Is this an AD record?

[Royale]

Has anyone noticed the speed and number of "Palin" threads and posts since almost the very hour her name was announced as GOP VP nominee? Is this a posting record, or what?

I can't believe how just making one VP selection has caused so much consternation and stir. Normally, the VP candidate in a campaign is somewhat of a . This time, it has generated strong emotions, mostly from detractors who seem to go way beyond simply posting the pros and cons of candidates. Many of the posts and emotions displayed are full of "hate" and "fear" mentions.

My, my--all that emotion and effort expended on the secondary
position in a race that suppossedly is all wrapped up for the Dems.


The election should focus on issues and ideas, not family and background, which are appealing to the voters.

If Palin is so awful, and Obama is so wonderful, why all the anger, fear, and effort needed?

I almost feel sorry for Biden; does anyone ever think about him.

Not so funny is the way new threads are made with hand-rubbing glee that they've discovered more "dirt" about Palin. I don't understand that feeling. Even when I hear "dirt" about opposing candidates, it doesn't make me happy. Last year, when I first heard about the John Edwards scandal, I didn't want to believe it. I refused to post about it at that time because I was hoping it was just gossip. I never supported Edwards as a candidate but I didn't want to believe he could be so hurtful to his sick wife.

Anyway, back to my original question. Will this Palin posting frenzy result in some kind of new record for AD?

Not a record one can boast about.

I cannot agree with you more. They have sickened and disgusted me alot.

Obama have said the family matters are off-limits in this year's 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Did you see that Obama and/or Biden had ever made a negative or degrading remark about the Palin family? NO! Did you see that McCain and/or Palin has ever done the same thing to Obama and Biden? No! As matter of facts, McCain and Biden are good friends although their political views are different. They have gone out for dinner with their wives occasionally when they are working as Senators.

A few ADers here have showed alot of disrespect toward the Palin family. It is so wrong to criticize Sarah about her motherhood. All mothers and/or parents choose the way how they want to raise their children and even grandchildren. All mothers are different in ways that they deal with their children.

Cheri made the most perfect and best remark about the unconditional love and support in another thread. Anything bad, wrong or negative happened to the children, the first thing that the parents always do is to offer an unconditional love and support to them.

They have made a moot argument about the time how the mother spend with children. As long as she has a good support system in place, she will manage it well.

 

[jillio]

The polls are meaningless.

The November 4th election counts, not the opinion polls.

While this is true, opinion polls have been used historically to assess the standing of the candidates.

 

[jillio]

Polls are meaningless because they often take the poll in major cities where often majority democrat thrives in. (peer pressure?)

Most republicans will not participate in polls until they vote the big day because majority republicans live outside of the cities.

That is exactly why you check the demographics for those that have participated, as well as the polling methods used.

I don't know where you get your information, but I know plenty of Democrats living in rural areas, and plenty of Republicans living in urban areas.

 

[Royale]

While this is true, opinion polls have been used historically to assess the standing of the candidates.

No not always because of differences in percentage and electoral college.

Remember the 1948 U.S. Presidential Election? Almost all the opinion polls predicted Thomas Dewey, the Republican Presidential canadiate would beat Harry Truman, the Democratic counterpart in the election; as a result, the election result was quite opposite.

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Gallup poll

 

[jillio]

No not always because of differences in percentage and electoral college.

Remember the 1948 U.S. Presidential Election? Almost all the opinion polls predicted Thomas Dewey, the Republican Presidential canadiate would beat Harry Truman, the Democratic counterpart in the election; as a result, the election result was quite opposite.

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Gallup poll

I said they were used to assess the standing of the candidates at this particular point in time, not that they were predictive.

 

[Deaf Mortgage]

That is exactly why you check the demographics for those that have participated, as well as the polling methods used.

I don't know where you get your information, but I know plenty of Democrats living in rural areas, and plenty of Republicans living in urban areas.

I only used the word majority. That is what I am trying to say.

Watch any election day. For example, New York is democratic state but if you really look at new york voting area. You will see Blue in big city of NYC and surround area. While rest is practically red as for Republicans voting. New York City dominated entire state of new york as democratic state because of its population.

