2008 Presidential Election

So who should be 44th President of the United States of America?


  • Total voters
    71

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Let's lighten the mood in here before the global economy collapses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPTB7-ecDC8

Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad On McCain
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Nice new pictures Griffith, not Griffith_No_More no more?

Seen this video

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6cOTqEBWEGE

Anyone know where a more comprehensive list of all the additions to the new 450 page behemoth Bail Out Bill are?
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Karl Rove predicts the election will be won by Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081005/pl_politico/14294

With 30 days until Nov. 4, Karl Rove projects that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would get at least 273 electoral votes – three more than are needed to win – if the presidential election were held today.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eSPWaUsgY

Gunman Kills 15 Potential Swing Voters.  :judo:
-----------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl78

McCain just lost the astrologist demographic.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Scary stuff, it's gotten to the point McCain pretty much had to come out and defend Obama today. That's the razor's edge you walk though when you play on the fear, ignorance, and prejudice of the mob. I find it fasicnating because I truly believe McCain is uncomfortable with this sort of slime, but he has no chance if he doesn't basically rally everyone's inner bigot.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.investigation/index.html

Oh, and no surprise here. Sounds like she's already been making decisions like a President. =)
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl78

Wow yeah, what a slip-up.

Griffith said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Holy shit...

At a rally in Minnesota on Friday, a woman told McCain: "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab."
And at a McCain rally in New Mexico on Monday, one supporter yelled out "terrorist" when McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

I was actually laughing at this until the sadness of it all hit me. And to know that McCain's reasonable responses are met with booing is indeed scary. I honestly feel bad for him.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Griffith said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Scary stuff, it's gotten to the point McCain pretty much had to come out and defend Obama today. That's the razor's edge you walk though when you play on the fear, ignorance, and prejudice of the mob. I find it fasicnating because I truly believe McCain is uncomfortable with this sort of slime, but he has no chance if he doesn't basically rally everyone's inner bigot.

And Obama's response, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/obama
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl78

McCain just lost the astrologist demographic.

Before I read the news report I thought McCain had offended some fortune tellers who might have predicted Obama winning the election. Then I read the story and realized it is more related to astronomy than astrology. Just nitpicking here :carcus:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Aazealh said:
I was actually laughing at this until the sadness of it all hit me. And to know that McCain's reasonable responses are met with booing is indeed scary. I honestly feel bad for him.

Yeah, he has the fortune/misfortune of having the support of every ignorant bigot in the country not really voting for him, but voting against Obama. McCain brought it on himself though by throwing gasoline on that fire this month, and I feel most sorry for Republicans and those supporting McCain for legitimate reasons:

Former Michigan Gov. William Milliken, a Republican, told the Grand Rapids Press he was "disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign."

"He is not the McCain I endorsed," Milliken said Thursday.

And really, what we've quoted isn't even the half of it:

One member of the Palin audience in Jacksonville, Florida, Tuesday shouted out "treason." And at another rally in the state Monday, Palin's mention of the Obama-Ayers tie caused one member to yell out: "kill him" -- though it was unclear if it was targeted at Obama or Ayers.

At several recent rallies, Palin has stirred up crowds by mentioning the "liberal media." Routinely, there are boos at every mention of The New York Times and the "mainstream media," both of which are staples of Palin's stump speech.

Some audience members are openly hostile to members of the traveling press covering Palin; one crowd member hurled a racial epithet at an African-American member of the press in Clearwater, Florida, on Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Supporters had shouted "terrorist" and "off with his head" at the mention of Obama's connections to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, whose group bombed federal buildings in protest of the Vietnam War when Obama was a child.

Unhelpful for establishing the tone McCain sought in Davenport was the Rev. Arnold Conrad, past pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church. His prayer before McCain arrived at the convention center blocks from the Mississippi River appeared to dismiss faiths other than Christianity and cast the election as a referendum on God himself.

"I would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether its Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons," Conrad said.

"And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day," he said.

A McCain town hall in Wisconsin on Thursday was also noticeable for its angry crowd. But a rally in the state on Friday -- before he moved on to Minnesota -- was more subdued.

The only incident was an Obama supporter shouting "Liar!" as McCain accused his rival of planning massive new taxes. McCain loyalists drowned her out chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A."

"U-S-A, U-S-A." Indeed.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
"And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day," he said.

"My God's bigger than yours and he has cooler powers!!!"
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/barack-osama-pr.html

Ahuh, so typo?

Well it was only 300 paper's and it is checked by both Democrats and Republicans before it goes out, so it probably was a typo, never underestimate the stupidity of people. Besides I'm sure it's easy to imagine people "checking" a document by quickly glancing over it then giving the stamp of approval.

