main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

2008 US Elections: Shake Hands and Come Out Fighting

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Kimball_Kinnison, Jul 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Blue_Jedi33

    Blue_Jedi33 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Well one last time I will post the polls with only three days left because so much early voting is going on. Not much will change in three days.


    http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html (Obama 353 ECV)


    http://www.intrade.com/ (Obama 339 ECV)


    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (Obama 350 ECV)


    http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (Obama 353 ECV)


    http://www.pollster.com/ (Obama 311 ECV)


    http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard (Obama 333 ECV)


    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/ (Obama 291 ECV)


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10 (Obama 353 ECV)


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm (They let you figure it out on your own)


    And for interest the Senate races
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Oct27-s.html


    Based on the Average of the polls I am locking in my guess for the election at 333 EVC for Obama. Whats yours?
     
  2. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Anybody think McCain's SNL appearance might dominate the news cycle for the next two days and get him a bump in the polls?

    It did before....

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  3. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    It's. Too. Late.
     
  4. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    You sure about that, Josh?

    The mainstream media excels at manufacturing momentum, and they love to serve up Obama's lead with a healthy, steaming cup of doubt. Also, McCain is down, and the drama of a "comeback upset" is too juicy a morsel for them to pass up.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  5. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I'm sure, Jay. Remember, probably 20% of the total votes to be cast have already been made. No amount of campaigning or comeback can work on them. Hundreds of thousands, maybe more, will be in line today, away from the news cycle to some extent (though some will be armed with media devices to keep them in touch). We're just too close to the election for McCain to make up the steep ground left to him. He's down almost 10 points in the registered voter Gallup poll, and five in the traditional voter model (up from two recently). He's up double digits in the ABC/WP poll from yesterday. He's doing well in Ohio, still ahead in Pennsylvania, doing great in Nevada, still ahead in Virginia, and so on.

    The numbers are damning for McCain. His 538 win percentage is at 2.8%, which is his worst of the campaign. The crucial number for Obama is 50, which is what he's polling at in a lot of state and national polls right now.
     
  6. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    And I suspect you're completely right about that. But the "Palin? She's ignorant" label seems to have struck a chord with some moderate Republicans/Republican-leaning independents, enough, in any case, to make a real difference on Tuesday. If the polls are right, that is.

    Sure, and I don't have an issue with your post. But compare the scale between these two sentiments:

    "I think Palin is unqualified at this point." vs "It's inexcusable that anyone would vote for her." (and not even for her, but to suggest that a vote for McCain is inexcusable by the mere fact that she is on the ticket in difference to any other issues that may apply)

    Inexcusable? The term itself suggests a finality that I don't think exists. Not everyone who challenges a mindset should be labeled as scum, or a traitor, or the worst of anything. It's simply the reverse of the sentiment that Obama has made no mistakes during his campaign. There is simply a difference in scale in someone acknowledging the mistakes that Obama has made, but accepting them, and suggesting that he has not made any at all.

    And rationally, under a fear mongered boogey man scenario, how far could Palin run rampant within a divided government? Or rather, how far should she run? If Pelosi's nightmare came true, and Palin tried to install a theocracy (which she wouldn't be able to, but let's say for the sake of discussion) Congress would have to get on board. If a opposition controlled Congress can't muster the backbone to act as an check and balance, then shame on it.
     
  7. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    44, your understandable pointing to the specifics of things ignores one small problem: George W. Bush. We've seen now what happens when an incompetent president comes into office. We'll never know, though, how it would have gone if 9-11 had never happened, and W been the ordinary, perhaps aimless president he appeared to be for much of 2000.

    We've also seen Democrats roll over, so count me and probably others as being unimpressed by that particular check. It's also not just what Palin would do, but what she wouldn't do, as much through ignorance as design.

    There is simply a difference in scale in someone acknowledging the mistakes that Obama has made, but accepting them, and suggesting that he has not made any at all.


    He's made no major mistakes, 44. That in itself is a huge accomplishment. Like every campaign, he's had some minor ones.
     
  8. Blue_Jedi33

    Blue_Jedi33 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2003
    [hl=black]Simulation Shows Obama Will Win[/hl]

    Brian Adams, a mathematics and computer science professor at Franklin & Marshall College, reports that there's a 99.98% chance that Sen. Barack Obama will win the presidential election on Tuesday.

