You should see the woman’s vote in the Clinton/Grandpa Fred matchup polling. Wow. In the Quinnipiac polling released today for the key swing state of Ohio, Clinton has a 29% margin over Thompson among women voters. Of course, if Grandpa Fred features his cute granddaug…er I mean wife…maybe he could narrow the gap a bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ya, as a republican I wouldn’t want to see him but I don’t think I’m gonna have to worry about that. Fred’s chance of beating Rudy is akin to Obamas chance of beating Hilary…slim to none and I’m leanin towards none.</p>
<p>Darn if I know. I’ve thrown up my hands trying to figure out the Republican race. The simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans don’t like any of the nine old white dudes. Look at the polling trendlines; there ain’t much sign of the big Mo:</p>
<p><a href=“Pollster”>Pollster;
<p>Guiliani made a huge mistake conceding Iowa and NH to Romney.</p>
<p>I just checked out Thompson’s site and was looking for the little “issues” button but all he has is this long speech about Federalism. I have to say that I agree with a lot of he says but only because a lot of what he says is basic Constitutional stuff. Where does he stand on specific issues though? </p>
<p>This is what I’ve gathered:</p>
<p>He’s pro-life.
He believes in a voucher system for education?
He believes in tax cuts.
He believes in a division of power.
He doesn’t believe the Constitution should be altered or disregarded just for any ole’ reason (do you hear that DC with your gun laws?)</p>
<p>Can anyone else shed any light on his issues? For instance, </p>
<p>What he plans to do about Iraq.
Social Security.
Health Care
Etc.</p>
<p>The only credible polling source is rasmussenreports.com which shows republicans favor guiliani as much as dems favor clinton. I don’t trust any polls but rasmussen due to it being almost spot on in 04 and 06.</p>
<p>Not really. Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll (average of four night’s polling) today:</p>
<p>Grandpa Fred: 22%
The Crossdresser: 25%
The Mormon: 14%
McCain: 13%</p>
<p>Clinton: 45%
Obama: 23%
Edwards: 13%</p>
<p>Rasmussen is OK as long as you accept the pretty wild fluctuations day to day. They use robo-calling with touch tone responses, so they probably can’t screen for likely voters as carefully as some of the other polls.</p>
<p>The graphs I gave you are trendlines (filtered to remove noise and flucuations) generated from ALL of the public polls. So, they include Rasmussen, Gallup, and everyone else doing public polling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stay there until hell freezes over because it’s the battle of good versus evil and evil will follow us home if we leave. The whole world is a morality play for Grandpa Fred and his neocon puppetmasters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Errr…I was referring to the approval/disapproval ratings for each of the candidates. Also make note that Fred is receiving the bump everyone gets when they enter the race (see: Obama). Rasmussen was the closet poll to actual results in 04 and 06. The problem with combining all the polls is many of the polls suck, simply put. Also you get distorted questioning between polls. There’s a reason rasmussenreports is the most respected poll by politicians and pundits (google it…it’s known as THE poll).</p>
<p>The favorable/unfavorable ratings are pretty much useless. For example I have favorable opinions of five of the Democratic candidates and three of the Republican candidates, but I’ve already firmly decided to vote for just one of them. </p>
<p>The <a href=“http://www.pollster.com%5B/url%5D”>www.pollster.com</a> composite trendlines are the best available snapshot of the races, although their conservative trendline algorithm tends to lag shifts in the race a bit. The blog is a project of a 20 year professional pollster and a poli sci professor specializing in statistical analysis of election polling data at the University of Wisconsin. An outlier poll doesn’t really change their trendline for the national preference polls because they are averaging so many data points from a lot of polls over a fairly extended time frame.</p>
<p>It’s a great site because the two purveyors have the contacts to get replies from the various pollsters. For example, they were able to sort out the variance in the different Iowa polls…it’s largely attributable to the percentage of previous caucus voters in the screening sample. Historically, caucus voters have been 45% first time caucus goers and 55% repeat caucus goers. However, the screens some of the pollster are using end up with 92% prior caucus goers in the sample. Prior caucus goers tend to favor Edwards (the only candidate who was also a player in the 2004 caucus – so roughly 1 in 4 2004 caucus goers started out 2007 as previous Edwards voter versus 0 for the other candidates). If you screen for “definite caucus goers” but with a sample closer to the 45%/55% split, Clinton has more support – the pollsters see the woman vote thing clearly, not just in their Iowa data, but in other states. Clinton is energizing first time female primary voters. </p>
<p>That’s why we are seeing Clinton leading some polls and Edwards other polls. It took some e-mail exchanges with several of the pollsters to figure out the differences in their screening samples and what they are seeing in their unpublished subgroups. It’s not that wildly conflicting polls are right or wrong; but rather a case where nobody can really predict which 5% of registered Iowa voters will show up on a snowy night to caucus.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s a fantastic website and a terrific resource.</p>
<p>Fred Thompson is a nutjob.</p>
<p>It may very well be a terrific resource, however it hasn’t come close to matching rasmussen in accuracy and, in all honesty, that’s all I really look for in polls.</p>