Light at the end of the tunnel: The 2008 Election, its aftermath and the future

The general election in under 2 minutes:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_presidential_campaign_in_9955.php

 

DK, I have my own question for you: How closely does the possible rout, if there is one, resemble the Tories in 1997?

 

Namesake and part owner of Cooper Firearms asked to resign for supporting Obama

 

It's a combination of the accumulated legacy of George Bush and the onset of the economic crisis. The likelihood even before the financial crisis was a rout for the party, but someone like Romney would have been a far better choice given the events of September and October. That's a bit more than bad luck because I think pretty much everyone knew where the real estate crisis was heading.

The idea that someone like Sarah Palin represents the future of the party is absurd. If the economy is still struggling four years from now, the Republicans will have to nominate someone who can offer a sensible alternative to whatever it is the democrats will have done to impede economic recovery. I just can't imagine Sarah Palin being a leader who will ever be able to do that.

 

I haven't seen the sign in question, but I think I can make an educated guess. The sign was designed to link Obama's name with a culture that is currently being villainized as anti-American and supportive of terrorism. It's designed to play on the fears of "God-fearing (a.k.a. Christian) Americans" (as well as the part of the conservative base that was suckered into thinking patently false ideas about Obama: e.g., ties to terrorism, closet Muslim, etc.). That's why it fits the "hate speech" criteria, but it is being covert about it.

EDIT:

It's a veiled insinuation much akin to J-Rod's recurrent "B. Hussein Obama" references: covert hate speech.

 

I think much of the Republican base needs a main enemy. It needs it in an almost (or not so almost) primal way. I think a lot of people of all persuasions do, but I think it's a common element throughout the conservative base. When the Soviet Union fell, it was a blow to those who saw the world in a black and white dichotomy, with them on the side of good and communists on the side of evil. Today, it's Muslims and Arabs (and the two are most assuredly not the same thing) who occupy that role, sometimes foolishly blended into one group called "terrorists."

 

I would argue that 'hate speech' is political speech.

 

Ok, but if we really want to continue this discussion we should move it into a first amendment thread, if someone feels like starting a new one or dredging up an old one.

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth. All I did was comment that I was surprised that you commented on the sign owner's acts being disgusting, but were silent on the police's acts.

As you say above, you didn't comment on the police's actions. I simply commented on the fact that you didn't comment.

At the same time, look at how the reports framed it. In the original source video, it specifically said that they would respond to things that "violate Missouri's ethics laws". When you combine that with the fact that such things were coming from prosecutors and sheriffs, it at the very least creates the impression of attempted intimidation. Similarly, with respect to Vaderize's story, we don't know whether the police were politically motivated, but it at least can create the appearance of it.

Answer me honestly, if a group of prosecutors and sheriffs were to say that they would respond to any statements about McCain that they thought were untrue, or violated ethics laws, wouldn't you be at least a little concerned that they were abusing their positions and authority? If the police asked someone to remove a sign supporting Obama, and insinuated that leaving it up would be a criminal offense, wouldn't you be worried, and question their behavior?

Kimball Kinnison

 

As the day grows closer, I hear more and more people who either have had someone say to them -- or have said themselves -- "I've always voted Republican, everyone in my family votes Republican, and I say I'm voting for McCain because I don't want to hear it, but I'm voting for Obama."

Does anyone think we might see a reverse Bradley Effect on Nov. 4? People who told pollsters and each other that they were voting McCain, but in the booth will hold their nose and "vote for the ******"?

Language needs to be fully starred out

 

KK

But that's the fault of the reporter/producer for how they presented the story. Personally, I think he/she was looking to incite controversy to get attention (ratings) and presented the story as such with various innuendo, etc.* Again, so far as I can tell, there is nothing that says they will arrest anyone.

To answer your questions...I don't trust the news because they focus on infotainment and controversy just to boost ratings. As the second article states, McCain has a DA and state AG on his 'truth squads' and this doesn't bother me. I trust them to be able to separate their professional responsibilities with their political beliefs.

If someone asked to remove a sign supporting Obama (or McCain) of course I'd be concerned. But I don't think that is the question, rather whether or not the sign in question would incite a riot. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the following court case, or perhaps you are slipping in your old age :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

*If you watch South Park, I refer you to the episode where the kids host a news show called 'Sexy Action News' and mock modern news shows, primarily the sensationalism and so-called investigative news.

 

I hear you, this could very well be happening, I have been watching the line ups in early voting they look like Obama voters mostly young and of color.

I had a post like this deleted in another forum, a quote from someone who is a conservative Republican who after seeing what McCain & Palin have done or have not done, say.

"**** it, I am voting for the ******"
If this is the reaction McCain has picked up from prejudiced voters he will lose in a massive landslide like we haven't seen since Reagan. Indeed the polls will have been wrong, but not for McCain, but for Obama.

