Presidential Election Political Smackdown FFA
Actually, if Obama loses it would not be a bad thing. I'd rather not see a repeat of Carter-Reagan election where Carter just happened to be the righteous politician becoming president at the wrong economic time. I just don't think the economic trouble we're seeing will be a short one and just might get more severe; Obama just might get blamed for it even though this 'day-of-reckoning" economic scenario has been made since 1982, and you just know the rednecks, the neo-cons, and the ultra-conservatives will blame a Black man for dragging the country down (much like the Germans blamed the Jews for losing WWI)
Comments
Don't you think it's a little premature to predict critical reaction to an election which is in a virtual tie right now? I fixed your post to reflect reality.
The rioting in November is a more "specific" thing though, like when your basketball team wins or loses the playoffs. :roll:
You can save this post and refer back in November if you wish to say "I told you so".
I predict a Reaganesque rout on this one. The reasons are legion and irrefutable.
What would you have thought his chances of winning the tour if, before any of the mountain stages, he was virtually tied with the leader?
Same thing here. I see obama as one of the "sprinters" and we are done with "the sprinter legs of the race". He's gonna get creamed and the method is obvious. He will be swiftboated from a thousand different directions.
Swiftboating: exposing the truth about an area where nobody paid attention to the validity of a candidates claims in the past.
We are about to discover who Obama really is. No scratch that. Those who were heretofor not really paying attention are about to discover who Obama really is.
McCain has been pretty much vetted over the last thousand years of his political career.
Swiftboating: Creating unprovable variants of the truth backed by seemingly trustworthy sources, then repeating those stories until most people believe they are the truth.
See also:
"Iraq has ties to Al-Queda", "Iraq is responsible for 9/11", or "Iraq has WMD"
"Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim", "is a Communist", "is anti-American"
McCain has spent much of his Senatorial career carving out an odd niche, but he's discarded much of that niche in favor of Karl Rove style politicking. It's hard to say whether he would Preside as he's behaved in the Senate or on the campaign trail. If it was the former, I certainly see some merit in his election; if it's the latter we could do no worse.
And remember, it was Kerry who had to change HIS story when the Swiftboaters called him on it. They did not retract a word. Not one.
Nor did they need to.
There will be no "I told you so" unless it's me saying it to you. My remarks this election is too close to call right now were noncommittal. Your response a McCain route was a definitive prediction. So, how are you going to rub that in my face? You won't have a time-machine to go back and prove that close polls now meant the race was a foregone conclusion.
By the way, this is a perfect example of what's wrong with a lot of your posts. You have a tendency to exhibit outlandish amounts of confirmation bias. These posts feel almost like sports fans predicting championships before the first game of the season.
The thing about the Swift Boat campaign is that it didn't matter if they were telling the truth or not. They had $15-20 million, nearly 1/4 as much as Kerry spent on his entire campaign, to spread their side of the story. It was said enough times that eventually people just took it as truth - no different than the Iraq pre-war campaign in 2003. A lot of people I know still think Obama is either a Communist or a Muslim (or both, which is a rather odd combination) based on people repeating those lies often enough that it stuck.
Unfortunately, both Obama and McCain will certainly get hammered by the 527s, Obama more so (or perhaps more effectively). It's a bit ironic that McCain seems so willing to engage in this after getting "swift boated" in South Carolina in the 2000 primary.
Oops. We hijacked this thread and I was totally oblivious. Sorry! :oops:
Also, I don't care if people talk politics. Go crazy, whatever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80
Second, I think Obama-McCain is going to look a lot more like Clinton-Dole in terms of the outcome. The MSM likes to find polls where they're neck and neck because they like a horserace. I expect this one is going to be a blowout, however. A lot of republicans don't really like McCain and he's not a very appealing candidate to anyone.
Third, the whole counter-reaction to Obama and/or rioting is probably overdone. Yeah, if its close and Obama loses to a supreme court decision, you'll probably see some pissed off folks who have more melanin than others. The country will still go on. And wrt neo-nazism, when you look at Clinton there was a whole strengthening of the UN-black-helicopter crowd which ultimately seemed to lead to the Oklahoma bombing. If Obama gets 2 terms there might be a similar kind of domestic terrorism incident, but the backlash from that should self-limit any neo-nazi / militia strengthening. We're not going to wind up looking like pre-WWII Germany.
