U.S. Elections 2008 discussions

[GabrielsThoughts]

I didn't see a thread for this one, feel free to tack into the appropriate thread if there is one.

In addition to the Democratic and Republican Candidates there are third party candidates  that, with the exception of Ralph Nader, no one has ever heard of. This year when you go to the polls it is probably a good Idea to choose based on substance ...or pick None of these Candidates. As Our options are generally limited to picking John Jackson or Jack Johnson. 

First up  Ralph Nader (aka John Jackson) , and his  vice presidential candidate  Matt Gomez are Running for the independent party this election. In previous elections Nader ran under the flag of the Green party, an organization recognized for it's politics relating to the environment,   health, and social justice, and pacifism...On the actual green party ticket we have Cynthia McKinney (aka Jack Johnson)  and Rosa Clemente. Both are women candidates, and both  (I believe) are former democrats

Arguments against Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are simple... I can foresee social programs that would lead to people monitoring our consumer behavior, and a government  who would make "responsible" decisions on our behalf. In order to protect the environment we would be forced to pay excess taxes on simple things such as individual grocery bags and a little extra something would have to be paid  for weighing more than our Body Mass Index, drinking, smoking, or anything that would cause harm to the environment. I also foresee the Green Party's  Pascifisim angle working against our government.   Peaceful resolution to the war in Iraq for the green party might be handing Iraqi government  over to the people of Iraq and leave then unarmed to deal with their own problems with  Iran or  the radical Muslims. With the Green Party a  peaceful resolution with Korea might be to irresponsibly let them continue in  the development of their own nuclear program potentially causing a new Chernobyl incident. A Green Party resolution between China and the United States,  might be to  spread out the Tyrannosaurus Debt of the BUSH Government equally among Americans, that way everyone owes $30,000 dollars, and  the sooner we pay it off the sooner our  Income Taxes  could pay for the environmental cleanup.

Next up we have The Libertarian party  candidate Bob Bar and his running mate Wayne Root ...Barr,  who impeached president Clinton, was against medical marijuana,  and was a member of the  Republican party until  2004. Joined the libertarian Party, whom he was at odds with years earlier ...Yeah, not sure what  to argue on this one . Barr wants to restore checks and balances system   within the United States government. That gives him a huge gold star  in my book.

The other candidate that I know about is the good  Reverend Dr. Chuck Baldwin and his running mate Darrell Castle.  Ok immediate thoughts "Abortion issues"  The ultimate in B.S. Politics just got better, if there were going to reverse Rowe vs. Wade they would have done it by now. Bush and Bush Sr. both used that tactic to get into the white house and neither one did anything to change the decision.  I know absolutely nothing about this candidate other than he has a radio talk show, that he's a pastor, and that he felt Bush was far to the left... if Bush is on the  far left and Obama is on the further left this guy must be closer to  J. Edgar Hoover on the far right.  I don't know if I want my neighbors telling tales,  or if I want  the homeowners association to start getting  ideas about how to punish sinners.

[Jigsaw Forte]

I would like to make the following disclaimer:

I HATE Cynthia McKinney. HATE HATE HATE.

She used to be my congressperson, and not only is she a total anti-semite, she's also a complete drama queen (Anyone remember when she got in trouble for punching a security officer because she couldn't be bothered to show her congressional ID?)

Barr is different. I ain't about to vote for him because I actually frickin' LIKE Obama, but I can respect Barr.

Bob Barr's a former Republican because he didn't want the Republicans.
She's a former Democrat  because even the Democrats didn't want her.

[Cvstos]

I strongly disagree with the idea that Obama and McCain are similar. I don't have time to go into details now, but their platforms are wildly different.  Later tonight I'd be happy to highlight some differences.

[superluser]

I didn't see a thread for this, so I assumed that there was a reason for that.

Here are my opinions on the impending US election:

1.) McKinney >> Nader.  I'd rather vote for a backed-up toilet than either of them, but at least McKinney believes the crazy things she says and isn't a power-hungry crazy man.
2.) Nader is running with Gonzalez, not Gomez.
3.) Barr was for a whole bunch of anti-Libertarian stuff, and I suspect that he left the party on the belief that the Republicans are going to implode and he'll have a better chance of getting in elected office on a Libertarian ticket.
4.) Of the two main party candidates, I definitely prefer Obama.  McCain, in later years, has gotten to the point where he has started voting with the Republicans on some really terrible things, like supporting torture.

