FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

@Cycloptichorn,

I repeat. He needs 270 votes to win. I will amend that, however, that he needs 270 uncontested votes to win. You can spin it any way you want to your heart's content, but history is on my side. He needs 270 votes to win or he will be given very little chance to govern.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I repeat. He needs 270 votes to win. I will amend that, however, that he needs 270 uncontested votes to win. You can spin it any way you want to your heart's content, but history is on my side. He needs 270 votes to win or he will be given very little chance to govern.

Sorry, but he only needs 269 to win. You know this is true. You are splitting hairs over definitions, but if Obama gets 269 electoral votes he will be sworn in next January. You know this as well. There is no historical precedent for this not happening whatsoever, so when you say 'history is on my side,' you are just talking out your ass. The 'very little chance to govern' is bullshit as well. Specifically, how will he have little chance to govern? What are the Republicans going to do to stop him from governing? Nothing at all, which you also know.

Just admit that you are wrong, again, and we can move on..

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

if Obama gets 269 electoral votes he will be sworn in next January.

And that would be the end of our republic.

Fear not, because it ain't going to happen Very Happy

0 Replies

The Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1) dictates that a tie in the Electoral College is resolved by the House of Representatives. This first happened in the election of Jefferson in 1800 when the electoral votes for Burr created a tie. The House chose Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, who had the overwhelming popular vote in 1824. Both of those instances had serious political blowback.

Would Congress select Obama as the President in the even to a tie in the Electoral College? Perhaps, but not certainly. The pressure to vote along Party lines would be tremendous, and bucking the Party requires a great deal of courage and character. Such independence has been shown in the past often enough to help make JFK's "Profiles in Courage" a popular book.

The likelihood of a tie in the Electoral College in the coming election, I believe is remote. The current polls seem to suggest a very tight race, but in the immortal words of Jesse Unruh "In politics, forever is two weeks." Only one poll counts, and that will be in November. Opinions and expectations will be resolved by the ballot.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You can spin it any way you want to your heart's content, but history is on my side. He needs 270 votes to win or he will be given very little chance to govern.

History is on your side? What does that even mean? Based on what historical precedent?

Assuming the near-certain Democratic majority in the Senate and the House, a President Obama would have more chance to govern than a President McCain would ever have, whether he's elected by 269 or 270 electoral votes.

The rules for how to deal with an even split in the Electoral College have been made a long time ago, are not contested by anyone, and are as clear as can be.

1 Reply

@Asherman,

I knnow a little bit about constitution.
i wish not to entangle to discuss about the subtle nice points of USA's constitution.
What i wish( like all the non Americans around the globe) is to give a befitting defeat to republicans( irrespective of the personalities who represent that party)

1 Reply

@nimh,

History is on my side re the last (and only time) the House of Representatives had to break a tie--the elected President incurred a great deal of grief in the process and did not enjoy a particularly successful presidency. That was a long time ago.

History is on my side re the 2000 election in which the popular vote was disputed and the Left claimed (and some continue to say) that the President was selected (by the Supreme Court), not elected, so that he had two strikes against him going in even with a GOP controlled Congress. He was never going to be given any benefit of the doubt by a sizable number of the people who hated him for denying Gore a victory.

The point is, nobody has a chance to govern effectively or win a large majority of the hearts and minds of the people unless there is a clear victory. An Obama presidency is going to have a tough road to hoe anyway given his inexperience and the high scrutiny his every word and action will receive. Put him in office via the House of Representatives and I would give him no chance at all for a successful presidency.

I pray with all my heart that whichever man wins, it will be with a decisive majority of the popular vote, a decisive majority of the electoral college, and no questions of voter manipulation will be hanging over anybody's head. I don't want any more elections where the winner will be challenged into perpetuity and there will be a sizable portion of the people who will always believe that the winner didn't win.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Again Obama's team didn't do their research. From a 2000 Boston.com in depth piece on McCain. (The whole thing is a good read for those who want to get a better sense about the man):

Quote:
The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

I think the Obama ad on this is stupid. But I think this defense of McCain in response is stupid too. I mean, really? We are to believe that McCain just can't email, because of his disability?

One: have the people using this line ever heard of voice recognition software? Or other adjustments? Like one commenter on TNR wrote, "We live in the age of technology remember. I'm a special ed teacher, have worked with disabled kids for over twenty friggin years. Kids who can only move their head, heck, kids who can only blink can operate a friggen computer. Kids who are mentally retarded can operate a computer. Kids who are mentally retarded and physically disabled in the way I described above can operate a computer."

Two: how does this purported defense line up with the bunch of times that McCain and his campaign have said that he can operate a computer, is learning how to, etc? I mean, what about when McCain said, in July, "I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. [..] I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need." Or when his campaign manager said, "He actually is, he always is grabbing people's Blackberrys on the bus. In fact, no reporter's Blackberry is safe from his prying eyes. He loves to tool around on the internet, he especially loves the videos that get produced that usually poke fun at him."?

The defense makes no sense at all.

