comment #1

High Chaparral says ...

From electoral-vote.com:

"Among white women Obama/Biden is up 13 points over McCain/Palin in the past week."

comment #2

MathewM says ...

Why are all the liberals getting their panties tied up in knots over Palin? That bald british guy looked like a friggin nutcase (ass-urd?). I'm probably going to vote for Obama because I think he's better for the country at this time. The more bent out of shape you guys get over her the more attention you give her. Let it rest and let the chips fall as they may.

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Matthew M: The bald British guy is renowned blogger Andrew Sullivan, a very bright conservative who supports Obama. Read up on stuff every so often -- it helps,

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

comment #4

frankbooth says ...

"Why are all the liberals getting their panties tied up in knots over Palin?"

Anyone else getting the feeling that Mathew is another "Obama voter" in the vein of Buster?

Trollin' trollin' trollin', keep those doggies trollin'...

comment #5

moviesquad says ...

If only we could get Bill Clinton back. Why do we have such pathetic choices from both parties?

comment #6

MathewM says ...

Ok, so there are some conservatives who are riled up to. I'll reiterate my point: By getting riled up over Sarah Palin you're only giving her more attention. Meanwhile as long as she comes across as calm and collected she's going to look better. I personally have nothing against her. She's from Alaska and has her own set of beliefs-- some I agree with, others I don't. I don't exactly relate to her but I don't hate her. McCain isn't going to suddenly die come January. His mother is like 95 years old. Anyway as I said I'm leaning towards Obama. There are things I don't like about him (his flippant attitude towards abortion, his links with Rev. Wright and the Chicago political machine) but I also think he's run a good campaign and he offers more interesting policies than McCain.

comment #7

ROTC says ...

MathewM, you're a fool to say we should ignore the grotesque sham that is Sarah Palin and to repeat the utterly irresponsible, deceptively comforting Republican bullshit line that McCain's mother is still a fireball of energy at 95. How about the fact that McCain's father dropped dead of a heart attack at age 70 - two years younger than his son is right now, without all the debilitating war wounds and history of cancer - and Grandpa McCain keeled over at 63? It would be reckless for voters not to take a very hard look at the statistically significant possibility that McCain would not survive his term, and for the electorate to be especially concerned about a far-right and utterly incompetent Palin administration..

comment #8

George Prager says ...

Rose Kennedy lived to the age of 104!

comment #9

snackyx says ...

The actuarial tables show that for a white male of 72 years old with his history of cancer there is a one in four chance that he does not live another four years. 75% chance he finished the term, 25% we would have President Palin. Think long and hard about those numbers. Obama and McCain have been vetted for the last two years, she was vetted for a few days internally by the McCain campaign and has kept her distance from the press (with all due respect to Charlie Gibson). Her politics are to the right of Bush. She is Cheney in drag. Be afraid--be very afraid.

comment #10

btwnproductions says ...

There are many reasons not to vote for McCain-Palin, but his age, while a factor, shouldn't top the list. Bob Dole is still with us, years after his presidential run.

comment #11

buster says ...

Yes, anyone who pleads with other liberals to act civilly instead of like foaming, rabid animals must be a phony Obama supporter.

And yes I realize I'm guilty of going negative myself, but that's only after simple pleas for intellectual honesty got me labeled a conservative, republican troll.

All I have suggested is that Jeff and his commenters stop spending so much energy standing around in a giant circle of jerk of anger, and go out and stir up votes. God I'm an asshole.

comment #12

Ogami Itto says ...

One of Palin's spiritual advisors is a prominent African witch-hunter:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html

Oh, and apparently Palin's church believes that "Alaska will be the refuge for American evangelicals upon the coming End of Days."

Creepy.

comment #13

Chapman Carruthers says ...

All I have suggested [in language typically growled out by foaming, rabid animals] is that Jeff and his commenters stop spending so much energy standing around in a giant circle of jerk of anger, and go out and stir up votes. God I'm an asshole.

Question: Don't you think Wells can reach more people through this blog than he could standing around on some street corner twirling a sign in an attempt to convince the rabble to do something they probably won't do anyway? And isn't his skill set better suited for this?

comment #14

lazarus says ...

btwnproductions, yes Dole is still with us. But would he still be alive if he had served one or two terms as president? George W. Bush doesn't make the job look too tough, but I imagine it takes a toll on everyone else. Look at before and after pics of Bill Clinton. McCain is the kind of guy who looks like he doesn't deal too well with stress. I'd say the odds are VERY good that he wouldn't survive the first term, felled by cancer, a heart attack, whatever. Or, he slowly loses his mind while he's in office like Reagan and does even more damage.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

BTW, the director of Religulous is gonna be doin' a Q+A for the film @ the Aero and Arclight.

comment #16

MathewM says ...

