U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

This shouldn't be making me laugh so hard, but it did. Terry Tate debates Sarah Palin.

She read "all of them".

At that point I stopped listening. She's an embarrassment to the Republican party, not to mention anyone within earshot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Eh, it's more like a representation of how Economist readers would vote.

---

Of course it is. And just a bit of fun. :beam:

But given that the subscribers to The Economist tend to be fiscal conservatives and pretty firmly in the business/free trade camp, it's still interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

She read "all of them".

At that point I stopped listening. She's an embarrassment to the Republican party, not to mention anyone within earshot.

---

Yes, but...... well her butt. I would definatily do her, and she isn't nowhere as scary as that music industry pawn that is the running mate of Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, I think Obama has a naturally conservative temperament, but that's an impossible thing to prove, and an uphill battle to even suggest to those who have been on a steady diet of National Review and/or Fox News.

---

Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....


As to Powell's endorsement, he says it's because he doesn't want any more conservative justices appointed, he likes Obama's "style", and it would be a historic moment if an African American got elected. That sounds like a principled conservative argument for supporting Obama. :dizzy2:

Regardless, I for one, welcome our new liberal overlords. :smash:

Here's the video of the Powell interview, for those interested.

I can't account for his Nat'l Security Advisor or SecState days, but as a military guy, I know that Powell had a distinct knack for putting the right guy in the right task at the right time, with definitive guidance and more resources that that guy/those guys needed to accomplish the objectives and missions he assigned to them.

So, I'll vouch for his "human relations" abilities. If he thinks Senator O is the right guy at this time, it's a very pursuading argument to me.

I bet $20 that when the election is over, Senator Mac will say something like: "Hell, after I watched Powell endorse Obama, even I wanted to vote for him. Heh."

The Houston Chronicle, a right-leaning newspaper that has not endorsed a Democrat since 1964 endorses Obama today. As with so many, Palin is the tipping point.

Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle's choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.

-edit-

Here's Powell outside of the studio, being interviewed. Even more damning, frankly.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...7b1cf99e83.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think of Conservatives as being right leaning centrists and liberals as being left leaning centrists - both with some overlap in the center. We are hearing alot about "Conservatives" shifting to Obama - which happens to be interesting if it a conservative who disagrees with Obama on a number of articles. It sounds like ATPG is the constituency that Obama has always been courting. If that is Obama's constituency, then maybe he doesn't consider him conservative either?

It is funny that we are talking fragmentation in terms of what conservatism is - I remember when we were doing this to liberalism 15 years ago.

---

This is the way every Dem always has to campaign- in the primary you move to the left, in the general campaign you move to the center. As a general statement there haven't been very many Democrats who suddenly took an extremist nosedive to the left away from their Presidential campaign message. Some even go further right. Example would be Clinton ditching his promises to gay Democrats, eventually ditching healthcare, and siding very centrist/centrist right in his economic policies. He certainly was not the super twinkly-light extra anchovy far far far far far super super duper radical leftie leftogasm that the right made him out to be, much like they are making out Obama to be and made Hillary out to be until the primaries started. (The primaries illustrated, at least to Democrats, how much more like a Republican Hillary is than we'd care to vote for, and this wasn't helped by the fact that the people who'd spend the last 16 years screaming about how super super radical left-wing she was suddenly changed their tune and suggested having Republicans vote for her, or expressing sympathy and outrage at her treatment in the primary.)

Quote:

---

Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....

---

As Pizza already asked.... someone is complaining about Obama's "liberal policies" after 8 years of super intrusion and big government and big spending under Bush?

The Zogby poll is damn close:
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1597

That's within statistical error. :dizzy2:

And, Sarah Palin on SNL:
Part 1, Opening

Part 2, Weekend Update

Good stuff!

