17
   

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
Al Gore is 33-1 and there has been money for Arnold Schwarzenegger even though a change in the law is required for him to stand.

Al Gore versus Arnold Schwarzenegger would be my ideal watch.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 03:48 pm
The right wing's choice for Democratic candidate for President is Barack Hussein Obama because they think that a black man is unelectable to the office of President of The United States of America. In the right wing mind, Obama's nomination would be a veritable shoe-in for whichever Republican candidate is nominated, and the fact that Obama's name is Semitic would be just icing on the cake, as it were, for the Republican nominee's election to that office.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 04:34 pm
Al Gore lost in 2000 by a mere 5 electoral college votes after some strange antics in Florida where 25 of those votes were at stake.

He had 48.4% of the total vote (51,003,926) which was higher than Mr Bush's share (50,460,110).

How can he be overlooked in favour of inexperienced candidates who I think Mr Putin would make mincemeat of? He has your media read for him and the salient facts all filed away.

Any fair minded person who thought he was diddled in 2000 and all those who voted for him as well at that time would be remiss in their duty to fail to support him. The campaign jamboree should not obscure those considerations. That would constitute getting carried away by hype or possibly having a vested interest.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 04:50 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
The right wing's choice for Democratic candidate for President is Barack Hussein Obama because they think that a black man is unelectable to the office of President of The United States of America. In the right wing mind, Obama's nomination would be a veritable shoe-in for whichever Republican candidate is nominated, and the fact that Obama's name is Semitic would be just icing on the cake, as it were, for the Republican nominee's election to that office.


I think that's probably close to the way a whole lot of rightwingers (if but secretly) think. But I also think that if any of them have eyes and open minds, they have had to think twice after Iowa.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 04:55 pm
Quote:
How can he be overlooked in favour of inexperienced candidates



Very easily. He no longer wants the job. We're very lucky as a country to have this many people willing to take on all the crap they have to endure during the election process.

I may not like all of their politics, ideas and ethics, but I have to thank every single one of them for being willing to put themselves through the wringer. There aren't many people willing to do that, even if they have the money to do so.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 06:15 pm
I agree with the thrust of that.

I wouldn't entertain the job myself which leads me to think, subjectively I'll admit, that anybody who does is stark, staring bonkers and the level of their bonkerdom is directly proportional to their avidity.

Thus I am in favour of a monarchy on the grounds that you only get a stark,staring bonkers nutcase in charge of things about one in three times whereas with any other process you get it all the time.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 06:24 pm
I believe it was Will Rogers that said that "anyone that wants the job as President should be disqualified from ever having the job".

Its not a job I would want.
From the perpetual anal exam while a candidate to the total lack of privacy as president, its not a job that most people could handle.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 06:41 pm
And that's putting it mildly.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:35 pm
snood wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
The right wing's choice for Democratic candidate for President is Barack Hussein Obama because they think that a black man is unelectable to the office of President of The United States of America. In the right wing mind, Obama's nomination would be a veritable shoe-in for whichever Republican candidate is nominated, and the fact that Obama's name is Semitic would be just icing on the cake, as it were, for the Republican nominee's election to that office.


I think that's probably close to the way a whole lot of rightwingers (if but secretly) think. But I also think that if any of them have eyes and open minds, they have had to think twice after Iowa.


I agree. In addition, I think the nomination of Huckabee would counter much of what might go against Obama in the final election. None of the Republican candidates really unites that party, but Huckabee polarizes the party more than the other probable candidates. Guliani was the biggest GOP polarizer, but he's pretty much out of the running, probably for that selfsame reason.

If Obama gets the nomination, be ready for a level of negative ad campaigning from the right the likes of which will pale their '88 Willie Horton smear tactics.

