Just wanted to throw a few more positive things out there for anyone who's down because their man didn't prevail.
Most importantly, there were no widespread reports of vote tampering, voter intimidation, or other shenanigans. Sure, there were one or two minor reports, but they were isolated incidents. This was by far the cleanest election we've held this decade.
Also significant, the margin of victory was decisive. If this had been a near tie, N. Carolina could be a huge news story this morning with only 11k votes separating Obama and McCain. Instead, the election was essentially over at 8:00 and there was no doubt. This gives Obama the room to operate, which regardless of who you were rooting for, we know the incoming president needs to get some stuff done. I'm not surprised a black man won the presidency, I always felt our national racism was overstated, but I am surprised that a black democrat won so decisively.
Now, for Robroy's immature whining. Get over it. McCain manned up with a classy (if slightly long) concession speech. Maybe you're just devastated that you kept doubling down on McCain; go ahead, and wallow in self pity for a few weeks, but once that's done maybe you could just knock off being delusional and comparing everything that you dislike to Nazism. It's not insightful. It's not interesting. It's not enlightening. Calling Obama Hitler#2 is just embarrassing, pathetic, and frankly it sounds bigoted.
1) Ted Stevens is likely to be reelected. Alaska had nearly 100,000 fewer voters turn out than in 2004. I think I had mentioned earlier that in the event of an Obama landslide, the west coast downticket Democrats might be hurt. With Merkley behind in Oregon as well, it could be the case.
2) West coast voter turnout was low, or rather, not really that high. California is going to be 1.5-2 million votes short of 2004, depending on the volume of absentee ballots. For all the talk of "massive amounts of voters" most of the east coast battleground states seem to be close to their 2004 numbers.
3) Anti gay rights advocates were 3 for 3, maybe 4 for 4 after California is done counting. But anti-abortionists were 0 for 2.
3) Anti gay rights advocates were 3 for 3, maybe 4 for 4 after California is done counting. But anti-abortionists were 0 for 2.
I think this is one of the most fascinating results of the night. If I were running the republican party, I would start asking why my party spends so much time fighting abortion when it's fairly clear that Americans are mostly OK with abortion as a right (even while most dislike it) but not gay marriage.
3) Anti gay rights advocates were 3 for 3, maybe 4 for 4 after California is done counting. But anti-abortionists were 0 for 2.
I think this is one of the most fascinating results of the night. If I were running the republican party, I would start asking why my party spends so much time fighting abortion when it's fairly clear that Americans are mostly OK with abortion as a right (even while most dislike it) but not gay marriage.
The other thing is that part of the reason the GOP spent a lot of money and time with these initiatives is that, in the past couple elections, it really brought out the religious vote. Kerry arguably lost Ohio because of the gay marriage ballot initiative.
But this year, Florida's gay marriage ban passed but the state by a wide margin, but still voted strongly for Obama (strongly in that it won't require a recount). Same for California.
California is goofy. More people are worried about chickens' rights than about peoples'.
I think this is one of the most fascinating results of the night. If I were running the republican party, I would start asking why my party spends so much time fighting abortion when it's fairly clear that Americans are mostly OK with abortion as a right (even while most dislike it) but not gay marriage.
I love the conservative credo of "the goverrnment should stay out of my way"
Except when it comes to a) who I marry b) what I decide to do about a pregnancy c) failing investment banks.
Other than that, pretty much hands off. You can build a nuclear reactor in your back yard as long as you don't try to marry someone the same sex.
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
Dead serious here.
This election was so much fun.
I HOPE Robroy didn't lose too much on all his bets of a McCain landslide.
I love the conservative credo of "the goverrnment should stay out of my way"
Except when it comes to a) who I marry b) what I decide to do about a pregnancy c) failing investment banks.
Other than that, pretty much hands off. You can build a nuclear reactor in your back yard as long as you don't try to marry someone the same sex.
Untrue. If you are non-European in origin you can't build a reactor. To pile on though, there's this peculiar aspect to the "conservative credo" regarding sexuality.
If a movie has copious violence (particularly realistic violence like Saving Private Ryan) it is considered unoffensive, but only the most innocent sexual innuendo is permitted. Not that either is beneficial for society, but can we really argue that Jim Carey has done more harm to the social fabric of society than Al Pacino?
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
Dead serious here.
This election was so much fun.
I HOPE Robroy didn't lose too much on all his bets of a McCain landslide.