Quick Points on Healthcare and DA's support for Obama:

• In regards to DA's metaphors, the state sends the Fire Department out free to help people, but they don't pay to rebuild the house if that person doesn't have insurance.
• Having 'rights' that require taking away property from others strikes me as being the antithesis of liberty. Having seen the results of healthcare insurance reform in Texas, which managed to lower costs, I think that's the best route.
• Finally, the dems have a good shot at getting a supermajority in the Senate, so they would have absolute control, unlike what the GOP had, in being able to pass legislation.
• Bush being able to appoint two SCOTUS judges led to the 2nd Amendment being recognized as an individual right. If Kerry had been elected, those accursed liberal judges would have thrown our human rights out the window to advance their statist views, as with Kelo vs New London.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

[*]Finally, the dems have a good shot at getting a supermajority in the Senate, so they would have absolute control, unlike what the GOP had, in being able to pass legislation.
CR

---

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....

---

He said he had a conservative temperament.

Quote:

---

As to Powell's endorsement, he says it's because he doesn't want any more conservative justices appointed, he likes Obama's "style", and it would be a historic moment if an African American got elected. That sounds like a principled conservative argument for supporting Obama. :dizzy2:

---

I guess you watched his interview as carefully as you read lemur's post :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

---

Ha! Don't you remember the 'Gang of 14' or whatever, that prevented the GOP from effectively closing ranks and threatening to change the rules of the Senate?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

---

Wich was never an effective threat because of McCain and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ha! Don't you remember the 'Gang of 14' or whatever, that prevented the GOP from effectively closing ranks and threatening to change the rules of the Senate?

CR

---

Point remains, you're trying to make a boogeyman out of the proposed specter of a Democratic majority. As if we haven't just endured two terms of one of the most partisan-extremist administrations in history.

When you insist how bad Dem control would be, it's pretty hard to do that credibly when we're coming out of near total Republican control and some of the worst legislation and foreign policy in U.S. history.

Quote:

---

Bush being able to appoint two SCOTUS judges led to the 2nd Amendment being recognized as an individual right. If Kerry had been elected, those accursed liberal judges would have thrown our human rights out the window to advance their statist views, as with Kelo vs New London.

---

Hmmm...human rights , like torture detention without trial and extra-judicial murder....Nope human rights as in GUNS guns GUNS:dizzy2:
Are you feeling clingyhttp://beeradvocate.com/beer/style/66/ ?

Oh looky looky a link :idea2:, if there is a link posted then it must be true:yes:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

Anyone interested to note Colin Powell endorses Obama? (It's on BBC but not on the website yet, Fox is the only site I could find with a report)

Is this a big deal? Is Powell still a significant political figure? BBC News is wetting itself in joy of course, but I get the impression they may be overplaying it somewhat.

---

Powell has an 80% approval rating. Also from that poll:
"In a survey in February, Powell’s endorsement was the only one out of a list of 15 different public figures, publications, national associations and politicians that would have a significant net positive impact on voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) said a Powell endorsement would make voters more likely to vote for a candidate versus 19% who would be less likely to vote for that candidate. "

Also it gives Obama a lot of free media and a good start to the news cycle, two things that should never be sniffed at. Now my next question is whether or not McCain will try to make Obama look like Bush III :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Arach

Now my next question is whether or not McCain will try to make Obama look like Bush III

---

Funny you should put it that way. The only weapon left in McCain's ammo pouch is the "I'm not GWB" bullet. Which a lot of folks thought he ought to have deployed much earlier. His speech today is starting to show his willingness to fire it down-range. Too little, too late? Maybe. It'll either alienate his remaining "base", or convince enough indie/undie voters to give him the nod, as something different from Bush/Cheney.

I have to believe that if McCain tries to position himself as anything less than George Bush himself, people would have to be really uninformed to buy it. Differing on a few issues but supporting over 90 percent of his policies makes him appear to be a Bush clone.

I don't see how he can frame himself as "not Bush", but frankly people will believe anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I have to believe that if McCain tries to position himself as anything less than George Bush himself, people would have to be really uninformed to buy it. Differing on a few issues but supporting over 90 percent of his policies makes him appear to be a Bush clone.

I don't see how he can frame himself as "not Bush", but frankly people will believe anything.

---

I've become quite convinced that when we see swings in the polls it has very little to do with people buying anything... more to do with presentation or the right image or buzzword being thrown out. Like the huge boost after Sarah Palin appearing out of nowhere, and making a virtually policy-free attack speech.

