For once I'm not gonna provide a link, 'cause that would just be wrong. BUt here you go, evidence that the Westboro Baptist Church hasn't gone away:
WBC to picket the funeral of Madelyn Payne Dunham, - pursuant to the picketing laws of Hawaii or Kansas or, etc., wherever burial occurs, - in religious protest and warning to the living; to wit:
"Prepare to meet thy God." Amos 4:11.
Yes. Dying time is truth time, and reflection time, and time for meditating on the weighty issues of life: getting right with God, life, death, Heaven, Hell, sin, righteousness, judgment to come, etc. Obama says his grandmother Dunham raised him, and, her "influence on his manner and the way he viewed the world was substantial." If so, then she has much to answer for as she stands before the Lord. Obama says he will use the White House as a Bully Pulpit to advance the cause of murdering more babies and same-sex marriage. "God hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by Christ." Acts 17:31.
Originally Posted by TinCow: We just elected the first black President of the United States. I personally thought that her views on her own father were interesting under the circumstances because of the monumental important of the event in the history of civil rights. I was primarily concerned with the comments she made about her own father, which I found particularly interesting because I had no idea that his views had changed in later life. I found her comments on Bush to be entirely peripheral to what was really interesting about it. It was thus topical and interesting to me and thus I think I was more than justified in calling it a "good" article, which is all I did.
You are entirely incorrect that I was even trying to say anything at all. I was simply posting something that I found interesting. Surely that is understandable, is it not?
I see. So by posting a story in which George McGovern's daughter compares her father's race-baiting, abusive, bullying illegal reign as governor to George Bush's administration and finds her father superior and Bush wanting, you were really trying to lead us all in a chorus of Kumbaya. My mistake, how foolish of me, it's patently obvious now that you explain it to me.
Blagojevich (or however you spell it) appoints someone to fill the remainder of the seat. I don't think there's a special election involved. So far the rumors are that it'll be Jesse Jackson, Jr., but I don't think that'll happen because it means that there will just be another House seat to fill then.
He's also going to have to fill Rahm's seat too.
These are going to be two pretty important picks for him, being embattled and up for re-election in 2010.
So much for the bilious hype regarding this so-called revolutionary and unprecedented election. The only variable that stands out about this election was the fact that you had a 1/2 black candidate n the race which broke the standard Northern European vs. Northern European formula. For all the hoopla surrounding voter registration and the early voting bruhaha the actual difference between this election and the previous one? 1% increase in voter turnout...
WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 6, 2008)—Despite lofty predictions by some academics,
pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.
According to a report and turnout projection released today by American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) and based, in part, on nearly final but unofficial vote tabulations as compiled by the Associated Press as of 7 p.m. Wednesday, November 5, the percentage of Americans who cast ballots for president in this year’s presidential election will reach between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month.
If this prediction proves accurate, turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent). If the rate of voting exceeds 61.0 percent of eligibles, turnout will have been the highest since 1964. This projection is based on the 121.5 million tabulated votes compiled by the Associated Press plus some estimate—partially based on experience with post-election vote counting in previous elections and partially based on factors specific to this election, most notably the spread of balloting prior to Election Day—on how many ballots are still to be counted.
A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980.
Of the 47 states and the District of Columbia included in this report, turnout was up in only 22 states and D.C. (Because of the extensive uncounted no excuse absentee balloting in Alaska and California and all-mail voting in Oregon and most of the state of Washington, those states are not included in this report.)
“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” said Curtis Gans, CSAE’s director. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”
Gans attributed the GOP downturn to three factors: 1) John McCain’s efforts to unite the differing factions in the Republican Party by the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was a singular failure. By election time many culturally conservative Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and stayed home, while moderate Republicans saw the nomination of Palin reckless and worried about McCain’s steadiness. 2) As events moved towards Election Day, there was a growing perception of a Democratic landslide, discouraging GOP voters. 3) The 2008 election was a mirror image of the 2004 election. In the 2004 election, the enthusiasm level was on the Republican side. By Election Day, Democratic voters were not motivated by their candidate but rather by opposition to President Bush, while Republican voters had a much greater liking for their standard bearer. In 2008 and according to polls from several sources, by at least 20 percentage points, Obama enjoyed stronger allegiance than McCain. Even the best get-out-the-vote activities tend to be as successful as the affirmative emotional context in which they are working. In 2004, that context favored the GOP. In 2008, it favored the Democrats.
“In the end, this election was driven by deep economic concerns and the prevailing emotional climate,” Gans said. “While there probably has not been, since 1932, the confluence of factors that underlay this election—90 percent of the American people seeing the nation on the wrong track, 75 percent disapproving of the president’s performance, more than 80 percent perceiving a recession and feeling that things will get worse, and the reality of growing economic distress—on one level this election was typical. When economic conditions go bad, the party in the White House gets blamed and they lose.”
