A new poll conducted by Hays Research confirms what we already intuitively know. Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's candidacy is in big trouble.
The percentage of Alaskans who feel either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" about Miller has skyrocketed in recent weeks to an astronomical 68 percent. Only 8 percent feel "somewhat negative" and the remainder, a jaw-dropping 60 percent, feel "very negative" about Miller as a candidate.
...
Hays asked the question (replicating the experience of the voter going in to the booth in which they will not see the name of write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski on the ballot), "If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Joe Miller, Scott McAdams, Frederick Haase, Tim Carter, Ted Gianoutsos, or another candidate you have to write in, for whom would you vote, or are you undecided?
The result? Scott McAdams surging ahead of Joe Miller with 29 percent, Joe Miller with 23 percent, and the write-in candidate (most of which are presumably Lisa Murkowski) with a small gain bringing her to 34 percent, and undecided voters still at 13 percent. This is the first time that McAdams has polled better than Miller, and he did it by six points, comfortably outside the margin of error of 4.8 percent -- a watershed moment for the McAdams campaign.
More news from that race: the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that voters can be shown the list of certified write-in candidates (which includes Murkowski) if the voter says they need help and ask to be shown the list.
I question the accuracy of the poll. Though with the supreme court ruling, it'll make Lisa's chance MUCH better. (Basically blocking that was just, IMO, a tactic by Miller and McAdams campaigns to prevent people who already plan on voting for her from gettijng clarification how to spell her name.)
Anywho, I'd have to see more polls on this. I really doubt McAdams has jumped that much. Also, it's important to note that Murkowski having a high "I'll write her in" rate doesn't necassarily directly translate to votes, the person has to rememeber to fill in the oval as well as right in her name, AND spell it correctly. (And put her first name on there to.)
I'm pretty sure this is going to boil down to Murkowski just having too many invalid votes.
The best story I've ever heard about dicking over a credible write-in candidate was back in 2006 in TX-22, Tom DeLay's old district. Because DeLay had already won the Republican primary that year before he resigned from Congress, the Republicans had to run the incumbent (Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who won the special election to replace DeLay) as a write-in candidate. Rather than going the Miller route of never mentioning the write-in candidate, Democrat Nick Lampson sent out dozens of mail pieces covered front and back with his opponent's name.
And it was misspelled a different way every time.
That's brilliant.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Of course, Sekula-Gibbs is harder to spell than Murkowski. And the Murkowski name is rather famous in Alaska, which was not the case for Snelly Gibbr in Texas.
As for attacking O'Donnell, she may have an impact on down-ballot races, and the fewer Republicans elected to the state legislature the better.
The best story I've ever heard about dicking over a credible write-in candidate was back in 2006 in TX-22, Tom DeLay's old district. Because DeLay had already won the Republican primary that year before he resigned from Congress, the Republicans had to run the incumbent (Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who won the special election to replace DeLay) as a write-in candidate. Rather than going the Miller route of never mentioning the write-in candidate, Democrat Nick Lampson sent out dozens of mail pieces covered front and back with his opponent's name.
And it was misspelled a different way every time.
That's brilliant.
I actually thought up that idea during this campaign (Back when Miller was doing his best to pretend Lisa didn't exist, because any mention of her just reminded people that they could vote for her). For obvious reasons, I kept it to myself.
Of course, Sekula-Gibbs is harder to spell than Murkowski. And the Murkowski name is rather famous in Alaska, which was not the case for Snelly Gibbr in Texas.
As for attacking O'Donnell, she may have an impact on down-ballot races, and the fewer Republicans elected to the state legislature the better.
Watching the daily show with Obama I can't help but feel its a little...odd...
I've always considered the daily show to be a satirical political comedy show. I've never seen it as a front end debate program, so the use of it otherwise to push forward a message from the president of the united states seems...silly.
Perhaps this is a british thing. There's no such thing as talk shows over here, nor would we ever see the pm be on one, referring such political debates to question time stuff.
Edit: I mean any seriousness is ruined by a silly title screen to the show.
