OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[matthewk]

McCain thought our "Economy was fundamentally sound" a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, that's the kind of judgment we all need in the oval office.

Obama said the same thing in the 2nd debate.

[JackB1]

Obama supporters shouldn't get too giddy unless polls indicate a lead of at least 10 percent for their man. The "Bradley effect" will be in full force Nov. 4, so Obama will need all the padding he can get:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Take care,
PK

I seriously hope you are wrong. That was 25 years ago and while we still have a ways to go, I would think race relations have improved a lot since then.

[matthewk]

I don't know how widespread the GOP efforts are at voter suppression. But I'm not going to assume that the PA fliers are from a "random" and "small group" engaging only in vandalism.

New voter registration deadlines are coming up this week and the pace of Democratic vs. Republican registrations shows a wide gap. In some states, there's a difference of several hundred thousand new registrations in the Democrats' favor.

Of course not. You're going to assume the worst of the GOP and assumme innocence for anything the Dems do.

Of course the counts are in the Dems favor. The entire Dallas Cowboys football team is on there multiple times.

[JackB1]

In Other Developments....

Palin's hubby trying to take the blame for "troopergate"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... ryHeadline

Since the attempts to block this investigation have failed and it looks like the truth might come out, Palin's husband is trying to take the fall for his spouse.
This makes this whole story even more questionable now.

To quote you (in general): What does this have to do with what she's going to do in the next 4 years? Isn't this in the past? Hm?

This was a possible "abuse of power", which is very relevant to how she might use her power as VP. Cheney sure as heck proved how dangerous an abuse of power can be. If it's relevant enough for the Supreme Court to be involved, then I would say the outcome of this case is relevant to voters. All this "Guilt By Association" stuff the GOP is trying to pin on Obama is quite different.

[matthewk]

The polls statement is funny. I just came from cnn.com where there poll has the racce tightening up. Between Oct. 1 and Oct. 7 Obama led, 49% to 43%. On Oct. 8th is was at 48% to 44%.

That CNN "Poll of Polls" is based on a choice only between Obama an McCain, so it's not realistic. When asked to choose between all the candidates that will be available on election day, the gap widens to 47%-40%

See "Poll #2" on CNN's page:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/index.html

So now the only polls that count are the ones you decide should count?

[greggsand]

Obama supporters shouldn't get too giddy unless polls indicate a lead of at least 10 percent for their man. The "Bradley effect" will be in full force Nov. 4, so Obama will need all the padding he can get:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Take care,
PK

I seriously hope you are wrong. That was 25 years ago and while we still have a ways to go, I would think race relations have improved a lot since then.

That's my #1 fear. That people are going to close the curtain & simply not be able to vote for a black man. Having been raised in a hugely racist town (black pop = zero (by design)), I remain highly skeptical & pray that I'm overreacting. Guess we'll see...

[matthewk]

I agree, but someone was citing a poll to prove McCain is cutting into the lead because of his party's recent mudslinging. One poll that goes down by 1% in one day means nothing, but I guess that's the best that they could come up with.

I citied the poll because you stated the gap was widening in the polls. I provided proof to the contrary. I never said the reason for gap had anything to do with mudslinging. 1% in 1 poll is all I needed to prove you wrong.

[JackB1]

McCain thought our "Economy was fundamentally sound" a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, that's the kind of judgment we all need in the oval office.

Obama said the same thing in the 2nd debate.

I never heard that and if he did, don't you think his party would have been all over that? Can you provide any proof?

I'll even give you a head start. Here is the transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/ ... ranscript/

[JackB1]

I agree, but someone was citing a poll to prove McCain is cutting into the lead because of his party's recent mudslinging. One poll that goes down by 1% in one day means nothing, but I guess that's the best that they could come up with.