Obama himself really doesn't unite the Democratic party, though. There is a sizable big city, blue collar, labor union constituency that is traditionally Democratic, but judging from the emails that I get from some of these people--the very same "Obama is a closet Muslim, the nation is in danger" emails that I get from straight up military class right wing Republicans--they would rather vote for a Republican than Obama.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 07:54 pm
InfraBlue wrote:


Obama himself really doesn't unite the Democratic party, though. There is a sizable big city, blue collar, labor union constituency that is traditionally Democratic, but judging from the emails that I get from some of these people--the very same "Obama is a closet Muslim, the nation is in danger" emails that I get from straight up military class right wing Republicans--they would rather vote for a Republican than Obama.


duly noted, InfraBlue. I certainly have no evidence to prove your reporting right or wrong.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 12:22 am
realjohnboy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:


Obama himself really doesn't unite the Democratic party, though. There is a sizable big city, blue collar, labor union constituency that is traditionally Democratic, but judging from the emails that I get from some of these people--the very same "Obama is a closet Muslim, the nation is in danger" emails that I get from straight up military class right wing Republicans--they would rather vote for a Republican than Obama.


duly noted, InfraBlue. I certainly have no evidence to prove your reporting right or wrong.


Exactly, you have no evidence to prove my reporting right or wrong just like your own reporting in which you assert that, "I am here on the ground in VA and I talk to folks in the South I know and the Obama candidacy has legs if he gets the nod. I see only luke-warm support for Clinton."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 06:53 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can hardly wait for the debates tonight.

What did you think of them?

We looked at the second half of the Dem debate only here, three of us cause Anastasia has a friend over. Was surprised that there wasnt a mention anywhere at all here on the forum on either debate that I could find.

A's friend turns out to be a true Obama believer, while A herself still has no preference and well, you know what I think. So that was interesting Razz But seriously, we had a lot of fun watching and gossiping and keeping up this running commentary. I was pretty impressed by the debate, I thought they were all pretty good; A's friend was pretty disappointed and thought it was a weak debate. She also thought Obama could have done a lot better and Edwards was the only one who did well. I didnt say nuthin about that (I'm quite different IRL from here :wink: ), but did say that I thought Richardson did very well, to his debate standards especially.

But then again, we missed the first half, which apparently included the most contentious moment of the debate - like, "the moment" of the debate.

One minor note: remember that last question, where they were all asked if there had been anything they had said in any of the, like, 438 TV debates so far, that they regretted? Hillary, predictably, straight-out ducked the question and went on about how all the Dems were much better than all the Reps, basically. True, but in the context of the blatantly ducked question sanctimonious crap.

Richardson played that one well by striking a stark contrast and being as real a human being as one can, dishing out this enjoyable, funny self-deprecating story of how they were asked their favourite Supreme Court justice and he answered, "dead or alive?", then proceeded to name a SC justice appointed by JFK. He's all, "JFK is my hero, so I thought, he must have been good... then I find out afterwards that he was against Roe vs Wade, against civil rights.." he trailed off as everyone laughed in that sympathising way, like, that could so have happened to me..

Edwards tried the same thing but in a little less sincere, little more self-serving way (saying he regretted once commenting on Hillary's jacket and telling her, I've got to say, you look great). Then came Obama, and I was so surprised - like negatively, and you know I already dont hold much of him, but this was just so unlike him - did the Hillary thing! He plain ducked the question and went on for what seemed like five minutes with standard campaign memes about the difference between Dems and Reps. That was lame. A's friend said he's just gotten too nervous, he should relax more, he comes across better then.

Anyhow, that was just one question, and a wholly un-substantive one at that, but I wonder how it played out with viewers or the media (havent read up yet), cause it was such a striking contrast between the two frontrunners and the two others. Its a shame what frontrunnerdom can do to a politician (see also Huckabee, Mike).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:05 am
I was just looking around, too.

I had the exact same reaction to the last question. Obama could have a) said something funny a la Richardson (his answer was great!) and scored points that way, b) said ANYTHING, anything at all, and scored points by leaving Hillary as the only one to evade.

I was taking notes again and there are a few scrawled/ underlined passages. I felt like Hillary made some mistakes that neither Edwards nor Obama picked up on. For example, when she was rebutting Edwards' claims to having accomplished stuff in the senate (and I did think that was a weak moment for Edwards, talking about a girl who just died to illustrate an accomplishment he supposedly made in the senate -- Hillary pounced on that, "maybe she wouldn't have died if you'd gotten the Patient's Bill of Rights through," [paraphrase]), she talked about a bunch of Bill Clinton stuff and health care as her own experience. My scrawls -- "you were married to him" and "yeah, health care worked out great." Nobody pounced on that, though, I was disappointed.

