US Presidential Elections 3

[Walsingham]

Meh. I'm sulking because I just read a BBC poll headlined "Britons call for troop withdrawal". 63% said withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in one year. I'm not sure what to make of this, because the headline reinforces the popular refrain of withdrawal, but then the article itself had various Afghans and Iraqis saying "For God's sake no! Are you retarded?" I could completely give up on democracy right now.

[Killian Kalthorne]

That is funny, because I keep getting the feeling that Iraqis want the coalition forces to leave and leave immediately. Or maybe just the US forces.

[Enoch]

The 2004 Bush campaign's emphasis on supporting the troops and being tough on terrorists was a perfect example of a conservative candidate effectively using emotional impact in its pitch to the public.

that's one of the few because of the very real perceived threat of terrorism.

Uh-huh. What about GHWB's big public stand against flag burning? Or Reagan's made-up stories about welfare moms with welfare Cadillacs? Politicians of every stripe use emotional appeals to voters-- it hardly skews one way or another.

 

i'm simply saying that i'm surprised it was as small as it was, not that it was small. given the media slant, and the lack of popularity of the "old guard" resulting from the GOP's inability to control itself the first 6 years of bush, i would have expected a much larger gap.

OK. You were surprised. Probably because you believe that media bias is a significant influence on peoples' opinions when it isn't.

 

Ultimately, most people aren't convinceable based on what happens in an election, even where there is a mile-long record of bad policy and poor leadership. Because, when the chips are down, people would rather ignore contrary facts than admit that they were wrong in their prior belief in a particular candidate/party. (This phenomenon should feel familiar to anyone who has argued on the internet. )

Edited November 13, 2008 by Enoch

[Humodour]

That is funny, because I keep getting the feeling that Iraqis want the coalition forces to leave and leave immediately. Or maybe just the US forces.

 

A lot of that is pressure from Iran. But there's a significant subset of Iraqis who desperately want the West to stay and help build infrastructure and enforce democracy. I'd say that subset is at least big as 30% to 40% of Iraqis. Moreover, of the 60% or so who want us to leave, many of them want that because they think things have stabilised - hence their opinion will likely turn out to be highly volatile.

 

Hopefully Obama leaves a peacekeeper force behind after he withdraws fully in 18 months. Anything less would be a victory for Iran and the insurgents they back.

[Humodour]

oh, and 6% is really a misnomer in a 2-party system. it's really 3%, i.e., take just over 3% away from obama and give them to mccain and the vote goes the other way. just over 3 million votes.

 

taks

 

It is about a 6.6% margin so far, and Obama won by about 8.3 million votes. Which is fairly large, even when you're trying to obfuscate it with mathematics like that.

 

But numbers themselves don't make a political realignment. You'll see that happen through Obama's performance, taks.

 

In other news: Begich just beat Stevens in Alaska, and Berkley won Oregon a while ago, so the Democrats now have 58 Senate seats. The Senate race in Georgia is a toss-up but Martin will probably lose, while the Minnesota seat is a toss-up but Franken will probably win, leaving the Democrats with 59 senate seats. If all Dems voted along party lines that would mean they'd need only one Republican to vote with them to invoke Cloture.

 

The Dems have an 83 seat majority in the House, at 256 seats to the GOP's 173, but there's a few unsettled races there as well. You can probably expect a 50/50 split so the 83 seat majority for Dems won't change.

 

And I think I mentioned it here before, but Obama ended up winning some of Nebraska's electoral votes.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Krezack

[taks]

It is about a 6.6% margin so far, and Obama won by about 8.3 million votes. Which is fairly large, even when you're trying to obfuscate it with mathematics like that.

 

let me repeat: I DID NOT SAY IT WAS SMALL. i said, quite plainly, that it was smaller than it could have been. not that you would understand mathematics (no numbers larger than 2^12 and all), but even with 8.3 million it is only a swing of 4.15 million, when it could easily have been 10 or more, which was my point.

 

But numbers themselves don't make a political realignment. You'll see that happen through Obama's performance, taks.

yeah, maybe when he's done the US will see the switch to libertarianism or similar.

 

taks

Edited November 13, 2008 by Gorth
removed name calling

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a little bit.

 

Sheesh guys, I shouldn't really have to do that *after* the elections

 

I am sure it is possible to discuss numbers without resorting to low blows and name calling. Well, one can hope at least.

