Aks Kstat or if he never Comes back Mxy will answer

I'm not either but I'm going to answer...throw the yellow flag. :)

It is flawed logic. But Joe's poll numbers aren't the determining factor on whether Biden gets in. So they are pretty much meaningless as long as he is in the ballpark with polling with support, which he is. I think its a little personal but he could be pushed in by the Dem Party big wigs, imo.

And if he gets in, he will instantly pull support from both. If he wins Iowa, watch out.

There will be a small percentage that won't ever leave Bernie and a few dipshits that won't leave Hillary but he will get the entire Dem machine behind him and breeze to the nomination.

NTAGAS

Another Q for Mxy, 'cause you seem to keep up with science news: Is there a study somewhere that says that medicine commercials are more effective if they abbreviate the name of the malady in question? Because it seems like every drug ad uses a shortened name for the disease (low-T/OAB/OIC/etc.) and it bugs me a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Oobir

Another Q for Mxy, 'cause you seem to keep up with science news: Is there a study somewhere that says that medicine commercials are more effective if they abbreviate the name of the malady in question? Because it seems like every drug ad uses a shortened name for the disease (low-T/OAB/OIC/etc.) and it bugs me a little.

The study of money suggests that "low T" led to a whole lot more testosterone than "andropause", which was the name in the 90s before Solvay figured out a way to push more AndroGel (an estrogen blocker, not really a direct testosterone injection -- shh). The real question here -- is "low T" (as distinct from virtually "no T" since birth) even a "disease", any more so than aging as a whole is? Likewise, are most instances of over-active bladder really a "disease" or symptomatic of some other problem (diabetes, diuretics)? Same for "ED". I think the assertion that these fad acronyms are "diseases" deserves reflection. I like your initial word "malady" a lot better, since it gets at the heart of what a lot of drug pushers are going after. Of course, it's hard to get insurance to cover a malady like "my bitchy wife is unattractive to me, so Mr. Happy isn't coming out", so it has to be disease-ified.

Fuck, I don't even know what OIC is (Google suggest constipation), so whatever they're doing to market it isn't working on me.

Not sure it's exactly an answer... it's what I have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glantland

Kstat/Mxy,

Have a question for you two. Pundits on both sides of the aisle, over the past few days, have pointed to Biden's numbers in recent polls as a sign that he should NOT get in, e.g. "If he's only getting 22% right now and he hasn't even taken any shots yet from opponents, how can he possibly think he can win?"

My question is, isn't that terribly flawed logic? How can you accurately the assess the support for a candidate using polls that are taken when the candidate hasn't even declared? In other words, how many people in these polls are choosing Hillary or Bernie because they don't (yet?) view Biden as a viable or even ELIGIBLE option?

I don't hear anyone discussing this, so I'm wondering if I'm just overlooking something here.

Most of the pundit class falls apart in the face of common sense.

Clearly, Joe Biden's not running. You don't need two hands and a flashlight to see this, unless you're a moron talking head. He's raised no money. He didn't have the pet projects that a VP angling for Prez does (Bush Sr's "war on drugs", Gore the eco-warrior). He's expressed about as much doubt as a sitting VP can, keeping in mind that Obama could die tomorrow and Biden's next in line. The polls reflect that ambivalence as much as anything. They're mostly to show how weak Hillary is. Apart from disassembling Giuliani, he wasn't a good candidate the first two times he ran for POTUS. So, what's the point?

Enough words...

All good points, but... I just remember him being interviewed back before Obama selected him and he repeatedly said "I will not accept the VP role if it is offered". He said it straight out, point blank, repeatedly.

Ultimately he said that when your country calls you to duty, you cannot refuse.

Here's the piece that Heilemann was teasing on Face the Nation yesterday

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...new-york-swing

Will I love the way you mock tonight's draft?

Hasheem Thabeet. Never forget.