OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:47 am

Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:57 am

TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?

No.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:11 am

Slumberland wrote: It does seem to me that the usual liberal/conservative categories have become a bit blurred with the neo-conservative emergence within the GOP... which is sort of this strange liberalism directed outward. Government isn't capable of helping with internal problems, but is totally capable of reshaping foreign nations, and so forth.

LMAO I met an Illinois legislator on Saturday with a Democrats for McCain bumpersticker. Much is made of "defectors" in every election, and I think that article is one example.

Neo-conservatives don't believe that government can reshape foreign nations. They believe that the forces of democracy and open markets can re-shape foreign societies. And just as there are gradients of liberalism and centrism in the Democratic party, there are shades of libertarianism and social conservatism in the GOP. But I think that the overall continuum of Amercian political philosophy remains largely the same as it has been since 1964-68 or so.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:13 am

Teal wrote:
TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?
No.

Teal, I think that's a big disingenuous. I've been a strong Palin supporter, but I'm becoming less enthralled with the way the campaign has handled her. She absolutely should have been on at least one of the network, if only because she would be conspicuous by her absence.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:16 am

RobVarak wrote:
Teal wrote:
TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?
No.
Teal, I think that's a big disingenuous. I've been a strong Palin supporter, but I'm becoming less enthralled with the way the campaign has handled her. She absolutely should have been on at least one of the network, if only because she would be conspicuous by her absence.

Then you read too much into a two letter word.

I just didn't find it odd, don't think there's a conspiracy behind every rock and tree. Sorry.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:30 am

RobVarak wrote:They believe that the forces of democracy and open markets, created in a vacuum without the benefit of established democratic institutions and only after the pre-emptive military toppling of unwanted regimes, can re-shape foreign societies.

Fixed that for you.

As for the defector stuff, I don't present that article as some end-all-be-all. It is what it is. I would welcome any interesting Dems-for-McCain links. There are things I've always liked about McCain. But the Palin selection really knocked my opinion of him way down... for how impulsive it was, a bit cynical, and (if I can be a bit paranoid and offensive for a moment) how I'm convinced she's an end timer that I want nowhere near the war-making decision process.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:36 am

MACTEPsporta wrote:I was playing with numbers (yes, I am that bored at work), and it's not looking good for McCain. Obama can lose OH, FL and PA,!!!! and still have a good chance to win. Fivethrityeight has Obama winning 3 out 4 of their mock elections, and I am coming up with similar results. It will take McCain a monumental effort to change the picture to favour him.

Here are my new toys:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

And these results are with FL and OHIO as "toss ups"!
Obama will most likely win Ohio and if he can somehow pull out
FL, it will be an easy victory. I think the more the country sees of
McCain & Palin in the upcoming weeks, the more things will lean towards Obama/Biden.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:38 am

JackB1 wrote:Obama will most likely win Ohio and if he can somehow pull out
FL, it will be an easy victory. I think the more the country sees of
McCain & Palin in the upcoming weeks, the more things will lean towards Obama/Biden.

No no no no... there is a lot of time left. No one can predict the bump that the McCain/Palin ticket will get from the Levi/Bristol wedding festivities.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:39 am

Slumberland wrote:
RobVarak wrote:They believe that the forces of democracy and open markets, created in a vacuum without the benefit of established democratic institutions and only after the pre-emptive military toppling of unwanted regimes, can re-shape foreign societies.
Fixed that for you.

Well, you would have if Neo-conservatism consisted only of those people labled as such in the last 8 years. As with most things that the media disseminates, that is neither an accurate nor a complete definition of the beliefs of neo-conservatives. Incidentally, I am in no way, shape or form a devotee of neo-cons. I'm actually pretty disdainful of the term, as it's become a blurry mess in the last decade or so.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:43 am

TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?

No. I agree with Teal: There is no conspiracy.

Palin's absence from the spotlight is completely transparent: Her grasp of the issues -- especially foreign policy -- is tenuous at best, so she needs more time out of the spotlight to study.

Problem is, she can't afford that time. No VP candidate has been more sheltered from the media in either party in my memory, and people are smart enough to know why.

Palin no longer is helping McCain outside of energizing the right wing of the GOP, as polling shows undecideds are starting to turn away from her after their post-convention curiosity about her. Sheltering her from the media won't do anything to woo those undecideds back, and McCain needs those undecideds badly.

Palin needs to destroy Biden in this week's debate -- highly unlikely -- or Biden needs to insert his foot into his larynx -- possible. Otherwise, the great Palin gamble is looking more and more like a snake eyes' roll.