I thought the dynamics were super interesting, now that it's 4. How Hillary was positively seething at Richardson (about the "deal" to send second-choicers to Obama, probably), then he said something nice, then he went against her again and again with the seething. (As I said to E.G., Richardson's been a pretty reliable wingman thus far.) Edwards was more supportive of Obama than I expected, but I get it -- knock of Hillary entirely, then hope he can beat Obama if it's just the two of them. Again interesting dynamics... Obama reaching over and thanking Edwards for his patience when Obama went long, etc.

I think Obama was fine, more fluid than usual, and he didn't have the dead eyes. There was a light there, that's good. He didn't hit anything out of the park, though. (His deadpan/ minimalist "you're likable enough, Hillary," was nice but not a big moment.)

Hillary's outburst... just woke up, after having gone to bed right after the debates, haven't read analysis yet (except for nimh's, above). I don't think it'll help her -- she already has the "tough" vote, and I think it could turn some people off. Interested in finding more reactions to that.

One other thing I wrote is "not fresh" -- that's me though, not them. I've watched too many of these things, read too much, recognize too many lines (like Obama's Cayman Islands/ big building one) I have a harder time getting an objective view. I don't have a good feel for what an undecided NH voter who hasn't been following things too closely until now would think about the debates.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:09 am
Oh, Obama did minorly react to Hillary claiming Bill's experience as her own, saying something about how he admired much of what Bill Clinton accomplished, such as balancing budgets... a little emphasis on "Bill", there I think, but I'm not sure. (Hillary just said "President Clinton.") And he went on to talk about the failures of Bill Clinton's tenure. So that was pretty good, just not quite the pounce I was hoping for.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:10 am
InfraBlue wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
duly noted, InfraBlue. I certainly have no evidence to prove your reporting right or wrong.


Exactly, you have no evidence to prove my reporting right or wrong just like your own reporting in which you assert that, "I am here on the ground in VA and I talk to folks in the South I know and the Obama candidacy has legs if he gets the nod. I see only luke-warm support for Clinton."

Well, I do appreciate any reports from "on the ground" (in this case, both of yours'). There's stuff the media coverage and the blogging wonks and geeks just dont get. Takes from 'on the ground' provide a picture more vivid than any poll can. But right, I agree with you - I also take them with a grain of salt, even if it's a bigger or smaller one depending on who's talking (a somewhat smaller grain with both of you, as you're both smart and honest).

I mean, someone can be "on the ground" in this or that state, and that does provides an inside perspective, and I'll always read it with interest - it's one of the more fun parts. But look at it this way: I'm a Dutchman, a foreigner, so all of you Americans are in a way "on the ground". Yet if I were to ask any one of you about your take of what Americans think now, or whom or what they're predisposed to or hostile too, I could get any of a range of wildly different takes. Imagine I'd ask Okie. Or BBB. Or O'Bill. Or JPB. Left, right, or different ways to be in the centre, each would provide completely different truths about what Americans want, politically, and about what they're ready for or not. And yet all of you are well-educated, world-wise folk who should talk to plenty of people in your life.

The only way I would be able to get a more reliable perspective is by surveying a bunch of you - like, say, fourty or fifty of you - and in my head weigh for any bias there might be on this forum (dominantly higher-educated and liberal/moderate). But then, you know - that would de facto be one of those maligned polls! Smile

So yeah, you need both the individual on the ground reports and the polls, but overall I'll believe the results of a poll over any one individual's take.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:16 am
I agree with that, re: individuals.

I did find this, which seems to represent a group of union people:

Quote:
Dear President McEntee:

We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign
that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that
such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was
ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its
decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the
IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong
field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive
impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing
Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the
other candidates or that she would be the better president for working
families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely
primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.

[...]

Dear President McEntee:

We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign
that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that
such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was
ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its
decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the
IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong
field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive
impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing
Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the
other candidates or that she would be the better president for working
families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely
primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.


That's already long (the original is much longer), but gives a flavor.

