OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:53 pm

JackDog wrote:Don't question his logic. Jack will put you on ignore.

Add me to the list of those being ignored!

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:04 pm

I wasn't suggesting that it represented the way that independents would vote. But I think it is a nice peak into the motives underlying his loss of support among independents. It also suggests that the Obama people may want to spend less time emphasizing Palin's credentials and more time addressing the experience issue that plagues their candidate.

I expect them to mobilize their Big Media resources immediately

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:25 pm

Fun with voting records.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqm ... index.html

Here is the CQ vote studies program that the Obamanistas use for their 90% figures. Some other numbers of interest, particularly the "party unity scores" as it helps us test against the definitions that the campaigns are setting forth.

Obama and Hillary Clinton both have scores of 96, which means that they vote in accordance with their party line even more than the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

McCain's party loyalty score was only 81%, almost the lowest in the Senate.

Obama supported Bush's position 40% of the time himself, and Biden agreed with Bush's position more often than not with a 52% correlation.

To me the most striking facts are that McCain can definitely sustain a reasonable claim that he is not just another rubber stamd Republican...and there are numerous concservatives who would agree LOL

And McCain really shoujld point out at some point that Obama's "change" running mate agrees with Bush more than he disagrees

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:40 pm

RobVarak wrote: And McCain really shoujld point out at some point that Obama's "change" running mate agrees with Bush more than he disagrees

I've got one better for you. According to these records Obama agrees with Bush more than he disagrees with him.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:45 pm

Just a little sidenote here...

Life Insurance actuarial tables say that there is at least a 30% chance
that McCain won't live through (2) 4 year terms. Those tables are based on someone of average health and are based on actual data...not fairy tale stuff. Also, it doesn't factor in stuff about McCain's past medical history, like cancer, or other stressful situations he has lived through.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

That means there is a pretty good chance that a women who previously was mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people and was governor of a state that has more moose than people for less than 2 years, will be deciding what to do with Iran...North Korea...Russia and China.

Read that last sentence over again and really think about it. Pretty scary stuff.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:59 pm

matthewk wrote:
JackDog wrote:Don't question his logic. Jack will put you on ignore.
Add me to the list of those being ignored!

There is no list to add you to.

You are it.

The top, The Bottom, and the Middle. Congratulations!

There should be no tolerance for personal attacks here. If I did anything to deserve that, than Jared or Scoop, please let me know.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:12 pm

JackB1 wrote:Just a little sidenote here...

Life Insurance actuarial tables say that there is at least a 30% chance
that McCain won't live through (2) 4 year terms. Those tables are based on someone of average health and are based on actual data...not fairy tale stuff. Also, it doesn't factor in stuff about McCain's past medical history, like cancer, or other stressful situations he has lived through.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

That means there is a pretty good chance that a women who previously was mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people and was governor of a state that has more moose than people for less than 2 years, will be deciding what to do with Iran...North Korea...Russia and China.

Read that last sentence over again and really think about it. Pretty scary stuff.

Only if you are Matt Damon-c'mon Jack, really...

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:20 pm

JackB1 wrote:
matthewk wrote:
JackDog wrote:Don't question his logic. Jack will put you on ignore.
Add me to the list of those being ignored!
There is no list to add you to.

You are it.

The top, The Bottom, and the Middle. Congratulations!

There should be no tolerance for personal attacks here. If I did anything to deserve that, than Jared or Scoop, please let me know.

That's 2 responses (but no answer to my inquiry of course) since you stated you were ignoring me.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:21 pm

JackB1 wrote:Just a little sidenote here...

Life Insurance actuarial tables say that there is at least a 30% chance
that McCain won't live through (2) 4 year terms. Those tables are based on someone of average health and are based on actual data...not fairy tale stuff. Also, it doesn't factor in stuff about McCain's past medical history, like cancer, or other stressful situations he has lived through.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

That means there is a pretty good chance that a women who previously was mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people and was governor of a state that has more moose than people for less than 2 years, will be deciding what to do with Iran...North Korea...Russia and China.

Read that last sentence over again and really think about it. Pretty scary stuff.

It's a fair question to raise, will the Commander-in-Chief last through his term.

Which brings the Palin selection into focus.

But there will be those that say, Reagan lasted 8 years. We might never know what was the exact impact that his Alzheimer's had on his administration. Kennedy was in his 40s and taking loaded with painkillers.

