There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.

http://surftofind.com/obama

On May 21, 9:01*pm, tobetbaa wrote:
There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.


####################################
http://surftofind.com/obama

Republicans are supporting Obama because they
have already planned their October Surprise.
According to Dick Morris, the plans are in the
works to bomb Iran in October, just before
the presidential election.

When that happens, they will merely destroy Obama`s
chances because Republicans are planning to put
him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
the way they did with Dukakis.

Don`t let it happen, if you love Obama, get him in the
White House as Hillary`s VP, that will thwart their
October Surprise, and if you fully want to understand
Obama's insurmountable barriers, study this
very, very carefully.

################################

If an October surprise is American political jargon describing a news
event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election,
particularly one for the presidency, while events shortly before the
election have greater potential to swing votes, but since the 1980
election, the term has been pre-emptively used to discredit late-
campaign news by one side or the other, then would such a tactic be
enough to make people change their minds that have been firmly made up
for many months? People might vote more for Obama since with the
terible shape of the economy and the consequences of the costs of war
so recently in the minds of the people, it would be more reasonable to
chose someone who will end the result of the surprise as quickly as
possible. As for trying to do the Dukakis routine, both parties will
be trying to do that to each other, whoever is running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

Posing as a marketing researcher, Brehm showed several women eight
different appliances (a toaster, an electric coffee maker, a sandwich
grill, and the like) and asked that they rate them in terms of how
attractive each appliance was. As a reward, each woman was told she
could have one of the appliances as a gift—and she was given a choice
between two of the products she had rated as being equally attractive.
After she chose one, it was wrapped up and given to her. Several
minutes later, she was asked to rate the products again. It was found
that after receiving the appliance of her choice, each woman rated the
attractiveness of that appliance somewhat higher and decreased the
rating of the appliance she had a chance to own but rejected. Again,
making a decision produces dissonance: Cognitions about any negative
aspects of the preferred object are dissonant with having chosen it,
and cognitions about the positive aspects of the unchosen object are
dissonant with not having chosen it. To reduce dissonance, people
cognitively spread apart the alternatives. That is, after making their
decision, the women in Brehm's study emphasized the positive
attributes of the appliance they decided to own while deemphasizing
its negative attributes; for the appliance they decided not to own,
they emphasized its negative attributes and deemphasized its positive
attributes.

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

On May 21, 9:23*pm, Immortalist wrote:
On May 21, 9:01*pm, tobetbaa wrote:

There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It
will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an
election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about
staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory
after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a
Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and
count all the votes.

####################################



http://surftofind.com/obama

Republicans are supporting Obama because they
have already planned their October Surprise.
According to Dick Morris, the plans are in the
works to bomb Iran in October, just before
the presidential election.

When that happens, they will merely destroy Obama`s
chances because Republicans are planning to put
him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
the way they did with Dukakis.

Don`t let it happen, if you love Obama, get him in the
White House as Hillary`s VP, that will thwart their
October Surprise, and if you fully want to understand
Obama's insurmountable barriers, study this
very, very carefully.

################################

If an October surprise is American political jargon describing a news
event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election,
particularly one for the presidency, while events shortly before the
election have greater potential to swing votes,

######################################

but since the 1980 election, the term has been pre-emptively used
to discredit late- campaign news by one side or the other,..

....Republicans are planning to put
him in a tank (rhetorically speaking) to ridicule him
the way they did with Dukakis.

In both cases, the innoculation effect would counter a surprise since
people would already be primed to what is happening and even the media
would play the similrities over and over so much, the tactic will be
useless.

...In an interesting field experiment, Alfred McAlister and his
colleagues inoculated seventh-grade students against existing peer
pressure to smoke cigarettes. For example, the students were shown
advertisements (popular at the time) implying that truly liberated
women are smokers—"You've come a long way, baby!" They were then
inoculated by being taught that a woman couldn't possibly be liberated
if she were hooked on nicotine. Similarly, because many teenagers
begin smoking, in part, because it seems "cool" or "tough" (like the
Marlboro man), peer pressure took the form of being called "chicken"
if one didn't smoke.

Accordingly, McAlister set up a situation to counteract that process;
the seventh graders role-played a situation in which they practiced
countering that argument by saying something like "I'd be a real
chicken if I smoked just to impress you." This inoculation against
peer pressure proved to be very effective. By the time the students
were in the ninth grade, they were half as likely to smoke as those in
a control group from a similar junior high school.

Sometimes it can be helpful to prepare another for the opposite so
that they have the ability to resit it with rational thinking.

The Social Animal
by Elliot Aronson
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-...dp/1429203161/

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/ino.htm
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/inocul.htm




...then would such a tactic be
enough to make people change their minds that have been firmly made up
for many months? People might vote more for Obama since with the
terible shape of the economy and the consequences of the costs of war
so recently in the minds of the people, it would be more reasonable to
chose someone who will end the result of the surprise as quickly as
possible. As for trying to do the Dukakis routine, both parties will
be trying to do that to each other, whoever is running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

Posing as a marketing researcher, Brehm showed several women eight
different appliances (a toaster, an electric coffee maker, a sandwich
grill, and the like) and asked that they rate them in terms of how
attractive each appliance was. As a reward, each woman was told she
could have one of the appliances as a gift—and she was given a choice
between two of the products she had rated as being equally attractive.
After she chose one, it was wrapped up and given to her. Several
minutes later, she was asked to rate the products again. It was found
that after receiving the appliance of her choice, each woman rated the
attractiveness of that appliance somewhat higher and decreased the
rating of the appliance she had a chance to own but rejected. Again,
making a decision produces dissonance: Cognitions about any negative
aspects of the preferred object are dissonant with having chosen it,
and cognitions about the positive aspects of the unchosen object are
dissonant with not having chosen it. To reduce dissonance, people
cognitively spread apart the alternatives. That is, after making their
decision, the women in Brehm's study emphasized the positive
attributes of the appliance they decided to own while deemphasizing
its negative attributes; for the appliance they decided not to own,
they emphasized its negative attributes and deemphasized its positive
attributes.

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/