Personally, I like the "taking my toys and going home" reaction. And Hitler. Did I forget to mention Hitler?
Personally, I like the "taking my toys and going home" reaction. And Hitler. Did I forget to mention Hitler?
Yeah, that was a lame reaction - childish even. I am, actually, disappointed in him over that. "Going home" is ok, but you've got to man up first. After months of misapplied holocaust references, confused historical analogies, and declarations of a McCain landslide; the least he could have done was write, "Well, I called this one wrong. I think the people will regret their decision today, but hopefully Obama proves me wrong. In the meantime, I'm burned out on this discussion and won't contribute to it anymore. Congratulations."
Instead we got Hitler II and a declaration that the majority of (voting) Americans are Nazis while the sanctimonious Robroy made himself a saintly Jew (can a Jew born after 50 AD be sainted?). Pathetic. I thought he would man up, and he doubled down in the sleaziest way.
I'm just curious what all the PUMA Hillary supporters are thinking about her selection for SoS. My guess is they are happy they decided to vote for Obama after all, since she wouldn't be getting the same respect from a McCain presidency.
It's funny, because at first I was surprised by her as SoS, but then I remembered one of the only things that I liked about the idea of Hillary as President was Bill being back in the White House.
Now I've never been a fan of Bill, however he is pretty much universally loved around the world. Regardless of what you think about his policies, him as "first man" would've meant instant love from other countries.
I kind of forgot about this after Obama got the nomination.
Now I realize that he's basically getting a twofer here. He gives his biggest rival what is essentially the #3 position in the government, he gets Bill on his side and while the rest of the world was already ecstatic about us electing him, now they also get to go back and talk again with politicians they already liked.
I'm of course not surprised that there's been as much negative about this pick as there has been positive. I mean, I think that if Hillary had received the nomination that that would've been pretty much the only thing that could've united the Republicans. She was/is so universally hated by them after all.
This is so weird. I'm a carnivore, and have no problem with slaughter animals, but why is Sarah Palin doing an interview with a man slaughtering turkey's in the background? ?? ???
Even though comedy writers will have a tough time writing comedy about Obama it doesn't matter, because they will have her and Joe Biden for the next 4 years.
Even though comedy writers will have a tough time writing comedy about Obama it doesn't matter, because they will have her and Joe Biden for the next 4 years.
Except, Biden's be quiet. Real quiet. I wonder if perhaps most of his gaffes were just his way of talking himself up so he could jump to the world's biggest stage. And now that he's more or less there (so long as Obama completes his term(s) it's unlikely Biden will have much of a shot at president in 2016) maybe he doesn't feel like pushing things as much.
Or, if we're lucky Biden will have some gaffes. In many ways, his are the best because the ribbing he receives tends to be more good natured. When Palin holds an interview in front of turkey slaughter, people just shake there heads. When Biden makes an absurd claim, the reaction is usually more of a laugh followed by, what do you got for use next Joe?
I think alot of that has to do with his attitude about it. He knows he just says stupid things sometimes and then he laughs at himself about it. After the SNL VP debate sketch I saw an interview with him where they played one of the clips. They asked if he'd seen it and he thought it was hilarious.
When they cut back to him after showing a clip, he's busting up and says, "Man, I just WISH I had that much hair still".
I think it has more to do with that he lacks a tact about what he says.
He won't run in 2016. However, it's pretty likely that his son will take over his senate seat. If that happens, I think we'd very likely see his son run in 2016.
So I was thinking today. Obama has had 3 press conferences in the last week. Do you think that he'll do more press conferences between now and January 20th than Bush did during his entire presidency? He has done a total of 49 in 8 years in office.
Well, I'm much more libertarian than liberal, but I was hard-pressed to support anything Robroy said in this thread. I guess that would make me a liberal in the black/white sighted crowd.
Well, I'm much more libertarian than liberal... I guess that would make me a liberal in the black/white sighted crowd.
And a marijuana addict.
Hah, good one! I do indeed think it should be legal, but that's mainly because it's none of the government's business what I do in my own home that doesn't affect anyone else. If I wanted to smoke it I wouldn't wait it was legal. Caffeine is my drug of choice, however.
Well, I'm much more libertarian than liberal... I guess that would make me a liberal in the black/white sighted crowd.
And a marijuana addict.
