2012 Intrade rankings

[WhyteRain]

the most politically-accomplished woman of her age in American history

Most people here are missing out on some great laughs by putting you on ignore.

First, the truth of the statement is proved by your refusal to even try to refute it.

Second, while every GOP candidate would give his left arm for her endorsement, your presidential nominee sits by the phone ... waiting ... for someone to call to ask for his.

It's a lonely vigil.  

(There are a few calls, but only from more white Democrats telling him they'll be washing their hair while he's being renominated in Charlotte.)

[WhyteRain]

Martinez is no Sarah Palin. This woman isn't a phony. She'd connect with voters without having to get gimmicky.

Are you kidding?  After the power we've seen the MSM display in recent years -- forget what they did to Palin for a minute:  Look what they did to the Clinton Machine in 2008 and to the Tea Party in 2012.  In a race of "Hillary and the Seven Dwarfs", the MSM got the Democrats to nominate the littlest dwarf, Dopey.  And now, just two years after the Tea Party, motivated by ObamaCare, gave the GOP the biggest midterm election victory in generations, the MSM foisted on the GOP the most anti-Tea Party candidate, the unapologetic architect of the prototype for ObamaCare.

Think about that kind of power for a minute before you try to say that the MSM can't do to Martinez what they did to Palin.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Palin did it to herself when she showed up to those Katie Couric interviews unprepared. The mainstream media goes for what's most popular. Hating on Palin was most popular because she made herself look stupid.

[WhyteRain]

Palin did it to herself when she showed up to those Katie Couric interviews unprepared. The mainstream media goes for what's most popular. Hating on Palin was most popular because she made herself look stupid.

No she didn't.  You were among the fooled.

Oh hey, I know!  Let's have some fun:  I'll name something that Obama -- who you would say "made himself look smart" -- has said that is really idiotic, and then you follow by naming something idiotic said by Palin.  Only rule:  It has to be verifiable -- not "someone said that Palin said such-and-such". 

Ready?

"Corpse-man."

Your turn.  We'll keep going till one of us runs out and we can see who got fooled by the MSM.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I agree with most of what you say, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Aren't you the guy who often accuses people of "admitting you were right" when they divert from your points? This little game is a pretty solid example of a diversion. I will not participate. Obama has said many stupid things before, but they were small and mundane enough not to catch fire. He is able to make himself look smart in the way that he talks. It's unfortunate, but Palin and Perry and Bush (all of whom made themselves look stupid) use a folksy accent that doesn't always work.

So when someone who talks funny gets up there in front of a national audience and answers a question with a dumb run-on sentence, it looks stupid. Hell, it is stupid. I know Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." That doesn't mean her answer to Couric's question was articulate or made sense. Palin, who should have known the MSM was ready to jump onthe tiniest of missteps, showed up unprepared for an interview. Those tapings are what ruined her.

I don't believe it is in Martinez's character to show up unprepared. I don't believe she would bait the MSM like Palin did.

[WhyteRain]

Hagrid, I had a neat point-by-point reply, but the computer ate it.  :-(

Anyway, the gist was that, no, Palin did NOT "make herself look stupid" and Obama did NOT "make himself look smart".

It was the MSM that made Palin look stupid and it was the MSM that made Obama look smart.  That you, an intelligent guy who probably even sympathizes with Palin's politics, did not notice it is a real tribute to the skill employed.

(Sometime, go back and count the number of dumb things Palin said, and then multiply them by the number of times they were repeated and amplied in the MSM echo chamber.  Then do the same for Obama.  Did you know, btw, that he recently mistook the state flag of Wisconsin and thought it was a labor union flag -- "Local 1848"!  Or that he called the Miami Heat basketball team the Miami Heats.  That was just this month alone.

Heck, last Summer he (1) couldn't get right the date of his own birthday, (2) couldn't get right the age of his oldest child, and (3) couldn't get right that the year was "2011" and not "2008".

(If you think Palin or Perry or Bush -- or any of those people who didn't have a polished, elite accent -- did that it might be on continuous rewind for weeks on nearly every channel?)

You know, I worked as a newspaper reporter for eight years -- including 1.5 in D.C.  If you never believe anything else I say, then believe this one thing:  You will come nearer the truth by believing the opposite of everything the MSM tells you.  Or to quote Thomas Jefferson, "The truest things in the newspapers are the advertisements."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I have not been fooled--I like Palin. She still made herself look stupid by giving the MSM a big blunder to chew on. Obama does not give run-on, unintelligible responses to new reporters. Sure, he rarely gives anything of substance and sometimes says the odd dumb thing, but even you should be able to see that Palin's Couric interviews were huge bombs (and they were fair interviews, too).

