US Elections 2008

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by james0246

You know that Obama is a GenXer .

Shush, don't ruin my fantasies.

But what I really meant was in a sense that my generation (whistles out The Who -- am I too young to know them?) gets a chance for an early political maturing, which I hope will make our voices, our concerns, our discontent at everybody older than us leaving a fucked up America for us to fix (lol), heard because we actually become a worthy voting block to for politicians to pursue. That is, *if* we actually do become that.

In any case, the baby boomers are on the way out, slowly, tenaciously, and the GenXers will come to dominate the political landscape for a while yet. Obama is as young as we can realistically hope for in a politician at the top level of government, I suppose.

[Max Thrillington]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

The Obama campaign is pushing pretty hard to get as many early voters as possible. There are like, a thousand Obama posters asking people to vote right now on my Uni campus, and the voting booth inside the campus is packed all day. It is pretty interesting, because just about any other election in US history saw the youth vote turnout to be disappointingly low. Can this election turn that over?

It's sad that I can't vote, or else I would have actually voted today. It's exercising my right, and they're making sure you can't get much more convenient than that. So what's the excuse, right?

...maybe we youngsters can finally break down the Tyranny of the Retirees? Down with Generation X!

Mind, it's a little disconcerting that the Obama campaign is the only one doing this from what I can see, and some people might raise issues like how close is too close when there are pro-Obama posters and volunteers plastered all over campus (none close enough to break the law, though), but I also think that it's pretty responsible campaigning when you're telling as many people to vote as possible as opposed to, oh, try to push the envelope and focusing on a more...unsavory tactic, like the McCain campaign is doing.

Gonna be heart breaking for them when Obama does absolutely nothing while in office. I remember Obama got ripped to shreds by Gravel in the Primary Debates.

The guy voted for the Telecom amnesty bill. That's enough for me to be cautious of his rhetoric.

He talks about the failure of policy from the last 8 years? He thinks as long as we have reliable military intelligence, we should be bombing militants inside Pakistan or any other sovereign nation. I can't see how that is any different from Bush II.

The last 8 years foreign policy was just bad medicine for the symptoms of over a half-century of American Imperialism in the Middle East.

Of course there is also the unwavering support of Israel.

And of course the promise that 5 presidents have been talking about for the last 30-40 years.. breaking oil dependence. Our whole economy is oil based. We extend our empire across the globe to acquire this Black Gold. He's going to get us started.. just like Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... but here we are.. more dependent then ever.

Me, I'm tried of this lesser of 2 evils every 4 years. I'm voting 3rd party this election.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

Gonna be heart breaking for them when Obama does absolutely nothing while in office. I remember Obama got ripped to shreds by Gravel in the Primary Debates.

I am going to have so much fun with this post, now how many debates that Gravel has been in and how many Obama has been in. If Gravel did so good in ripping in Obama, why he was one of the first ones to drop out of the race?

The guy voted for the Telecom amnesty bill. That's enough for me to be cautious of his rhetoric.

And why are you cautious about that? Please explain your answer

He talks about the failure of policy from the last 8 years? He thinks as long as we have reliable military intelligence, we should be bombing militants inside Pakistan or any other sovereign nation. I can't see how that is any different from Bush II.

The last 8 years foreign policy was just bad medicine for the symptoms of over a half-century of American Imperialism in the Middle East.

But you think that Obama Foreign is the same as W. You should go to Barack website and read it alittle more carefully, Obama believe in talk to our enemies, go ahead the people that we want to get since we got bombed and strengthen our relationship with our allies, not pissed them off like Bush or McCain did.

Of course there is also the unwavering support of Israel.

Every president since 1950's has been in support of Israel and that will not ever change unless Israel does something stupid.

And of course the promise that 5 presidents have been talking about for the last 30-40 years.. breaking oil dependence. Our whole economy is oil based. We extend our empire across the globe to acquire this Black Gold. He's going to get us started.. just like Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... but here we are.. more dependent then ever.

But right now, he is trying something different. Right now, I want to try something different unless you like pay alot of money in oil and gas prices (even know that it has been going down alot) He want to use every resources we have right now to fixed this problem of oil dependence and there is a way, actually it is the Mother Nature way. By using the Wind and Sun like they are using in Montana and Big Sky States, Clean Coal, and other resources, we can get away from oil dependence.

Me, I'm tried of this lesser of 2 evils every 4 years. I'm voting 3rd party this election.