That doesnt excuse the Obama campaign for making a silly ad in the first place though. McCain would hardly be the first president to not use email himself, I'm sure. I read an interview with Tony Blair after he resigned in which he revealed how he had to learn something as simple as how to write text messages on his phone now - as Prime Minister, he'd never needed to. There were a couple of things like that - like, it was the first time he had to drive a car in 8 years, or something like that, email might well have been one of 'em. I realise the example of "he still cant write an email" was just intended to illustrate how out of touch McCain is, but I just dont see it as an issue, they could have used something else. I found the whole ad lacklustre, the other one he launched the same day too, I hope Obama will still up his game.

2 Replies

@nimh,

When you have coca cola and coca cola light you have no other choise.
try to build a party accoprding to your conscience.
or make a holiday elsewhere to know about democracy, decency, decipline, decorum.
Your country is being ruined by two parties which has never come out of AMERICAN DREAMS

2 Replies

@nimh,

That line was written almost 8 years ago the last time this came up about McCain. And, had you been keeping up here, you would have read my explanation of how a person of John McCain's generation might choose not to take time to master a device that he couldn't really have a lot of fun using because of his disability. It's much like many electronic things that you youngsters master now which I have decided not to master because I don't need those things. I'd rather spend my time doing other things. If he NEEDED to be able to send emails personally, he would have figured it out. He was in Congress long before anybody in Congress was sending e-mails and, while his office is just as modernized as anybody elses, he does not need to send emails personally. He has staff who can do that for him.

Try a little understanding of those who have disabilities that you don't and who have lived a lot longer than you have lived and you might develop a somewhat different perspective about a lot of things.

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Their main complaint was [Palin] seemed unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the issues and that she seemed to depend too much on the Talking Point "index cards" but at this point this seems understandable to me. The campaign will probably use the videos of the interviews to set up an education program for her.

Good god, yes, why should anyone expect someone nominated to be a heartbeat away from the presidency to be "familiar or comfortable with the issues"? How unreasonable would that be, to expect a Vice-Presidential nominee to know his/her way around the issues of the day? (Hey, that rhymes.)

Seriously - unwittingly you point out the recklessness of the Republican choice here. You have nominated someone for VP who still needs "an education program" to be familiar and comfortable with the issues. Basic stuff like how entitlement programs work. How surreal is that? Dan Quayle redux?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

History is on my side re the 2000 election in which the popular vote was disputed and the Left claimed (and some continue to say) that the President was selected (by the Supreme Court), not elected, so that he had two strikes against him going in even with a GOP controlled Congress. He was never going to be given any benefit of the doubt by a sizable number of the people who hated him for denying Gore a victory.

The point is, nobody has a chance to govern effectively or win a large majority of the hearts and minds of the people unless there is a clear victory.

Do you seriously believe that George Bush was "given very little chance to govern"?

My impression was that he had little trouble rolling over the opposition once installed as President, especially after the Republicans gained a comfortable majority in both houses of Congress in 2002. That would be the same situation Obama would enjoy.

But I dunno, maybe you really do believe that Bush was a lame duck President of sorts from the start? If you dont believe that, though, I find it hard to see how you'd argue that it would somehow lethally hobble Obama.

0 Replies

@Ramafuchs,

"What i wish (like all the non Americans around the globe) is to give a befitting defeat to republicans (irrespective of the personalities who represent that party)."

I rather doubt that "all non-Americans" wish for an Obama victory in the OUR upcoming elections. I'm pretty sure that the rulers of Iran, Syria, DPRK, Russia and the Taliban would far prefer dealing with Obama rather than John McCain. Chavez and his admirers certainly have more in common with the Democratic weltanschaung than the GOP. The Leftists around the globe feel closer to the current Democratic Party's vision of a socialist utopia, than the more traditional American values of the GOP. America's enemies do seem pretty solidly against the idea of a Republican administration.

The bottom line is that you lot who aren't citizens here don't get to vote. What serves your interests, doesn't necessarily serve our interests. In fact, support for American candidates by outsiders is a strong inducement for many Americans to vote against those darlings of outside political interest groups. We prefer leaders who put the interests and security of the United States and its citizens above their personal popularity with foreigners. You certainly are entitled to your own preferences, but to extend those preferences to the rest of the world is far fetched.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I pray with all my heart that whichever man wins, it will be with a decisive majority of the popular vote, a decisive majority of the electoral college, and no questions of voter manipulation will be hanging over anybody's head. I don't want any more elections where the winner will be challenged into perpetuity and there will be a sizable portion of the people who will always believe that the winner didn't win.

This would be a nightmare scenario. But, actually, I think the greater danger to the country would be a Dem Congress with a Obama presidency. Given Obama's leftist record there would be absolutely no fiscal restraint upon Congress. As a wise man once said "The American people are never as safe as when Congress is in recess". Alternatively, a McCain presidency would probably perform the madisonian magic of checks and balances. Additionally, Foxfyre has teased us with stories that perhaps the American people might elect a few more GOP Guys then expected. If these then display congressional actions more closely aligned with GOP ideology (rather than the Tom Delay partisanship for the sake of partisanship crap that got many thrown out of Congress in the mid-terms) we could get this country back on its feet with a smaller Federal government and a foreign policy that more realistically addresses the international challenges we face today. Right now it seems like the Bush administration is merely phoning it in.

