StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MRDOD wrote:An interesting light on McCain supporters:

Mediacurves mesures peoples' reactions to commercials in real time. Watch this video of a Pro-Obama ad talking about visionaries who want to change the world.

Pictures of Einstein and other famous people cause the credibility of the ad to rise. But when Republicans (red line) see Martin Luther King, it stops rising when Independents and Democrats do. It drops at two other times: Seeing another black man, and seeing Bill Clinton. It rises hugely after seeing Ghandi from its Clinton low.

Mediacurves

It's almost like they react negatively to even seeing black men.

Garlak wrote:

MRDOD wrote:An interesting light on McCain supporters:

Mediacurves mesures peoples' reactions to commercials in real time. Watch this video of a Pro-Obama ad talking about visionaries who want to change the world.

Pictures of Einstein and other famous people cause the credibility of the ad to rise. But when Republicans (red line) see Martin Luther King, it stops rising when Independents and Democrats do. It drops at two other times: Seeing another black man, and seeing Bill Clinton. It rises hugely after seeing Ghandi from its Clinton low.

Mediacurves

It's almost like they react negatively to even seeing black men.

Wait... I'm not sure I understand... Why did Democrat's reactions DROP when seeing Obama at the end? I can understand Republicans and Independents' opinions/expressions being negative... but why would Democrats' views change? Did I horribly misread the chart, or something? Am I missing something?

Yahoo News wrote:John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis expressed frustration Thursday that negative ads run by Barack Obama’s campaign do not prompt the same press outrage as ads attacking the Democratic presidential nominee.

A new Obama ad released Thursday repeatedly links McCain to President Bush’s economic policies, showing the two Republicans in the rearview mirror as the car drives past McCain’s tax proposals.

“The most amazingly bankrupt line I’ve seen in this campaign is Barack Obama campaign’s repeated attempt to link John McCain to President Bush,” Davis said on a conference call with reporters. “John McCain held the Bush administrations feet the fire more than anyone else for the first four years of the administration.”

Davis said that the Republican campaign has been given its “share of press criticism” for its negative attacks, but complained that Obama has received a free pass in his attacks against McCain.

“Barack Obama hasn’t been held accountable time and time again,” Davis said. “In the last two weeks, he has attacked Sarah Palin and thrown the George Bush card back on the table.”

“If you bring up his association with William Ayers or Rashid Khalidi it’s, ‘Oh boy, that’s off limits; you can’t do that,’ but they can prosecute a campaign with hundreds of millions of dollars with no accountability.”

Davis insisted that Obama has yet to be fully scrutinized because every person who has offered criticism of the candidate has not been fully heard before coming under fire from the campaign.

“You have to wonder what his version of America is going to look like when people who disagree with him get attacked over and over again,” Davis said.

Garlak wrote:How the hell do they get away with this shit? How do they get away with boasting about "Joe Plumber" and "small towns" and all that crap, while they screw over those same people in favor of the really rich??? And how can they cloud up the economic issue to he point that their "folksy" supporters don't realize they're being robbed, and believe that "spreading the wealth around a little bit" would be a BAD thing?

CarsonPalmer wrote:"I think we both know who we're talking about, Rick."

What the hell? He made it clear he had no idea what he was talking about, and managed to look like a smug asshole. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and slap him across the face.

CarsonPalmer wrote:"I think we both know who we're talking about, Rick."

What the hell? He made it clear he had no idea what he was talking about, and managed to look like a smug asshole. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and slap him across the face.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Has Jeremiah Wright actually made anti-Semitic comments?

I think he might have criticized Israel, which is exactly the same thing.

Gil Hamilton wrote:I think even alot of Republican pundits are throwing in the towel. Bill Kristol couldn't even keep a straight face when he claimed McCain was going to make a comeback, Ben Stein was not only saying that it was pretty grim, but was finding silver linings in McCain losing*, and even the true believers practically evoking miracles in order to McCain to take it.

(*he argument was that the Republican's NEED a firm decisive loss in order to get their shit together... and when you hear Ben Stein call Bush the most socialist president in US history and an Obama president can allow Republicans to roll their party all the way back to Eisenhower [ie. civil rights, no foreign adventures, distrust of corporations, et cetera] ... damn, though he still thinks McCain deserves to win because the Vietnamese spent a few years kicking his ass and that qualifies him to be president)

Samuel wrote:

I think he might have criticized Israel, which is exactly the same thing.

No it isn't. I think you misspoke.

Samuel wrote:

I think he might have criticized Israel, which is exactly the same thing.

No it isn't. I think you misspoke. It is often considered the same thing in some circles, but criticizing the state of Israel or implying there is a Jewish lobby that nearly controls policy towards said state isn't anti-semetic.

And I think your sarcasm detector needs a tune-up.

RedImperator wrote:

CarsonPalmer wrote:"I think we both know who we're talking about, Rick."

What the hell? He made it clear he had no idea what he was talking about, and managed to look like a smug asshole. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and slap him across the face.

Two possible explanations: either the campaign spokesmen are under orders to imply Reverend Wright without outright naming him, and Goldfarb sucks at it, or it's another case of "I didn't do my summer reading". Either way, he obviously wasn't expecting a follow-up question, which, to be fair, isn't an entirely unwarranted assumption on CNN.

Justforfun000 wrote:

And I think your sarcasm detector needs a tune-up.

I missed it myself. You are very good at it sometimes,

Patrick Degan wrote:If I had to guess, Goldfarb might have been trying to hint at the tired Obama/Farrakhan saw which got disposed of a long time ago, and he bungled that one badly.

I'm good at it nearly all the time, actually. Still, you'd think that someone would say, "Hey, wait a minute. If this guy thinks criticizing Israel is automatically antisemitic and is happy to flatly state it in N&P, how'd he manage to stick around for six years and get promoted to supermod? This is still Mike Wong's board, isn't it?" I mean, Jesus Christ.

Patrick Degan wrote:The poor Gimp. He might have avoided a lot of this if he had simply thought for a moment or two that winning the White House might be difficult if you surround yourself with stupid people on your campaign staff.