OT: 2008 Elections

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:52 pm

Black males had the franchise in this country before women.

Conservative pundits crow that all they have to do is say "Commander in Chief" and that would derail Hilary's chances (maybe she's being extra-hawkish to compensate?).

The Clinton campaign tried to whisper about Obama's drug use, mentioning cocaine, alleging he was a drug dealer.

Conservatives have also alleged he's a secret Muslim, which Obama has denied.

Interesting trivia, when the first elected Muslim to Congress was sworn in, they used a copy of the Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson, who'd sold his library (he collected every book he could get his hands on) to the Library of Congress after the Brits burned the books of the LoC among other things in the 1812 war.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:56 pm

pk500 wrote:
Issues don't matter to evangelicals; values do. Nearly all of the evangelical voters surveyed before and after the Iowa caucuses last night listed "he shares my values" as the main reason they voted for Huckabee.

So Huckabee could do nothing as president and still get support from evangelicals because they "share values," whatever the f*ck that means.

Sorry, I'm voting for a leader who can accomplish something, not who shares my values. I'm happy with the pastor of my local Catholic church, and that's the only value vote about which I care.

Take care,
PK

I just don't get it. That's like hiring someone because you both agree on
"capital punishment" rather that their qualifications and experience to do the job.

Another amazing/scary fact out of Iowa, was that 60% of the republican
voters were evangelical/christians. I have nothing against them personally, but when they are deciding who will run this country based on "shared values", I have a big problem with that. They do know how to energize their group to get out and vote though.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:31 pm

Like Fatpitcher said already, though, qualifications hardly ever equal popularity with the voting public. I don't neccessarily disagree with the idea that voting for someone 'who thinks like me' is not the best way to choose a candidate, I don't think it's demonstrably more unreasoned than voting for someone who is 'not the guy in there now!' (Obama voters citing 'Change' as their #1 reason)

Neither shows an especially deep consideration of qualifications or platform planks...

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Exactly, a truly informed and aware populace would question Obama. What do you want to change and how?

Not just think, Obama means change, he has my vote.

Nothing against Obama, but isn't this how Bush was elected. Bush isn't Clinton and Gore is boring so Bush must be good.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:59 pm

Obama's talked about change in the way Washington does business. So he's referred to things like lobbyists and special interests. But that may be more in reference to the fact that Hilary is the candidate of the establishment and has the backing of those entities.

I think Obama's appeal comes from his style. He doesn't seem to engage in divisive rhetoric. He's been pointed about not supporting the war but he isn't going out of his way to say he'll un-do Bush's policies -- although undoubtedly, he will.

He embodies change because of who he is, his route to this race -- youth, background, etc.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:18 pm

Obama may 'embody' change for a variety of reasons, but embodying change is a far different thing than being able to effectuate change.

I agree with those that have said if he is to win the national election he will have to be far more specific about he will cause change to happen beyond vague rhetoric and pointing to obvious shortcomings of the system.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:34 pm

AHHHHHHHHH.....I just figured out why this thread is here...

There was some kind of voting yesterday....I am so on top of this stuff

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:57 pm

XXXIV wrote:AHHHHHHHHH.....I just figured out why this thread is here...

There was some kind of voting yesterday....I am so on top of this stuff

Rams are not in the playoffs. There you are up to speed now.

WCO:
I understand what you are saying but that's the beckon call of every this generation. Washington is evil, and I (the candidate) will change it.

I personally don't think Obama would be a bad president. I think he has the potential to do a lot of good. But I'm being critical of the system as a whole. Just because someone screams change as loud as they can doesn't mean they can "effectuate change" as Naples said.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:53 pm

JRod wrote:
XXXIV wrote:AHHHHHHHHH.....I just figured out why this thread is here...

There was some kind of voting yesterday....I am so on top of this stuff
Rams are not in the playoffs. There you are up to speed now.

Thats terrible news but does explain how they got the #2 pick in the 08 draft.

I didnt read any mention ....but ....how did Gretzky do in Iowa?

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:48 pm

My only true pick doesn't have a chance. Ron Paul. He's says he's a republican but he's really a libertarian. McCain is my second choice,but only if he has Joe Lieberman as his running mate. As far as the rest, I'll pass.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:32 pm

The real winner from tonight's debate...NFL playoffs.

I guess this might be the only chance I'll get to hear from most of all the candidates so I'm skipping the playoffs to watch the debates.

The Rep debate was highly entertaining. There were a good number of zingers.

We'll see how the Dem debate turns out.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:03 am

Why is the debate NOT in HD???? Weak...

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:03 am

greggsand wrote:Why is the debate NOT in HD???? Weak...

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:20 am

^Funniest s*** ever!!

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:25 am

FatPitcher wrote:
greggsand wrote:Why is the debate NOT in HD???? Weak...

Looking at that. I can't help but think of this.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:08 am

I'm still undecided in the upcoming election, but from a purely objective standpoint I'd say that John Edwards had the best night of all the candidates from both parties.