Hah, good one! I do indeed think it should be legal, but that's mainly because it's none of the government's business what I do in my own home that doesn't affect anyone else. If I wanted to smoke it I wouldn't wait it was legal. Caffeine is my drug of choice, however.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of legalizing it, could you imagine the tax revenue that could be created by the legalization of pot as well as the tax savings that we'd have by no longer prosecuting, arresting or imprisoning criminals as well as the decline in crime?
While I'm not in favor of legalizing it completely, there are some VERY compelling reasons as to why it should be considered.
Not to get off on a tangent here but I haven't seen any compelling evidence for marijuana to be illegal -- at least no more so than tobacco, alcohol, caffeiine, etc -- and the libertarian in me says things should be legal until justified otherwise, not the other way around. So based on that, my position is it should be legal. But it's not an issue I care very strongly about. Things like warrantless wiretapping, national security letters, and free speech zones are much higher on my libertarian concern list.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of legalizing it, could you imagine the tax revenue that could be created by the legalization of pot as well as the tax savings that we'd have by no longer prosecuting, arresting or imprisoning criminals as well as the decline in crime?
Tax savings would be significant, tax revenue might be negligible. I mean, you'd have recreational users holding down jobs and paying the taxes, but the real stoners would find some other creative way to get around paying taxes they couldn't afford.
Not to get off on a tangent here but I haven't seen any compelling evidence for marijuana to be illegal -- at least no more so than tobacco, alcohol, caffeiine, etc
I would place caffeine and tobacco in one category (stimulants that don't generally impair one's ability to control motor vehicles) and alcohol or marijuana in another. If we lived in a automobile-less society (or one where cars were all steered by computers), then I'm all for legalized pot and alcohol. As is, I'd prefer neither be legal since it jeopardizes my own safety. That said, marijuana is probably safer than alcohol, so society seems to have its priorities backwards.
Comments
Most importantly, there were no widespread reports of vote tampering, voter intimidation, or other shenanigans. Sure, there were one or two minor reports, but they were isolated incidents. This was by far the cleanest election we've held this decade.
Also significant, the margin of victory was decisive. If this had been a near tie, N. Carolina could be a huge news story this morning with only 11k votes separating Obama and McCain. Instead, the election was essentially over at 8:00 and there was no doubt. This gives Obama the room to operate, which regardless of who you were rooting for, we know the incoming president needs to get some stuff done. I'm not surprised a black man won the presidency, I always felt our national racism was overstated, but I am surprised that a black democrat won so decisively.
Now, for Robroy's immature whining. Get over it. McCain manned up with a classy (if slightly long) concession speech. Maybe you're just devastated that you kept doubling down on McCain; go ahead, and wallow in self pity for a few weeks, but once that's done maybe you could just knock off being delusional and comparing everything that you dislike to Nazism. It's not insightful. It's not interesting. It's not enlightening. Calling Obama Hitler#2 is just embarrassing, pathetic, and frankly it sounds bigoted.
1) Ted Stevens is likely to be reelected. Alaska had nearly 100,000 fewer voters turn out than in 2004. I think I had mentioned earlier that in the event of an Obama landslide, the west coast downticket Democrats might be hurt. With Merkley behind in Oregon as well, it could be the case.
2) West coast voter turnout was low, or rather, not really that high. California is going to be 1.5-2 million votes short of 2004, depending on the volume of absentee ballots. For all the talk of "massive amounts of voters" most of the east coast battleground states seem to be close to their 2004 numbers.
3) Anti gay rights advocates were 3 for 3, maybe 4 for 4 after California is done counting. But anti-abortionists were 0 for 2.
I think this is one of the most fascinating results of the night. If I were running the republican party, I would start asking why my party spends so much time fighting abortion when it's fairly clear that Americans are mostly OK with abortion as a right (even while most dislike it) but not gay marriage.
Nevertheless the new president is welcomed by over 60%+ in the world. He can hopefully stand up to the job.
Georgia and Ukraine have got to be pissed. Losing all of their support in one night.
The other thing is that part of the reason the GOP spent a lot of money and time with these initiatives is that, in the past couple elections, it really brought out the religious vote. Kerry arguably lost Ohio because of the gay marriage ballot initiative.
But this year, Florida's gay marriage ban passed but the state by a wide margin, but still voted strongly for Obama (strongly in that it won't require a recount). Same for California.
California is goofy. More people are worried about chickens' rights than about peoples'.
Yes we can.
I totally died in all the race riots last night.
I love the conservative credo of "the goverrnment should stay out of my way"
Except when it comes to a) who I marry b) what I decide to do about a pregnancy c) failing investment banks.