[Guard Dog]

Palin stories were a hoax

 

All those stories about Palin not knowing Africa was a continent? They were a hoax. They were created by an fake internet blog used by a filmmaker to create buzz about a film project. And MSNBC and the New York Times all printed it as news. This is just like the bogus story they did about GWBs military service that was fabricated by a John Kerry operative and CBS ran as news in 2004. The "mainstream" media is so biased, and they so much want these negative stories about candidates they hate to be true they just run them with no vetting or verification. So now they retract quietly what they shouted out loudly.

 

A number of posters on this very board follow the same thought process now that I think about it.

[Gorgon]

You know this feels an awful lot like when John Kerry was transmogriffed into a waffle. People are stupid, and if you find a caricature that's good enough, it trumps political message every time.

[Volourn]

Nice for the truth to come out after the election is over when it no longer matters. Also, if *this* is to be believed (I don't wholly endorse it); it was actually a Republican campaigner who spread the rumour. Disgusting!

[Gorgon]

Politics

[Humodour]

Palin stories were a hoax

 

All those stories about Palin not knowing Africa was a continent? They were a hoax. They were created by an fake internet blog used by a filmmaker to create buzz about a film project. And MSNBC and the New York Times all printed it as news. This is just like the bogus story they did about GWBs military service that was fabricated by a John Kerry operative and CBS ran as news in 2004. The "mainstream" media is so biased, and they so much want these negative stories about candidates they hate to be true they just run them with no vetting or verification. So now they retract quietly what they shouted out loudly.

 

A number of posters on this very board follow the same thought process now that I think about it.

 

I doubt it. More than likely it was simply a 'good story' so they ran it. This happens to both sides of politics, FWIW. The 'media conspiracies' explanations and their analogues rarely turn out to be true.

 

I don't know why the Republicans are trying to discredit her now, but unfortunately, this doesn't change the nature of her vapidness; spending hundreds of thousands of campaign donations on clothes, her interviews, not answering questions during the debate and flirting with the audience, etc.

 

It is about a 6.6% margin so far, and Obama won by about 8.3 million votes. Which is fairly large, even when you're trying to obfuscate it with mathematics like that.

 

let me repeat: I DID NOT SAY IT WAS SMALL. i said, quite plainly, that it was smaller than it could have been. not that you would understand mathematics (no numbers larger than 2^12 and all), but even with 8.3 million it is only a swing of 4.15 million, when it could easily have been 10 or more, which was my point.

 

Whoa nellie! No need to get so worked up mate.

 

Anyway, why on earth would you expect a swing of 10 million instead of 4 million? There's not much history, certainly in modern times, for a swing of over 12% (i.e. a 24% margin).

 

But numbers themselves don't make a political realignment. You'll see that happen through Obama's performance, taks.

yeah, maybe when he's done the US will see the switch to libertarianism or similar.

 

taks

 

Maybe, but I doubt it. There's certainly little to no precedent for it elsewhere in the world (because it's not economically stable for the middle and lower classes who make up the bulk of voters) and it doesn't go down very well with the growing minority groups: Hispanics and African-Americans.

[Volourn]

" spending hundreds of thousands of campaign donations on clothes"

 

Republican campaign decision not hers.

 

"her interviews"

 

*shrug*

 

 

", not answering questions during the debate"

 

She evades them like most politicians.

 

" and flirting with the audience,"

 

Big deal. They all do to a certain point. It's one of the ways you connect with the audience.

 

 

" etc."

 

No.

[Calax]

" spending hundreds of thousands of campaign donations on clothes"

 

Republican campaign decision not hers.

 

"her interviews"

 

*shrug*

 

 

", not answering questions during the debate"

 

She evades them like most politicians.

 

" and flirting with the audience,"

 

Big deal. They all do to a certain point. It's one of the ways you connect with the audience.

 

 

" etc."

 

No.

you have to say that she came off as a complete airhead when interviewed by Katie Couric. The more recent one by Fox seemed more scripted.

[Hell Kitty]

The hoax was the guy claiming to be the source of the story, not the original Fox story.

[Walsingham]

I really don't understand why spending hundreds of thousands on clothes seems unreasonable, when one considers the scale of campaign finance as a whole. I don't think anyone here would deny that simple visual image is above 60% of the equation for most voters.There's not much bloody point in putting someone on TV every five minutes if people watching think they look daft.