GOP campaigning usually has little to do with proving a platform is better. More to do with giving GOP voters and Independents every possible excuse, however wafer thin, to vote Republican. Be it "we promise, we'll end abortion this time" or "the Democrats will be worse, trust us."

and the Democrats don't do the same? Its really the wholesystem thats broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

and the Democrats don't do the same? Its really the wholesystem thats broken.

---

You honestly believe Obama is focusing as little on the issues as McCain is, and throwing it all to image (Palin) and personal attacks?

Of course partisans aren't going to see it that way. But I think it's crystal clear to pretty much everyone else that the Rove, style-over-substance strategy of wedge issuing a 51% "mandate" is something the country is fed up with. They're responding to Obama because of his message and plans, despite the claim from the right that it's all just a cult of personality. Cult of personality is not what people indicate as their reason for preferring Obama in every poll.

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

And the presidental race isn't the only one happening ethier. My local race for senate is far worse. I can't tell you anything about the canidates based on the campigens except that the republican has voted with Bush and Hitler and the Democrat hates freedom along with supporting rapist. To say that democrats are above partisian politics because of Obama is missing the big picture.

Another right-leaning newspaper, in this case a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1958. I trust all of our Republican Orgahs are keeping score of which intellectuals, writers, ex-generals and publications to purge from the rolls of the elect.

Also of great concern is McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Like Obama, she has little experience in governing, but unlike the Illinois senator, she is a candidate of little intellectual curiosity who appears to be hopelessly unready to be president. The fact that people are confused by the difference between Palin and comedian Tina Fey's caustic impersonation is clear evidence that Palin should not be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency.

We also are dismayed by the tenor of the McCain-Palin campaign. If their goal is to severely wound an Obama presidency should that come to pass, they are dangerously close to succeeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

And the presidental race isn't the only one happening ethier. My local race for senate is far worse. I can't tell you anything about the canidates based on the campigens except that the republican has voted with Bush and Hitler and the Democrat hates freedom along with supporting rapist. To say that democrats are above partisian politics because of Obama is missing the big picture.

---

Saying that a lot of voters just vote on the image doesn't really address my statement that the GOP goes more fullthroatedly for pure image and style over substance and policy and issues. I'd be surprised if you could find a large number of Obama voters who CAN'T talk about any of the issues. The only reason he's ahead IMHO is precisely because people have definite opinions about the last 8 years.

How is using Bush as a platform to get elected show more substance then using moral issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

---

I would disagree with you. Obama has a large following of young internet savvy supporters who not only know what his plans are and they go out and explain these to other. Obama has also spent more time speaking about his plans in his speeches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Another right-leaning newspaper, in this case a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1958. I trust all of our Republican Orgahs are keeping score of which intellectuals, writers, ex-generals and publications to purge from the rolls of the elect.

---

Is it necessary to bring up every small town newspaper? I mean, the WSJ would matter more. Republicans supporting Obama isn't unheard of, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't use every single example as some new way to get in a dig at the republicans here.

CR

CR, do I need to point out that the WSJ has refrained from endorsing anyone for President for seventy years? So the odds of being able to cater to your whims are terrifyingly low.

I think it's newsworthy that so many editorial boards that haven't endorsed a Dem in the average Orgah's lifetime are coming out for Obama.

Whoops, didn't know about the WSJ. Wasn't really paying attention to that back in '04.

Anyways, the Powell endorsement is big news. I don't think posting individually about every local paper endorsing Obama and getting a dig in at republican members is newsworthy.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The Zogby poll is damn close:
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1597

That's within statistical error. :dizzy2:

---

Something I didn't know from fivethirtyeight.com:

Quote:

---

The national tracking polls are actually in pretty good agreement with one another, with IBD/TIPP, Research 2000, Gallup, and Hotline all settling in the 5-7 point range. Zogby is the outlier at Obama +2.7, and that's because Zogby has the odd practice of fixing his poll's party identification weights based on what they were in the last presidential election. In Zogby's world, then, it's still 2004, when there were roughly as many Republicans as Democrats. Although Zogby's trendlines may be worth looking at, his topline numbers are basically unusable.

---

Still it seems that Obama has reached his "ceiling", the maximum number of people who would vote for him. It looks like things will tighten as we get close to Election day. The question is, will it tighten enough for McCain to eke out a victory?