One of the more interesting aspects of this is that I actually disagree in theory with many (if not most) of Obama's policies.  But with health care companies being turned into financial services comanies and only looking out for their bottom lines, and not for the interests of the people they're supposed to be serving, and with government regulations making it easier for these companies to avoid actually providing care and competing with each other, I think we need something to restore order to the system.  That would be nationalizing the health care system.  I would oppose doing that in the long term, but in the short term, I think it's badly needed.  In general, I don't think the New Deal style of government is a good thing, but I can't deny the fact that, when in a serious recession, it works.

We also need to end the unjust war in Iraq.

5.) I disagree with Obama on a number of other essential life issues, such as abortion and the death penalty.  Catholics are being hammered by messages that we need to elect a pro-life candidate.  What they fail to mention is that there are no pro-life candidates.  McCain still supports abortion in some cases, supports embryonic stem cell research, supports the unjust war in Iraq and the death penalty.  The closest we can come to such a candidate is Baldwin.  Despite the fact that he thinks the South should have won the Civil War, he actually opposes both the war and abortion in all cases (scarily, this includes cases even the Catholic Church supports, namely where it would save the life of the mother).  I'm considering voting for Baldwin because (A) 538 ranks my state as 100% likely to go for Obama, (B) my vote would have more meaning than one of the other millions of votes for Obama and (C) just to spite the people who can't see that this strategy of supporting people who are slightly more anti-abortion (but not necessarily any more pro-life) is resulting in terrible candidates being run.

I've got more, but I think this should be a good start.

[Jigsaw Forte]

I didn't see a thread for this, so I assumed that there was a reason for that.

I believe the official reason is that folks' feelings get hurt when things go on Dem/Repub lines and the inevitable flame wars ensue. Discussing Third Party Candidates should be fair game, and I'm "pretty" sure I'm not about to hurt anyone's feelings with my opinions on McKinney.

(A) 538 ranks my state as 100% likely to go for Obama,

WARNING: Polls, no matter how accurate they are, have no impact (0%) on the election other than as a predictive factor. Do not take polls as a sign that it is 'safe' to vote for alternative candidates and/or not vote at all.

Polls also show that up to 10% of remaining voters are tempted to not vote out of a belief that these numbers are accurate. Granted, they've been damned consistent as of late, but that means jack if people don't go vote.

After all, until only a few weeks ago, they thought Georgia and Arizona were 100% in McCain's pocket too. 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I didn't see a thread for this, so I assumed that there was a reason for that.

I believe the official reason is that folks' feelings get hurt when things go on Dem/Repub lines and the inevitable flame wars ensue. Discussing Third Party Candidates should be fair game, and I'm "pretty" sure I'm not about to hurt anyone's feelings with my opinions on McKinney.

I believe the last thread died a slow and painful death of being ignored. I could be wrong on that. Generally speaking, we're happy for people to converse, provided that it remains polite and reasonable. There have been times when it hasn't been; politics is one of the trigger subjects that tends to cause violent conversation.

Hence, we will be watching, but so far, you're ok. Capice?


De nada.

[superluser]

WARNING: Polls, no matter how accurate they are, have no impact (0%) on the election other than as a predictive factor. Do not take polls as a sign that it is 'safe' to vote for alternative candidates and/or not vote at all.

Well, if my state goes red, Obama never stood a chance.  The last time we voted for a Republican, Mondale lost.

[Alondro]

I really hope McCain loses.

Because he'll just get the blame for the now unstoppable crises starting next year, the triggers for which have already been pulled.

Maybe he can see the patterns as well, after all he did warn about the housing problems two years ago, not long after I was certain of the collapse.  That would explain why he chose Palin... trying to lose without overtly looking like he's trying to lose.  I call that clever preemptive damage control.   

[bill]

Maybe he can see the patterns as well, after all he did warn about the housing problems two years ago, not long after I was certain of the collapse.  That would explain why he chose Palin... trying to lose without overtly looking like he's trying to lose.  I call that clever preemptive damage control.   

This would actually explain most of his campaign decisions.

[Darkmoon]

llearch is correct. Politics is fair game, so long as it remains civil.

That said, I'm voting Obama because on the right topics he votes the way I want him to.