Now do we laugh or cry at someone who says this?
And how many people want to be, on what is clearly going to be the winning side of history, on a historic day in American politics?

Has ANYBODY on a national level ever overcome a 10 point deficit just before election day?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_takes_largest_lead_in_Gallup_1101.html

From CNN
Leslie Sanchez, Republican Strategist: If John McCain is within four points of Obama in the final polls, there?s a chance for a McCain win.

Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist: Obama wins with 318 electoral votes, which he gains by carrying Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. McCain wins Ohio and North Carolina.

Ed Rollins, Republican Strategist: Obama wins with 352 electoral votes, including Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.

Interesting their own people are calling it for Obama now.

All profanity needs to be fully starred out

 

If as I expect it becomes a total rout* it will match the scale of the tories 1997 defeat. The circumstances are different in many ways although a degree of arrogance in the ruling party will be common to both cases.

* = When I say rout I am talking about the congressional elections. While I am almost certain of an Obama victory It could be as little as a 3-5 point gap nationally. McCain will out perform his party by some margin. He may have fought a poor campaign but he was still a far better pick for the GOP than any of the serious alternatives.

 

At the same time, look at how the reports framed it. In the original source video, it specifically said that they would respond to things that "violate Missouri's ethics laws". When you combine that with the fact that such things were coming from prosecutors and sheriffs, it at the very least creates the impression of attempted intimidation. Similarly, with respect to Vaderize's story, we don't know whether the police were politically motivated, but it at least can create the appearance of it.

Answer me honestly, if a group of prosecutors and sheriffs were to say that they would respond to any statements about McCain that they thought were untrue, or violated ethics laws, wouldn't you be at least a little concerned that they were abusing their positions and authority? If the police asked someone to remove a sign supporting Obama, and insinuated that leaving it up would be a criminal offense, wouldn't you be worried, and question their behavior?

Flag on the play, Kimball. That's pre-supposition on both the spirit of the law enforcement officials, and how those those not targeted by the statements felt.

 

On Hardball just now, it was reported that USA Today and CBS/NYTimes both have double digit leads for Obama, as does the ABC/Washington Post poll (54-43) for today.

These are just national polls, of course, and not the all-important state ones, but Obama is clearly in a relatively commanding position right now.

 

nm wrong thread.

 

The hatred coming from the Republican Party at this point honestly frightens me. I'm scared to see what actions some of them will take in the coming years unless they wake up. While hatred comes from both political parties, and all walks of political life, the personal hatred that many conservatives are displaying against Obama at this point terrifies me. While I am opposed to John McCain, I hate his politics - not the man on a personal level. I can't say this is true for many of my conservative friends. I have heard more than a handful call him derogatory names on more than one occasion and other actions. They aren't even attacking his politics at this point - but him as a person. When I try to discuss his policy proposals, ideology, and beliefs, they bring it back to an argument on his character - and while that has room in the political arena, it isn't even about his judgment or personality, but just about him as a person (the n word, terrorist, atheist, hates his country, etc). I've heard claims that he'll divide the country worse than the Civil War, start racial riots, allow terrorists into the country, take away their guns, force abortion - I've heard it all, and the hatred that most of my conservative friends hold toward him is absolutely frightening. I can't even say I support him without being called a communist, traitor, or **** I thought the Republicans attacked Clinton unfairly in the '90s, I'm worried to see what they will do with an Obama Administration. Hopefully their party can be put on the right track and this country can heal and start over again after the Bush Administration, but something about their rising hatred for liberals, especially Barack Obama, worries me.

 

I can't even say I support him without being called a communist, traitor, or **** I thought the Republicans attacked Clinton unfairly in the '90s, I'm worried to see what they will do with an Obama Administration.

Don't take that crap from them. If all it took was Barak Obama running a good campaign for the n-word to start rearing it's head, then that tells you something about what they always were, wouldn't it?

... something about them only ever being as good as the world allowed them to be, I imagine (God, I love that line).

 

Don't take that crap from them.

Uh, but unless you've been hiding under a rock for the past 8 years, this isn't a phenomenon limited to one party. If Shinjo is concerned about hatred, I can think of dozens and dozens of starred out, profanity-ridden diatribes directed at the current President that have been posted on the board.

I can also think of at least 2 instances were well known, regular members here in this specific forum posted 1)about bringing forth bloodshed to republicans with a baseball bat, and 2)indicated that they would assassinate the current President. (The second one was stopped due to potential legal concerns.) On a slightly less hate-based scale, I can also think of 3 people here who said that they would flee the country if McCain was elected.