I citied the poll because you stated the gap was widening in the polls. I provided proof to the contrary. I never said the reason for gap had anything to do with mudslinging. 1% in 1 poll is all I needed to prove you wrong.

well done

[Teal]

We're not REALLY going to start throwing the race card around in here, are we? What, is the setup that, if McCain wins, it's racism in America? Really? That's going to be the excuse, the contingency? That's pretty pathetic.

[greggsand]

We're not REALLY going to start throwing the race card around in here, are we? What, is the setup that, if McCain wins, it's racism in America? Really? That's going to be the excuse, the contingency? That's pretty pathetic.

If u read about the bradley effect, it would only be a concern if Obama had a HUGE lead in the polls on election day and then the actual vote had a large swing the other way. Race and gender as always played a significant role in politics. It's nice if you see all people as equal, but not everyone sees it that way.

[matthewk]

McCain thought our "Economy was fundamentally sound" a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, that's the kind of judgment we all need in the oval office.

Obama said the same thing in the 2nd debate.

I never heard that and if he did, don't you think his party would have been all over that? Can you provide any proof?

I'll even give you a head start. Here is the transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/ ... ranscript/

Well, since you're too lazy to finish what you started....

From the transcript:

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

How is this any different than McCain's comments? McCain could just as easily come out after this and said "How can you be confident in this economy? The market is dropping, people are losing their homes.".

McCain was talking about the American worker and our ability to produce. Obama took the comment out of context. The exact same thing can be done with the statement above.

[pk500]

We're not REALLY going to start throwing the race card around in here, are we? What, is the setup that, if McCain wins, it's racism in America? Really? That's going to be the excuse, the contingency? That's pretty pathetic.

It's not an excuse, but it could be reality. If a number of polls conducted Nov. 3 show Obama with a significant lead and McCain wins without some sort of "November Surprise," what other plausible explanation is available?

Brando is right: The knuckledraggers aren't voting Democratic, anyways. But there are fence-sitters who might be uncomfortable with Obama's race or who believe that he possible could be a Muslim.

Go to white, small-town America. There may not be many white people who flat out declare they're racists, but if a black family walks down the sidewalks in that town, heads are turning and gums are flapping at the local coffee shop.

America is not as enlightened as we would like to believe. To deny that race could play a role in this election is to deny that racism exists in America. It's that simple.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

We're not REALLY going to start throwing the race card around in here, are we? What, is the setup that, if McCain wins, it's racism in America? Really? That's going to be the excuse, the contingency? That's pretty pathetic.

If u read about the bradley effect, it would only be a concern if Obama had a HUGE lead in the polls on election day and then the actual vote had a large swing the other way. Race and gender as always played a significant role in politics. It's nice if you see all people as equal, but not everyone sees it that way.

I think there's something else to consider. Many are enamored with Obama for reasons that have little to do with his policies, his plans, his past, all that. He's young, he's energetic, he's well spoken (with a teleprompter, anyway I kid, he didn't stutter too much in the debate the other night), and, to quote Biden, he's 'articulate and clean'.
With him being in the lead either by a good margin or barely, depending upon whose polls you want to believe (I don't put much stock in any of them, really), people are going to start taking a closer look at the candidate, and not just the speaker. And when you dive beneath the surface...there's just not much there. And what IS there is dubious at best, while some of it is troubling. He's very liberal, and we've not elected an out-and-out left wing liberal, since Jimmy Carter. Clinton won as a centrist, and governed as a little of both.

So I think there's a case to be made for people stepping up to the lever, and thinking 'am I really ready to put this guy in the most powerful seat in the world?' I think there may be some balking when the rubber meets the road, and though I'm sure that some of it will be racial in nature(there's nuts in every tree), a great deal more, if it happens, will be because people just can't see themselves voting in someone with so little demonstrable experience and so many questions still unanswered.

[greggsand]

We're not REALLY going to start throwing the race card around in here, are we? What, is the setup that, if McCain wins, it's racism in America? Really? That's going to be the excuse, the contingency? That's pretty pathetic.