To each its own, I say. You have a right to choose any person you like as president but There is no such thing as a perfect policy or even a perfect candiate. All the candiates has flaws in their system and even in office, some of them will not able to do the things they promise to do. But they are out there, trying to do things that will make each and every American citizen alittle bit more safer at work and home, to get alittle bit more money to help out with all the bills and food so they are not going hungry, to get alittle bit better education for our kids, so they can be the next Barack Obama, John McCain, or anything they want to be in 20 - 30 years and so much more. Like Obama say today "This is a chance for us to look forward to next 4 years, not back at last 4."

[4Tran]

A mere seven days are left before Americans choose a new president, and it looks like it's all over but for the voting to start. While the Democrats have made an artform of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, this doesn't look like that scenario is in the books this time. While McCain still has a shred of a chance, it'd take a stunt like him parachuting into Pakistan and personally capturing Bin Laden to pull it off. His own staff are starting to give up, and even McCain's body language is giving hints that he's just about ready to throw in the towel.

Obama has run a masterful campaign that's sure to be oft-emulated over the next few election cycles, and while he had help in an economic collapse of gigantic proportions, I don't think that it was necessary to his building such a big lead. Instead, what he managed to do was to keep McCain off balance, and the effect on the latter's campaign was extremely telling. Moreover, instead of being satisfied coasting to victory, Obama's now stepping on McCain's campaign at its moment of weakness, and he's not going to ease up until November 5.

The sad thing for McCain was that, despite his disadvantages, he probably did have a chance. However, he was constantly maneuvered into making mistakes that will make his campaign into a model of what not to do:

• Failure to understand the mood of the electorate.
• Failure to pick a running mate.
• Failure to give a compelling reason (beyond some nebulous experience) for people to vote for his ticket.
• Failure to define any policy goals that would overcome the challenges that he himself identified.
• Failure to employ an overall election strategy rather than jumping from one gimmick to another.
• Failure to stick to find a recourse aside from resorting to ineffectual personal attacks.
• Failure to realize that he was tilting at the windmills of the past while times called for something more concrete.
• And finally, a simple failure of leadership, and letting everyone see it.

That McCain's as close as he is to Obama (and he isn't close at all) is perhaps a testament to how much more successful he could have been if he simply had been able to avoid all those failures.

There's Palin too, but there's been more than enough spoken about her to reveal how vapid she is, so I'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

Gonna be heart breaking for them when Obama does absolutely nothing while in office. I remember Obama got ripped to shreds by Gravel in the Primary Debates.

You had better hope that this doesn't happen. If Obama screws up the financial crisis, the U.S. is going to be in very deep trouble, and no amount of ideology is going to be proof from that. Heck, everything might go to hell even if he does do a great job.

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

He talks about the failure of policy from the last 8 years? He thinks as long as we have reliable military intelligence, we should be bombing militants inside Pakistan or any other sovereign nation. I can't see how that is any different from Bush II.

That's because I think that you don't understand the gist of his meaning. Right now, the U.S. is already striking at targets inside Pakistan on a regular basis (what was it, another 10 civilians killed in the last couple of days?). Obama's statement, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," carries two meanings: the first is that a strike will only be carried out on the condition that they had actionable intelligence on the top leadership of al Qeada, and that he would consult first with the leader of Pakistan. It's a well measured and proportional action plan. Whether it'll be like that in practice may be a different matter, but that's always the case.

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

Of course there is also the unwavering support of Israel.

That will not change regardless of who is President. The unfortunate fact is that American foreign policy is so insular that, aside from the neocons, there's very little discussion about what's really in American interests. Obama is a lot more likely than most to enact some real change in this arena, but that's basically an increase from a 4% probability to a 9% probability.

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

And why are you cautious about that? Please explain your answer

FISA gave retroactive immunity from prosecution for the telecoms to pass on private communications to the government. What the telecoms did was all sorts of illegal, but Obama helped to pass a bill that let them off the hook. At the time, he said something about using a loophole in FISA to get at them, but it remains to be seen if anything comes off of it.

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

But you think that Obama Foreign is the same as W. You should go to Barack website and read it alittle more carefully, Obama believe in talk to our enemies, go ahead the people that we want to get since we got bombed and strengthen our relationship with our allies, not pissed them off like Bush or McCain did.

I like Obama a lot, but there's going to be less difference than you think. Other than being a lot more careful about picking enemies, there probably won't be much change in American external policy unless the entire State Department is cleaned out and there's some sort of massive paradigm shift in the way Americans view diplomacy. The latter isn't likely to happen, so I doubt there's going to be much change. By the way, I'm not fond of Bush, but his diplomatic initiatives of 2008 have been a lot better than those of his preceding years (with the pointed exception of the Russia-Georgia war).

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

Every president since 1950's has been in support of Israel and that will not ever change unless Israel does something stupid.

