US Elections 2008

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

From my earlier post pointing to a comprehensive comparison between the Obama and McCain tax plans:

I can't find anything on McCain about taxation regarding college.

Originally Posted by james0246

edit: Since 4Tran answered for Obama, I will answer, partially, for McCain.

McCain voted NO on a Bill (in 2001), which would greatly increase student tax deductions for families and individuals. And with his current plans, his deductions would only really help individuals and families that have an income over $100,000.

So, from what I understand;

Obama's plan will cover both full-time students' and part-time students' expenses for the first $4,000. Doing the math, most full-time students will only be covered the first semester to first year of college, while part-time students will be covered up to four years-ish depending on how little of the amount of classes they take. In comparison to the current Hope Credit, his plan will benefit mainly the part-time students as opposed to the Hope Credit benefitting mainly the full-time students with its "whatever% of the first two years" coverage. While...

McCain's plan is somewhat unknown, and we can only assume that either he'll either decrease the coverage, increase the coverage or simply keep it the way it is...

I don't know about this... In one hand, I don't know what it could turn out to be, while on the other hand, if I was a new student, it means that I'll have to limit my classes to one or two so that I can work my butt off to save enough money to compensate for anything other grants and loans may or may not cover once I switch to full-time status. Of course, technically, unless say, McCain was to increase the coverage, any of the plans don't apply to me any longer. Huh...

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

McCain's plan is somewhat unknown, and we can only assume that either he'll either decrease the coverage, increase the coverage or simply keep it the way it is...

Outside of any unaccounted factors, the safe assumption is that if a plan does not address a particular subject, then that subject won't be affected at all when it get implemented.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

With only 14 days left, it is time to look at the EV map and see what other moves that McCain can do.

McCain basically must win VA OR must flip at least one currently polling consistently blue (but weakly) state (NH, NV, CO, MN, etc). Obama has 270 EV as things stand (with NV and VA) without PA, FL, OH, IN, MO, NC, MT, ND, and GA.

Actually, NO. I remember somebody say that Georgia wasnt in play but with this "All or Nothing" for PA, it could happen.

Georgia is still polling +6 McCain. MT, IN and ND are much closer to flipping blue than GA.

It is a very risky situation, so McCain is going for one more "Hail Mary" . This might be the first election, that a candiate can win OH, NC, PA, FL, MO, NV and still lose the election if GA turn Blue.

I'd be willing to put money on intrade that GA would stay red when all the surrounding states are red.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by bayoab

McCain basically must win VA OR must flip at least one currently polling consistantly blue state (NH, NV, CO, MN, etc). Obama has 270 EV as things stand (with NV and VA) without PA, FL, OH, IN, MO, NC, MT, ND, and GA.

McCain can still win without VA, He just need to win all of the rest of the Battleground states and turn PA Red

Georgia is still polling +6 McCain. MT, IN and ND are much closer to flipping blue than GA.

But it still in single-digits and if Obama's Team can start pushing harding it can bring that McCain down and also with the "All or Nothing" that McCain is doing now, it will leave Georgia wide open for Obama to camipaign more down there.

I'd be willing to put money on intrade that GA would stay red when all the surrounding states are red.

Dont be too surprised if Georgia does turn blue, with new voters and more people voting more than ever that can be a good sign right there, we will know on Thursday if they are going to start pushing in GA.

Because I was born and raised in GA, I want it to turn Blue so badly.
Wishful thinking but anything is possible, and this election proves it

[Abashi]

a map here:

http://www.270towin.com/

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

McCain can still win without VA, He just need to win all of the rest of the Battleground states and turn PA Red



But it still in single-digits and if Obama's Team can start pushing harding it can bring that McCain down and also with the "All or Nothing" that McCain is doing now, it will leave Georgia wide open for Obama to camipaign more down there.



Dont be too surprised if Georgia does turn blue, with new voters and more people voting more than ever that can be a good sign right there, we will know on Thursday if they are going to start pushing in GA.

Because I was born and raised in GA, I want it to turn Blue so badly.
Wishful thinking but anything is possible, and this election proves it

I highly doubt that PA could go red while Virginia went blue. PA is located in the northeast while VA is in the south and is much more conservative.

McCain's best chances are out west with CO, NM, and NV. Of the battleground states, CO is the best chance for him, it being the most local. If McCain were to loose Ohio, and fail at taking PA; he could still win by taking WA.

Obama should try hard for Ohio, there are a lot of liberal areas there, and it has Dennis Kuccinich in the Congress. I'd be surprised if he won CO, it being a western state afterall.

Right now it looks like Obama is winning.