Big mess-ups and small mess-ups are not on par. Big blunders can sink a candidate. Many, many, many small ones cannot.

[WhyteRain]

I have not been fooled--I like Palin. She still made herself look stupid by giving the MSM a big blunder to chew on. Obama does not give run-on, unintelligible responses to new reporters. Sure, he rarely gives anything of substance and sometimes says the odd dumb thing, but even you should be able to see that Palin's Couric interviews were huge bombs (and they were fair interviews, too).

Big mess-ups and small mess-ups are not on par. Big blunders can sink a candidate. Many, many, many small ones cannot.

Oh, so now it's not the NUMBER of blunders but the SIZE?

We could have the same contest and I'd be still here, typing Obama's BIG blunders long after you finished with Palin's.

Dependent as you are on the cultural elite to tell you what to think about Palin, you probably think that she "made a BIG blunder" when she answered "all of them" to Couric's "Do you read newspapers?" set-up question, right?  That was a set-up for a "gotcha question".  It would have trapped a lesser politician.  Apparently, only journalism grads like Palin (and me) could see what Couric was doing and what her next question would have been if, as she demanded, Palin named a "specific" publication.

Go review the tape of that question.  Watch Couric's body language.  As she forms the question, she's not making eye-contact, she's looking at the ground, but she's speaking very carefully, making sure to ask the set-up question exactly the right way.  She was furious when Palin side-stepped the trap by saying "all of them"!  You can see as she keeps demanding that Palin for the NAME of a SPECIFIC newspaper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

(Actually, I notice that she didn't say "all of them".  She said, "Most of them" and then when Couric demanded specificity, Palin said "all of them -- any of them that have been placed in front of me".)

Palin's mistake was that she was too polite.  She knew what Couric was doing and she should've called her on it:  "Why would you ask me that question, Katie?  Have you ever asked any other politician that question in your whole life?"

[modify]  Of course, the MSM gave Katie a big award for that botched "gotcha" moment -- but not for her interview of Biden in which he said, insanely, that FDR gave a televised address to the nation in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM  

LOL-- did you even see that?  Or did you just hear the "all of them" answer repeated 500 times in the media with claims that it proved Palin was "stupid"?

[BritishDixie]

I have not been fooled--I like Palin. She still made herself look stupid by giving the MSM a big blunder to chew on. Obama does not give run-on, unintelligible responses to new reporters. Sure, he rarely gives anything of substance and sometimes says the odd dumb thing, but even you should be able to see that Palin's Couric interviews were huge bombs (and they were fair interviews, too).

Big mess-ups and small mess-ups are not on par. Big blunders can sink a candidate. Many, many, many small ones cannot.

Oh, so now it's not the NUMBER of blunders but the SIZE?

We could have the same contest and I'd be still here, typing Obama's BIG blunders long after you finished with Palin's.

Dependent as you are on the cultural elite to tell you what to think about Palin, you probably think that she "made a BIG blunder" when she answered "all of them" to Couric's "Do you read newspapers?" set-up question, right?  That was a set-up for a "gotcha question".  It would have trapped a lesser politician.  Apparently, only journalism grads like Palin (and me) could see what Couric was doing and what her next question would have been if, as she demanded, Palin named a "specific" publication.

Go review the tape of that question.  Watch Couric's body language.  As she forms the question, she's not making eye-contact, she's looking at the ground, but she's speaking very carefully, making sure to ask the set-up question exactly the right way.  She was furious when Palin side-stepped the trap by saying "all of them"!  You can see as she keeps demanding that Palin for the NAME of a SPECIFIC newspaper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

(Actually, I notice that she didn't say "all of them".  She said, "Most of them" and then when Couric demanded specificity, Palin said "all of them -- any of them that have been placed in front of me".)

Palin's mistake was that she was too polite.  She knew what Couric was doing and she should've called her on it:  "Why would you ask me that question, Katie?  Have you ever asked any other politician that question in your whole life?"

[modify]  Of course, the MSM gave Katie a big award for that botched "gotcha" moment -- but not for her interview of Biden in which he said, insanely, that FDR gave a televised address to the nation in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM 

LOL-- did you even see that?  Or did you just hear the "all of them" answer repeated 500 times in the media with claims that it proved Palin was "stupid"?