"MathewM, you're a fool to say we should ignore the grotesque sham that is Sarah Palin and to repeat the utterly irresponsible, deceptively comforting Republican bullshit line that McCain's mother is still a fireball of energy at 95."

You know you can be condescending all you want towards my view but the bottom line is that I live in Missouri and we have been on the winning side of the past ten presidential elections. Right now McCain is ahead by a winning margin. However there are people like me who can swing the state in Obama's favor. People like yourself and many others on this blog make it difficult for me to want to be on your side. I suggest using persuasion instead of personal attacks to get your point across.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Mathew: "You know you can be condescending all you want towards my view but the bottom line is that I live in Missouri and we have been on the winning side of the past ten presidential elections. Right now McCain is ahead by a winning margin."

They'll change their minds as long as Bush keeps focusing on Wall Street, and not the damage from Ike.

comment #18

buster says ...

No, Caruth, I don't think having a website with 10,000 unique visitors a month is enough or even the best way to champion a cause when a) 99% of all visitors share or are predisposed to share your preference for candidate, and b) pro-candidate material is sparse while c) anti-competitor material is presented in a way that seems paranoid and obsessive and could easily be dismissed as compulsive, ineffectual, typical lefty passive-aggressive behavior by opponents and/or the 1% that might actually be influenced.

Do you know how hard it as a liberal to have a conversation with someone, always having to convince them you're NOT someone who fits the profile of the webmaster and average reader here?

Why do I stick around, then? I guess the question is why *have* I stuck around, because after finally realizing all of the rational people are loooong gone, there's no longer any reason to stick around.

comment #19

Chapman Carruthers says ...

>>>Do you know how hard it as a liberal to have a conversation with someone, always having to convince them you're NOT someone who fits the profile of the webmaster and average reader here?

Sure. Raised in what a number of magazines have anointed the second most conservative city in the US, after Provo, Utah. The sort of place that arrests the Chipendale dancers, only allows abstinence education in high school sex-ed classes, and wouldn't permit homosexual high school students to have an after hours club on the school grounds.

I definitely know where you're coming from, but I suggest, for the sake of your sanity, you give up your efforts to convert anyone who claims to be a conservative. Outside of the select few that adhere to the party principles because they really and truly believe in the group's underlying economic philosophy, or are dog-shit ignorant, most wear the pin, and wear it proudly, because they view the D's as far too gay, too black, too hedonistic, too emotive, too ... well, filthy. It's a lost cause, my friend.

Fuck it. Keep the good stuff coming. At least the folks on this board say it outright instead of latently.

comment #20

ROTC says ...

"You know you can be condescending all you want towards my view..."

I don't see where I was being the least bit condescending towards your views. Rather, I was saying in pointed, factual terms that your views are rooted in utter bullshit.

comment #21

Michael says ...

McCain is the kind of guy who looks like he doesn't deal too well with stress.

I wouldn't suggest Obama use this on the campaign trail...may backfire, or something.

comment #22

MathewM says ...

"I don't see where I was being the least bit condescending towards your views. Rather, I was saying in pointed, factual terms that your views are rooted in utter bullshit."

You still don't get it. Calling someone a fool and saying their views are rooted in utter bullshit because you disagree with them is not going to get you anywhere in a debate. You lose.

comment #23

ROTC says ...

No, MathewM, you're the one who doesn't get it. Saying, for example, that voters need not be concerned about McCain's age (and a resulting Palin presidency) because his mother is still around at age 95 is the kind of delusional claptrap that needs to be called out for what it is: the worst kind of disingenuous, malinformed horseshit. If you want to live in a fog of unperturbed complacency, that's fine. Just don't piss in our ears and tell us that it's raining.

And this is not a formal debate. I recommend that you deal with the pertinent facts and stop reciting Robert's Rules of Order. The right wing has made plenty of headway in this country via its bellowing surrogates (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al). So please don't tell us that a jolting confrontational approach cannot work to swing states like Missouri toward Obama.

comment #24

MathewM says ...

So you're saying it is indeed a fact that McCain will die within his presidency and that Sarah Palin will start WW3.

