EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 61
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Pacifist
Israel1683 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On September 26 2008 07:10 Flaccid wrote: The description of the video at YouTube says it's fake... Pretty cut and dry. Well he doesn't say why either, I say real. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
 | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 26 2008 06:25 Savio wrote: There is some truth here to what Flaccid said (and some stuff I disagree with as well). Republicans ARE better at running presidential campaigns. Since FDR, the Democratic party has ALWAYS been much larger than the Republican Party. If you look at charts of party affiliation, you will see that there used to be more than twice as many democrats as republicans. Now it much closer. ![[image loading]](http://people-press.org/reports/images/196-17.gif) But that is not because the GOP has grown but that the democratic party has shrunken and independents have just exploded all over the country. But, notwithstanding the advantage that democrats have had in terms of size of party, Republicans have dominated Presidential politics for a while now winning 7 of the last 10 elections. In the last 30 years, 1 term Carter is the only democrat to win 50% of the vote. While on the other hand, we had the Republican landslides of: 1. Nixon with 570 electoral votes to Humphrey's 17 in 1972 2. Reagan with 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49 in 1980 3. Reagan with 525 electoral votes to Mondales 13 in 1984 4. And Bush the 1st over Dukakis is an arguable landslide with 426 to 111 Could this all be due to Republicans running more ruthless campaigns? Campaigning may be part of it, but that would be really amazing if it was everything. I think a large part of it is that democrats haven't had a good track record in terms of picking electable candidates. People like Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry are a real stretch. Carter and Clinton were the exception. They were both southern centrists who ran as middle of the road guys. Clinton ran partly on reforming welfare (he did a good job). Carter also ran as a centrist. America is wary of the extreme left I think, even moreso than they are of the extreme right (Reagan was pretty darn conservative). So why did the democrats again, this year, select the man who during his 3 years in the Senate has been recognized as the 16th, the 10th and the #1 most liberal senator? Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080825_4458.php They picked Obama over Clinton. Clinton, during the primaries, was consistently winning among the working class, and the moderate democrats that made Clinton and Carter successful. Obama was winning among young people and the liberal wing of the democratic party. It looks to me like the dems did it again--much to the joy of the myself and other conservatives. Now, the only question is, will the bad decision of the dems be enough to outweigh the general disdain the public currently holds for the Republicans (thanks a lot BUSH!). That is what is different about this election. Dukakis and Mondale didn't have that on their side when they lost. The way elections have been run has dramatically changed since Jimmy Carter, so any evidence beyond that point is essentially useless. You have to look at Reagan and beyond, and as I've said many times, the Republican party had run the better campaign for 24 years. Carter was the first one to run a somewhat modern campaign, but he was doing it without competition from Dems and against an unwilling incumbent. Clinton didn't win on being a centrist. Clinton won on Ross Perot. The way his campaign was run was still subpar to the structure of the republican campaign. The conservative movement (which is no longer conservative, btw) is an extremely active minority while the liberal side is largely apathetic. It would have been a shock for Bush to get 40% in 2000 or 2004 if we had 100% voter turnout. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On September 26 2008 05:24 BlackJack wrote: I'm not supporting McCain, but i'll throw my 2 cents in the pot. Right now, Obama is cutting taxes for every bracket except for those earning over $250,000 whom he says he wants to increase their taxes by a modest amount. According to the economists I've heard on the matter, neither candidate's tax plan will be able to afford their budget, and both candidate's budget will be massively in debt. From what I've seen on campaign rhetoric, McCain wants to pay for this by cutting spending. He just said in an interview recently that he believes there is a lot of extra defense spending that can be cut, as well as other government agencies like the Department of Education. On the other hand, everything I've heard from Obama seems to indicate that he wants to increase the size of government. For some reason he doesn't get into specifics but he keeps bringing up these "people" that are "working 10 hours a day" and are "barely getting by" and that they deserve a "leg up from the government." I'm not quoting him, but that's the gist of what I hear from him a lot. Another example is that a few months ago Obama proposed doubling foreign aid to $50 billion a year. If we can't afford our own budget, maybe we shouldn't be giving away another $25 billion a year. yes, but the way the taxcuts are slanted, mccain would cut taxes by an average of 11% (even if most of the cuts go to the top 1%), where obama would cut taxes by an average of about 1%, after you consider the increased tax on the top 1-2% so right from the start, obamas budget is a bit more sane. Add to that, the closing of the bush taxcuts, closing specific tax loopholes and ending the war in Iraq, and it quickly becomes inarguable that mccain will bring in as much money as obama. for National healthcare, I remember reading a joint release by 20 or so economists saying that it was a valid (ie realistic) plan. The money for it will be gotten by ending the war, closing loopholes, focus on preventitive care and minor program cuts. This is in addition to the 1% vs 11% thing mentioned above. Whether mccain supports healthcare or not, his ridiculous taxing plan, combined with continuing the war is simply ridiculous, pretty much regardless of program cuts...when the war is estimated at 12 billion a month (a trillion spent already), you have to do some pretty big cuts | ||
|
Flaccid
8859 Posts