That trend continue in any corner of USA. We will have better chance finding democratic voters in big city than in rural. I did not say full city as democratic thing. Only majority.

I am sure we can find certain % of republican in city likewise for % of democrats in rural. Its known based on history of all elections.

 

[Deaf Mortgage]

That is exactly why you check the demographics for those that have participated, as well as the polling methods used.

I don't know where you get your information, but I know plenty of Democrats living in rural areas, and plenty of Republicans living in urban areas.

Look at this election of 2004. Red is Republican, Blue is Democrat.

Study hard and you will see that blue are dominated at big cities while rural are common republicans.

And look at the final electroial Voting result..

Bottom line... this how determine that democratic at large in cities, not in rural.

 

[jillio]

Look at this election of 2004. Red is Republican, Blue is Democrat.

Study hard and you will see that blue are dominated at big cities while rural are common republicans.

And look at the final electroial Voting result.. .Bottom line... this how determine that democratic at large in cities, not in rural

First of all, have you ever heard of people crossing party lines in any given election? It is entirely acceptable in a Presidential election. Your map is the results of the Bush/Kerry election. Has absolutely nothing to do with what parties any of the voters are registered with, but only with the way that they happened to vote in that particular election. Nor does it acccount for the number of registered Independents in these areas.

Your second map is a state map, and not a breakdown by city. And it is based on traditional voting results, not the results of a given election. Additionally, your first map is a county breakdown, not a city breakdown. Therefore, you can use neither of these maps to support a claim about the population breakdown of city and rural areas.

 

[Royale]

First of all, have you ever heard of people crossing party lines in any given election? It is entirely acceptable in a Presidential election. Your map is the results of the Bush/Kerry election. Has absolutely nothing to do with what parties any of the voters are registered with, but only with the way that they happened to vote in that particular election. Nor does it acccount for the number of registered Independents in these areas.

Your second map is a state map, and not a breakdown by city. And it is based on traditional voting results, not the results of a given election. Additionally, your first map is a county breakdown, not a city breakdown. Therefore, you can use neither of these maps to support a claim about the population breakdown of city and rural areas.

Correct.

Perhaps we can compare this year's and 2004 U.S. Presidential Election by seeing where the votes go.

 

[Deaf Mortgage]

First of all, have you ever heard of people crossing party lines in any given election? It is entirely acceptable in a Presidential election. Your map is the results of the Bush/Kerry election. Has absolutely nothing to do with what parties any of the voters are registered with, but only with the way that they happened to vote in that particular election. Nor does it acccount for the number of registered Independents in these areas.

Your second map is a state map, and not a breakdown by city. And it is based on traditional voting results, not the results of a given election. Additionally, your first map is a county breakdown, not a city breakdown. Therefore, you can use neither of these maps to support a claim about the population breakdown of city and rural areas.

You want me to do entire 50 states to prove the point. If you look up the county, where the big cities. For example, milwaukee county is neighbors of Milwaukee cities and hold over 800,000 people living in that county. If city dominates the county, then the county will show up as what ever the party is for.

I am using election of 2004 to validate the point of interest. You will notice the general population are commons in big cities for democrat while the general population goes to rural. That I am trying to show.

I cant do 50 states study and do city by city. That a tons of work that you are trying to do.

However, i did find a link that you can read about.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/MapHacks_chap1/

I am still looking for more easier bigger picture of the issue.

 

[jillio]

Correct.

Perhaps we can compare this year's and 2004 U.S. Presidential Election by seeing where the votes go.

In that case, we will have to wait until November.

 

[jillio]

You want me to do entire 50 states to prove the point. If you look up the county, where the big cities. For example, milwaukee county is neighbors of Milwaukee cities and hold over 800,000 people living in that county. If city dominates the county, then the county will show up as what ever the party is for.

I am using election of 2004 to validate the point of interest. You will notice the general population are commons in big cities for democrat while the general population goes to rural. That I am trying to show.

I cant do 50 states study and do city by city. That a tons of work that you are trying to do.

However, i did find a link that you can read about.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/excerpt/MapHacks_chap1/

I am still looking for more easier bigger picture of the issue.

No. I simply want, if you are going to offer evidence to support your claim, that you make it relevent.

