US Elections 2008

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was wondering, why is it that third party candidates don't/are unable to participate in the debates?

With America's "first past the post" voting system, third party candidates are meaningless unless they're extremely popular like Ross Perot, who did participate in the 1992 debates.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by David_The_Gnome

Well guys, democrats are losing according to new polls, thanks partially to his Palin gamble.

McCain 50%
Obama 46%


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHBx.Y8FBBoc&refer=home


In all honesty, I can't stand McCain or Palin and their red-neck bible thumping crap. No choice but to keep a baby even in the case of rape...? Abstinence programs that statistical doesn't work...?

If there's one thing worst than a religious nutter, it's a religious nutter in the office.

But that lead wont last, it is McCain bump from RNC but when the debates starts you will see the polls changing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ama_vs_mccain/

Even with the bump, he is still behind in some of the background states and there is no toss up states, Obama/Biden would still win but by a slim margin

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

Even with the bump, he is still behind in some of the background states and there is no toss up states, Obama/Biden would still win but by a slim margin

Never be sure until the race is over. It seems Palin is McCain's Teddy.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Never be sure until the race is over. It seems Palin is McCain's Teddy.

For now. Who knows what will happen once we get to know her views on all the issues.

Anyway, popular vote is meaningless unless you have a huge % lead. Election of 2000 showed us that.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Never be sure until the race is over. It seems Palin is McCain's Teddy.

Are you implying that McCain is like McKinley.

... my god, they both have Mc in their name...

Someone better tell McCain that he is going to be assassinated...

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by james0246

Are you implying that McCain is like McKinley.

... my god, they both have Mc in their name...

Someone better tell McCain that he is going to be assassinated...

That was what I was implying


I don't hate McCain, but I feel that he wouldn't complete his term if he gets elected.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by cors8

For now. Who knows what will happen once we get to know her views on all the issues.

Anyway, popular vote is meaningless unless you have a huge % lead. Election of 2000 showed us that.

Yep, and it seems like that this Election will be like the one in 2000. I know that all the Republicans is all hyped up about Palin but until we know about her views about the issues in her debate, it is just hyped beside the contest is between Obama and McCain not Obama and Palin.

[Aquillion]

The basic election calculus still favors Obama (and I doubt this post-election bump will last any longer than Obama's did.)

Look at the state-by-state breakdown:

Iowa, a tight race last election which went to Bush, is solidly Democratic.

North Dakota, Montana, Virginia, and Indiana, all of which which were solidly Republican to one degree or another last election, are all close enough for Obama to have a decent shot at them (and in some cases, favoring him slightly.) Obama's not going to win all those, no -- but he doesn't have to. Those are states where traditionally, a Republican shouldn't even have to campaign beyond raising cash; McCain is going to have to spend significant resources defending them. Even just two would be enough for Obama to win without Florida or Ohio. If McCain loses either of those two key states, meanwhile, it's almost impossible for him to win -- and Obama leads very slightly in Ohio, enough for him to be in danger there, while Flordia has been steadily growing closer as the delegate issue fades into the past.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

The basic election calculus still favors Obama (and I doubt this post-election bump will last any longer than Obama's did.)

Look at the state-by-state breakdown:

Iowa, a tight race last election which went to Bush, is solidly Democratic.

North Dakota, Montana, Virginia, and Indiana, all of which which were solidly Republican to one degree or another last election, are all close enough for Obama to have a decent shot at them (and in some cases, favoring him slightly.) Obama's not going to win all those, no -- but he doesn't have to. Those are states where traditionally, a Republican shouldn't even have to campaign beyond raising cash; McCain is going to have to spend significant resources defending them. Even just two would be enough for Obama to win without Florida or Ohio. If McCain loses either of those two key states, meanwhile, it's almost impossible for him to win -- and Obama leads very slightly in Ohio, enough for him to be in danger there, while Flordia has been steadily growing closer as the delegate issue fades into the past.

he no chance in ND and Montana

a slight chance in Virgina and good chance in Indiana and Ohio.

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

he no chance in ND and Montana

a slight chance in Virgina and good chance in Indiana and Ohio.

Luckily, those are the ones McCain can least afford to lose (ND and Montana are 3 EVs each, while Virginia is 13, Indiana is 11, and Ohio is 20), but the point isn't that he has a particularly good chance in ND and Montana. The point is that it's shocking that he's competitive in those stats at all. Polls have shown him ahead at both at a few points, and even when McCain is ahead, his lead is much less than it should be in states that have gone Republican for the last 12 years. McCain will have to either defend them, or risk an unexpected upset that he can't afford with the map this close. All of these are states that have been key to Republican electoral strategies in the past three elections; losing any of them would be very problematic for them (losing either Ohio or Indiana + Virginia would probably decide the election, unless they can pull an unexpected upset somewhere else.)

I'm also not sure why you say Obama has a better chance in Virginia than in Indiana. If you look at the polls, Obama's actually been doing better in Virgina, out of the two. It has a fairly sizable black population, and has been edging increasingly Democratic as its northern urban areas grow. (Don't confuse it with West Virginia, mind. The two states are very different. Virginia is much more urban, especially today.)

If you're just talking about gut feelings and the way the states "usually go", that's the point. Virginia is not quite so surprising for the reasons I mentioned, but North Dakota and Montana are very surprising.

[xxmimixx]

The polls in my opinion aren't really that interesting. They just show how popular/cooler they are in each state. What really counts in my opinion is the official election day. Man, too bad I'm too young to vote yet ><. Guess I have to wait for the next election in 2012 (when I'm almost 20 years old xD).