On this matter though does anyone know what % of the electorate has already voted?
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
On this matter though does anyone know what % of the electorate has already voted?

I haven't been able to find that exact information either, though I've read estimates that when all is said and done 25-30% of the electorate could have already voted before the election. That's taking into account that so many new registries can take advantage of early voting methods, basically making it so you can register/vote in one step. I'll just be going to the local church where I usually vote. Anyway, this site has a lot of information strewn about, including that an Ohio poll indicating that 12% of those surveyed had already voted.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Here are a couple of other maps, like the one above, the yahoo map is based on poll averages, in this case from Real Clear Politics, and the CNN map is based on polling, voting trends, and ad spending, making it either that much more accurate or that much more muddled. In any case, it's much closer, which is probably more realistic.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/index.html
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith said:
I haven't been able to find that exact information either, though I've read estimates that when all is said and done 25-30% of the electorate could have already voted before the election. That's taking into account that so many new registries can take advantage of early voting methods, basically making it so you can register/vote in one step. I'll just be going to the local church where I usually vote. Anyway, this site has a lot of information strewn about, including that an Ohio poll indicating that 12% of those surveyed had already voted.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Here are a couple of other maps, like the one above, the yahoo map is based on poll averages, in this case from Real Clear Politics, and the CNN map is based on polling, voting trends, and ad spending, making it either that much more accurate or that much more muddled. In any case, it's much closer, which is probably more realistic.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/index.html

Much Closer? All of them seem to be saying that Obama will win hands down and that the Dem's will sweep the Senate. So pretty much what I was expecting, with all my "pendulum politics" talk, that Bush will crush Republican dominance and replace it with Democratic dominance, only it seems their dominance will be even more overwhelming. In De Facto terms it is looking as if there won't be an opposition to Democrat control for at least 2 years, "God" save us all.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
Much Closer? All of them seem to be saying that Obama will win hands down and that the Dem's will sweep the Senate.

Sorry, I meant the CNN map, taking into account previous voting trends and spending, has it much closer than the ones based on polling alone, which obviously favor Obama.

Sanguinius said:
So pretty much what I was expecting, with all my "pendulum politics" talk, that Bush will crush Republican dominance and replace it with Democratic dominance, only it seems their dominance will be even more overwheming.

I think you should seriously consider writing such passages in the third person for added effect, for example: "So pretty much what Sanguinius was expecting, with all Sanguinius' "pendulum politics" talk..." =)

Sanguinius said:
In De Facto terms it is looking as if there won't be an opposition to Democrat control for at least 2 years, "God" save us all.

cx11404022150.hmedium.jpg
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith said:
Sorry, I meant the CNN map, taking into account previous voting trends and spending, has it much closer than the ones based on polling alone, which obviously favor Obama.

I think you should seriously consider writing such passages in the third person for added effect, for example: "So pretty much what Sanguinius was expecting, with all Sanguinius' "pendulum politics" talk..." =)

cx11404022150.hmedium.jpg

I'll leave my third person talk for when I'm off conquering Gaul. (Watch out Aaz!)


I'll give a few prophetic warnings though for the years to come.

1. Trade hostility, then restrictions, with the possibility of a spiraling trade war.

2. More debt in nominal and real terms and as a % of GDP.

3. More inflation, combined with falling real wages, the Dem's might try and "fix" this with price controls, if this happens expect scarcity too. I say too as inflation will soar even more on the Black Market.

4. Currency depreciation with the possibility of the Dollar losing its Global reserve status. If that happens it will magnify inestimably all other economic problems especially inflation.

5. More taxes, more spending, and an even more pervasive control of the economy by the Federal Government which will make it more rigid/less dynamic/less innovative.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Those can't be prophetic warnings, most of them are already happening.

Anyway, you forgot...
6. Peace on Earth, and good will toward men. :troll:


Speaking of which...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/MNBA13HOHK.DTL

I only post it for this, my favorite part:

Next to the senator's image was a bucket of fried chicken, a slab of ribs, a slice of watermelon and a pitcher of Kool-Aid. Diane Fedele, the organization's president, took responsibility for the image and apologized "if it offended anyone."

She meant it "to represent food, nothing else. I'm not a racist.

:ganishka:
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith said:
Those can't be prophetic warnings, most of them are already happening.