Is it weird that I hate everything O'donnell stands for but at the same time I feel incredibly sorry for her?
I never felt like people were being overly hard on Palin or picking on her too much, because she kept sticking her neck out, but O'donnell almost seems like a victim, offered by the teapers to be sacrificed to us.
That story that guy posted makes me kind of sad for her, because she seems like a genuinely nice person and not a media whore who's in it for the money like Palin
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
I was just browsing fivethirtyeight and came across a post explaining just how different the results of the elections can be in regards to small errors in the forcasting/polling numbers.
Our projection says that Republicans are favorites in 231 House races, which would reflect a net gain of 52 seats.
But suppose that our forecast is biased against the Democrats by one point across the country as a whole, perhaps because pollsters are overestimating the enthusiasm gap very slightly. Just one point. Well, there are 6 seats in which we have the Republican candidate projected to win by less than 1 full point (it might be a very long election night, by the way). If Democrats hold those 6 seats, the projected Republican gains would be down to 46.
Now suppose that the forecast understates Democratic support by 2 points. There are 8 seats in which we project the Republican candidate to win by a margin of between 1 and 2 points; now these would also be wiped off the board. Now the Republican gains would be reduced to just 38 seats — and the Democrats would hold the House, 218-217!
Read that again: it means that if our forecasts turn out to be biased against Democrats by just 2 points overall, the party becomes about an even-money bet to hold the House.
Now move in the other direction. Say that we’ve underestimated Republicans’ margin by 1 point across the board. There are 8 seats that we’re currently projecting Democrats to hold by less than 1 point. Give those 8 seats to Republicans, and the gains tally grows to 60.
And if the forecast is biased against Republicans by 2 points? Another 5 seats, bringing their total to 65.
We can extend this analysis as much as we want: if the forecasts lowball Republicans by 5 points overall, for instance, we’d expect them to win about 75 seats; a 5-point bias against Democrats, on the other hand, trims their losses to just 22.
This is the thing. 538's model heavily relies on a reasonable sample size of polling. This does not exist for the House races this time around and its marginal at best on the Senate side. There were more Presidential polls per day two years ago than you're getting House polls per week. That gives you situations like ND-AL where Rasmussen gives Berg up to a 10 point lead, 3 other polls gives the Pomeroy (D) a lead as high as 9 and the GOP is given a 83% of winning. Polls that would never have been used because they were clearly campaign links in 08 are being used without comment now because there are just not enough. My local race (MA-10) is within 5 points based on every poll, but there have only been 3.
There isn't nearly enough information to make the projections Nate is trying to do but after the great work he did in 08 we expect it as part of our election coverage from both him and half the other news organizations online.
ed
Or doing some more random searching CA-11. Three polls, only one in the last month, three weeks ago, +6 R. It was the opposite of the one 2 weeks before that +10 D. The D has claimed he's up 10 from an internal poll 2 weeks ago (not included in Nate's calculations so at least he's not accepting all internal polls). R is given a 69% chance of winning according to the model.
Or OR-5. Latest poll is D+12. Two previous polls +10R, +4R. Before that latest poll was mid Sept - +13D. There is insufficient data but Nate gives 60% chance to the R side.
Or Missouri-4, Ike Skelton's seat. He's been up in two polls +10,+12 and even on a small one with a 5.7% margin of error where his favorables were much higher. GOPers are cancelling ads. But 538 makes the GOP a small favorite.
I think we're in for a closer election than everyone expects even if the GOP will make gains.
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Hilarious dirty tricks would include tons of fliers with various misspellings being handed out just outside the electioneering area
"Vote for Murkowky! Republican"
"Murcowski for Senate!" (with a giant cow on skies on the sign)
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Seriously? That is a load of horseshit.
Thank the Republicans. All the times they have tried to suppress the vote of minorites with bad english is what brought this on.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Seriously? That is a load of horseshit.
Thank the Republicans. All the times they have tried to suppress the vote of minorites with bad english is what brought this on.
It's not just the Republicans. You know that lawsuit about showing a list of names? There are quite a few rural native communities in Alaska: guess who they're mostly supporting? :P
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Apparently they paid the guy 4 figures to tell his story. Sick.