If one were to also mention fear mongering, just today there was a post that ranted about re-instituting the draft, which I thought was a topic that has long been debunked. (Beyond the obvious resource based reasons, the only draft proposal was authored by Charles Rangel (D-NY) and John Murtha (D-PA), both democratic party Congressmen, but it was shot down.)

EXAMPLE

If we're being stereotypical- then perhaps the GOP needs an external enemy, while the democratic party needs an internal enemy that is just as strong. Both parties have their boogeymen, and I'm not sure feigned outrage really works here.

 

Except, 44, that research is showing that there are true physiological differences between those who call themselves conservative and those who call themselves liberal. Liberals, for example, tend not to have much of a fear response to various stimuli that cause conservatives to exhibit classic signs of fear. Read more here.

On a slightly less hate-based scale, I can also think of 3 people here who said that they would flee the country if McCain was elected.

If you're counting me, I specifically said that I thought it would be worth investigating, or something along those lines, for reasons I've already outlined before. You consistently label it as some sort of irrational position to take, never stopping to take into account the possibility that yes, it might be worthwhile to some people to pursue or at least look into.

 

I'm sorry, but a non-peer reviewed study that focuses on a handful of subjects does not proof make, besides I suppose if you want it to support your own conclusion.

What I'm seeing is simply the consequence of the cycle of hatred. I've been rallying against this mindset since at least the 2004 elections. The only thing I've always posted is that personally, I respect the office, no matter who holds it, even if I disagree with them. There are those who share that view.-DS77 comes to mind, but he's certainly not the extent.

But there are those, yourself included, who always seemed to dismiss my outlook. How many times have you replied to me with a variation of " There's no room to compromise, I'm sorry 44, Bush deserves nothing but scorn..." or "Look 44, the GOP has earned the hatred directed at it." So many times I've stopped counting. And yes, you were one who said that you would leave if McCain was elected. That sentiment might not be hatred, but it's certainly not rational. Now, to be fair, I can't recall you ever claiming that you'd hurt the President or those of the opposite party, but plenty of others have, including some in this forum. While they have varying motivations and degrees of seriousness, such sentiments certainly fall under the blanket heading of "needing an enemy."

But it's so ironic that those who now act shocked at displays of hatred for the candidate they support also put forth the same type of hatred that is suddenly so shocking. I'd say hatred of this type should be reduced in society overall, but it's certainly not limited to one ideology as it applies to politics.

 

You reap what you sow, 44. The GOP has sown a ton of discontent and negativity over the past eight years (and beyond, really). The GOP wins elections based in no small part on division and hatred. That's hardly just my view, and I think you know that.

If you honestly believe that Democrats stoop to the same level as the GOP has over the years, I don't know what to tell you. I think you're wrong, and we can just agree to disagree.

While they have varying motivations and degrees of seriousness, such sentiments certainly fall under the blanket heading of "needing an enemy."

Not really. Many of us (including me) would be perfectly fine without an enemy or someone to dislike. I think many Republicans physically need an enemy of some kind, someone to direct their negative energy toward. Isn't it interesting that since the fall of the Soviet Union, that period of time almost perfectly coincides with the reignition of the culture wars? Conservatives needed new (or old) enemies to hate.

 

Well, I don't even know how to respond to that. Just go review the last election thread, and the majority of discontent and negativity has been based on the opposite of what you're claiming.

If you're talking about those beyond the forum, I don't don't know. I guess I'd need specifics. I don't think Russ Feingold has appeared in public without being red faced, yelling, and angry since he was elected in 1993. Waxman? Kennedy? The just mentioned Rangel?

You just seem so concerned with casting blame when examples like this can be found in both parties. Such criticism can be applied inward just as easily as outward.

 

There's blame to go around on both sides, 44. The mistake you seem hellbent on making is to equivocate between the two sides (or any side, really). Just because everyone's over the line doesn't mean that a little over the line is the same as being so far over that you can't see it anymore.

 

The problem just escalates if it becomes a tit-for-tat. I can't stress enough how important it will be if Obama wins for him to appoint a few Republicans to important positions as well as to be certain to include Republicans in deliberations, etc. He is promising change, this will go a long way to delivering it.

If McCain were to win, he's going to be in a difficult position, but for different reasons. His choice of Palin is divisive enough, and many Democrats will be out for blood after the tone of his campaign, which completely contradicted the reputation he had built.

This may be my liberal bias talking, but I do think the tone towards Obama is unlike most in recent memory. The way he derided as a socialist/communist is so rampant and unlike most anything directed towards previous candidates for President. It just seems so unhinged.

Either way, one thing is for certain...The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror completely sucked.

Mr44

But that just may be the way the news presents it. Kennedy, and to a lesser extent Feingold, has a very good reputation as a legislator from both sides of the aisle. On the flip side, Tom Delay seems calm on TV, yet...