    Adams has developed a simulation model that involves running 50 million simulated state-by-state races, using the late-October poll results for each state. He ran his simulation 50 million times to allow him to calculate all the different combinations of electoral votes that might result, even long shots. While the number of possible outcomes is very large, the result is always the same. Obama receives 270 or more electoral votes 99.98% of the time. Using intervals of electoral vote results, there is a 95 percent chance that the outcome will have Obama winning between 303 and 381 electoral votes.


    Interesting, maybe that's why some in the Obama camp are so confident.
    .02% odds are not good for McCain.
     
  9. gonzoforce

    gonzoforce Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 27, 2002
    and big deal if Obama's aunt is in the us illegally, this is a non issue. But I'm the Republicians will try to make something of it, since nothing else is working for them.

    it's too late I think, I don't think the McCain snl appearance will do anything.
     
  10. CylOWNED

    CylOWNED Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Do you live in DC? It sounds like you live in California, meaning your rights wouldn't have been affected by the Heller decision at all, regardless of who won. Also, Obama's really only likely to make appointments replacing people who voted with the minority in Heller, at least in his first term. In four more years it might be a different story.

    Your first amendment rights are already abridged too. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can't slander someone, you can't use fighting words. That doesn't mean you don't enjoy the full protection of the 1st Amendment.
     
  11. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    We've also seen Democrats roll over, so count me and probably others as being unimpressed by that particular check.

    Yes, but this is why it becomes important to look through the hype. Your overall rationale was used for the last midterm elections. When the public still cared about Iraq and it was politically beneficial for candidates to feign interest, a lot of democrats were swept into office as a "reaction against Bush."

    So what did the newly empowered- opposition majority controlled Congress do with regards to why they were elected?

    Absolutely nothing....think about that.

    Hey, is it too cynical to suggest that those same politicians simply used the issue du jour to get elected, and then once the "contest" was over, reality reared its ugly head? The midterms had that same populist feel to them, and many people, including quite a few here in the forum, just cared about getting a (D) by as many names as possible.

    To what end though? Even if Iraq ceased being a hotbed issue, how about any of the others? I mean, Bush is a lame-duck President who has the lowest approval rating in recent history, and an opposition party controlled Congress still can't remove it's collective head from its own anal cavity?

    I see the same mindset here, in the sense that it's very much a populist, contest-based atmosphere. I'd say that the "Just elect Obama and everything will be fine... view is about the most short-sighted anyone can hold. I have no doubt that there's going to be a huge party in Grant Park on election night. It's going to be electrifying, and magical, and inspirational-just like the campaign. As we saw with the midterms though, if people keep getting what they want, sooner or later, there won't be any more of the "other guys" left to blame.

    Because the sun is going to rise on Nov 5th, and while the hangover is still fresh, actual work is going to pile up in the in-box.

    EDIT: and this point:

    He's made no major mistakes, 44. That in itself is a huge accomplishment. Like every campaign, he's had some minor ones.

    I would suggest that this is as much as related to perception as anything. OWM already perfectly summed up my view here, but suffice to say that neither candidate has made actual "election ending" mistakes, and I still completely disagree with the "it's inexcusable" scale being used to judge the differences.
     
  12. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Because the sun is going to rise on Nov 5th, and while the hangover is still fresh, actual work is going to pile up in the in-box.


    That may be why Obama has people already working on those things behind the scenes.
     
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But realistically, both sets of candidates have people working behind the scenes, so the difference is nil here. Honestly, this is the area that perplexes me, because I'm not sure why you would post something so dismissive to one side. Obama isn't the first politician to run a campaign. As an example, way back in 2007, McCain's transition team was detailed by the WSJ. It was one of the reasons that McCain stood out for me.

    None of that changed just because McCain picked Palin, or Obama ended up dominating the realm of popularity. I'm sure Obama has a top notch team as well, but it's something that both share, it's not limited to one side.
     
  14. DorkmanScott

    DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Apparently last night, when talking to reporters, McCain referred to the Vietnamese as "g****."

    He's not even trying anymore. He claims he meant specifically his captors, but that's no excuse. That's like saying "I hate the n******" and then defending it with "I meant specifically the n****** running the Obama campaign." It's the 21st century, a leader and representative of the nation on the world stage should be be better than that.
     
  15. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    That is old news, because I remember reading a long time ago that he still uses racial slurs against the people who tortured him. That is one of the few things he deserves a pass on because of his POW time.