Interesting. We both think it will be a blowout but by opposite sides. I think we're gonna know soon enough. I will throw this out though: My uncle is a yellow dog democrat if ever there was one. He is retired but used to be a mucky-muck in a union that will remain nameless. I talked to him about this election at length this weekend. He shocked the heck out of me by saying he was voting for McCain. The part that really surprised me was that part of the reason was that he tended to like McCain! The main part however was the reasons he simply could not bring himself to vote for BHO. I know my uncle and I was stunned!
I had forgotten that the fact that so many republican rank and file consider McCain a Rino is actually working in his favor with this election. Those people will vote for McCain because many of them literally do not believe this country can survive an Obama presidency. Meanwhile, the democrats that are desperate for an actual adult to vote for will also see the "RINO" McCain as a viable alternative.
But the way the economy is going, whichever party wins the election will ultimately become the loser. This thing is sure fun to watch though!
If McCain wins, I'll take solace in the eventual dirt-cheap house prices. We're repeating 1928 now. Hoover won that year, adding to 8 years of Republicanism. Kansas was a red state then, like now. By 1935, Kansas was voting 80% Democrat. People tend to get smarter when the alternative is starvation.
Unclear to me. What is clear, is that people will fondly remember the economics conditions under Bill Clinton, even though the last half of his term was when the dotcom bubble first expanded. It's equally clear that Bush is taking much/most of the fall for the current downturn.
So, will McCain or Obama end up taking blame for the next time down? It really depends on how long the bust cycle lasts. If it turns around by year 2 of either candidates term they may go down in history as economic saviors (rightly or wrongly). If conditions worsen, then the election winner starts looking a lot more like Hoover or Carter.
It should. There's a possibility that Obama could stumble somehow during the debates. Without some kind of gaff, though, he should pretty much destroy McCain.
You have to keep in mind that the objectives of pretty much any president are tempered by how divided and divisive the legislative branch is. The only tried and tested way to overcome that is a massive policy campaign to the voters, which if it succeeds makes your position so popular that the legislator's hands are tied. You saw this exact phenomenon with the Iraq war: massive PR push by presidency, public overwhelmingly agrees, legislators across the board vote for authorization even if they publicly expressed some doubt about going to war.
So, the first question is whether or not McCain will be able to successfully run a PR campaign to increase spending. Second, however is the fact that deficit spending usually does boost the economy in the short term. I tend to think that the Iraq war had as much to do with the "good times" from 2003 to 2006 as the housing boom. Personally, I think McCain probably has a better chance of making 2011 look like a good year for the economy than Obama, but I think 2015 will look better if Obama is in charge now than McCain.
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/disc ... hp?t=26089
Funny thing is, the veep choice is the only person on either ticket with "executive" experience.
At best the government can maybe prolong the downturn with massive "stimulus", which will only serve to delay the purging of mal-investments. This is what happened with FDR. Instead of a short-sharp, depression, the US suffered a decade long decline. Unfortunately, I fear that "stiumulus" and future bail-outs will be in order regardless of whether McCain or Obama gets into office. When the voters are screaming for "help", their politicians will oblige. Heck, even Bush signed onto "stimulus" legislation as well as bail-outs for the GSEs.
I know you love to call things way in advance, but it is extremely premature to assume who will win, let alone that it will be a rout. The only people commenting on this so far are those who are either extremely excited about it or those who are extremely dissatisfied. That's how it always happens with these things.
Give it a couple weeks, and we'll know better whether or not this was a wise decision. It's possible that McCain will hold gains from the people who wanted Hill-dog only because she was a woman, and see Palin as the next best bet. Of course, it's also possible that this could sort of turn on McCain if those same people begin to see it as a pander. A lot of that will depend on Palin herself. If she comes across as very strong and qualified, people will likely interpret it as a savvy choice and it will help McCain. If she struggles, particularly in debates with Biden, this move will prove to be extremely harmful.
By the way, this choice does undermine some of McCain's arguments that Obama is unqualified to lead. With McCain's age, the democrats can turn this into an argument that even McCain doesn't actually believe experience is important. On the other hand, Palin is a Washington outsider, which could help McCain as this election may hinge on that issue.
I read this as "mall investment" at first. Either way, I agree. Too many malls is a bad investment!
Think of a Civil war soldier with a serious leg wound. Whatever happens on the operating table is gonna hurt, but the choice of doctor can determine how much leg he has left after he goes under the saw, or whether he lives at all.