Actually a confrontational tone rarely works as it only creates a thicker resilience.

comment #25

ROTC says ...

No, MatthewM, it is not a fact that McCain will die within his presidency. It is a fact that there is a well-above-average likelihood that he will die within his presidency. Therefore, contrary to your assertions at the top of this page, voters need to take a good, hard look at the resulting fact that a victory for McCain would result in the well-above-average likelihood that Sarah Palin would become President of the United States within the next four years. And to those of us who legitimately think she is a dangerously inexperienced twit, that is something to get very riled up about.

Finally, if you are so committed to your baseless grade-school belief that a confrontational tone only creates a thicker resilience, please explain why all the boisterous, viral, assaultive lies and accusations propagated by the McCain/Palin campaign have resulted in such a dramatic surge for them in the polls. The truth is that we Democrats always lose when we appear too weak to lead. We have to stop simply defending our party's and candidates' positions and instead also be prepared to launch attacks against our opposition. And it's clear that we can no longer afford to arm ourselves with little more than our wisdom, facts and ideas when the opposition has engaged us in a bloody knife fight. Like it or not, that is the current state of democracy in action.

comment #26

Joel says ...

I like Andrew Sullivan and enjoyed when he took Maher to task for his religious comments. Maher does need to tone that down, IMO. Sullivan's also been all over this Palin thing, and I've been reading his blog more than ever now.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Joel: "I like Andrew Sullivan and enjoyed when he took Maher to task for his religious comments. Maher does need to tone that down, IMO."

You're right. Maher should show some restraint, and blame 9/11on homosexuals like Falwell.

comment #28

Gandhee says ...

Snackyx: "The actuarial tables show that for a white male of 72 years old with his history of cancer there is a one in four chance that he does not live another four years. 75% chance he finished the term, 25% we would have President Palin. Think long and hard about those numbers."

I've perused these forums since they've opened, and the above comment compelled me to create an account to reply. As an Actuary, I can attest that the above numbers are utter crap. A 72 year-old male, who is a chain-smoker and has a history or heart problems, still has a 14% chance to live the next four years. John McCain would likely be qualify for the top underwriting quest (for his age) and would have access to the top medical screening and care, so his mortality rate over the next four years would be 1-2% tops.

Actuaries have worked hard for their reputation, please do not sully their profession, by making up numbers or parroting Matt Damon.

comment #29

ROTC says ...

Gandhee: You are not the least bit credible.

No sane person is going to believe for a nanosecond that a multiple cancer survivor whose father and grandfather died younger than his own current age would "qualify for the top underwriting quest (for his age)" or that "his mortality rate over the next four years would be 1-2% tops." As someone who has spent quite a bit of time recently with his parents in a very upscale, privileged senior community, your statistics don't even come close to conforming with anything I've seen or been told by doctors. Nice try, faker.

comment #30

Gandhee says ...

I'm not credible? This is coming from someone who argues my point on the merits that "he hangs around old people?" So tell me, during your discussions with all of these doctors about John McCain and people of a similar risk set (because I'm assuming all of these doctors you've talked to are intimately familiar with his medical chart), do they just blurt out, "ah he's got about a 1 in 3 chance of making it four years;" to which you reply, "that is exactly what People's sexiest man alive said. It must be true." Or do you have to coax em, "C'mon, but his dad died in his 60s?" Or maybe, just possibly, you have not had this conversation with doctors about somebody who is not yourself or an immediate family member? It is far more asinine to believe that 1 in 3 or 4 of people 72 years old with his medical history will not be around in four years. I know, I know, you hang around old people. How can I refute that.

I merely took the mortality table from the CDC study of white males aged 72, made a few calculations (1 – death in first yr – survival in 1st yr, death in 2nd yr – survival in 1st 2 yrs, death in 3rd yr – survival in 1st 3yrs, death in 4th yr); made some adjustments because he is not a smoker, he is not senile, and besides overcoming cancer, seems to be in remarkable health for a 72 year old. As I mentioned earlier, his wealth does permit him to have access to the best care a lot of others of his ilk do not have.

But again, I have not assimilated into a "very upscale, privileged senior community" so all that math and science I've learned about is for "non-believers" much like trying to argue evolution versus creationism, facts are useless when one side won't listen to them because of their belief. When you state "there is a well-above-average likelihood that he will die within his presidency" you are basing that on something akin to faith. I'm just stating the probability is not that high.