Nope, you're wrong there. The U.S. gives Israel a blank check even when the Israelis themselves think that they're doing something stupid. The 2006 war with Hezbollah is a sterling case in point. The Israeli people were livid at the kind of incompetence coming from their civilian and military leaders, but there's nothing but support from American quarters. I don't see this kind of cheerleading ending any time soon.

Still, even with all of this, I think that Obama will prove to be a very good leader. Unfortunately, this is a time when truly great leadership is required. Right now, I'm certain that McCain would fail that leadership test.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

A mere seven days are left before Americans choose a new president, and it looks like it's all over but for the voting to start. While the Democrats have made an artform of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, this doesn't look like that scenario is in the books this time. While McCain still has a shred of a chance, it'd take a stunt like him parachuting into Pakistan and personally capturing Bin Laden to pull it off. His own staff are starting to give up, and even McCain's body language is giving hints that he's just about ready to throw in the towel.

Obama has run a masterful campaign that's sure to be oft-emulated over the next few election cycles, and while he had help in an economic collapse of gigantic proportions, I don't think that it was necessary to his building such a big lead. Instead, what he managed to do was to keep McCain off balance, and the effect on the latter's campaign was extremely telling. Moreover, instead of being satisfied coasting to victory, Obama's now stepping on McCain's campaign at its moment of weakness, and he's not going to ease up until November 5.

The sad thing for McCain was that, despite his disadvantages, he probably did have a chance. However, he was constantly maneuvered into making mistakes that will make his campaign into a model of what not to do:

• Failure to understand the mood of the electorate.
• Failure to pick a running mate.
• Failure to give a compelling reason (beyond some nebulous experience) for people to vote for his ticket.
• Failure to define any policy goals that would overcome the challenges that he himself identified.
• Failure to employ an overall election strategy rather than jumping from one gimmick to another.
• Failure to stick to find a recourse aside from resorting to ineffectual personal attacks.
• Failure to realize that he was tilting at the windmills of the past while times called for something more concrete.
• And finally, a simple failure of leadership, and letting everyone see it.

That McCain's as close as he is to Obama (and he isn't close at all) is perhaps a testament to how much more successful he could have been if he simply had been able to avoid all those failures.

There's Palin too, but there's been more than enough spoken about her to reveal how vapid she is, so I'll just leave it at that.

All very good points but I got more of why McCain wont win the election

• Party Unity - For the first time in a very long time, you can see that the Democrats is together while the GOP is fighting against themselves.
• Poor Planning - I was reading Mark Nickolas' Blog about McCain campigan and I have to agreed that that was one of the worst campigan for president ever.

and there is alot more but I think Vexx hit on the main ones, but I think we should have our closing augments about both candidates this week I guess.

[bayoab]

Minor polling notes:
Georgia is currently polling +5 McCain. The +1 Obama appears to have been an outlier.
McCain is currently polling +5 in his home state of Arizona shifting the state to lean GOP. (This can be seen either as a real sign of trouble or a real sign the pollsters have lost it. Both ASU and Rasmussen have similar results on this though.)

See the second graph here for other trends (or lack there of since the polling seems to have finally converged).

[Autumn Demon]

Arizona was part of the Democrat's plan to steal some western states from the Republicans along with New Mexico and Colorado, but of course Arizona was dropped when McCain become to Republican nominee. Surprisingly, Arizona isn't ultra safe, and Nevada is trending purple as well. Regardless of how Arizona goes in this election, expect it to be a possible swing state in future elections, as it is the fastest growing state in America.

Article on why McCain isn't so popular in Arizona.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I like Obama a lot, but there's going to be less difference than you think. Other than being a lot more careful about picking enemies, there probably won't be much change in American external policy unless the entire State Department is cleaned out and there's some sort of massive paradigm shift in the way Americans view diplomacy. The latter isn't likely to happen, so I doubt there's going to be much change. By the way, I'm not fond of Bush, but his diplomatic initiatives of 2008 have been a lot better than those of his preceding years (with the pointed exception of the Russia-Georgia war).

True to some point. Certainly, the American foreign policy won't change much, unless it undergoes a major change of staff members in the State Department. However, things will still change even if the American foreign policy remains slightly altered. After all, the American economy does have a large effect on the global economy and at the same time, most American allies tend to join any wars or missions the American troops head to. Just these two points alone may be considered a significant change of American foreign policies, yet without actually changing them technically.

[Irenicus]

I'm not sure how factual this is, in terms of what's going on behind the scenes in the Obama camp, but it certainly is quite interesting. The FDR comparisons have been increasing since the economic crisis began, and it will only grow. Is this mere propaganda, invoking one of America's finest, or does Obama's kitchen cabinet actually go around hunting books on the Hundred Days to study what was good and what was wrong about that massive reform effort years past, and what kind of insanity they will face once in power?