They got ripped off. I wouldn't have bought a round for that story.
300,000 pageviews at least for that story alone. It's an exceedingly good deal. Even if they paid as high as $5k, it's under a $0.02 CPV. An excellent investment.
Is it weird that I hate everything O'donnell stands for but at the same time I feel incredibly sorry for her?
I never felt like people were being overly hard on Palin or picking on her too much, because she kept sticking her neck out, but O'donnell almost seems like a victim, offered by the teapers to be sacrificed to us.
That story that guy posted makes me kind of sad for her, because she seems like a genuinely nice person and not a media whore who's in it for the money like Palin
She may not be a media whore, but she is taking every other page from the Palin playbook. She tries to make herself out to be the common person, gets all her info and ideas fed to her by handlers, most of it includes false claims, she only appears at select events where media is restricted or entirely barred, she provides no practical specifics on solutions, has no plans to work with both sides of the isle, and spends her time attacking Democrats and her opponent. Her appearances in the debate had her coming out of the gates attacking her opponent, and she ended up with egg on her face because she appeared uninformed and unprepared.
Feel sorry that someone came out with this silly story, but don't make her out to be some victim.
And she may as well be in it for the money. She has run for Senate in 2006 and 2008 and didn't take the hint then. She lied her way to defeating Mike Castle in the primary. She latched on to the Tea Party movement, and ended up with over $3 million in donations by the end of September, only a tiny fraction coming from in-state (like less than $50k.)
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
O'Donell is one cute lady bug, you have to give her that.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
1) Nominate someone crazy (Angle, Buck, Paul, O'Donnell)
2) Deny all access for anyone who isn't in the tank
3) Complain about media bias
4) Create Fox News celebrity
5) Win half the time (it looks like)
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
House Republicans vow "No Compromise" if they take the House. I'm not exactly surprised. It's not like they've been compromising up until now. Are we taking bets on how long before the government shuts down like it did in '95? When is the first budget due? My guess is right around then.
House Republicans vow "No Compromise" if they take the House. I'm not exactly surprised. It's not like they've been compromising up until now. Are we taking bets on how long before the government shuts down like it did in '95? When is the first budget due? My guess is right around then.
With articles of impeachment coming soon thereafter.
House Republicans vow "No Compromise" if they take the House. I'm not exactly surprised. It's not like they've been compromising up until now. Are we taking bets on how long before the government shuts down like it did in '95? When is the first budget due? My guess is right around then.
They have totally been compromising before! Still voting no, but grabbing as much as they could in the bill before they did so.
House Republicans vow "No Compromise" if they take the House. I'm not exactly surprised. It's not like they've been compromising up until now. Are we taking bets on how long before the government shuts down like it did in '95? When is the first budget due? My guess is right around then.
I'm more interested in taking bets on whether the Democrats will ever take the fucking hint.
My guess is no.
Edit: If/When the government shutdown happens I'd bet that it won't go as "smoothly" as 1995 did.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Pretty much the GOP's going to make a budget specifically designed to cause a shutdown. They're going to be in control and won't give half a damn what the House Democrats do because they'll be able to ram through whatever they want. They're going to make a budget designed to draw a veto from Obama. Since they will absolutely not have two thirds to override it? Shutdown.
The House Dems, it doesn't matter whether they have a backbone or not. They'll get run over either way. That's how the House works. If you only have 217, you might as well have zero. The GOP's going to aim at Obama directly.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Pretty much the GOP's going to make a budget specifically designed to cause a shutdown. They're going to be in control and won't give half a damn what the House Democrats do because they'll be able to ram through whatever they want. They're going to make a budget designed to draw a veto from Obama. Since they will absolutely not have two thirds to override it? Shutdown.
The House Dems, it doesn't matter whether they have a backbone or not. They'll get run over either way. That's how the House works. If you only have 217, you might as well have zero. The GOP's going to aim at Obama directly.
It's kinda funny you say this, I was just noticing something recently with seeing a bunch of Fox News type clips and such:
The Right LOVES Obama. They talk about him all the time.