This is a summary report with basic highlights, commentary, summary charts, and notes. The complete report including statistical charts for overall and partisan turnout for all races covered in this report is available in a downloadable copy at http://www.american.edu/media/electionexperts.
Convenience Voting Didn’t Help
During the past several years, and in the belief that turnout would be enhanced, many states have moved to various forms of what has been called convenience voting. The most extreme form is the all-mail balloting in Oregon, and more recently, in most of the state of Washington. Other forms include no-excuse absentee voting (whereby citizens can get absentee ballots without stating a reason and cast them for a period in advance of the election), early voting (whereby at certain polling places established by election officials in convenient locations, citizens can, in person, cast ballots for a specified period before an election) and Election Day registration (where a citizen can both register and vote on Election Day).
The evidence from the 2008 election is that if the mission of these electoral devices is turnout enhancement, the mission has been a failure.
Of the 14 states which had the largest turnout increases in 2008, only six had implemented one form or another of convenience voting. Of the 13 states which had the largest turnout decreases, all but one had one form or another of convenience voting. (See chart 3.)
“It has always been abundantly clear that, after four decades of making it easier to vote and having turnout decline (among most groups) except for elections driven by fear and anger,” Gans said, “the central issue governing turnout is not procedure but motivation. These new procedures, except for Election Day registration for some states, don’t help turnout and pose some discrete dangers for American democracy.”
Some Statistical Highlights:
Of the states included in this report, Democratic turnout increased in all but seven states, led by Indiana (up 8.32 percentage points), North Carolina (8.3), Hawaii (6.4), Delaware (6.1), Georgia (6.1), North Dakota (6.0), Nevada (5.9), Montana (5.4), New Mexico (.1), and Virginia (5.0)—all except Hawaii, new areas of potential Democratic strength. Republican turnout increased in only eight of 47 states and the District of Columbia included in this report.
The greatest increase in overall turnout was in North Carolina, where turnout increased by 9.4 percentage points to a record high. Georgia also had a record high turnout, increasing by 6.7 percentage points, as did South Carolina with a 6.0 percentage point increase. Others setting new records included Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia.
As usual the highest turnout was recorded in Minnesota (75.9 percent of eligible), followed by Wisconsin (70.9), Iowa (68.9) Missoouri (67.4), Michigan (66.7), South Dakota (66.7), and North Carolina (66.3).
Commentary (Two Shorts for Longer Future Analysis):
1. The opportunity for long-term realignment: The Democratic victory was not only large in margin and sweeping in scope, it also was a continuation of their gains in share of the eligible vote, which began after the 1980 election and many of their largest gains in 2008 came in states where the Democrats had not previously had a foothold—in the post-Voting Rights Act south and in the mountain west and southwest. While this election did not in itself realign American politics after 28-years of Republican dominance, it presented the opportunity for such a realignment to take place. But that realignment can only occur if President-elect Obama is a successful president. If he restores political trust, economic stability, international respect, and broad citizen approval, the Democrats could be in power everywhere for a very long time. But that is a tall order which may not be, given the severity of current conditions, an accomplishable task. However, the GOP would be wise not to play politics in the manner they utilized during the Clinton Administration—a manner that was largely obstructionist and nay-saying. If they pursue that strategy in the face of Obama’s call to cooperation in dealing with crisis, the GOP could be in the political wilderness for a very, very, long time.
2. Convenience Voting: This election showed what many previous elections have shown—that the types of innovations adopted in the past several years—particularly early voting, no-excuse absentee voting and mail voting—do not enhance and may hurt turnout. They pose other dangers—the most significant is the danger that something may occur on the last few days of the electoral season, such as, the present context, the capture of Osama Bin Laden, a domestic terrorist act, or an elderly candidate having a heart attack—after 35 million citizens have cast an irrevocable vote. With the exception of those who physically can’t get to the polls or those who for business reasons can’t be at the polls on a given election day, the nation would be safer if everyone voted on the same day. Mail voting and no-excuse absentee voting also offer the greatest opportunity for voting fraud and intimidation of any aspect of the electoral system. This is because these forms of voting provide for the elimination by any individual of their right to a secret ballot and thus, their vote could be (and has been on a few occasions) bought, or someone delivering an open ballot filled out the “wrong” way could discard it, or one could be pressured at ballot signing parties among one’s peers, pressure easy to resist behind a voting curtain, not so easy to resist at the home of a friend. It is why the United States adopted the Australian (secret) ballot in the first place around the turn of the last century.
But in a larger sense, convenience voting is addressing a real problem with the wrong solutions. The participation problem is, at heart, not procedural but motivational. In a variety of ways, events, politics, leadership, education, communications, and values have damped the religion of civic engagement and responsibility. We will not get that back by treating would-be voters as spoiled children. We need to demand more of our citizenry rather than less. The Democrats liked convenience voting this time because it benefitted them. The Republicans liked it in 2004 because it benefitted them. But democracy was not benefitted. These devices are extremely popular, but popularity is not the same as wisdom and in this case, it is antithetical. It’s time to consider rolling them back.