Additionally, it used to be that I would possibly have voted for McCain (depending on who he was up against), but then, when this election started up, he started going back on all the stances he'd held (or said he held), and the moderate Republican I wasn't opposed to because a conservative Republican who votes against (or says he would) just about everything I'd prefer.

I will say this, though, Had Hillary gotten in, I doubt I woulda voted for her. I dunno who I actually would have (since apparently the Green party lady is a psycho), but it wouldn't have been for Hillary.

[Sunblink]

WARNING: Polls, no matter how accurate they are, have no impact (0%) on the election other than as a predictive factor. Do not take polls as a sign that it is 'safe' to vote for alternative candidates and/or not vote at all.

WELL GOD DAMMIT

I was kind of using all the polls as reassurance. I've been kind of dying from the suspense.

[superluser]

Additionally, it used to be that I would possibly have voted for McCain (depending on who he was up against), but then, when this election started up, he started going back on all the stances he'd held (or said he held), and the moderate Republican I wasn't opposed to because a conservative Republican who votes against (or says he would) just about everything I'd prefer.

I've heard a lot of people saying this.  Indeed, I've said this.

For me, the last straw was when he changed his mind on torture.  I would hasten to add that Sarah Palin would also have disqualified him, had his stance on torture remained the same.

I will say this, though, Had Hillary gotten in, I doubt I woulda voted for her. I dunno who I actually would have (since apparently the Green party lady is a psycho), but it wouldn't have been for Hillary.

Again, I've heard a lot of people saying this.  Indeed, I've said this.

To expand on what I said above, I'm really torn between voting for Obama and strategically voting Baldwin.  I doubt I'll know until I pull the lever, but I've never voted strategically, before.  If it were McCain vs Clinton, McCain wouldn't have had to worry about carrying the base, and would probably have taken a far more moderate stance.  I might just have voted for him, in that case.  Political dynasties are just a bad idea in a democracy.  Plus, I loathed the politics of character assassination that both Clinton and Clinton's opponents engaged in, and the distinctly socially conservative politics that Bill led (DOMA, DADT).

[Darkmoon]

Well, I will say this, had Hillary been in, and had she been polling the way Obama is, I probably would have just voted for whatever "3rd" party I felt deserved the attention. It's not a wasted vote if they get enough votes to get national funding next time around.

[Brunhidden]

WARNING: Polls, no matter how accurate they are, have no impact (0%) on the election other than as a predictive factor. Do not take polls as a sign that it is 'safe' to vote for alternative candidates and/or not vote at all.

WELL GOD DAMMIT

I was kind of using all the polls as reassurance. I've been kind of dying from the suspense.

the suspence is from the whole neck and neck thing, i believe it would be far less suspenseful if we got rid of the polls. honestly, its as though each side is touting a one or two point lead and dicking around as though the polls actually MEANT anything, which i doubt they do because i believe they are not exactly random in who they poll.

more to the point i think its appalling that people actually base their opinions on these stupid polls, like its pointless to vote for 'the loosing guy' who would not be loosing if they didnt check the polls every two minutes trying to start a panic. its a repeat of the earlier elections where each side was trying to say 'oh, we already have all those states, were sure to win so why bother supporting the other guy?'. this irritates me more, and i wish they would have all the states do it on the same day instead of the archaic remnant from when we needed telegraph and steam locomotive to sort out votes and campaigning....

an even further throwback related to that is i am still irked when hillary (yes, still on topic) was told by most of her aides that she should gracefully back down but then had the nards to say 'like they say, as goes ohio so goes the nation!' trying to play off the history of whoever wins the ohio vote usually wins the election, as though that were a compensation for loosing the popular vote, and then bringing up cases in the past where someone would loose the popular vote but still win the electoral collage vote.... yeah, way to tell the average voter you dont really care what they say so long as the system picks you anyway

slightly less on topic, and what irritates me the most, is that i believe when mc cain chose palin as his running mate it was a shameless grab for the democratic voters who were going to vote for hillary. it worked, and i find grim humor in that she is more popular then he is, despite every time she opens her mouth she looks like a vaphid airhead soccer mom.... or 'hockey mom' in her case. without her mc cain would have been foundering far more then his own foot in mouth could have done.