Other than that, pretty much hands off. You can build a nuclear reactor in your back yard as long as you don't try to marry someone the same sex.
This election was so much fun.
I HOPE Robroy didn't lose too much on all his bets of a McCain landslide.
Untrue. If you are non-European in origin you can't build a reactor. To pile on though, there's this peculiar aspect to the "conservative credo" regarding sexuality.
If a movie has copious violence (particularly realistic violence like Saving Private Ryan) it is considered unoffensive, but only the most innocent sexual innuendo is permitted. Not that either is beneficial for society, but can we really argue that Jim Carey has done more harm to the social fabric of society than Al Pacino?
Personally, I like the "taking my toys and going home" reaction. And Hitler. Did I forget to mention Hitler?
Yeah, that was a lame reaction - childish even. I am, actually, disappointed in him over that. "Going home" is ok, but you've got to man up first. After months of misapplied holocaust references, confused historical analogies, and declarations of a McCain landslide; the least he could have done was write, "Well, I called this one wrong. I think the people will regret their decision today, but hopefully Obama proves me wrong. In the meantime, I'm burned out on this discussion and won't contribute to it anymore. Congratulations."
Instead we got Hitler II and a declaration that the majority of (voting) Americans are Nazis while the sanctimonious Robroy made himself a saintly Jew (can a Jew born after 50 AD be sainted?). Pathetic. I thought he would man up, and he doubled down in the sleaziest way.
takes the fun out of it. time to close up shop
Now I've never been a fan of Bill, however he is pretty much universally loved around the world. Regardless of what you think about his policies, him as "first man" would've meant instant love from other countries.
I kind of forgot about this after Obama got the nomination.
Now I realize that he's basically getting a twofer here. He gives his biggest rival what is essentially the #3 position in the government, he gets Bill on his side and while the rest of the world was already ecstatic about us electing him, now they also get to go back and talk again with politicians they already liked.
I'm of course not surprised that there's been as much negative about this pick as there has been positive. I mean, I think that if Hillary had received the nomination that that would've been pretty much the only thing that could've united the Republicans. She was/is so universally hated by them after all.
I think it's a pretty great choice though.
Except, Biden's be quiet. Real quiet. I wonder if perhaps most of his gaffes were just his way of talking himself up so he could jump to the world's biggest stage. And now that he's more or less there (so long as Obama completes his term(s) it's unlikely Biden will have much of a shot at president in 2016) maybe he doesn't feel like pushing things as much.
Or, if we're lucky Biden will have some gaffes. In many ways, his are the best because the ribbing he receives tends to be more good natured. When Palin holds an interview in front of turkey slaughter, people just shake there heads. When Biden makes an absurd claim, the reaction is usually more of a laugh followed by, what do you got for use next Joe?
When they cut back to him after showing a clip, he's busting up and says, "Man, I just WISH I had that much hair still".
I think it has more to do with that he lacks a tact about what he says.
He won't run in 2016. However, it's pretty likely that his son will take over his senate seat. If that happens, I think we'd very likely see his son run in 2016.
We win.
Game over.
Republicans lose.
*HIGH FIVES*
Well, I'm much more libertarian than liberal, but I was hard-pressed to support anything Robroy said in this thread. I guess that would make me a liberal in the black/white sighted crowd.
LoL, and Hitler (who was allegedly actually a libertarian).
Hah, good one! I do indeed think it should be legal, but that's mainly because it's none of the government's business what I do in my own home that doesn't affect anyone else. If I wanted to smoke it I wouldn't wait it was legal. Caffeine is my drug of choice, however.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of legalizing it, could you imagine the tax revenue that could be created by the legalization of pot as well as the tax savings that we'd have by no longer prosecuting, arresting or imprisoning criminals as well as the decline in crime?
While I'm not in favor of legalizing it completely, there are some VERY compelling reasons as to why it should be considered.
Tax savings would be significant, tax revenue might be negligible. I mean, you'd have recreational users holding down jobs and paying the taxes, but the real stoners would find some other creative way to get around paying taxes they couldn't afford.
I would place caffeine and tobacco in one category (stimulants that don't generally impair one's ability to control motor vehicles) and alcohol or marijuana in another. If we lived in a automobile-less society (or one where cars were all steered by computers), then I'm all for legalized pot and alcohol. As is, I'd prefer neither be legal since it jeopardizes my own safety. That said, marijuana is probably safer than alcohol, so society seems to have its priorities backwards.