Well in that he is a politician claiming to solve the problems of the USA I'm saying that all those problems will become MUCH worse and he and the Dem's generally will make them worse, far worse. I'm also saying that they will continue for longer than what most pundits I'm hearing are saying now. Mainly because politicans will intervene and simultaneously exacerbate and prolong the problems, not just in the USA but in Europe too. So they're warnings that the measures the current and next government are taking will not only fail but make things worse and they're prophetic as the next government hasn't even come to power yet, but I've no doubt that what I said will be the result of what they do when they come to power. Also points 1 & 4 haven't really happened in any meaningful way yet, when they happen as I'm talking about you'll known it.

As for point 6. Obama out Bushed Bush on Pakistan calling for unilateral hostilities into the tribal area even before Bush had the idea. Also let's be clear what Obama's plan is on Iraq, maybe pull out in 16 months. Even that's misleading when he says that, as he intends to leave behind a force of unknown size to "hunt down Al-Qaeda" and leave behind a force to train the security and military forces of Iraq and leave a 3rd force behind to protect the US embassy in Baghdad which is a city within Baghdad that's larger than the Vatican. On top of this he wants to increase dramatically US troop presence in Afghanistan and expand the war into Pakistan and continue the abstract "Global War on Terror", and lets see if he repeals any of the domestic surveillance powers that Bush gave to the security forces. So unless you're purely trying to be contrarian and "wind me up" lets move from the fantasy of Obama fandom and see what he's actually been saying he'll do in the context of a Congress utterly dominated by Democrats.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Whether that comes to pass or not, the problem is I'm in no way way convinced John McCain's election would lessen the chances. Your confidence non-withstanding, these things are rather volatile and by nature unpredictable, so while facing those problems anyway, and taking into account McCain could still screw things up with the Dems and well as Obama, I'd prefer to take the other known advantages of an Obama administration over the disadvantages of McCain/Palin and vice versa.

Also, Obama's plans are all based on what's best said while he's running for President, they don't really affect my thinking any more than I'm sure McCain's mortgage proposal affects yours. Considering we're both looking at this from somewhat outside the lines, your statement puts far too much faith in Obama; personally, I wouldn't trust a word he says. =)
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith said:
Whether that comes to pass or not, the problem is I'm in no way way convinced John McCain's election would lessen the chances. Your confidence non-withstanding, these things are rather volatile and by nature unpredictable, so while facing those problems anyway, and taking into account McCain could still screw things up with the Dems and well as Obama, I'd prefer to take the other known advantages of an Obama administration over the disadvantages of McCain/Palin and vice versa.

Also, Obama's plans are all based on what's best said while he's running for President, they don't really affect my thinking any more than I'm sure McCain's mortgage proposal affects yours. Considering we're both looking at this from somewhat outside the lines, your statement puts far too much faith in Obama; personally, I wouldn't trust a word he says. =)

Economics is a science, if A & B cause C then A & B cause C whatever country it is in, whatever time it is in. It's "volatility" is merely the interaction of many forces, it's not volatile in the sense of being random. Look at the last link I posted in Adventures in youtube.

I think what our actual main difference is, is not in either McCain or Obama but in the Office of the Presidency, you seem to attribute far more power to the office than I do. In the context of a Democratic sweep of Congress I don't think it matters much what a McCain Presidency would like to do, just as it hasn't much mattered what President Bush wants to do when the Democrats control the HoR now. However, I do think having division of the executive and legaslative branches will not only keep the Presidency in check but the Congress as well. That's why I think Clinton was a relatively good president, not because of any great virtue of his personally but because of the balance of power with a Democratic Presidency and a Republican HoR.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Sanguinius said:
Economics is a science, if A & B cause C then A & B cause C whatever country it is in, whatever time it is in. It's "volatility" is merely the interaction of many forces, it's not volatile in the sense of being random.

It's a social science. Like Psychology. :casca: I think it's clear that the many factors influencing trends and events are what Griffith was talking about when he mentioned volatility. Theory is one thing, but in actuality we all know it's not as easy as ABC.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Aazealh said:
It's a social science. Like Psychology. :casca: I think it's clear that the many factors influencing trends and events are what Griffith was talking about when he mentioned volatility. Theory is one thing, but in actuality we all know it's not as easy as ABC.

Economics is a science, the addition of the word social in front of it does not detract from that fact. If a theory doesn't depict reality then the theory is wrong, Newtonian theory on gravity is wrong, Physics isn't wrong. Likewise, if you've heard of an economic theory that's wrong, then it's that theory that's wrong, not economics. The ABC analogy is of course a simplified version, as there're about 6.7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) Billion ABC's.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Sanguinius said:
The ABC analogy is of course a simplified version, as there're about 6.7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) Billion ABC's.

Yeah, that was pretty much my point (and not that economics is wrong, whatever that means). You can have a successful model and yet it will fail to predict an event simply because too many independent factors can influence the outcome.
 
Top Bottom