US Elections 2008

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

lol McCain cursing during debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

That's him trying to control his temper

I gotta check my DVR again. I watched this on NBC (not MSNBC) HD and I think it was censored.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by solomon

Ioono, Vexx isn't that harsh of a statement? I mean just cause McCain is a Republican doesn't mean he will keep on the same failed policies and corrupt Republican cohorts does it?

That depends, but he hasn't quite proven himself trustworthy being able to make change policies. He was too contradicting as a senator as is, do you want to gamble on such high risk policies. Some policies he can change, but all the question is whether he will go back on it. What is a credible policy on his part? As teaming up with other republicans, there is too much of a chance that it can happen in my opinion.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by mg1942

That's him trying to control his temper

I gotta check my DVR again. I watched this on NBC (not MSNBC) HD and I think it was censored.

Some people commented on McCain rarely looking at or addressing Obama directly. My suspicion is that it was an anger management tactic. Given McCain's legendary temper (of which there's almost no video record but even his closest friends have admitted experiencing), by avoiding direct eye-to-eye confrontation with Obama - he can mostly keep his cool. Well.... at least to the level of calmly insulting his opponent's intelligence

I'm wondering if he's going to be able to keep this up over the course of the debates because the moderator Jim Lehrer clearly wants them to directly confront each other.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vexx

And no, Democrats have historically been capable of a lot of nonsense themselves over the years.

This is a good point. My mother likes to harp on Republicans for economic reasons. "When a Democrat is in the office I have money in my pocket", she says rather often. When I discussed the debate with her last night, she felt Obama had a stronger argument on domestic issues than McCain, which falls right in line with how many Democrats think.

What interested me the most was how disgusted she was with McCains attitude during the debate. She thought he was very dismissive of Obama, she used words like "rude" and "condescending" and "arrogant" to describe McCain.

The point we both agreed on is that both parties are more alike than different. While they each focus on different points more, the rest of their platforms overlap quite a bit. They just have different ideas on how to get the job done. So she didn't feel put off by Obama saying "John is right" a lot. She did feel he could have been more assertive though, but she commented that McCain wasn't letting Obama get many words in and kept talking over him while Obama spent a lot of time correcting what McCain was accusing him of.

My mother is a heavy Democrat, but she wasn't sold on Obama because he didn't seem to be much of a leader. I think this debate sold her on him a little more. A lot of that had to do with McCain not showing that his administration wasn't going to be much different than the administration of the last eight years while Obama showed a willingness to try something different.

The Preconditions argument was probably the biggest part of the debate in her opinion. McCains "so let me get this straight" remark really soured her....I won't repeat the colorful language that happened after that.

She doesn't want four years of that kind of person. I agreed.

[Abashi]

Originally Posted by james0246

No the issues do not matter in the slightest to some people. As Samantha Bee has said, "Palin is a Vagina-American", so women will vote for her because she has a vagina (Samantha Bee Voting McCain). While this is played to comedic effect in the skit, there are some people that do believe this (just see all the rabid Clinton supporters that MSNBC/CNN/FOX focused on last Monday and Tuesday at the DNC), and these people (both women and men) will vote for whatever woman is present.

Or vice versa, misogynist males will vote against any woman that runs for office, despite what other issues that matter. Unfortunately for McCain, misogynist males tend to be more on the right (eg: military types), so he's going to lose some of them this time around.

Spoiler for if your interested ...:

here is a county map of the '04 election



one with more detail here >>> http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ca20043oc0.gif

colors seem to contradict do to what numbers the grids were set too

OH OH, I found something really kool, I re-uploaded it, but it'll only be interesting if you live in California:

http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7061409ro0.jpg

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Explain the Victory at Midway... without luck.

This is off topic, and while luck certainly played a factor, superior US intelligence work was the crucial difference. Plus, things weren't quite as lopsided against the US as it appears at a quick glance. Remember only the aircraft actually engaged the opposing fleets. The Japanese carriers had 264 planes, while the US carriers had 233. Not to mention the planes on midway itself. In the type of battle it was, the US actually had a numarical advantage since they had more aircraft. The outcome of the battle really wasn't as big of a suprise as it seems by looking at the raw ship tonnage.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by Abashi

Spoiler for if your interested ...:

here is a county map of the '04 election



one with more detail here >>> http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ca20043oc0.gif

colors seem to contradict do to what numbers the grids were set too

OH OH, I found something really kool, I re-uploaded it, but it'll only be interesting if you live in California:

http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7061409ro0.jpg

Looks like it doesn't really matter what state you're in. It's pretty divided. Do you have anything for Alaska and Hawaii?

[Edgewalker]

Originally Posted by mg1942

So, based on Obama's choice's of association and advice so far (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of others), you would agree that John McCain is the better one at association?

Obama has publicly denounced that he shares the views of those people, and has disassociated them as campaign advisers. McCain on the other hand keeps them on his ticket and basically just hopes that no one notices. Trying to pretend these types of association are the same is absurd.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Looks like it doesn't really matter what state you're in. It's pretty divided. Do you have anything for Alaska and Hawaii?