On September 26 2008 07:40 BalliSLife wrote: Well he doesn't say why either, I say real. Well then, another approach is to, you know, actually listen to the video. You can make out words under the 'bleeps' and he's not cussing. But hey, believe whatever you want. Especially if it's exactly what you want to hear! It's the American way. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians? Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state. nnononononononononononononononono ![[image loading]](http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/05/02/russia%20map.gif) Nothing happens in Siberia. It could be one giant ball pit and Alaska's relations with Russia would not change (except more tourism.) Savio, if we gave Palin a blank map on central-eastern Europe, how many countries would she get right? Honestly, I don't think McCain would be able to get more than 50%, unless he labeled the entire eastern bloc as USSR. | ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On September 26 2008 07:37 Pacifist wrote: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ This is terrifying, her speech skills seem to be just as bad as the current Presidents, not to mention she acts like a fish out of water 90% of the time. She keeps calling McCain by his full name is if he has no idea who the man is or he is her father or something, which denotes some sort of lack in communication and skill in her department. She has no real opinion on the economic bail out besides "o shit its bad and uh we could maybe do something different" which is horrifying. I seriously think the McCain campaign misjudged the amount of goodwill a woman would bring to their campaign and they sacrificed a realistic candidate for it. Seriously how could this woman even accept the offer? She has no qualifications and has even less confidence. While some could say the same about Obama he is either A) Fit for the Job or B) Very good at hiding it, when you see that guy on TV I think "Well at least he has a solid idea even if I dont like it" but Palin is totally fucking McCain over by taking his rock solid platform in a completely different direction. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Clinton didn't win on being a centrist. Clinton won on Ross Perot. The way his campaign was run was still subpar to the structure of the republican campaign. This was true in his campaign against Bush Sr. However, his campaign was much better than Dole's. But I believe that Clinton ran as a Washington outsider/moderate democrat. After all, he negotiated NAFTA (good move in my book), and helped reform welfare (another score). He was also a governor of a good ole' Southern state and not a liberal senator from Massachusetts. Obama, on the other hand, I see as more of a Dukakis/Mondale/Kerry rather than a Clinton/Carter. The conservative movement (which is no longer conservative, btw) Oh there is still a lot of real conservatives out there. But the Republican party has temporarily abandoned us and moved too far to the Left fiscally with Bush. Somehow, they kept the part about cutting taxes but forgot about cutting expenditures and that doesn't work. For now, the GOP is in a sad state of things. I am unhappy with it. I'm hoping that McCain will restore fiscal discipline to the GOP. The GOP has been behaving like big government democrats, but they are not as good at it as real democrats are. GOP does best when it focuses on restraining the size and influence of government and leaves the big government stuff to the Democrats. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Savio, if we gave Palin a blank map on central-eastern Europe, how many countries would she get right? Honestly, I don't think McCain would be able to get more than 50%, unless he labeled the entire eastern bloc as USSR. Somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that McCain would do better than Obama on this test. He has met most (or at least a butt-load) of them and not just as a campaign stunt. In tests like this you really should be comparing McCain to Biden and Obama to Palin because even though the matchup isn't perfect, we all know which 2 of the candidates are the ones with experience. Difference is, McCain is #1 on our ticket and Biden is the #2 guy. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 26 2008 08:05 Flaccid wrote: But hey, believe whatever you want. Especially if it's exactly what you want to hear! It's the American way. This is all too true. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 26 2008 09:26 Savio wrote: Somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that McCain would do better than Obama on this test. He has met most (or at least a butt-load) of them and not just as a campaign stunt. In tests like this you really should be comparing McCain to Biden and Obama to Palin because even though the matchup isn't perfect, we all which 2 of the candidates are the ones with the experience. Difference is, McCain is #1 on our ticket and Biden is the #2 guy. I don't think so. McCain has serious fundamental issues when it comes to regional conflicts and who supports what, and Obama was an IR major at Columbia. It just doesn't make sense that you're for "preserving marriage" yet want the federal government out of people's lives. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 26 2008 09:23 Savio wrote: But the Republican party has temporarily abandoned us and moved too far to the Left fiscally with Bush. That statement is ridiculous in multiple ways. | ||
|
tiffany
3664 Posts
On September 26 2008 09:26 Savio wrote: Somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that McCain would do better than Obama on this test. He has met most (or at least a butt-load) of them and not just as a campaign stunt. In tests like this you really should be comparing McCain to Biden and Obama to Palin because even though the matchup isn't perfect, we all know which 2 of the candidates are the ones with experience. Difference is, McCain is #1 on our ticket and Biden is the #2 guy. "experience" does not always translate into competence. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217710.php this seems to happen every now and again. confusion of shiites and sunnis, sudan and somalia immediately come to mind. | ||
|
Flaccid
8859 Posts
I can't even spell that. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
So the point? LOL, I was looking for the source and came upon a site that monitors quotes from everyone important. Here are some good ones from McCain: "Just stop at one of these construction sites and look and see who those workers are. They're all Hispanic, ... And I bet you they're illegal." "Leonardo DiCaprio is "an androgynous wimp." "We can't disrupt polling places anymore, ... It doesn't serve any purpose. It just makes people mad." "Both candidates did whatever they could and one of them won, ... That's what it's all about. " The vast majority were just the patriotic type one liners and several of those were really good, but I wanted to share the ones I found funny. LoL at DiCaprio. McCain could man-handle that boy even though his body is all old and broken. Source: http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/listquotes/author/john-mccain/0 Brings back good old memories of "THE MAN": McCain and Schwarzenegger: when men were MEN. | ||
| ||