It's a fair question to ask. And I would say more important to make sure Palin is the right pick because of McCain's age.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:21 pm

On the one hand, Fannie and Freddie were leaving bags of money on every politician's desk. OTOH, some of those bags were significantly larger than others.

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400
Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000
Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750
Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500
Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050
Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500
Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250
Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491
Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200
Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000
Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250
Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539
Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000
Pryce, Deborah H OH R $55,500 $45,000 $10,500
Emanuel, Rahm H IL D $51,750 $16,000 $35,750
Isakson, Johnny S GA R $49,200 $35,500 $13,700
Cantor, Eric H VA R $48,500 $46,500 $2,000
Crapo, Mike S ID R $47,250 $40,500 $6,750
Frank, Barney H MA D $42,350 $30,500 $11,850
Bean, Melissa H IL D $41,249 $34,999 $6,250
Bayh, Evan S IN D $41,100 $16,500 $24,600
McConnell, Mitch S KY R $41,000 $40,000 $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B H NY D $39,750 $16,500 $23,250
Dorgan, Byron L S ND D $38,750 $30,500 $8,250
Miller, Gary H CA R $38,000 $31,500 $6,500
Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250
Tiberi, Patrick J H OH R $35,700 $32,600 $3,100
Bunning, Jim S KY R $33,802 $29,650 $4,152
Stabenow, Debbie S MI D $33,450 $32,000 $1,450
Chambliss, Saxby S GA R $33,250 $22,500 $10,750
Menendez, Robert S NJ D $31,250 $30,500 $750
Enzi, Mike S WY R $31,000 $27,500 $3,500
Van Hollen, Chris H MD D $30,700 $11,000 $19,700
Landrieu, Mary L S LA D $30,600 $20,000 $10,600
Murray, Patty S WA D $30,000 $23,000 $7,000
Clyburn, James E H SC D $29,750 $26,000 $3,750
Crowley, Joseph H NY D $29,700 $25,500 $4,200
Sessions, Pete H TX R $29,472 $24,000 $5,472
McCrery, Jim H LA R $29,000 $26,000 $3,000
Hooley, Darlene H OR D $28,750 $19,500 $9,250
Royce, Ed H CA R $28,600 $4,000 $24,600
Renzi, Rick H AZ R $28,250 $28,000 $250
Lieberman, Joe S CT I $28,250 $11,500 $16,750
Baucus, Max S MT D $27,500 $21,000 $6,500
Moore, Dennis H KS D $26,550 $25,500 $1,050
Coleman, Norm S MN R $24,690 $12,000 $12,690
Matheson, Jim H UT D $24,500 $24,000 $500
Schumer, Charles E S NY D $24,250 $1,500 $22,750
Durbin, Dick S IL D $23,750 $14,000 $9,750
Rogers, Mike H MI R $22,750 $21,000 $1,750
Lynch, Stephen F H MA D $22,500 $13,500 $9,000
Rockefeller, Jay S WV D $22,250 $5,000 $17,250
Smith, Gordon H S OR R $22,000 $20,000 $2,000
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

That's Obama at No. 2 with McCain at 22, $105k seperating them. This may not be the last time you hear this fact.

Complete list is here.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:34 pm

I've heard this before. POTUS rocks. Opensecrets.org people underlined that those are individual donations from persons employed at those companies. They've also indicated that these persons donate primarily to democrats. They also noted that the bulk of donations occured during better times and not so much recently. Since Obama is #1 in attracting donors from either party, I don't see how him attracting people who are already largely committed to Democratic Party as any kind of wrongdoing. Media has had this info for months, if it were to become a story it already would have been.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:34 pm

JackB1 wrote:Just a little sidenote here...

Life Insurance actuarial tables say that there is at least a 30% chance
that McCain won't live through (2) 4 year terms. Those tables are based on someone of average health and are based on actual data...not fairy tale stuff. Also, it doesn't factor in stuff about McCain's past medical history, like cancer, or other stressful situations he has lived through.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

That means there is a pretty good chance that a women who previously was mayor of a small town with less than 7,000 people and was governor of a state that has more moose than people for less than 2 years, will be deciding what to do with Iran...North Korea...Russia and China.

Read that last sentence over again and really think about it. Pretty scary stuff.

First off, it's widely speculated that McCain will only serve a single term and then step down, so the 30% doesn't really apply.

Second, I kinda like the idea of a war veteran and a lady that knows how to use a gun dealing with these countries

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:40 pm

What was that about keeping religion out of politcs?...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... rchandise/

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:40 pm

Teal wrote:
Only if you are Matt Damon-c'mon Jack, really...