Like everything gets ascribed to him. Doesn't matter who's actually doing it. Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, some Left Wing PAC, whatever. It's always Obama who's behind it.
The DNC running an ad in Oregon? "Obama's newest ad against <Republican Douchbag running for something in Oregon> and why he's a terrible liar who wants to destroy America". And so forth.
Pretty much the GOP's going to make a budget specifically designed to cause a shutdown. They're going to be in control and won't give half a damn what the House Democrats do because they'll be able to ram through whatever they want. They're going to make a budget designed to draw a veto from Obama. Since they will absolutely not have two thirds to override it? Shutdown.
The House Dems, it doesn't matter whether they have a backbone or not. They'll get run over either way. That's how the House works. If you only have 217, you might as well have zero. The GOP's going to aim at Obama directly.
It's kinda funny you say this, I was just noticing something recently with seeing a bunch of Fox News type clips and such:
The Right LOVES Obama. They talk about him all the time.
Like everything gets ascribed to him. Doesn't matter who's actually doing it. Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, some Left Wing PAC, whatever. It's always Obama who's behind it.
The DNC running an ad in Oregon? "Obama's newest ad against <Republican Douchbag running for something in Oregon> and why he's a terrible liar who wants to destroy America". And so forth.
No kidding. The first campaign ad I saw here was trying to link Bill White to Obama. Because the mayor of Houston sits down to tea with the president once a week or something, I don't know the reasoning behind it. It was bizarre.
Pretty much the GOP's going to make a budget specifically designed to cause a shutdown. They're going to be in control and won't give half a damn what the House Democrats do because they'll be able to ram through whatever they want. They're going to make a budget designed to draw a veto from Obama. Since they will absolutely not have two thirds to override it? Shutdown.
The House Dems, it doesn't matter whether they have a backbone or not. They'll get run over either way. That's how the House works. If you only have 217, you might as well have zero. The GOP's going to aim at Obama directly.
It's kinda funny you say this, I was just noticing something recently with seeing a bunch of Fox News type clips and such:
The Right LOVES Obama. They talk about him all the time.
Like everything gets ascribed to him. Doesn't matter who's actually doing it. Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, some Left Wing PAC, whatever. It's always Obama who's behind it.
The DNC running an ad in Oregon? "Obama's newest ad against <Republican Douchbag running for something in Oregon> and why he's a terrible liar who wants to destroy America". And so forth.
I just saw a "I'm Joe Miller and I improved this message." that was just Obama going "Yes we can" interspersed with Lisa Murkowski (Who I will remind people is a republican) going "Yes we can." and then the music get's all dramatic and 'UBER DOOMY.' and the words "WALL. STREET. BAILOUT." appear when Obama says "YES. WE. CAN." finished with "Don't be fooled again".
I would have been pissed at it if I honestly didn't find it so hilariously lame.
Miller is irrelevant at this point, from the polls I'm seeing. It's McAdams versus convincing Democrats Miller is irrelevant so voting for Murkowski would be dumb.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Miller is irrelevant at this point, from the polls I'm seeing. It's McAdams versus convincing Democrats Miller is irrelevant so voting for Murkowski would be dumb.
I saw ONE poll say that. It'll take seeing it in several polls before I'm convinced. Especially since most recently Miller was trending equal with Murkowksi in polls that specifically mention Murkowski as a write-in.
I'm not at all surprised that the curbstomper is demanding an apology. At this point, even officially cut off from Paul's campaign, I imagine he's taking orders, and apologizing would be a bad strategic move. If he apologizes, it's an admission that he did something wrong, and therefore that the campaign isn't perfect. By demanding an apology, he's playing to the "this was exaggerated and in fact she planned this" crowd, which are likely eating this up. It doesn't convince us here in D&D, but then, we in D&D were unlikely to vote for him, anyway. It's a campaign strategy designed to minimize losses.
Sorry if that's all obvious. (Also not saying that he isn't a despicable human being, because wow, he sure is.)