The Next New Deal.

[yezhanquan]

I don't think Obama can effect much change. The federal government is now many times larger than in FDR's day, even after his expansion. The sheer amount of inertia which had to be overcome is quite significant.

[Mr. DJ]

this is why we can't have nice things...I have a headache now...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/.../skinhead_plot

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

The guy voted for the Telecom amnesty bill. That's enough for me to be cautious of his rhetoric.

I was extremely disappointed when I heard this news. Did you ever read his explanation about why he voted for it? After I did I was still disappointed, but more understanding.

My understanding was that Obama wanted something to be done. A bill that attempted to stop misuses of power without granting immunity could not be put through, because criminal Bush claimed that any bill without a provision that granted immunity would be vetoed on the spot. If I remember right Obama did vote against earlier provisions to grant immunity to the telecoms, but for this particular bill - with its newer regulations - he felt that the compromise was worth it.

In many ways it's understandable. What would you do: keep fighting for the ideal all while knowing that it absolutely will not pass and that misuses of power can continue to occur, or negotiate and let past transgressions slide (and maybe attempt to repeal immunity later) in order to prevent them from occurring now and in the future?

The fact is that the government does something that it shouldn't by bundling many issues together to be voted on at once. Because of that practice, being stubborn about certain issues would result in nothing getting done (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I think that the telecom immunity is truly outrageous, but Obama never supported it. The huge drive for telecom immunity was derived from Bush.

[DarkSide Hero]

Pictures from today's Pennsylvania rally
The pics look more intense than it really is.

Spoiler for Click for pics:

It seems Obama holds rallies in the rain just for the photo opportunity.

And McCain chickens out.

McCain Pennsylvania Rally Washed Out By Rain

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...ut%20By%20Rain

[nanafan]

thanks for the pics darkside.. anyone know how long missouri has been a deciding state in the past elections? that's probably a wierd question, but always wondered why missouri was one of the states that were important.

[sikvod00]

Nice pics, DarkSide (are they yours?). Although, it would be nice if you could wrap spoiler tags around them since they make your post unnecessarily long.

[Vexx]

Hah!!! The rain just made that rally cinematographically intense.

We'll hope no one caught pneumonia in all that.

[DarkSide Hero]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

Nice pics, DarkSide (are they yours?). But could you please put spoilers around them since they make your post unnecessarily long? Thanks.

no problem. =)
The pics are from the AP.

On another note I would like to know how Sarah Palin can run with this "Obama is a Socialist" theme when she enacted a windfall profit tax measure on the oil/gas industries to pay for a huge ($1,200) per-person energy rebate? Not to mention that Alaska already pays out a portion of money receieved from oil company leases on state land to its citizens via the Permanent Fund.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

[james0246]

Originally Posted by nanafan

thanks for the pics darkside.. anyone know how long missouri has been a deciding state in the past elections? that's probably a wierd question, but always wondered why missouri was one of the states that were important.

Missouri is considered the 'bellwether' state due to the fact that the state has the best track record for the past century in regards to voting for the eventual winner (both in the primaries as well as the actual election). Missouri has predicted every election except the 1956 election in which Missouri voted for challenger Adlai Stevenson, over incumbent Eisenhower. I have no idea why Missouri voted for Stevenson, but I assume it was St. Louis' fault .

That being said, Missouri is also seen as a a microcosm of America. It is heavily influenced on its West and East Borders by highly Democratic cities (Kansas City on the West and St. Louis on the East), with the middle portion of the state being an even mixture of Republican and Independent Voters (overall, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are about equal to each other within the state).

[Jintor]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

no problem. =)
The pics are from the AP.

Do you know if there are any higher resolution photos than that? Those are brilliant photos.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

no problem. =)
The pics are from the AP.

On another note I would like to know how Sarah Palin can run with this "Obama is a Socialist" theme when she enacted a windfall profit tax measure on the oil/gas industries to pay for a huge ($1,200) per-person energy rebate? Not to mention that Alaska already pays out a portion of money receieved from oil company leases on state land to its citizens via the Permanent Fund.


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

In Palin's defense, what she's sharing is natural resources. That's something of dubious ownership to start with. Heck, don't most states do that with airwaves?

Obama, OTOH, is proposing to share the handiwork of Joe the Plumber. Those leaky toilets aren't repairing themselves.

Note, I don't disagree with Obama's approach. The wealth of those making 250k+ a year is built on more than just their own sweat, and seeing to it even the more modest get healthcare and education is enriching society as a whole. I'm just saying, it's not the same as saying that Alaska's underground belongs to the Alaskans.