Alaska is easily with the Pachyderms this year, thanks to Palin but it always is relably. The only parts I think that would lean democratic are places near college or have large native populations.

I don't know the nuances of Hawaii but it's solidly dem.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by solomon

Alaska is easily with the Pachyderms this year, thanks to Palin but it always is relably. The only parts I think that would lean democratic are places near college or have large native populations.

I don't know the nuances of Hawaii but it's solidly dem.

Considering I'm in Alaska, it's much more complicated than that. If the colors are much more precise, although the red may be dominating, I believe there will be bits of blue cluttered about even near the cities.

... but thanks for referring us next to dead animals...?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Considering I'm in Alaska, it's much more complicated than that. If the colors are much more precise, although the red may be dominating, I believe there will be bits of blue cluttered about even near the cities.

... but thanks for referring us next to dead animals...?

lol, just in case you didn't know, Pachyderm is used informally to describe Elephants (the Republican symbol...for some reason (I never fully understood the animal symbols)). That being said, you are partially correct, the term Pachyderms comes from Pachydermata (or is it Pachydermatous?) which is an improper classification of animals based on "think skin" rather than any true body structure characteristic, etc. used to classify animals (the incorrect classification had Elephants, Horses and Pigs as close "relatives")

edit: here is a map breakdown of Alaska during the 2004 Election: 2004 Presidential General Election Results - Alaska (for some reason, Blue = Bush, and Red = Kerry on these maps.)

[solomon]

Pachyderms is terribly outdated slang for elephants, technically YES it is incorrect scientifically, but I have a thing for pre 60s slang (sorry about the wierdness)

Anyways yea it is always more varied than we think

Here is one that includes AL and HI

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...osterAll50.gif

It's interesting how Alaska is a solid color while others are spotted.

On another note, you guys know what congressional district of your state you live in? If you look at the maps you'll see for many states it's really wierd and jumbled up to the average joe but awesome for politicians scince it often attemps toward long stretches of party rule.

The region I live in; Northern Virginia is rather diverse and very competetive these days. The heavily urbanised counties that surround the district combined are moderate, although the one I live in trends democratic. However, because I live in a sprawled out part of the "Alexandria, VA" Zip code, I'm right next to the edge of the neighboring district. Wierd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...onal_districts

Here's a wiki outlining the crazy districts and how they swing. You may need to consult additional maps for pricise checking especially if you live in a heavily populated state cause those the ones that are the most wierdly broken up

[solomon]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Here's a site that can help pinpoint exactly where you fall.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

Obama has publicly denounced that he shares the views of those people, and has disassociated them as campaign advisers. McCain on the other hand keeps them on his ticket and basically just hopes that no one notices. Trying to pretend these types of association are the same is absurd.

I'd like to further respond to this because someone decided to respond through reputation rather than a post.

The reputation remark asked the question of whether a person should not be judged by the company that they keep. I'd say that you can, but only to a certain degree and with other information known to you. If Obama chose Wright's church because he shared Wright's views or had a close personal relationship with Wright, you could make a judgement about Obama over that. Otherwise, to say that Obama's relationship with Wright says a lot about him is about as meaningul as saying that a child's relationship with their school principle is meaningful, simply because the child attends that school. What I mean by that is, most children attend a school by default rather than choice, based on what schools are nearest to them geographically. Similarly, most people attend a place of worship based on what is closest and/or most convenient to attend, rather than because they take an extended interest in the people involved.

Regarding Ayers, Obama's relationship with him is overhyped, in my opinion. According to the article that I linked, Ayers and Obama were often members of the same community service groups, they lived somewhat near each other, and Ayers donated to Obama's campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2001. On one hand it's possible that they are good friends, and on the other it's entirely realistic that they barely know each other.

Let's assume a middle ground, and say that they're on friendly terms. Please perform a self test at this point and ask yourself whether you are associated with less than admirable people. It's more likely than you think, I assure you. I think everyone does it: we tolerate these people, or maintain an association with these people without really caring for them or their views. Is it possible that Ayers and Ayers' views are very meaningful to Obama? Yes, it is possible. It is possible that Obama can have Ayers as an acquaintance and not really care for him? Yes, that's quite possible as well.

We haven't seen Ayers (or Wright) around Obama much, nor were they greatly involved in his documented life even before the presidential campaign. This leads me to believe that we should give weight to the option that Obama is associated with them but doesn't overly care for them. To assume the worst without evidence to say otherwise is simply looking to stir up unfounded fears.

[solomon]

Hmm after reading up on Congressional Voting records, I gotta say;

McCain SERIOUSLY overhyped his maverick status. I mean it's cool he's part of the Main Street Republicans and all.
see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...et_Partnership

But his fellow senators on that partnership seem MUCH more like mavericks, Namely the two female representatives of Maine with GOP agree votes at around 65%
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...110/states/me/

Or even old head Arlen Specter of PA at 70%
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...110/states/pa/

You would think that john boy is around there but McCain's is at 88%
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...110/states/az/


NOW TO BE FAIR:

This doesn't delinate WHICH things they dissagreed with the GOP majority on of course, that must be wieghted as well.