I wanna hear from some of the high schoolers on here how do they think about the election, and who do they like more. Now thats gonna be interesting for the next election in 2012!

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Yes, Canada our mortal enemy! We need to stop giving money to those canadians. They'll just use it to breed an army of polar bears to invade the US.

Contrary to popular belief and as stated earlier in this thread, we get suprisingly little of our oil from the middle east. It's a meaningless campaign promise to stop doing something we aren't doing in the first place. Even assuming we were, how exactly would the US stop buying 700 billion dollars worth of oil? We still need oil and there's only so much in the world to go around.

Uh...Canada = US' mortal enemy? More like Canada = US' bitch.

Sadly, my country will listen to the every whim of the US government. That's why I'm trying to get out of Canada.

On a last note: most Canadians don't see wild polar bears. xD Nor do we all live in igloos.

[xxmimixx]

^ If I were you I would say back:

Spoiler for umm yeah:

Be careful on what you say on here FOO, because you will get slapped!

Sorry if I have to do that but it is still cool lol~.

[Hari Michiru]

If I were American, I would definitely vote Obama. To me, McCain just seems like Bush v2.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Uh...Canada = US' mortal enemy? More like Canada = US' bitch.

Sadly, my country will listen to the every whim of the US government. That's why I'm trying to get out of Canada.

On a last note: most Canadians don't see wild polar bears. xD Nor do we all live in igloos.

I think (read: hope) he(or she, can never tell on the interwebs) was joking about that comment because he was responding to how John McCain said the US needs to stop buying oil from countries that don't like America, when in reality a large portion of their international oil supply comes from Canada. Otherwise, its time to send out the mounties

Just went back to read his post again, and am pretty sure it was a joke.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Luckily, those are the ones McCain can least afford to lose (ND and Montana are 3 EVs each, while Virginia is 13, Indiana is 11, and Ohio is 20), but the point isn't that he has a particularly good chance in ND and Montana. The point is that it's shocking that he's competitive in those stats at all. Polls have shown him ahead at both at a few points, and even when McCain is ahead, his lead is much less than it should be in states that have gone Republican for the last 12 years. McCain will have to either defend them, or risk an unexpected upset that he can't afford with the map this close. All of these are states that have been key to Republican electoral strategies in the past three elections; losing any of them would be very problematic for them (losing either Ohio or Indiana + Virginia would probably decide the election, unless they can pull an unexpected upset somewhere else.)

I'm also not sure why you say Obama has a better chance in Virginia than in Indiana. If you look at the polls, Obama's actually been doing better in Virgina, out of the two. It has a fairly sizable black population, and has been edging increasingly Democratic as its northern urban areas grow. (Don't confuse it with West Virginia, mind. The two states are very different. Virginia is much more urban, especially today.)

If you're just talking about gut feelings and the way the states "usually go", that's the point. Virginia is not quite so surprising for the reasons I mentioned, but North Dakota and Montana are very surprising.

I been reading that ND and Montana is close to call right now and that some polls has Obama in the lead in those states. Even know they 3 EV's each but those 6 EV's could be the difference in this race. If Colorado, New Mexico goes to Obama, he will control all Western states except Idaho, Nevada, Wy and Arizona. Also if he win NH, Michigan and Penn (leading in all three, right now) then he will have enough to win the election, even if McCain wins OH, Flordia, Virginia, Missouri and NC.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

I think (read: hope) he(or she, can never tell on the interwebs) was joking about that comment because he was responding to how John McCain said the US needs to stop buying oil from countries that don't like America, when in reality a large portion of their international oil supply comes from Canada. Otherwise, its time to send out the mounties

Just went back to read his post again, and am pretty sure it was a joke.

Of course it was a joke. I had thought the "Breed an army of polar bears" would give it away.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Of course it was a joke. I had thought the "Breed an army of polar bears" would give it away.

I don't know.. Here in Alaska, we may just breed an army of polar bears... Especially when us Alaskans are outnumbered by polar bears... Wait, no. Nevermind.



Back to topic, still waiting for debates. That's what's going to help the voters. As Niki Ecko says, this is all about Obama vs McCain.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

I don't know.. Here in Alaska, we may just breed an army of polar bears... Especially when us Alaskans are outnumbered by polar bears... Wait, no. Nevermind.

It just means the Polar Bears are going to breed an army of Alaskans.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

As Niki Ecko says, this is all about Obama vs McCain.

It is most assuredly not "all about Obama vs McCain." It's all about the coalitions of interest that stand behind the two political parties and how those interests will be expressed in the organs of government. I, for one, don't want to see the administrative agencies of the Executive Branch, or the Federal court system, again under the control of a bunch of people who routinely favor the interests of large corporations and care little about the general welfare.

The perception that the election is all about the candidates comes directly from television. TV coverage can't, or won't, delve into issues like who the candidates will bring with them to staff the next government. The important issue of Supreme Court nominations gets some coverage, but only because abortion continues to be a "hot-button" issue for some groups in the electorate. Lifetime appointments to the rest of the Federal court system? Nope, never hear about it. Who will staff the Federal Housing Finance Administration? What do you think? Do these things actually matter to most Americans? In reality, yes they do -- a lot. People whose pension funds had substantial investments in Freddie and Fannie which are now worth zero should be very concerned about the performance of Federal regulatory agencies. Workers who've lost jobs through outsourcing might be concerned about how subsidies to corporations exacerbated these changes. People living in New Orleans probably would have preferred to see the Federal Emergency Management Agency staffed by people who cared about the effects of hurricanes on the poor.

Yes, these things matter a lot, much more in fact than the identities of the candidates themselves.