[Dagardo]

I don't really see a point in all these people arguing about who would make the better president or whatever, since we should all know that none of them are gonna do a damn thing they say they're gonna, they'll just say the things that the people doing the voting and all that other stuff wanna hear to get elected, and then turn around and do whatever will benefit the size of they're wallet the most. And seeing as how we've never had a female president before, I agree with my mother in the idea that men are stupid, seeing as how (as of late) whenever we elect a new president, or any other politician for that matter, our economy and the like seems to go to shit. And we'll recover from that only for it to happen again. I could go on a whole long-ass rant (like Brun just did) about this crap, but I know one who can do it far better than I. Jonathan Ian Mathers, or quite possibly known better as Foamy the Squirrel. The professional rant can be found here. Contains excessive swearing. And after hearing said rant, I now completely abhor our political system, and with good reason. These bastards care nothing about us people who actually have to put effort (much more than what it should be) into our work to get by. Honestly, I'm surprised they pay us at all. But seeing as how Barack Obama is the "first African American to be nominated by a major American political party for president" (taken from Wikipedia) we're probably better off with him than whoever else is running for the position. I'm pissed now so I'll shut to try and calm down.

[superluser]

I don't really see a point in all these people arguing about who would make the better president or whatever, since we should all know that none of them are gonna do a damn thing they say they're gonna, they'll just say the things that the people doing the voting and all that other stuff wanna hear to get elected, and then turn around and do whatever will benefit the size of they're wallet the most. And seeing as how we've never had a female president before, I agree with my mother in the idea that men are stupid, seeing as how (as of late) whenever we elect a new president, or any other politician for that matter, our economy and the like seems to go to shit.

I'm not going to sugar coat things, but it's nowhere near as bad as you claim.

These past two presidencies were among the worst ever, and I suppose it's easy to get jaded by them.  Clinton was in perma-spin mode and seemed to feel a need to address every critical statement.  And then you had the vaunted Clinton triangulation.

George Bush, Jr. is in many ways the opposite.  He's still in perma-spin mode and he responds to all criticism, but he would never dare change his position based on that or stake out a politically convenient mishmash of positions.  This is even worse, since it means that Bush won't take positions on subjects that reflect the popular opinion.

But prior to the Clinton/Bush Jr. crap, many American presidents were actually relatively good guys who listened to the people and responded by actually trying to give the people what they wanted.  Political interests are pretty strong, and if you get elected by banking on one of those interests, they will make sure that you follow through on those promises.

Finally, the concept that new presidents bring new recessions is a strange idea.  We had a recession after George Bush, Jr. got elected, we had a recession before George Bush, Sr. was defeated, and we had a recession before Reagan got elected.  Prior to that, we had the OPEC crisis in the 70s, but that didn't happen around an election, and prior to that, you have to go back to the 50s to find a recession.  I just don't buy it.

[Dagardo]

I'll just take your word for it. I've only been following things for the past few years and even at that it's just what I've heard others say. And as for what you said about the 50's and 70's I didn't have the slightest clue until just now, partly, I guess, cuz I was born in 1992 but I'm not really sure if that's a good reason or not, and also because, honestly, I don't care. Politics aren't my cup of tea... come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have said much. I guess my opinions are based pretty much on what Foamy says... why I don't know.

[Rakala]

Why has nobody mentioned Ron Paul? 

[Fragmaster01]

Because Ron Paul is really easy to understand: He's a very straight libertarian, dislikes confrontation in the foreign arena, and is known for refusing to compromise on his vote. Aka, the kind of guy you love if you think like him, and hate if you don't(which is a lot of people).
EDIT: And he stopped campaigning, even though he's still on the ballot thanks to a Montana based third party nominating him.

[Darkmoon]

CNN just called the election.

[bill]

Fivethirtyeight has a 0% probability that McCain wins while losing Ohio.



Laters, John.

[Cvstos]

That's it!

BARACK OBAMA IS NOW PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA!

Sorry for the caps but you have to admit, that's historic enough to warrant it.

[VSMIT]

Not yet!  It's not official until every precinct calls in!  But it's gonna come soon!

[Noone]

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard?pres=az
I'd say it's pretty much over, Obama has 324 electoral votes to McCain's 124, and has a 2 million lead on the popular vote. He has California and New York, Texas pretty much neutralizes NY but California provides for 55 votes, it would take a lot of other states to beat that.

[Cvstos]

NBC: Obama just took Florida and Colorado!

[DarkAudit]

McCain just concluded his concession speech.

[R.A.M.]

but seriously let's hope at least some good can be done,i can always move otherwise...hopefully