Second, that strategy of getting crazy people into office also makes complete sense to me. It wouldn't work for Democrats, because the Dems are currently the more liberal party. The Republicans base their political strategy around conservative and authority-driven values. They don't need an intelligent policy maker in office, except in a few key places. They need someone who will vote the way they are told to vote every damn time by the party leadership.
It's an evil and ugly gaming of the system, but putting a bunch of puppets in office is, if you can do it, a great way to make sure that your team all votes together.
Posts
That's brilliant.
This is snowballing so much.
As for attacking O'Donnell, she may have an impact on down-ballot races, and the fewer Republicans elected to the state legislature the better.
I actually thought up that idea during this campaign (Back when Miller was doing his best to pretend Lisa didn't exist, because any mention of her just reminded people that they could vote for her). For obvious reasons, I kept it to myself.
Murcowski, Merkowski, Murkowsky...
I've always considered the daily show to be a satirical political comedy show. I've never seen it as a front end debate program, so the use of it otherwise to push forward a message from the president of the united states seems...silly.
Perhaps this is a british thing. There's no such thing as talk shows over here, nor would we ever see the pm be on one, referring such political debates to question time stuff.
Edit: I mean any seriousness is ruined by a silly title screen to the show.
I never felt like people were being overly hard on Palin or picking on her too much, because she kept sticking her neck out, but O'donnell almost seems like a victim, offered by the teapers to be sacrificed to us.
That story that guy posted makes me kind of sad for her, because she seems like a genuinely nice person and not a media whore who's in it for the money like Palin
Alaska Elections, or whatever they call it up there, has already said they will not throw out a ballot if her name is spelled incorrectly. As long as they can determine the voters intention, spelling is not important.
And what little this matters is about her hypocrisy, not hooking up per se.
This is the thing. 538's model heavily relies on a reasonable sample size of polling. This does not exist for the House races this time around and its marginal at best on the Senate side. There were more Presidential polls per day two years ago than you're getting House polls per week. That gives you situations like ND-AL where Rasmussen gives Berg up to a 10 point lead, 3 other polls gives the Pomeroy (D) a lead as high as 9 and the GOP is given a 83% of winning. Polls that would never have been used because they were clearly campaign links in 08 are being used without comment now because there are just not enough. My local race (MA-10) is within 5 points based on every poll, but there have only been 3.
There isn't nearly enough information to make the projections Nate is trying to do but after the great work he did in 08 we expect it as part of our election coverage from both him and half the other news organizations online.
ed
Or doing some more random searching CA-11. Three polls, only one in the last month, three weeks ago, +6 R. It was the opposite of the one 2 weeks before that +10 D. The D has claimed he's up 10 from an internal poll 2 weeks ago (not included in Nate's calculations so at least he's not accepting all internal polls). R is given a 69% chance of winning according to the model.
Or OR-5. Latest poll is D+12. Two previous polls +10R, +4R. Before that latest poll was mid Sept - +13D. There is insufficient data but Nate gives 60% chance to the R side.
Or Missouri-4, Ike Skelton's seat. He's been up in two polls +10,+12 and even on a small one with a 5.7% margin of error where his favorables were much higher. GOPers are cancelling ads. But 538 makes the GOP a small favorite.
I think we're in for a closer election than everyone expects even if the GOP will make gains.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Alaska Elections then went "Oh whoops, we were totally wrong on that, by Law they MUST spell her name correctly"
Hence the big ad blitz up here about spelling her name correctly.
Hilarious dirty tricks would include tons of fliers with various misspellings being handed out just outside the electioneering area
"Vote for Murkowky! Republican"
"Murcowski for Senate!" (with a giant cow on skies on the sign)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Thank the Republicans. All the times they have tried to suppress the vote of minorites with bad english is what brought this on.
Apparently they paid the guy 4 figures to tell his story. Sick.
It's not just the Republicans. You know that lawsuit about showing a list of names? There are quite a few rural native communities in Alaska: guess who they're mostly supporting? :P
They got ripped off. I wouldn't have bought a round for that story.