 

Interesting notion about it being a hoaz. But I've no time just now to read the article.

[Trenitay]

I really don't understand why spending hundreds of thousands on clothes seems unreasonable, when one considers the scale of campaign finance as a whole.

 

I'm pretty sure she's not supposed to use campaign money used to fund the campaign to fund her wardrobe.

[taks]

I'm pretty sure she's not supposed to use campaign money used to fund the campaign to fund her wardrobe.

that's a completely legitimate expense. image is extremely important in an election anyway. people make a fuss about it because it seems excessive, just like john edwards and his $500 (or whatever) haircut. hard to claim you're connecting with the average joe the plumber when you're spending that kind of money on things most of us consider frivolous. the irony, of course, is that we expect these people to look good on tv.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Anyway are we counting Fox News as part of the 'liberal media bias' now.

[taks]

nope. they simply reported on it because it is a story. kinda sucks that it is a story, but it is. they hammered john edwards, too, so they are at least equal opportunity in that sense.

 

personally, i wouldn't trust a journalist as far as i could throw a politician. they don't have sufficient education to report on the things that i think are important and instead, get led around by the nose incapable of asking the right questions.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Of course when they do ask the right questions the politician they are asking dodge them so in truth they don't get a story worth printing/telling anyway.

[Humodour]

Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State. Haha.

 

It looks like McCain might get a position, too. Whether its an official one or not is probably the biggest unknown.

 

More info on his cabinet here: http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/valerie.ja...a.2.864868.html

Edited November 15, 2008 by Krezack

[Aristes]

To be fair, Palin did not buy clothes with Campaign money. Since the election is over, I figure folks can stop telling/believing untruths about the candidates.

 

The McCain campaign purchased Clothes for Palin. The clothes were bought in three sizes to make sure they fit. So the actual ammount was more like 50 grand. Once the campaign was over, they intended to give those clothes to charity, so Palin was never intended to receive those clothes as part of her regular wardrobe. The male candidates also have expenditures for clothes, although the brevity of the process meant that news organizations could get word of the purchases and then fan public interest in the story since it was a large sum of money at one time rather than several purchases hidden in larger budgets.

 

As a story, it was pretty lame. However, it did provide fodder for populists who, on the one hand, will attack the candidate based on the price of her wardrobe and, on the other hand, be uncharitable towards her based on what she wears. Palin was certainly in a tight spot.

 

As far as the vice presidential debate, I think she won it in terms of the most important areas. She came accross as more likeable. In terms of policy and knowledge, they both would have failed had it been a fair test administered at any reputable University. The fact is, the vice presidential candidates probably didn't really matter much. McCain was the less articulate, less charismatic candidate. He ran in the same party as the least popular president for at least decades, if not more. Obama's margin of 6% is significant, but it wasn't a landslide victory to the level of Reagan or Nixon, although that's not an entirely fair comparison until Obama runs for a second term. If anyone is surprised, it should be that McCain actually managed to make it look like a race for a while.

 

Hey, how about this, Democrats/Republicans (and folks who aren't citizens but would like to engage in friendly debate with Americans) why don't we be civil to each other about the candidates? If you voted for McCain, be generous to Obama in victory. If you voted for Obama, be generous to McCain (and even Palin) in defeat. This wardrobe stuff was fluff in the first place and now it's just snide.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

She came accross as more likeable.

 

[Humodour]

To be fair, Palin did not buy clothes with Campaign money. Since the election is over, I figure folks can stop telling/believing untruths about the candidates.

 

The McCain campaign purchased Clothes for Palin. The clothes were bought in three sizes to make sure they fit. So the actual ammount was more like 50 grand. Once the campaign was over, they intended to give those clothes to charity, so Palin was never intended to receive those clothes as part of her regular wardrobe.

 

No, that's not what happened. Donors told her to go buy some clothes and she went and bought clothes alright. They were not pleased.

 

For more on that, read the Newsweek project stuff that was kept secret until after the election (as they do every election). Her donors were not at all pleased with her spending, and more interestingly, it turns out it was more than $150,000, and she spent it on not just herself but her kids and husband - does that seem like the kind of stuff she planned to give back?

 

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family