 

[Deaf Mortgage]

here an excellent link

US Demographics Visualizer

You can go down to county and see % of republican and % of democratic in each county. Nice feature to look at...

I look up new york city and its surrounding area... very good answers. Do you homework.

 

[jillio]

here an excellent link

US Demographics Visualizer

You can go down to county and see % of republican and % of democratic in each county. Nice feature to look at...

I look up new york city and its surrounding area... very good answers. Do you homework.

Still county, not city and rural statistics. Still doesn't support your claim.

 

[Deaf Mortgage]

Still county, not city and rural statistics. Still doesn't support your claim.

So I should change my statement and say by the counties near big cities will be more higher democrat than republicans. Any counties that are away from big cities is more likely to be republican.

Is that what you want me to say?

County do not reveal what cities make the most vote, our votes count by county, not by cities. Have to look at how dense of population within county. That how you can know that there is relationship between higher density of population in one area are more likely to be democrat than republican.

This is how researcher do for 50 states national wide point of view.

 

[jillio]

So I should change my statement and say by the counties near big cities will be more higher democrat than republicans. Any counties that are away from big cities is more likely to be republican.

Is that what you want me to say?

County do not reveal what cities make the most vote, our votes count by county, not by cities. Have to look at how dense of population within county. That how you can know that there is relationship between higher density of population in one area are more likely to be democrat than republican.

This is how researcher do for 50 states national wide point of view.

Counties contain both rural and urban areas. You need a breakdown of cities and rural areas to support your claim that Rebublicans live in the cities, and Democrats live in the country.

 

[Foxrac]

Who cares? Everyone are entitle their opinion and criticism against her, it' their choice, if you do not want debate or fight with them then just don't reply their post.

I agree with Jillio so far.

 

[shel90]

Who cares? Everyone are entitle their opinion and criticism against her, it' their choice, if you do not want debate or fight with them then just don't reply their post.

I agree with Jillio so far.

I agree too.

 

[Byrdie714]

here an excellent link

US Demographics Visualizer

You can go down to county and see % of republican and % of democratic in each county. Nice feature to look at...

I look up new york city and its surrounding area... very good answers. Do you homework.

Odd.....

In one map--it said that my county (Pacific County, WA) went Democrat and in this link you provided, it's Republican.

Confusing.....

 

[Byrdie714]

Has anyone noticed the speed and number of "Palin" threads and posts since almost the very hour her name was announced as GOP VP nominee? Is this a posting record, or what?

I can't believe how just making one VP selection has caused so much consternation and stir. Normally, the VP candidate in a campaign is somewhat of a . This time, it has generated strong emotions, mostly from detractors who seem to go way beyond simply posting the pros and cons of candidates. Many of the posts and emotions displayed are full of "hate" and "fear" mentions.

My, my--all that emotion and effort expended on the secondary
position in a race that suppossedly is all wrapped up for the Dems.

If Palin is so awful, and Obama is so wonderful, why all the anger, fear, and effort needed?

I almost feel sorry for Biden; does anyone ever think about him.

Not so funny is the way new threads are made with hand-rubbing glee that they've discovered more "dirt" about Palin. I don't understand that feeling. Even when I hear "dirt" about opposing candidates, it doesn't make me happy. Last year, when I first heard about the John Edwards scandal, I didn't want to believe it. I refused to post about it at that time because I was hoping it was just gossip. I never supported Edwards as a candidate but I didn't want to believe he could be so hurtful to his sick wife.

Anyway, back to my original question. Will this Palin posting frenzy result in some kind of new record for AD?

Not a record one can boast about.

Probably because she is a "newbie" and there isn't much known about her. There is always something new that is being reported on her on a daily basis that is constantly contradicting what was reported about her previously.

As a record for AD....who knows.

Fear of having a politician as second in command that obviously is dishonest in her representation of what she has done while in office in another political position. Anger that she would think the American Public is so stupid as to not see through to the other side of her statements that are being omitted. Hate? I don't see it. Disagreement with another's policy and procedure does not automatically transfer to hate of the person. Hate of dishonesty and manipulation, perhaps.

Good assessment of it!