WhyteRain, how is it you can alienate conservatives as well as liberals?

I would add though that the media coverage of the Obama campaign was shameful. He was effectively eelcted on the back of glowing praise from the media. When he let slip uber-gaffes like "people out here cling to guns and religion", silence.

[WhyteRain]

I have not been fooled--I like Palin. She still made herself look stupid by giving the MSM a big blunder to chew on. Obama does not give run-on, unintelligible responses to new reporters. Sure, he rarely gives anything of substance and sometimes says the odd dumb thing, but even you should be able to see that Palin's Couric interviews were huge bombs (and they were fair interviews, too).

Big mess-ups and small mess-ups are not on par. Big blunders can sink a candidate. Many, many, many small ones cannot.

Oh, so now it's not the NUMBER of blunders but the SIZE?

We could have the same contest and I'd be still here, typing Obama's BIG blunders long after you finished with Palin's.

Dependent as you are on the cultural elite to tell you what to think about Palin, you probably think that she "made a BIG blunder" when she answered "all of them" to Couric's "Do you read newspapers?" set-up question, right?  That was a set-up for a "gotcha question".  It would have trapped a lesser politician.  Apparently, only journalism grads like Palin (and me) could see what Couric was doing and what her next question would have been if, as she demanded, Palin named a "specific" publication.

Go review the tape of that question.  Watch Couric's body language.  As she forms the question, she's not making eye-contact, she's looking at the ground, but she's speaking very carefully, making sure to ask the set-up question exactly the right way.  She was furious when Palin side-stepped the trap by saying "all of them"!  You can see as she keeps demanding that Palin for the NAME of a SPECIFIC newspaper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

(Actually, I notice that she didn't say "all of them".  She said, "Most of them" and then when Couric demanded specificity, Palin said "all of them -- any of them that have been placed in front of me".)

Palin's mistake was that she was too polite.  She knew what Couric was doing and she should've called her on it:  "Why would you ask me that question, Katie?  Have you ever asked any other politician that question in your whole life?"

[modify]  Of course, the MSM gave Katie a big award for that botched "gotcha" moment -- but not for her interview of Biden in which he said, insanely, that FDR gave a televised address to the nation in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM 

LOL-- did you even see that?  Or did you just hear the "all of them" answer repeated 500 times in the media with claims that it proved Palin was "stupid"?

WhyteRain, how is it you can alienate conservatives as well as liberals?

I don't toe the "conservative" or the "liberal" lines because both zigzag too much for me. 

LOL -- you made me recall a friend in college telling me that I was "more conservative than the conservatives and more liberal than the liberals".

Basically, I'm just a history buff who sees echos of the past in the present (and the future).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heck, that "gaffe" was covered.  Look at the ones that weren't.  How often was this tape played? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related

It's no accident that while former U.S. presidents used teleprompters for speeches to the nation -- where every word was crucial -- the White House handlers don't trust Obama to make even routine announcements without TOTUS.

[7,052,770]

Poor people do cling to guns in religion. It's not a gaffe to say something true.

[BritishDixie]

Poor people do cling to guns in religion. It's not a gaffe to say something true.

It is when you are pitching to these people for votes. Anyway I thought the Democrats liked the poor.

[Mr. Morden]

Up: Portman, Jindal, Ayotte
Down: Rubio, Thune, Ryan, Christie, McDonnell

Winning party

Dems 56.1
GOP 42.2
other 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Portman 31.0
Pawlenty 18.4
Rubio 9.9
Jindal 6.3
Thune 5.2
Ryan 4.5
Rice 3.5
Ayotte 3.0
Christie 2.5
McMorris-Rodgers 2.3
McDonnell 2.1
Martinez 1.0
Ron Paul 0.6
DeMint 0.5
Haley 0.5
Huckabee 0.5
Kyl 0.5
Rand Paul 0.5

Also, futures on the 2016 Democratic nomination for president are trading at Ladbrokes.com.  With the odds converted into Intrade-like probabilities, the prices are:

H. Clinton 20.0
Biden 8.3
Cuomo 7.1
O'Malley 7.1
Warren 4.5
Hickenlooper 3.7
Kaine 3.7
Patrick 3.7
Schweitzer 3.7
Warner 3.7
Bayh 2.9
Emmanual 2.9
Napolitano 2.9
Webb 2.9
Booker 2.3
S. Brown 1.9
Gillibrand 1.9
Gore 1.5

[fezzyfestoon]

Poor people do cling to guns in religion. It's not a gaffe to say something true.