So you say I'm not the least bit credible, I have math and science on my side, what do you have besides spending time with the elderly and made up conversations with doctors? So flame this post all you want, it won't be worthy of a response because you are so far out of your element. You know nothing about mortality rates, you have not spent thousands of hours studying life contingencies, and you wouldn't know the first thing to do with an Actuarial table.

The only point of my post was that this 1 in 3 or 4 number that is being thrown around is crap. Go ahead and debate whether Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency is something to be concerned about, her legitiimacy should be debated even if McCain was 45.

comment #31

ROTC says ...

Gandhee, maybe if you spent some time with flesh-and-blood people instead of burying your head for thousands of hours in actuarial tables you'd comprehend how foolish you sound. Needless to say, those who are of McCain's post-legal-retirement age are typically in varying degrees of often rapidly declining health. It's not just about his survival but whether McCain will become physically incapacitated or will remain mentally competent while in office. So you may (or may not) have math and science on your side, but your statistics hardly provide even the slightest credible reason for every voter not to be immensely concerned that we could be not just a heartbeat but one broken hip away from a Palin administration.

comment #32

ROTC says ...

BTW, Gandhee, according to an article I just read in a recent issue of Time magazine, the average life expectancy for American men is 75.2. If so, your claim that there is a mere 1-2% chance that McCain would die in office seems to be patently absurd, even with the best medical care.

comment #33

Gandhee says ...

ROTC: BTW, Gandhee, according to an article I just read in a recent issue of Time magazine, the average life expectancy for American men is 75.2. If so, your claim that there is a mere 1-2% chance that McCain would die in office seems to be patently absurd, even with the best medical care.

So what did the article say the life expectancy is for someone who is already aged 72? What? It didn't say anything about that? According to your "Time Magazine Analysis", a 75 year old can only expect to live another couple of months, what about a 76 year old, are they already dead?

I understand, ROTC, that you really really want your quibble to be true, but it's not. You say I sound absurd, but you are basing your opinions on gut feel, Time magazine, and pretend conversations with doctors. For you it's a matter of faith, and I know I'll never convince you of that.

My favorite part of your post was how you say I didn't provide even the slightest credible reason for every voter not to immensely concerned that we could be a heartbeat away from a Palin administration. When my last paragraph stated we SHOULD be concerned about that, but not because he's got a 1 in 3 chance of dying--that's bunk.

Of course, you totally ignored that, and tried to find something to attack. You should go into politics, with your waffling, ignoring the truth, and only focusing on parts of people's statements. I'm sure both sides would take you. Not once have you shown any interest in your truth, you could have said, "Hey, I may have been mistaken, where can I learn more?" Instead, you just called it absurd because it didn't agree with you, and you thought it would be more beneficial to quote Time Magazine, and my personal favorite: pretended to have conversations with doctors about John McCain's life expectancy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You're not interested in facts or truth, you just want people to agree with you.

comment #34

ROTC says ...

Gandhee:

1. Nowhere did I ever claim "to have conversations with doctors about John McCain's life expectancy." I said I've been dealing with senior-citizen issues on my home front, and that the numbers you've cited don't even remotely conform with what I've personally seen or been told by doctors about the population of people who are McCain's age.

2. If you don't recognize how inherently preposterous your claim appears to be that 72-year-old McCain (with his record of multiple cancer episodes, severe wartime injuries, and a family history on his father's side of death at approximately age 70) would only have a seemingly inconsequential 1-2% chance of dying during a phenomenally stressful 4-year term when it is established that the majority of American males don't live to see their 76th birthday, then I'm certainly not the one here ignoring the truth, facts, statistics and self-evident realities. (And yes, I'll trust Time magazine's figures over your anonymously suspicious ones, thank you very much.)

3. Even if one was to accept your (unsubstantiated) actuarial figures, they remain rooted in McCain's mere survival, conveniently sidestepping the very realistic possibility of his incapacitation from the endless number of crippling illnesses that routinely strike people his age - which would have the same constitutional Palin effect as his death.

In a nutshell, despite your professed training, you seem to be incapable of taking the available facts and coming to the most logical and relevant predictive conclusions. You claim to have "perused these forums since they've opened, and the above comment compelled me to create an account to reply." So it took you how many years to crawl out from that actuarial rock you've been hiding under? Sounds to me like you are the very kind of planted troll Jeff has been trying to eliminate from this site. Please slither back to where you came from.

comment #35

Gandhee says ...