I compare this to that. But I think all the doctors in this case are pretty incompetent.
Go to wikipedia and other sources about Palin. You will find there is quite a bit of meat there. This is, quite frankly, huge.
Ignoring the veep choice for a moment though, I based my original "calling it" on what I said to an associate in an email:
"...when you take the teleprompter away from Obama he freezes up - or worse. That just will not play over the long run. He jumped the shark with the "above my pay grade" remark. He has been toast ever since, unless McCain suddenly pledges alegence to the KKK or american Nazi party or something like that.
One of the problems is that when a "great speaker" cannot speak without a script, it implies that what he is saying "off script" is not what he believes. He is not speaking from core values. That is never good. It almost always means they are lying."
The VEEP choice only confirms my belief that this is gonna be a rout, and the results on the "hillary" site reinforce it further. This, coupled with McCains Video last night was one of the most brilliant political moves I have ever seen. It shows qualities one wants in a president who must play the worldwide chess game with the likes of Putin and China.
I will add that one of the women on the Hillary site thought this could result in a Palin/Hillary race in 2012. I suspect Hillary would not want that for the obvious reasons.
This is becoming more and more fascinating.
She also undercuts his constant inexperience arguments. I mean, she's been in office for less time than Obama has been running for president, with very little prior experience.
And with McCain's health and age? People may not like that.
Her impact will all depend on how well she fares against Biden in debates I think.
Also, the forum you quote isn't exactly what I would call your "average" Hillary Clinton supporter. Considering there are zero dissenting voices on that link, I would think that maybe there's some moderating going on there?
All of the drama and infighting that the media kept on predicting at the convention certainly didn't happen and I don't believe that most Hillary supporters will go for McCain, even with a woman VP.
Now I'm interested to see what effect the Paulites have on the RNC this next week.
You're kidding right? For anyone who doesn't know, "above my pay grade" was Obama's response to when a fetus gains human rights. Yeah, it was a cutesy answer, and he probably would have been better off saying simply "I don't think there is a 'right' answer to that question." But it was also the right answer, and McCain's prompt "at conception" was overly simplistic and blatant pandering to that particular crowd.
It's simple to form nuanced opinions about these issues if you're willing to actually think through what you believe. Consider, these mental tests. You confronted with a button, if you choose not to push it person A will die, if you choose to push it person B will die. What do you do if:
1) A=adult and B=fetus?
2) A=adult and B=infant?
3) A=infant and B=fetus?
4) A=infant and B=undifferentiated zygote?
5) A=undifferentiated zygote and B=late third trimester fetus?
7) A=healthy fetus and B=terminally ill adult?
8) A=unhealthy fetus and B=healthy adult?
9) etc.
Notice how easy it is to decide in each scenario who you would save if forced? This is your fundamental belief about the relative value of each life, and it must inform your opinion about the abortion issue if you wish to hold a reasoned opinion.
But thinking doesn't end there. You may still believe that a just conceived fetus deserves full human rights, but what is that based on? It's intelligence? It's capacity to feel pain? Whatever your reason is, you must then defend why other living beings with greater intelligence and greater capacity for pain do not deserve comparable rights. Frankly, I don't care what answer a person comes to, so long as that answer is internally consistent.
By the way, when answering these questions, if you rely on some divine right of humans or a fuzzy definition of "soul", just know that your explanation is literally unreasoned (there is no evidence for or against it and you can never hope to find any) and in logical discourse it is even less defensible than Obama's was.
But he jumped the shark.
I called it a while ago. This merely confirms it for me.
I am listening to Randi Rhodes right now (streaming). She is making an utter fool of herself. It is literally painful to listen, to the point that I am having to force myself to listen. I feel kinda bad for her. If I was in her shoes it would be very hard to do what I know she has to do. Especially when she mentions the 18 million and is 180 degrees from what they are saying on their sites.
This is a very interesting election.
I will also say I was not going to vote in this election but it will now go down as the second time I have ever voted FOR a candidate and not just against the worst evil. First time was in 1980.
This is, frankly, the most historic day in the american election process that I can recall in my lifetime. I have never been so excited by the process.
And to be clear, the MAIN thing for me about this Palin thing is the way the choice was made. This was precicely executed, right down to the congratulatory video aired last night.
It reminds me of the Raid on Entebbe.
McCain showed me he can deal with "challenging" world leaders.