It is when you are pitching to these people for votes. Anyway I thought the Democrats liked the poor.

I'm thinking more along the lines that it is when you're speaking to an oversensitive, ignorant populace that cares less about actual political issues than they do about hashtags and knee-jerk reactions.

[Mr. Morden]

GOP VP nominee

Portman 30.9
Pawlenty 17.6
Rubio 9.2
Jindal 6.7
Thune 5.9
Ryan 4.1
Rice 4.0
Ayotte 3.4
Christie 2.8
McDonnell 2.7
McMorris-Rodgers 1.9
Martinez 1.0
J. Bush 0.6
Rand Paul 0.6
Ron Paul 0.6

Four years ago at this time:

Dems

Clinton 15.3
Bayh 11.9
Sebelius 10.3
Hagel 10.0
Kaine 8.5
Biden 8.1
Richardson 6.1
Nunn 6.0
McCaskill 5.1

GOP

Romney 26.9
Huckabee 14.0
Pawlenty 14.0
Crist 10.0
Portman 8.0
Fiorina 7.0
Palin 7.0
Thune 6.0
Cantor 5.0
Jindal 4.0

[Mr. Morden]

Huge gains for Rice because of the Drudge story.  Drudge should have an Intrade account (if he doesn't already).

Up: Rice, Ryan
Down: Pawlenty, Rubio, Thune, Ayotte

Portman 30.4
Pawlenty 15.2
Rice 9.5
Rubio 8.0
Jindal 6.5
Ryan 5.5
Thune 4.0
Christie 2.4
Ayotte 2.1
McDonnell 2.0
McMorris-Rodgers 1.1
Martinez 1.0
Ron Paul 0.7

[Phony Moderate]

Pawlenty is now ahead.

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty is now ahead.

He led briefly, earlier today, just after the Drudge story, but Portman is back in the lead.  But it's a much closer race for 1st place than it was yesterday.

Up: Pawlenty, Thune
Down: Portman, Rice, Jindal

Portman 28.9
Pawlenty 22.5
Rubio 8.0
Rice 6.5
Thune 6.5
Jindal 5.4
Ryan 5.0
Ayotte 2.5
McDonnell 1.7
Christie 1.5
McMorris-Rodgers 1.2
Martinez 0.8

[Comrade Funk]

I can't believe Ryan is so low.

[BigSkyBob]

Poor people do cling to guns in religion. It's not a gaffe to say something true.

Stating people "cling" to guns or religion are such ambiguous claims as to be neither provable, or disprovable. One could say that there are a large number of poor people whom "cling" to the Democratic party. Or, you could say that there are a large number of poor people whom prefer the Democratic party. Of course, you could say that there are a large number of poor people whom prefer to go to church on Sunday. Neither preferring to own a gun, or believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is inherently sinister, which is what your formulation suggests.

And, yes, it is an major error for a politician wooing the votes of religious people to gratuitously insult their faith.

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty takes the lead (barely) in the VP market.

Up: Pawlenty, Jindal, Ayotte
Down: Portman, Rice, Thune

Winning Party
Dems 56.9
GOP 43.0
other 0.4

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 95.9
Paul 1.7
Huckabee 0.7
J. Bush 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Pawlenty 28.0
Portman 27.7
Rubio 8.5
Jindal 7.6
Ryan 5.3
Rice 5.0
Thune 5.0
Ayotte 4.5
McDonnell 2.0
Christie 1.0
McMorris-Rodgers 0.8
Daniels 0.7
Martinez 0.7

[Eraserhead]

I can't seriously believe that Romney would be dumb enough to pick Portman. I just can't. Sorry but no.

[RogueBeaver]

I can't seriously believe that Romney would be dumb enough to pick Portman. I just can't. Sorry but no.

[7,052,770]

And, yes, it is an major error for a politician wooing the votes of religious people to gratuitously insult their faith.

Apparently it was not, unless you think Obama would have won by an even larger margin without the comment.

[BigSkyBob]

And, yes, it is an major error for a politician wooing the votes of religious people to gratuitously insult their faith.

Apparently it was not, unless you think Obama would have won by an even larger margin without the comment.

Of course, Obama was hurt politically by making that remark. I did in all probablity cost him votes.