It's not an excuse, but it could be reality. If a number of polls conducted Nov. 3 show Obama with a significant lead and McCain wins without some sort of "November Surprise," what other plausible explanation is available?

Brando is right: The knuckledraggers aren't voting Democratic, anyways. But there are fence-sitters who might be uncomfortable with Obama's race or who believe that he possible could be a Muslim.

Go to white, small-town America. There may not be many white people who flat out declare they're racists, but if a black family walks down the sidewalks in that town, heads are turning and gums are flapping at the local coffee shop.

America is not as enlightened as we would like to believe. To deny that race could play a role in this election is to deny that racism exists in America. It's that simple.

Take care,
PK

Exactly, anyone wondering about racism in America, feel free to frequent any town in Randolph County, IL (where I was raised). Sad but true.

[JackB1]

From the transcript:

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

How is this any different than McCain's comments? McCain could just as easily come out after this and said "How can you be confident in this economy? The market is dropping, people are losing their homes.".

McCain was talking about the American worker and our ability to produce. Obama took the comment out of context. The exact same thing can be done with the statement above.

There is a difference. Obama is talking about the future, when he mentions he is confident in the economy. McCain was talking about the present, in saying the economy IS fundamentally sound. If you can't see that difference, then I don't know what else to say. True, you can spin something any way you like, but we both know these remarks were not the "same thing" as you claim. The only similarity is that they both had the word "economy" in there. Nice try though.

[Brando70]

McCain was talking about the American worker and our ability to produce. Obama took the comment out of context. The exact same thing can be done with the statement above.

If that's the case, I suggest John McCain enroll in an ESL course before becoming president. His comments in no way, shape, or form suggested anything about American workers or productivity. He didn't play that angle until after he got punched in the nuts for saying that line.

I won't see an Obama loss as something racial. The fact that he's gone this far shows a lot of progress, and there are enough other issues at play that even if race is one of them, you'd have a hard time proving it. The Jeremiah Wright issue was the only time any white anxiety showed up in this race, and even that didn't stop Obama. Twenty or even ten years ago, that would have sunk any other black candidate.

I also don't think too many people will be undecided about their vote when they enter the booth. If you haven't made up your mind by then, you're probably so ambivalent about either candidate that you're either staying home, not selecting a presidential candidate, or selecting a third party.

[JackB1]

So I think there's a case to be made for people stepping up to the lever, and thinking 'am I really ready to put this guy in the most powerful seat in the world?'

I think there will be just as many people that say "Can I really put the same party back in power that just ran our country into the ground?"

McCain's greatest strength was military-related. Now that war isn't in the forefront anymore, he has little hope.

[Teal]

I think this will backfire:
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html

Never discount the fickle nature of the American public. We can't even stand for our shows to be interrupted for a 10 minute speech to the nation from the president...

"Whaddya mean, Gary Unmarried's not on?! Who? Obama?! How dare he interrupt my show!"

[GTHobbes]

I won't see an Obama loss as something racial. The fact that he's gone this far shows a lot of progress, and there are enough other issues at play that even if race is one of them, you'd have a hard time proving it. The Jeremiah Wright issue was the only time any white anxiety showed up in this race, and even that didn't stop Obama. Twenty or even ten years ago, that would have sunk any other black candidate.

Pretty timely comment and discussion about the knuckledraggers, given this piece from one of CNN's stories today:

"At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.

One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.

McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/ ... index.html

[Teal]

So I think there's a case to be made for people stepping up to the lever, and thinking 'am I really ready to put this guy in the most powerful seat in the world?'

I think there will be just as many people that say "Can I really put the same party back in power that just ran our country into the ground?"

McCain's greatest strength was military-related. Now that war isn't in the forefront anymore, he has little hope.

No, no, no...you can't give a pass to Pelosi, Reid, Frank and other democrats on that one. Bush is a figure head, true, and deserves due 'credit' for this mess. But so do they. In equal measure. Anything less would be uncouth.