ROTC, do you realize the more you write the more your ignorance is demonstrated? I quiver at the idea of how filled with hate you must be. Instead of saying how things don't make sense to you, you attack with "YOU"RE WRONG YOU"RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG."

1) "Nowhere did I ever claim "to have conversations with doctors about John McCain's life expectancy."

"your statistics don't even come close to conforming with anything I've seen or been told by doctors"

So why did you even mention that you're talking to doctors? You mentioned this to try to give your argument weight, but it backfired because it's just ridiculous to think you actually had these conversations and that it pertained at all to McCain.

2) If my claim is absolutely preposterous, why have doctors given him a clean bill of health? Did they not take his cancer into consideration? Did they not know about his war wounds? Evidently your prognosis is superior to theirs.

Aside: Time magazine's statistic is reasonable for life expectancy, but that considers everybody at any age. Someone who has already reached his 72nd birthday has a significantly higher expectation than 75.2. It's simple math.

3) You're right, there is no way I can substantiate my actuarial figures, especially without publishing an actuarial table which I do not intend to do. However, there are actuarial tables out there, so you can do some research and try to prove otherwise. As far as you've demonstrated your source for McCain having a 1 in 3 chance of dying is Matt Damon. So I challenge you to find any support to your 1 in 3 odds. If you can find it (which you can't), we could have a civilized discussion, but all you've provided is conjecture.

I will concede you one point, I only calculated probablilty of dying, I did not calculate the possibility of incapacitation of any sort. However the tables do not account for that. But, that was not the reason I originally posted, I was debunking the 1 in 3 number for mortality. You stated he will have a well above average likelihood of dying, which he will not (unless you're comparing to Obama, then yes it is more likely for McCain to pass then Obama), but it is still not likely he will die in the next four years. I didn't question anything else.

So here are the facts
1) 72 year old white male non-smoker
2) Doctors gave him a clean bill of health after a FULL examination.
3) Able to receive the best medical care.
What facts am I ignoring, except that you're so filled with hatred toward the right, that you can't think clearly? You say he has a 1 in 3 or 4 chance of dying. I say that's way off.

Finally, (and I say finally because I won't reply unless you have some actual facts because it is impossible to argue against religion, besides we're probably the only two on this thread anymore) are you insinuating that since I haven't replied to this internet blog that makes me a social outcast? Isn't that kind of oxymoronic? It seems odd to you that someone would only post when they see a statistic that they know to be false? That they have followed this column for years through all of it's manifestations for mainly the movies sections. Do you even read what you write before you click post?

I will leave you with this doozie:

"No, MathewM, you're the one who doesn't get it. Saying, for example, that voters need not be concerned about McCain's age (and a resulting Palin presidency) because his mother is still around at age 95 is the kind of delusional claptrap that needs to be called out for what it is: the worst kind of disingenuous, malinformed horseshit. If you want to live in a fog of unperturbed complacency, that's fine. Just don't piss in our ears and tell us that it's raining."

ROTC, you are now the one perpetrating the worst kind of disengenuous, malinformed, horseshit. If you wish to live in a fog of unperturbed complacency that's fine with me. ROTC, just research it, you can get an actuarial table from any college library, it will be outdated, but even those numbers with no adjustments will come nowhere near the statistics you want to believe.

comment #36

ROTC says ...

I'm sorry, Gandhee, but there was no sense to be made of that incoherent rant you just posted. What is clear is that you are intent on perpetuating the lie that an objectively elderly man like McCain has a fantastically low 1-2% risk of death or incapacitation over the next four years (not to mention how you've knowingly misattributed to me statements, sources and figures proffered by other posters on this page). Fine. I will waste no further time debunking such lowly, disreputable lunacy. But by all means, please continue. I'm sure you are right that by now most if not all of the readership has long since left this page. As it should be, you are now alone with your worthless, recklessly irresponsible ramblings.

comment #37

Gandhee says ...

I figured you'd never come back with facts since you cannot support any of your wild claims; and I never misquoted you as you just misquoted me. Continue on in your ignorant little world, and the next time you argue about the idiocy of creationism versus scientific fact, I hope you appreciate the irony.

The odd thing is we're on the same side about concerns of a Palin administration, you just couldn't get beyond your seething hatred and natural ignorance. I hope you have some semblence of rational thought in your next debate.

So long.

comment #38

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of cluster high availability