PS: Do not overlook Cailfornia, it too is a swing state and could easily favor a Republican, and it has done so in the past. Most of southern California is conservative.

interesting ... a candidate can loose all that is west of the missisipi river (f' spelling) and still win the election.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5603/73865753hs5.png

[Vexx]

I have this fantasy that Texas drifts into the blue column which would hit the GOP like a thunderclap. Texas *used* to be an essentially one-party Democrat state, ya know.... (before a lot of confused people moved in during the late 70s and thought they were voting for the same kind of Republicans they had back in their home states instead of the Texan closet-fascist GOP. Texas Democrats at the time were merely conservative Dems).

[Luminisk]

I've already cast my vote through absentee ballot.

Then I came across this video later this night.
http://www.onealcompton.com/index.ph...iblioteca=1499

This is one of the most intellectual and lucid person I've heard from from this entire presidential season.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Abashi

a map here:

http://www.270towin.com/



I highly doubt that PA could go red while Virginia went blue. PA is located in the northeast while VA is in the south and is much more conservative.

McCain's best chances are out west with CO, NM, and NV. Of the battleground states, CO is the best chance for him, it being the most local. If McCain were to loose Ohio, and fail at taking PA; he could still win by taking WA.

Obama should try hard for Ohio, there are a lot of liberal areas there, and it has Dennis Kuccinich in the Congress. I'd be surprised if he won CO, it being a western state afterall.

Right now it looks like Obama is winning.

PS: Do not overlook Cailfornia, it too is a swing state and could easily favor a Republican, and it has done so in the past. Most of southern California is conservative.

interesting ... a candidate can loose all that is west of the missisipi river (f' spelling) and still win the election.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5603/73865753hs5.png

Cali is Democratic Country right now, not since Reagan and Bush Sr that GOP ever won that state in the last 20 - 30 years and for PA/VA, We see strange stuff happen with this type of election and you might see that lead disappear but at the end, it will still stay with Obama and VA will switch to Blue.

[Autumn Demon]

Mostly black early-voters waiting in long lines are heckled by mostly white protesters in North Carolina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tF7AJtPR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te5LBn0ofN0

Originally Posted by Voting Rights Act of 1965 SEC. 11 (b)

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote...

Sheriff of Fayetteville sees nothing wrong with the heckling and does nothing

[Thingle]

Hey Americans, can you even imagine Palin as President? Eewww..

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

McCain can still win without VA, He just need to win all of the rest of the Battleground states and turn PA Red

Yes, that would be the other side of the OR equation. He must flip a currently polling weakly blue state to red. NV is the most likely (and probably only) possibility for this since it has been polling just equal to or slightly under the national polls.

Dont be too surprised if Georgia does turn blue,

There is still 2 weeks till the election. A lot can happen in 2 weeks. I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm just saying that currently it is on the upper end of the states that have a chance of flipping. (And yes, this is taking into account that there is likely to be a reverse-bradley effect in GA.)

Originally Posted by Abashi

I highly doubt that PA could go red while Virginia went blue. PA is located in the northeast while VA is in the south and is much more conservative.

Only the eastern and south eastern parts of PA are like the north east. The rest of it is closer to Appalachia and the rust belt.

McCain's best chances are out west with CO, NM, and NV. Of the battleground states, CO is the best chance for him, it being the most local. If McCain were to loose Ohio, and fail at taking PA; he could still win by taking WA.

NM and WA are some of the most unlikely states for McCain to take. Both of them have polled for Obama the entire general election cycle. CO is very unlikely to flip because even during McCain's best, it was statistically tied.

Obama should try hard for Ohio, there are a lot of liberal areas there, and it has Dennis Kuccinich in the Congress. I'd be surprised if he won CO, it being a western state afterall.

Obama has almost been constantly leading in Colorado. (He is currently +5.) Obama has so many options at this point and Ohio is just one of them.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I have this fantasy that Texas drifts into the blue column which would hit the GOP like a thunderclap.

It was drifting there earlier and it is still insanely close compared with 2004. It will be a good shot across the bow.

[Luminisk]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Mostly black early-voters waiting in long lines are heckled by mostly white protesters in North Carolina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7tF7AJtPR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te5LBn0ofN0



Sheriff of Fayetteville sees nothing wrong with the heckling and does nothing

I'm parroting one of my professors but;

Never has our nation at such a critical moment in time have been so divided by ignorance, hate and fear.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Sheriff of Fayetteville sees nothing wrong with the heckling and does nothing

They will only intervene only when the situation gets violent.

Those hecklers are nasty. Like it or not their actions are protected by the 1st amendment.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Luminisk

Never has our nation at such a critical moment in time have been so divided by ignorance, hate and fear.

Oh, it was much worse alright. The 1960's were interesting times.

But yes, wow, ugly.