    In many ways I still lean Republican, and KW is right about the reasons I hate Palin, but I have to agree with KK on that using that type of language just demonstrates that you don't realize if you have different values, McCain could be a logical choice. I'm just thinking back to a lot of the endorsements of Obama I have read, and many of them recognized that McCain could have been an okay choice.
     
  16. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Yes, McCain by himself is a logical choice for many. I definitely recognize that. And in a world (famous voiceover goes here) where McCain chose Romney or Pawlenty, you couldn't really be so critical. It would be a bit more boring, perhaps, but sensible. I think "sensible" would have gotten McCain many more votes this time around. The trouble for McCain and a lot of otherwise Republican voters is that it isn't just him, and coupled with his age, a lot more attention than usual is on his running mate. He invested possibly the entire campaign in that charge of energy she provided, and it has come back to bite him.

    "Yes, that's true," goes the popular reply, "but he wouldn't be doing so well with evangelicals and conservatives in the party without her." That may well be the case, but if true, it shows again the inordinate amount of power and influence the religious right has, and why they either get thrown overboard (in terms of the levers of power in the party) or they will continue to lead the party on a path to marginalization. And I think there's an argument to be made that the base would have come home to John McCain no matter what.

    Back to the statistics: Hot off the press, Gallup shows no change in the registered voter count, staying flat at 52-41. Traditional voters now register at 51-41 (up one for Obama and down one for McCain since yesterday). I don't think I need to say what that means (if accurate) for John McCain on this first day of November.
     
  17. CylOWNED

    CylOWNED Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Sorry, but I just don't agree with this.

    I do understand why he or any POW would never, ever be able to forgive their torturers, and even why they would insist on, or continue to use racial slurs for the rest of their lives in connection with their trauma. I think we should give POWs generally "a pass" on patent racism against the people who tortured them.

    On the other hand, I don't think the President of the US should be someone with demonstrated and irreconcilable biases against an entire people based on his experiences. If a POW wants to be President, he should be the very special kind of person who is able to forgive those who tortured him, or at least get past the general racism accompanying the torture.
     
  18. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    KK

    Since it's virtually impossible (barring divine intervention) for the Republicans to seize control of Congress, the only way that we will get any sort of oversight is to maintain a divided government, an adversarial relationship between the branches.

    So, in the end, I held my nose and voted for McCain/Palin


    I have yet to find any major (or even semi-major) votes in which he didn't follow party lines. He's basically voted in lockstep with the Democratic leadership in Congress for the past 4 years. Why should I trust that he will suddenly grow a backbone and stand up to them once he's President?

    Did you vote for John Kerry in 2004 to balance a Republican Congress? If you scroll down on the Presidential Veto link that you gave, Bush didn't veto any legislation until July 2006.

    Mr44

    I still think people are taking their perception of Obama to new heights, many times in conflict with what Obama himself actually thinks.

    Possibly, but you said this in one way or another several times now, so I don't see the point of repeating it, especially considering this happens with most any candidate that is a 'star' for whatever reason. Palin herself is a 'star', and people project what they want on her. Same thing with people who come from political royalty and have at least a modicum of success (i.e. Hillary or W).

    It just comes back to the "footrace mindset" that some people just want to see Obama elected and 1)don't know why or 2)stop examining the issues as they may come up after the election itself is concluded. It's an alien concept to me, but I guess some things can't be rationally examined.

    It's not an alien concept to you, you voted for Bush twice yes?

    Let's be truthful here...most of us are going to vote one way or the other despite where the candidates 'stand' because generally speaking the ones that we vote for stand closer to us than the other on a variety of issues. Some of us may like our candidate more than others (i.e. I am not as big an Obama fan as many other Democrats) and may dislike the other candidate less than some others (I seem to despise Giuiani more than a lot of people, but not much more).

    So again, one could've predicted where most of us would've ended up...but that doesn't mean we can't have fun debating everything up until election day. Of course only to start over next Wednesday with a 2010 US Elections thread.



     
  19. Mastadge

    Mastadge Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 4, 1999
    Or have they:
    How many people have voted only to have it not record their votes?
     
  20. Leto II

    Leto II Jedi Padawan star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2000
    That prominent member of the Euro-leftie conspiracy, The Economist, [link=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12511171]has endorsed Obama:[/link]

    [blockquote][hr][...] So Mr Obama, in that respect, is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.[hr][/blockquote]
    Reading the entire piece gives one the impression that the editors are optimists at heart -- a strange attitude for practitioners of the "dismal science."