Take care,
PK

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:44 am

Putting the rape kit rumors pushed by Jared to rest, although I'm sure he'll stick with his position on a weaselly technicality: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfact ... -bunk.aspx

Democrats doing the good work in 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Good to see the culture of corruption in Congress has been cleaned up: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/ne ... 131252.htm

Just a guy who lives in my neighborhood: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/ne ... 131209.htm

Loose lips sink ships: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... rint.story

Now we know when it is appropriate to attack your opponents' patriotism: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... iotic.html

Jesus was a community organizer, but did he push subprime mortgages? http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/po ... 131216.htm

In other news, my roommate proclaimed yesterday that McCain = Bush, although she was unable to provide any examples of specific policies. Apparently, she is upset over the fact that her boyfriend lost his job after his former company was mismanaged into the ground, and she now wants Change.

Post by **Jared** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:47 am

Teal wrote:This isn't optimism...it's arrogance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... slide.html

I think he thinks too much of himself; but that's hardly news.

At probably the best site for electoral projections, Obama has an 80% chance to win the election, with the current EV projection at 325-213. I'm not sure how it's arrogant to base your predictions on really good statistical models...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

As for Palin post-debate, it's a tactical error not to have her on TV. It's guarantee national TV spin time with someone the public wants to know more about. By not having her on, it looks like you're hiding her....and take that along with her performance in the Couric interview, and the perception is that they're hiding her because she's not ready.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:48 am

FatPitcher wrote:Democrats doing the good work in 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

That video is great...aside from the unnecessarily snarky text segues. They should've just stuck to the facts.

And a warning: It does feature black Congressmen and Frank Raines in an unfavorable light. By definition, this is almost certainly racist...

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:53 am

matthewk wrote:
Pelosi and Reid make me sick. For those on that despise Bush, that's how I feel about these two.

I don't like them either. All Pelosi does is whine and complain and never proposes anything herself. Reid gives Democrats a bad name. How anyone can think that Obama is the "most liberal" hasn't met Reid.

And all this "most liberal Senator" stuff is pretty meaningless IMO. It isn't based on ideals or philosophies...it's based just on voting records. You could also call it "most loyal to their party". Obama shares the same basic beliefs as most Democrats and this was evident during the Hillary debates.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:56 am

TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?

It's not "odd"..it's smart. Didn't you see her interview with Couric?

I can't wait for the Palin/Biden debate.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:04 am

Naples39 wrote:
Feanor wrote:Nonsense rhetoric from a painfully partisan McCain supporter. Obama was actually criticsed during the primary for being more centrist/less progressive than Hillary. Hillary Clinton.
Read his books or examine his actual record and tell me he is a centrist. Despite the image he is portraying during this campaign, Obama is the farthest left democratic nominee of my lifetime.

And don't call me a painfully partisan McCain supporter. I am registered democrat who supported Obama during the primaries before I called bullsh*t on Obama's 'pragmatism' and 'post-partisanship' as I learned more about the man and his past.

I didn't quote your post, I quoted Rob's.

But if you want to worry about the liberal bogyeman, too, then go right ahead.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:09 am

pk500 wrote: Palin needs to destroy Biden in this week's debate -- highly unlikely -- or Biden needs to insert his foot into his larynx -- possible. Otherwise, the great Palin gamble is looking more and more like a snake eyes' roll.
Take care,
PK

I am actually worried that Biden might beat up on her too much, making him look like a bully. He better be careful and like you said, keep that foot away from his mouth, and he should do fine. Let Palin hang herself with her inability to go deeper than broad talking points. Ask her for specific examples...that worked for Katy

Here is a nice "pregame preview" of the Palin/Biden debate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 30065.html

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:12 am

pk500 wrote:
TheGamer wrote:Anyone find it odd that while Biden was doing all of the post debate interviews, Guilliani was interviewing instead of Palin?
No. I agree with Teal: There is no conspiracy.

Palin's absence from the spotlight is completely transparent: Her grasp of the issues -- especially foreign policy -- is tenuous at best, so she needs more time out of the spotlight to study.

I believe we'll know when she's ready when she starts wearing a motrarboard and hanging her Class of 08 tassel from her rear view mirror.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:17 am

Feanor wrote:
Naples39 wrote:
Feanor wrote:Nonsense rhetoric from a painfully partisan McCain supporter. Obama was actually criticsed during the primary for being more centrist/less progressive than Hillary. Hillary Clinton.
Read his books or examine his actual record and tell me he is a centrist. Despite the image he is portraying during this campaign, Obama is the farthest left democratic nominee of my lifetime.

And don't call me a painfully partisan McCain supporter. I am registered democrat who supported Obama during the primaries before I called bullsh*t on Obama's 'pragmatism' and 'post-partisanship' as I learned more about the man and his past.
I didn't quote your post, I quoted Rob's.

But if you want to worry about the liberal bogyeman, too, then go right ahead.

I would not have expected you of all people to use the term "partisan" in a derogatory fashion.