Teal, you really don't think McCain's age is a consideration?

You would be OK with Sara Palin having a sitdown with Omar al-Bashir
or Kim Jong Il about the murder in Sudan or nuclear weapons?

Seriously...I am not trying to be a smart ass here. I don't understand why the Obama camp isn't playing up the age factor more?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:46 pm

RobVarak wrote:On the one hand, Fannie and Freddie were leaving bags of money on every politician's desk. OTOH, some of those bags were significantly larger than others.

That's Obama at No. 2 with McCain at 22, $105k seperating them. This may not be the last time you hear this fact.

Complete list is here.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html

deleted

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:11 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Seriously...I am not trying to be a smart ass here. I don't understand why the Obama camp isn't playing up the age factor more?

They would alienate voters over 65.

Man I wish you were Obama's campaign manager.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:12 pm

JackB1 wrote:I don't understand why the Obama camp isn't playing up the age factor more?

omg plz stfu

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:14 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote: Media has had this info for months, if it were to become a story it already would have been.

First of all, are you suggesting sir that the media would be the one to point out something that is potentially embarassing to Obama? I think it will be some time before they feel it reaches a point where even they can't sweep it under the rug anymore. Give it time.

Secondly, it wasn't a story months ago. It became a potential source of embarassment only with the Fannie/Freddie bailout of last week, and is even more so given the Lehman collapse and fallout this week.

Politics is perception, MACTEP, not reality.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:16 pm

JackB1 wrote:
You would be OK with Sara Palin having a sitdown with Omar al-Bashir
or Kim Jong Il about the murder in Sudan or nuclear weapons?

That would be the job of the Secretary of State.
One example.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25810215/

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:17 pm

Slumberland wrote:
JackB1 wrote:I don't understand why the Obama camp isn't playing up the age factor more?
omg plz stfu

This made my whole day. I can practically hear Slumber hitting his head on the table as he writes it! LMFAO

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:33 pm

RobVarak wrote:First of all, are you suggesting sir that the media would be the one to point out something that is potentially embarassing to Obama? I think it will be some time before they feel it reaches a point where even they can't sweep it under the rug anymore. Give it time.

Secondly, it wasn't a story months ago. It became a potential source of embarassment only with the Fannie/Freddie bailout of last week, and is even more so given the Lehman collapse and fallout this week.

Politics is perception, MACTEP, not reality.

Okay, I think it's safe to assume that after Rev. Wright Obama is no longer the favourite son of the media. Certain bias remains with certain outlets, but not to the point to sweep anything under the rug. And yes, I am suggesting, that if they dig up dirt on him they will be sure everyone hears about it.

It was a story when government announced the plan to acquire Fan and Fred, but as it did then, it will fade now as well. There is really not much there. It's a democratic leaning community that donated more to Obama. Yes 6 times more. If you were to really dig deep, I think that senator Dodd would be the real story, his very short campaign makes this amount of money seem inadequately large. And I think there is a very good chance that he raised a lot of money for Obama's campaign from these sources as well. So, his connection to F&F may be exploited more.

Perception IS reality, Rob. It is only real if you perceive it to be so.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:37 pm

Totally substance-less, but something that's been gnawing at me finally clicked:

It's the eyes!

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:40 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:
Perception IS reality, Rob. It is only real if you perceive it to be so.

I think this is from the liner notes to a Moby Grape album.

The media was all over the Rev. Wright stuff, but only after weeks of internet and altnerate media drum banging.

CMPA doesn't do full studies of media bias until after election cycles, but given the overwhelming pro-Kerry bias that they found in '04 and recent donation records regarding media donations I think it's reasonable to assume that the mainstream media generally favors Obama.

That's really not my point anyway. Arguing about media bias is a moot point. Whether it exists now or not the perception that it does helps the GOP.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:41 pm

Slumberland wrote: omg plz stfu

Let him go man. I honestly don't believe he understand's what he's posting.

Jack. I'm gonna give you some pearls here man. I know in my heart your not a bigot. I really believe your a good man. But brother your zeal over this election has driven you to post some very intolerant remarks regarding gender,age and faith. No bullshit. Clam down and think before you post.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:44 pm

RobVarak wrote: The media was all over the Rev. Wright stuff, but only after weeks of internet and altnerate media drum banging.

I thought that had more to do with Hillary...Different game now completely.

Digital Sportspage

OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

Who are you planning to vote for?