Good job of that crowd (and the epic fail that is the McCain campaign) by the way for turning what is otherwise an election of two candidates from two parties who differ on key issues into an election that pretty much force the American people to make a statement: are we ignorant fucks susceptible to hate-mongering, or are we decent people who can vote without concerning ourselves with the candidates' skin color?

That would narrow down the choice, alright.

I'm getting more and more disillusioned with McCain now. He practically seems to have lost control of his own candidacy, or otherwise has given green light to some of the ugliest politicking we've seen in recent years in a moment of national crisis; neither of which qualities I want in my President. And to think I used to believe he would've been the best Republican candidate, moderate enough to provide a perfectly viable alternative to the choice of Obama...

Originally Posted by mg1942

Those hecklers are nasty. Like it or not their actions are protected by the 1st amendment.

Are they? Voter intimidation is a big affair, and the first Amendment definitely doesn't permit such infringement of other individuals' rights. This isn't a protest march, this is heckling voters at the voting booth.

Had it not been for this being so pathetic I would have been seriously offended and angry.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

They will only intervene only when the situation gets violent.

Those hecklers are nasty. Like it or not their actions are protected by the 1st amendment.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Are they? Voter intimidation is a big affair, and the first Amendment definitely doesn't permit such infringement of other individuals' rights. This isn't a protest march, this is heckling voters at the voting booth.

Had it not been for this being so pathetic I would have been seriously offended and angry.

To the best of my knowledge, most states have a "100 feet law", specifically, as long as the hecklers are 100 feet away from the voting center, then they are not violating the Voting Rights Act and are covered by the first amendment, specifically, free speech and right to assembly (and possibly petition). Now, they could potentially be charged with loitering, unless they officially reserved the right to protest on that sidewalk (I don't think you can reserve a sidewalk ), but since they are on a public side walk, police would be unable to break up the crowd unless they turned violent. But, in the end, as long as they were a 100 feet away, they were not actually breaking any laws, even if they were being loud and annoying .

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by james0246

To the best of my knowledge, most states have a 100 foot law, specifically, as long as the hecklers are a 100 feet away from the voting center, then they are simply covered by the first amendment, specifically, free speech and right to assembly (and possibly petition). Now, they could be charged with loitering, unless they officially reserved the right to protest on that sidewalk (I don't think you can reserve a sidewalk ). But, in the end, as long as they were a 100 feet away, they were not actually breaking any laws, even if they were being loud and annoying .

Interesting, I didn't know that.

So are we to presume that these hecklers are not within the 100 foot range of the premises because the authorities didn't intervene?

[mg1942]

Here's the better view from the other side...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R75OMc2SkvA&fmt=18

(as seen on CNN)

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Interesting, I didn't know that.

So are we to presume that these hecklers are not within the 100 foot range of the premises because the authorities didn't intervene?

That is what I am assuming. Most states forbid political paraphernalia to be present in or around the election center. That is taken to mean specific apparel supporting or denying one or another candidate that is on the ballot is not allowed within 100 feet of the election center (this is why some people can be turned away from voting, if they show up wearing a shirt saying "Vote for Obama", etc). Added to this, signs in support of one candidate or another are not allowed within 100 feet of the election center. Also, you are not allowed to sign or draft petitions within 100 feet of the election center nor solicit donations, gifts, contributions, purchase of tickets, or similar demands (these are generally interpreted to mean political donations, gifts, etc). All of these various activities are illegal, and many of them can result in criminal charges*.

That being said, the hecklers are not directly interfering with the election process, nor are they close enough that their political signs or apparel break the "100 feet laws." And, since there is no law against shouting in a public street (unless there are disturbance laws etc, which are generally time based (can't cause a disturbance between certain hours) or location based, if not both), there seems to be no legal recourse to stop the crowd of hecklers. And, just as indirect peer pressure is not illegal, if these buffoons manage to drive away potential voters, there is nothing that anyone can do, but to eventually rewrite the laws to indicate 200 feet, rather than a 100 .

*Caveat: these laws are not present in all states, just a majority of them, so N. Carolina could have significantly different rules and regulations (which I seriously doubt it does).

edit: the "100 foot law" is also sometimes known as the "No Approach Zone." There are positives and negatives to such a law. The positives are that no outside interference occurs at the polling/election center. The negative is the fact that most people do not know of these laws, and when they go to vote, they can sometimes be refused admittance due to the fact that they will wear a sticker, pin, or shirt supporting a candidate. So, this can be used to keep voters from voting.

[Green²]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_136740.html

Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Here's the better view from the other side...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R75OMc2SkvA&fmt=18

(as seen on CNN)

Got to love those McCain supporters

and it is going to get much worst than this until after Election Day