300,000 pageviews at least for that story alone. It's an exceedingly good deal. Even if they paid as high as $5k, it's under a $0.02 CPV. An excellent investment.
She may not be a media whore, but she is taking every other page from the Palin playbook. She tries to make herself out to be the common person, gets all her info and ideas fed to her by handlers, most of it includes false claims, she only appears at select events where media is restricted or entirely barred, she provides no practical specifics on solutions, has no plans to work with both sides of the isle, and spends her time attacking Democrats and her opponent. Her appearances in the debate had her coming out of the gates attacking her opponent, and she ended up with egg on her face because she appeared uninformed and unprepared.
Feel sorry that someone came out with this silly story, but don't make her out to be some victim.
And she may as well be in it for the money. She has run for Senate in 2006 and 2008 and didn't take the hint then. She lied her way to defeating Mike Castle in the primary. She latched on to the Tea Party movement, and ended up with over $3 million in donations by the end of September, only a tiny fraction coming from in-state (like less than $50k.)
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
1) Nominate someone crazy (Angle, Buck, Paul, O'Donnell)
2) Deny all access for anyone who isn't in the tank
3) Complain about media bias
4) Create Fox News celebrity
5) Win half the time (it looks like)
With articles of impeachment coming soon thereafter.
They have totally been compromising before! Still voting no, but grabbing as much as they could in the bill before they did so.
My guess is no.
Edit: If/When the government shutdown happens I'd bet that it won't go as "smoothly" as 1995 did.
?
Well, he never backed up his arguments.
Yeah I totally buy his story now, I mean this guy looks like he turns down women all the time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The House Dems, it doesn't matter whether they have a backbone or not. They'll get run over either way. That's how the House works. If you only have 217, you might as well have zero. The GOP's going to aim at Obama directly.
It's kinda funny you say this, I was just noticing something recently with seeing a bunch of Fox News type clips and such:
The Right LOVES Obama. They talk about him all the time.
Like everything gets ascribed to him. Doesn't matter who's actually doing it. Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, some Left Wing PAC, whatever. It's always Obama who's behind it.
The DNC running an ad in Oregon? "Obama's newest ad against <Republican Douchbag running for something in Oregon> and why he's a terrible liar who wants to destroy America". And so forth.
No kidding. The first campaign ad I saw here was trying to link Bill White to Obama. Because the mayor of Houston sits down to tea with the president once a week or something, I don't know the reasoning behind it. It was bizarre.
I just saw a "I'm Joe Miller and I improved this message." that was just Obama going "Yes we can" interspersed with Lisa Murkowski (Who I will remind people is a republican) going "Yes we can." and then the music get's all dramatic and 'UBER DOOMY.' and the words "WALL. STREET. BAILOUT." appear when Obama says "YES. WE. CAN." finished with "Don't be fooled again".
I would have been pissed at it if I honestly didn't find it so hilariously lame.
I saw ONE poll say that. It'll take seeing it in several polls before I'm convinced. Especially since most recently Miller was trending equal with Murkowksi in polls that specifically mention Murkowski as a write-in.
I'm not at all surprised that the curbstomper is demanding an apology. At this point, even officially cut off from Paul's campaign, I imagine he's taking orders, and apologizing would be a bad strategic move. If he apologizes, it's an admission that he did something wrong, and therefore that the campaign isn't perfect. By demanding an apology, he's playing to the "this was exaggerated and in fact she planned this" crowd, which are likely eating this up. It doesn't convince us here in D&D, but then, we in D&D were unlikely to vote for him, anyway. It's a campaign strategy designed to minimize losses.
Sorry if that's all obvious. (Also not saying that he isn't a despicable human being, because wow, he sure is.)
Second, that strategy of getting crazy people into office also makes complete sense to me. It wouldn't work for Democrats, because the Dems are currently the more liberal party. The Republicans base their political strategy around conservative and authority-driven values. They don't need an intelligent policy maker in office, except in a few key places. They need someone who will vote the way they are told to vote every damn time by the party leadership.
It's an evil and ugly gaming of the system, but putting a bunch of puppets in office is, if you can do it, a great way to make sure that your team all votes together.