He successfully framed himself and Obama as the agents of change, and went on to establish himself as the more 'passionate' candidate. It'll be interesting to see if it lifts him in NH, or if Obama benefits. Obama was sitting between Edwards and the targetted Clinton, and did a good job (for the most part) of coming out in the middle on the change issue: passionate but with the practical business-like approach of Clinton.

McCain actually gave the most direct answers on the Republican side, but was over-shadowed by the fact that the entire group decided to go after Romney. I think it was a HUGE mistake that they opted not to validate Huckabee as a leader and instead allowed him to get the most air time without being on the defensive.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:46 pm

Sport73 wrote:I'm still undecided in the upcoming election, but from a purely objective standpoint I'd say that John Edwards had the best night of all the candidates from both parties.

He successfully framed himself and Obama as the agents of change, and went on to establish himself as the more 'passionate' candidate.

Totally agree. Obama seemed a little "tired" and "cranky" and Edwards had that passion and seemed to really believe what he was saying. I was disappointed that Hilary AND Obama both took the easy way out of that last question about what you wished you hadn't said in previous debates. Richardson was the only one who answered honestly.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:50 pm

JackDog wrote:My only true pick doesn't have a chance. Ron Paul. He's says he's a republican but he's really a libertarian. McCain is my second choice,but only if he has Joe Lieberman as his running mate. As far as the rest, I'll pass.

I really like Ron Paul. He makes sense when he speaks, but seems to be outnumbered by the other Republican clones who all want to keep using fear as their M.O.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:14 pm

I wanted to hear more details from Obama but didn't. He kept talking about the agent of change, that's great but what and how do you want to change. Later in the night he said things like words can cause change and bringing people together to be effective.

I think that's great but that's not what elevates the debate. He just seems to saying change change change with little behind it.

Edwards talked about change and added specifics behind it. I think Gov. Richardson did well but he has no chance.

On the republican side, Romney is toast, he took pot-shots all night and wasn't able to respond.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:45 pm

After Iowa, they're ALL casting themselves as agents of change, in both parties.

Again, just campaign sloganeering, hammer a simple theme over and over into the electorate.

The white papers will come later if they haven't already.

Edwards is probably going to be a distant third in NH and Huckabee a distant fourth at best. They're counting on SC but neither of them have money and neither will get contributions from the big money which have given to Hilary and Romney and Giuliani.

That's because Edwards and Huckabee are positioning themselves as champions of people who make under $40k. So of course Wall Street and other big money are going to be hostile to them.

Good chance by the end of the month, Democrats are going to be down to two candidates and Republicans to three or so. If not then, after Feb. 5.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:07 pm

wco81 wrote:That's because Edwards and Huckabee are positioning themselves as champions of people who make under $40k. So of course Wall Street and other big money are going to be hostile to them.

Edwards, the millionaire trial lawyer? Isn't Edwards the second richest of all the candidates behind Romney?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:25 pm

Yes he talked about Two Americas in 2004 before he became Kerry's running mate.

Of course Kerry got a lot of money from the big monied interests against whom Edwards was railing.

For that the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups came out against him. It's actually rumored that Bloomberg would enter the race to make sure Edwards didn't win if Edwards got the nomination.

At Iowa, he talked about Exxon making $40 billion in profits so now he's not hiding his anti-globalist message.

He's talked in 2004 and this year about raising taxes on people making over $200k.

But what's interesting is that after his 2004 run, some hedge-fund or private equity firm hired him for a short time, which is odd considering he was advocating raising the taxes on rich people which would include the owners of that firm.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:49 pm

It seems as though all of them still think they're running against GW. They gotta get over that and onto what they'll DO rather than 'the opposite of what GW did'.

I have zero candidates right now. Not impressed with a single one. I was intrigued with Fred Thompson when he was a 'maybe', but he's not made a fart in a windstorm so far.

Obama's 'like-ability' will serve him well in our 'American Idol' culture, but if he gets elected, it will be only for that and not for his record, as he has none.

This is, so far, one of the most pathetic displays of candidates I've ever seen...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:00 pm

tealboy03 wrote:It seems as though all of them still think they're running against GW. ...

Thats cause none of these clowns has an original idea...they are all garbage.

Gretzky 08.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:05 pm

tealboy03 wrote:It seems as though all of them still think they're running against GW. They gotta get over that and onto what they'll DO rather than 'the opposite of what GW did'.

The candidates are gonna keep spouting that drivel so long as it keeps getting them votes. Saying "I am for change" is a completely meaningless statement, yet is applauded by voters, so a politician has little to lose by saying it over and over.

No candidate has ties to Bush, so any electee would bring change. The whole point is whether your larger plans for significant change are any good standing on their own, and if you have the wherewithal to implement it.

This is why I find Edwards' voice of change especially hollow, as the guy was a total empty suit in the senate who accomplished absolutely nothing during his time there. Now he's gonna ride into Washington and lead a sea change? Sorry, not buying it.