As far as McCain's 'hope' is concerned, you obviously have a crystal ball that I don't possess, so I'll stay out of that one. But I WILL say that faint hope is not nearly as bad as false confidence.

[Teal]

I won't see an Obama loss as something racial. The fact that he's gone this far shows a lot of progress, and there are enough other issues at play that even if race is one of them, you'd have a hard time proving it. The Jeremiah Wright issue was the only time any white anxiety showed up in this race, and even that didn't stop Obama. Twenty or even ten years ago, that would have sunk any other black candidate.

Pretty timely comment and discussion about the knuckledraggers, given this piece from one of CNN's stories today:

"At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.

One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.

McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/ ... index.html

Abso-f*cking-lutely, it should be brought up, addressed, and highlighted. If McCain had been a member of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" church for 20 years, it'd have been front page news every stinking day. You know it. And his politically-convenient 'disavowal' of Phelps' views wouldn't have mattered one bit, if that had happened.

Too much swept under the rug.

[Brando70]

I won't see an Obama loss as something racial. The fact that he's gone this far shows a lot of progress, and there are enough other issues at play that even if race is one of them, you'd have a hard time proving it. The Jeremiah Wright issue was the only time any white anxiety showed up in this race, and even that didn't stop Obama. Twenty or even ten years ago, that would have sunk any other black candidate.

Pretty timely comment and discussion about the knuckledraggers, given this piece from one of CNN's stories today:

"At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.

One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.

McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/ ... index.html

It's not that there's not a racial element affecting people's decisions. Or that it doesn't affect both sides of the political divide. It's just that the kind of people who would be predisposed to not vote for Obama based on race probably wouldn't vote for him if he was white, based on his stance on the issues.

As for the Clinton supporters turning to McCain, I think it's more of a gender issue. They are convinced that Obama and/or the DNC committed an act of misogyny in not selecting Clinton, so they are going to go with McCain/Palin instead. Again, I think if people are that easily swayed by a demographic characteristic, they probably weren't solid voters anyway.

[RobVarak]

I won't see an Obama loss as something racial. The fact that he's gone this far shows a lot of progress, and there are enough other issues at play that even if race is one of them, you'd have a hard time proving it. The Jeremiah Wright issue was the only time any white anxiety showed up in this race, and even that didn't stop Obama. Twenty or even ten years ago, that would have sunk any other black candidate.

Pretty timely comment and discussion about the knuckledraggers, given this piece from one of CNN's stories today:

"At a town hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, angry voters pleaded with McCain to get tougher on Obama.

One voter suggested that McCain bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

"I am begging you, sir, take it to him," the voter said.

McCain did not specifically address the comment about Wright, Obama's former pastor who came under scrutiny during the primaries after clips of his sermons circulated on the Internet."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/ ... index.html

Maybe I'm liberal, but I don't see anything that would indicate that's the position of a "knuckledragger." Maybe the pissed off guys is not as cosomopolitan as those who would rather we just read Obama's position papers with awestruck admiration, but it's not like he said anything racist or threatening.

Teal, I think the TV-time buy could be a stroke of genius by Obama. He'll unload a truckfull of horseshit and the media will cream themselves with comparisons to FDR.

The only backlash could come if it looks like Obama is flaunting his monetary advantage over McCain or if his rhetoric is so smug that the public perceives him as presumptuous. I think there's little liklihood of either of those happening, though.

[Brando70]

Abso-f*cking-lutely, it should be brought up, addressed, and highlighted. If McCain had been a member of Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" church for 20 years, it'd have been front page news every stinking day. You know it. And his politically-convenient 'disavowal' of Phelps' views wouldn't have mattered one bit, if that had happened.

Too much swept under the rug.

How can something be swept under the rug when it was all that was talked about for a month or two? It was aired and it didn't matter. If it did, Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in. There's no conspiracy to keep this hidden.