    [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004167.html]This particular article[/link] from the Washington Post, combined with this from FiveThirtyEight:

    [blockquote][hr]These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester's 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers -- by a mile -- than John McCain's 2006 presidential campaign.

    When Republican volunteers talk to us about how much enthusiasm and participation they notice in fellow volunteers, they mention how many people have come to pick up yard signs or bumper stickers. We haven't yet seen a single Republican canvasser. (The one in Cortez, CO was staged; she said canvassing is the kind of thing she would do, and we made a decision to do the picture because we were concerned with not presenting "balance." There is no balance in the facts.)

    When we attempted to visit the Republican HQ in Maryland Heights, Missouri, we saw a couple volunteers populating the office, and we were subsequently denied the opportunity to even speak to volunteers specifically selected so as to be "on message." By contrast, Obama's volunteers own such a piece of the campaign (Respect-Empower-Include) that the problem is they often have too much information, and when the campaign allows me to talk with them on the record I can ask a too-precise series of questions that result in publishing details the campaign later realizes it didn't want published.[hr][/blockquote]

    ...goes a long way toward making my mind more at ease with the overall state of the campaign in these final 72 hours.
     
  21. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    On the other hand, I don't think the President of the US should be someone with demonstrated and irreconcilable biases against an entire people based on his experiences. If a POW wants to be President, he should be the very special kind of person who is able to forgive those who tortured him, or at least get past the general racism accompanying the torture.

    If you want to apply that standard to your choice for President, fine. But while he might use some derogatory language, I haven't seen any evidence that he would try to nuke them or something. I don't really think it is a huge issue because the government that tortured him is still in a technical state of conflict with the nation and I don't see any evidence that him using those words will make him any more likely to use excessive force against North Korea. Frankly I hope Obama is wary of North Korea, they are still very dangerous.
     
  22. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    [link=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/hussein-chant-at-palin-rally/]John McCain, Not Hussein![/link]

    Thank God we only have a couple more days of this ridiculousness. How she can tolerate that going on at her rallies is just wrong. And the people see nothing wrong with it - they were proud to take credit for it.
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Sorry, but I just don't agree with this.

    I do understand why he or any POW would never, ever be able to forgive their torturers, and even why they would insist on, or continue to use racial slurs for the rest of their lives in connection with their trauma. I think we should give POWs generally "a pass" on patent racism against the people who tortured them. On the other hand, I don't think the President of the US should be someone with demonstrated and irreconcilable biases against an entire people based on his experiences....


    But Cylowned, the original post didn't include any links, so none of us can actually examine the statement or the context it was made in. Was this just a retelling of his previous use? A new situation? He very well could have used such a term as he's done so in the past, but I wouldn't react too strongly on the basis of an "apparently last night..." statement on its own.
     
  24. AaylaSecurOWNED

    AaylaSecurOWNED Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    I wasn't responding to that post, I was responding to the notion that we should "give McCain a pass" on racial slurs because of his time as a POW. I'd give the 'average' POW a pass on using racial slurs against their captors, but I wouldn't give any presidential candidate a pass on using any racial slurs for any reason.
     
  25. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Just curious;

    Are we gonna ignore the hypocrisy of Obama's Robin Hood act bouncing off the fact that his brother lives in a hut on 12 bucks a year and that his "Auntie" is living in a Boston slum as an illegal?

    I know I know...it has no bearing on how he'll...do...something or other. [face_tired]

    Or how about that his tax plan seems to have a shifting level for a definition of rich?

    I know I know...I'm just hateful and prolly unknowingly racist...[face_tired]

    Will we also ignore the way he (and much of the press) control the flow of information pertainate to his candidacy? Or that fact that much of the press has slung the mud for Obama, thus allowing him to run a "cleaner" campaign than McCain?

    Yes...I understand...it has nothing to do with the Presidency of The United States of America.[face_tired]

    Shall we be worried about how the press is so invested in his candidacy that they will even tear up a private citizen who only asks a question?

    Oooops, my bad...B. Hussein Obama has no control over the press. [face_tired]

    Can we, as well, ignore that anyone in the world can (and many have) donate to his campaign as his web site only checks the validity of the credit card number...not the accuracy of the name and address listed for the card?

    I get it...I'm just paranoid.[face_tired]

    Look, the fact is he's run a campaign that's no more or less sloppy than McCain. But the media glosses any and all issues that arise from BHO's campaign.

    Sure, they cover them. But they cover them from a,"Look at what the Republicans think! Can you believe how wrong they are?"[face_tired]

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.