JM

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

A win is a win.

I dont recall you saying that in 2000 when Bush beat Gore.
You were one of the ones saying that Bush was "appointed", not elected.
So, why have you changed your tune now?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I kept up, Fox, so yes, I noticed that you used that argument as well. But I have no beef with that argument.

I did have a beef with your "but he cant use a keyboard because he's disabled" argument. It makes no sense, considering all the technology, and more damningly, it's demonstrably false, considering McCain's and his campaign manager's own descriptions of how he does use computers and the Internet.

The image of McCain tooling around on the Internet with people's Blackberrys reveals the Obama ad as stupid - but it also reveals this particular counterargument of yours as nonsense. Maybe next time pause before you echo a talking point from the conservative pundits.

Quote:

he does not need to send emails personally. He has staff who can do that for him.

Again, I have no beef with that argument, I just made it myself. What I had a beef with was the other attack you tried on. That "Obama's team didn't do their research," because if it had, it would have found out that McCain just cant use email because of his "severe war injuries". That's bull.

Quote:

Try a little understanding of those who have disabilities that you don't and who have lived a lot longer than you have lived and you might develop a somewhat different perspective about a lot of things.

Oh spare me the sanctimony. I can just imagine what you would have written if it had been a Republican ad slamming a Democratic presidential candidate for not knowing how to do email.

1 Reply

@Ramafuchs,

And you obviously haven't a clue about what makes America tick. Our horrible system has managed to build a mighty nation that has carried the hopes and dreams of countless people living under the yoke of systems that you apparently believe are superior to ours. What do you know of about what Americans dream of away from the spotlight of media coverage? Gov. Palin's popularity certainly isn't due to her political connections, or cosmopolitan sophistication. Her popularity stems from the perception that she embodies the values of ordinary Americans. McCain's strength is that his whole life experiences have been heroic , and that his honor and integrity typify what we Americans value in a man. You might not like it, but once again, you don't get to vote here ... thank god.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
A win is a win.

I dont recall you saying that in 2000 when Bush beat Gore.
You were one of the ones saying that Bush was "appointed", not elected.
So, why have you changed your tune now?

I voted for Bush in 2000. And I didn't join this message board until 2004. So who exactly do you have me confused with?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Asherman,

I had typed a lot to answer your q sir.
I feel sorry my answers were gone with the wind.
Ihave no interest in your country's internal affair and I hope the rational citizens of USA have the same opinions about their country.

0 Replies

@Asherman,

Asherman wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the rulers of Iran, Syria, DPRK, Russia and the Taliban would far prefer dealing with Obama rather than John McCain. Chavez and his admirers certainly have more in common with the Democratic weltanschaung than the GOP. The Leftists around the globe feel closer to the current Democratic Party's vision of a socialist utopia, than the more traditional American values of the GOP. America's enemies do seem pretty solidly against the idea of a Republican administration. [..]

You certainly are entitled to your own preferences, but to extend those preferences to the rest of the world is far fetched.

Nice try, but it's hardly just "the rulers of Iran, Syria, DPRK, Russia and the Taliban," "Chavez and his admirers," " Leftists around the globe" and "America's enemies" who favour an Obama administration over a McCain one. I know that's the caricature that you'd like to draw up as constituting the opponents of McCain, but it's very far from the truth. The truth is that even among mainstream rightwing voters (not to mention centrist ones) in much of the world, Obama is seen as preferable over another Republican administration.

In fact, I hardly believe I'm saying this, but Rama is closer to the truth if he "extends those preferences to the rest of the world".

The US News & World Report had an article just this last week, headlined "Poll Finds World's Preference Is Clear: Obama for President". It reported that "Obama leads McCain in all 22 countries surveyed":

Quote:

If the world could vote, Barack Obama would most likely win in a landslide.

A new BBC World Service poll surveyed people in 22 countries and found that, in every one of them, Democratic nominee Barack Obama was favored over Republican candidate John McCain. On average, 49 percent would like to see Obama prevail, while only 12 percent prefer McCain, according to the survey of 22,531 adult citizens of the 22 countries. The rest offered no preference.

The pro-Obama margin differed widely"from 82 percentage points in Kenya (where Obama's father was born) to 9 percentage points in India. [..] Several of the nations most enthusiastic about an Obama presidency are key allies, such as Canada, France, Germany, Britain, and Italy.

Now you are totally right when you point out that this wont swing actual voters in America, and that if anything, many Americans will be tempted to vote for the candidate all those foreigners dont want. No argument with that.

Dont fool yourself, however, into denial about the nature of international antipathy towards the Republicans with talk of how it's only logical that "leftists" and "enemies" dont like the idea of a Republican president. The preference for Obama stretches across the globe, stretches well into the mainstream right as well, and is particularly pronounced in allied countries.

0 Replies

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know