Plus, it seems like seeing anything lower than an 85% alignment rating is rather rare in heavily gerrymandered America.

Still, this sticks out to me on just how managed politicians bios and profiles are by their campaigns. (Obama is guilty of that too of course).

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'd like to further respond to this because someone decided to respond through reputation rather than a post.

The reputation remark asked the question of whether a person should not be judged by the company that they keep. I'd say that you can, but only to a certain degree and with other information known to you. If Obama chose Wright's church because he shared Wright's views or had a close personal relationship with Wright, you could make a judgement about Obama over that. Otherwise, to say that Obama's relationship with Wright says a lot about him is about as meaningul as saying that a child's relationship with their school principle is meaningful, simply because the child attends that school. What I mean by that is, most children attend a school by default rather than choice, based on what schools are nearest to them geographically. Similarly, most people attend a place of worship based on what is closest and/or most convenient to attend, rather than because they take an extended interest in the people involved.

Regarding Ayers, Obama's relationship with him is overhyped, in my opinion. According to the article that I linked, Ayers and Obama were often members of the same community service groups, they lived somewhat near each other, and Ayers donated to Obama's campaign for re-election to the Senate in 2001. On one hand it's possible that they are good friends, and on the other it's entirely realistic that they barely know each other.

Let's assume a middle ground, and say that they're on friendly terms. Please perform a self test at this point and ask yourself whether you are associated with less than admirable people. It's more likely than you think, I assure you. I think everyone does it: we tolerate these people, or maintain an association with these people without really caring for them or their views. Is it possible that Ayers and Ayers' views are very meaningful to Obama? Yes, it is possible. It is possible that Obama can have Ayers as an acquaintance and not really care for him? Yes, that's quite possible as well.

We haven't seen Ayers (or Wright) around Obama much, nor were they greatly involved in his documented life even before the presidential campaign. This leads me to believe that we should give weight to the option that Obama is associated with them but doesn't overly care for them. To assume the worst without evidence to say otherwise is simply looking to stir up unfounded fears.

There's not much out there connecting Ayers and Wright to Obama in terms of time spent, but what's there is rather questionable.

While Obama probably didn't have much to do with Ayers at all, he did have an early campaign event at Ayers's house. The venue may not have been chosen by him, and heck, he may not have known much, if anything, of Ayers's past and continued beliefs (although if he did know, why he wouldn't object becomes a question). If people want to assert anything here, they'll have to support it statements about Ayers from Obama, but on its own it's just questionable.

Wright is another matter, though. When this first became an issue, I was at the front saying Wright shouldn't necessarily reflect on Obama simply because he's Obama's pastor. I certainly know how true that is from my own life. After reading more, though, I'm through making that stand.

While the Youtube videos may be overblown, looking at Wright's history shows that they are indicative of his general belief. He ascribes to some very radical philosophies and a radical Christian-lookalike theology. Reading things Obama had to say before he rose to the national level (which sounds very typical of similar, but softer spoken, "say one thing and they know you mean another" radicals) and what he said he found in common with Wright raises some serious questions--especially considering that Wright's views were no secret and considering how much praise Obama had for him.

In politics, you can't be judged TOO much by the company you keep, or you'd never get anything done. Still, it appears that Obama learned pretty quickly that what worked at the local level in Chicago won't work at the national level.

[solomon]

Meh, I don't think I need to rail on Obama plus Wright anymore then certain Republicans being supported by guys like Donald Wildmon or John Hagee (although those guys bother me MUCH more than Wright)

I guess this is a agree to disagree here, Wright's views (like it or not) is part of a certain subset of Black Liberation Theology as according the PBS Bill Moyers' interview with him. Much like the large gulf between viewpoints of many mainlines protestants and the above mentioned pastors, I see this as a breakdown of communication among cultural lines, one that at the end of the day, doesn't matter nearly as much as what the man did in office.

That's not to say I agree with much of what Wright says but comparing him with the past actions and beliefs of say Ayers I think is overblown. But more importantly IT AINT ALL THAT IMPORTANT.

[xxmimixx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

LOL @ horse****.

Watched part of the debate on the news this weekend, and I was like WTH at OLD GUY (haha his new nickname for now on, like Joe Biden Mr. Hippy). OLD GUY didn't even had eye contact at his opponent. I think it was because he was either scared to be on national tv, or too arrogant and "powerful" to talk to his opponent. Come one, at least Obama showed respect toward his opponent and had good eye contact!

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by mimi_girl

Come one, at least Obama showed respect toward his opponent and had good eye contact!

In some ways, I felt that Obama's speaking directly to McCain and eye contact were measures of provocation. Debates can take many forms, but I always figured that the presidential debates were largely about discussing the issues. Obama's directly speaking to McCain made it a bit more personal. McCain also spoke about Obama, but not directly - arguably this was also somewhat provocative. I'd be inclined to agree that McCain's refusal to look at Obama was more a method of anger management and not allowing himself to be provoked.

[Sassarai]

Guess America's love affair with Sarah Palin is over

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...r_sarah_p.html


But then again the expectations for Palin are so low right now that if she even sounds coherent during the debate, she'll win em over.