Signed:

Quote:
In solidarity,
Ken Allen, International Vice-President, Oregon Henry Bayer,
International Vice-President, Illinois Greg Devereux, International
Vice-President, Washington Sal Luciano, International Vice-President,
Connecticut Roberta Lynch, International Vice-President, Illinois George
Popyack, International Vice-President, California Eliot Seide,
International Vice-President, Minnesota


http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme-president-mcentee/
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:17 am
Sorry, second paragraph is a repeat of the first... should be:

Quote:
None of the information presented to the International Executive Board
suggested in any way that AFSCME intended to utilize its resources to
attack the other Democratic candidates. In fact, a number of IEB members
stressed-either privately or in their comments at the meeting-how much
they respected and admired Sen. Obama. And at least one Board member
spoke passionately against the Democratic candidates attacking each
other, arguing that such negativity would damage Democratic prospects in
the General Election.

We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through
"independent expenditures"-is squandering precious resources to wage a
costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's
standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports
AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out
mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his
candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the
explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:26 am
sozobe wrote:
I felt like Hillary made some mistakes that neither Edwards nor Obama picked up on. For example, when she was rebutting Edwards' claims to having accomplished stuff in the senate


Well, she just fillibustered them! At least I think that was in that part. There was this part where she just went on and on, said a bunch of really controversial things, direct criticisms of both Obama and Edwards that were on or over the border of unfair, and the others were chomping at the bit to respond, arms and hands aflying to get the moderators' attention, and she just kept talking. By the time she finally finished, the moderator tried to just move on to the next question but all the three others were waving their hands in protest, like, you gotta be kidding we have to respond to all this...

sozobe wrote:
Hillary pounced on that, "maybe she wouldn't have died if you'd gotten the Patient's Bill of Rights through," [paraphrase]), she talked about a bunch of Bill Clinton stuff and health care as her own experience.


Yeah, exactly - at least Obama and Edwards had explicitly each laid out a specific piece of legislation they'd pushed and what the advantages of it were (and personally, I think the patients bill of rights was more important than the lobbying rules, more directly relevant to voters' material well-being - but in any case the comparison neatly contrasted the difference in focus between the two candidates). She goes on to demolish each claim, and I was just like - and what about YOU, then? What important specific bill have you drafted, lobbied for or even gotten through in the, what?, four years you've been in the Senate? I cant think of any... and indeed, she just went on in generalisations about health care in the 90s and stuff. She should have been pounced on for that.

sozobe wrote:
I thought the dynamics were super interesting, now that it's 4.


Yeah, I like it - seemed to me to be getting more substantive, and candidates got the chance to really put out their vision on things, not just soundbites. Like Edwards when he was telling about how "it's personal" for him, it was almost like a speech in itself, ending with a crescendo and everything.

Dunno how much good it will still do him tho, in these last coupla days before the NH vote.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:31 am
nimh wrote:

Well, she just fillibustered them! At least I think that was in that part. There was this part where she just went on and on, said a bunch of really controversial things, direct criticisms of both Obama and Edwards that were on or over the border of unfair, and the others were chomping at the bit to respond, arms and hands aflying to get the moderators' attention, and she just kept talking. By the time she finally finished, the moderator tried to just move on to the next question but all the three others were waving their hands in protest, like, you gotta be kidding we have to respond to all this...


Heh! Yeah, it was that part. Still, they didn't actually respond the way that I hoped when they had the chance... but you're right, there was a whole lot to respond to.

nimh wrote:
and what about YOU, then? What important specific bill have you drafted, lobbied for or even gotten through in the, what?, four years you've been in the Senate? I cant think of any... and indeed, she just went on in generalisations about health care in the 90s and stuff. She should have been pounced on for that.


Exactly. That was what Obama barely got with the "Bill" thing but that deserved some actual pouncing.

I was impressed with Edwards. All of them seemed more comfortable in that format, whether it was about the smaller group or sitting down vs. standing. Or just fewer nerves at this point in the game. For whatever reason, less of the distracting tics I commented on last debate for example. (Edwards was less blinky, Hillary was less shifty-eyed, etc.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:35 am
Butrflynet wrote:
I may not like all of their politics, ideas and ethics, but I have to thank every single one of them for being willing to put themselves through the wringer.

Hear, hear.

It's probably ego as much as any kind of idealism and civic duty that drives them, even in the case of the most idealistic among them, but still - its a dirty job but someone's gotta do it, and they're doing it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 7.19 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:14:04