Anyway, none of the criticism of Obama's "progressive" cred stuck, for obvious reasons. Also, WTF is up with the adoption of the term "progressive"? Is eugenics back in fashion? Or is it because all the words that mean the same thing have turned into pejoratives?

Post by **Jared** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:21 am

Wow...link blizzard. No time to discuss them all, but since I was called out on one...

FatPitcher wrote:Putting the rape kit rumors pushed by Jared to rest, although I'm sure he'll stick with his position on a weaselly technicality: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfact ... -bunk.aspx

First, I never pushed the rape kits story. I specifically mentioned it in response to MattK bringing that specific topic up as an example of unfair reporting, and I responded. Personally, as I said in my post, it's not the biggest story ever, and nothing I would bother pushing. Please, if you're going to criticize me, well, criticize me and not straw me.

Second, that link debunks the idea that the 2000 law providing that the state pay for forensic rape exams was enacted because of Wasilla. I never said that was the case (although someone did in a NYT editorial).

What is true is that Wasilla did pay for rape kits under Palin's predecessors, but that this was removed when Palin was in office. Palin was likely trying to get insurance companies to pay for the rape kits. Though that doesn't take into consideration situations like if you get raped w/o health insurance. And policies that make people that have to pay for their own rape kits when they don't have insurance are pretty poor, IMO.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:22 am

RobVarak wrote:LMAO @ citing Paul Krugman in an argument about who's centrist.

First of all, Paul Krugman is a columnist, so he hardly speaks for the NY Times. Secondly, I don't give a s*** what the NY Times says on the issue.

I know that he's a columnist, and I never thought or claimed that he spoke for the NYT. His gives reasons for his opinion about how centrist Obama in the linked article, and I don't see why citing him is laughable just because he's a left-winger. You're obviously very right-wing, but that doesn't mean I find everything you type laughable without actually reading it first.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:29 am

FatPitcher wrote:I would not have expected you of all people to use the term "partisan" in a derogatory fashion.

I'm nowhere near as partisan as some of the lifelong Republicans and Democrats in this thread. You might think I must be an Obama campaign volunteer just because I don't think he's going to bring about a liberal apocalypse if he gets elected, but that's just the limits of your world view.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:36 am

Feanor wrote:
I know that he's a columnist, and I never thought or claimed that he spoke for the NYT. His gives reasons for his opinion about how centrist Obama in the linked article, and I don't see why citing him is laughable just because he's a left-winger. You're obviously very right-wing, but that doesn't mean I find everything you type laughable without actually reading it first.

If I seemed dismissive, it's because he claims to be predicting how Obama will lead based solely on Obama's current campaign positions, with no analysis whatsoever of his record, his background, his previous campaigns or statements.

Given that my initial premise is that Obama is running a centrist campaign but is at heart a traditional liberal, I hardly found it informative that Krugman agrees with me based on that particular analysis.

Incidentally, if I'm "very right-wing" you really need to get out and meet more Republicans...many of whom scorn me because I'm too "moderate." I would submit that despite the length of this thread, there's really not enough data to pin me down on the political spectrum

And it is good to know that you don't find my links laughable until after you read them

I wasn't saying, incidentally, that an Obama presidency would be a liberal apocalpyse. My point was that he's more liberal than the candidate his campaign is selling, and that if McCain wants to get back in this race he needs to point that out.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:38 am

Feanor wrote:
RobVarak wrote:LMAO @ citing Paul Krugman in an argument about who's centrist.

First of all, Paul Krugman is a columnist, so he hardly speaks for the NY Times. Secondly, I don't give a s*** what the NY Times says on the issue.
I know that he's a columnist, and I never thought or claimed that he spoke for the NYT. His gives reasons for his opinion about how centrist Obama in the linked article, and I don't see why citing him is laughable just because he's a left-winger. You're obviously very right-wing, but that doesn't mean I find everything you type laughable without actually reading it first.

Well, compared to Krugman, Obama IS centrist. Hell, compared to Krugman, Karl Marx is centrist.

Now, before people get their knickers in a knot, I never said Krugman was a moron. He's a VERY smart dude. But he's also about as far left as it gets, and that's an indisputable fact. I think he'd be proud of that label.

Take care,
PK

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:06 pm

Feanor wrote:I didn't quote your post, I quoted Rob's.

But if you want to worry about the liberal bogyeman, too, then go right ahead.

I'm not sure it matters whose post you quote, it's your idea that Obama is a centrist that I disagreed with. It's more than just partisan nonsense to criticize Obama's very left-leaning record.

Honestly it bothers me every time because I think Obama's centrism is probable the single biggest/most persistent myth of this campaign cycle. Let's just say I agree with Rob that Obama's "more liberal than the candidate his campaign is selling."