Originally Posted by : “Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” said Curtis Gans, CSAE’s director. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”
Gans attributed the GOP downturn to three factors: 1) John McCain’s efforts to unite the differing factions in the Republican Party by the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as vice-presidential nominee was a singular failure. By election time many culturally conservative Republicans still did not see him as one of their own and stayed home, while moderate Republicans saw the nomination of Palin reckless and worried about McCain’s steadiness. 2) As events moved towards Election Day, there was a growing perception of a Democratic landslide, discouraging GOP voters. 3) The 2008 election was a mirror image of the 2004 election. In the 2004 election, the enthusiasm level was on the Republican side. By Election Day, Democratic voters were not motivated by their candidate but rather by opposition to President Bush, while Republican voters had a much greater liking for their standard bearer. In 2008 and according to polls from several sources, by at least 20 percentage points, Obama enjoyed stronger allegiance than McCain. Even the best get-out-the-vote activities tend to be as successful as the affirmative emotional context in which they are working. In 2004, that context favored the GOP. In 2008, it favored the Democrats.
“In the end, this election was driven by deep economic concerns and the prevailing emotional climate,” Gans said. “While there probably has not been, since 1932, the confluence of factors that underlay this election—90 percent of the American people seeing the nation on the wrong track, 75 percent disapproving of the president’s performance, more than 80 percent perceiving a recession and feeling that things will get worse, and the reality of growing economic distress—on one level this election was typical. When economic conditions go bad, the party in the White House gets blamed and they lose.”
So this revolutionary new direction the country is taking? This liberal mandate handed up from the divinely inspired sheeple masses? It's so much BS. McCain completely failed to energize the Republican base. Had McCain been more appealing to conservatives his chances of winning would have improved dramatically (although given the economic conditions a victory still might have been out of reach). Selecting Palin as his VP to appeal to conservatives, blue collar voters & disgruntled Hillary supporters didn't help his cause. It is now painfully apparent that Romney should have been the Republican's main man this year... or in the very least McCain's running mate. On the other hand Romney can now enter the 2012 election with a clean slate, having maintained his distance from a losing candidate who was so closely associated with GW Bush on the campaign trail.
So the likelihood that the mob will run back into the arms of a GOP candidate in 2012 is quite good.
Based on the stats we're throwing about here at CNN the one factor that stood out about this election is that of the people who turned out to vote it was minorities that clinched it for Obama. As with most elections since the end of the Vietnam war more white people voted for the Republican than the Democrat. In fairness Obama did receive the highest percentage of white voters since Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (43-46%). It was the Black & Latino vote that killed McCain. Given that GW Bush managed to get a more sizeable percentage of Latin voters in 2004 (44%) means that this voting bloc is still not out of reach. In 2012 the Republicans will need to select a much more charismatic candidate in order to sway those lost Latino votes back into their camp.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma: And America breathes a collective sigh in solidarity. Hillary is the anti-christ.
No way. I'll take Hillary over Obama. I hate the woman but she's a known variable who is not nearly as far to the left as Obama. Furthermore Hillary would be much easier to beat in 2012. So that's four years of doom and gloom versus a possible eight. You see even if Obama's administration and the Democrat controlled Congress screw the pooch six ways to Sunday the media will still love him and treat him with kid gloves. It is entirely reasonable to believe that no matter what terrible turn(s) of events occur during his administration come 2011 Obama will gear up that hype machine and enter into the 2012 election as teflon coated as he was in 2008. Obama proved he is one of the greatest purveyors of snake oil our country has ever seen, even more effective than the previous record holder... Bill Clinton.
So yeah, I'll take Billary over the Obamination any day.
Spino- Why so hateful? Obama will not have a chance of being successful in your eyes, simply because you do not allow him. The election is over. Breathe. The slate is clean. Lets see what happens.
Originally Posted by seireikhaan: Spino- Why so hateful? Obama will not have a chance of being successful in your eyes, simply because you do not allow him. The election is over. Breathe. The slate is clean. Lets see what happens.
seriously, spino. if you keep hating him nothing will come out of it. i threw away my hate and while i may not like his policies, he is still my president and deserves the respect. why people couldnt show some respect to GWB, even after all him horrible policies and such is beyond me.
I was on a plane when they announced the winner of the election and the Australian couple next to me said “it sounds like you have a new president” I replied with a little less than excited “ I guess so” and the ladies response was “change is as good as a holiday… and you get this one for 4 years”
Originally Posted by hooahguy: seriously, spino. if you keep hating him nothing will come out of it. i threw away my hate and while i may not like his policies, he is still my president and deserves the respect. why people couldnt show some respect to GWB, even after all him horrible policies and such is beyond me.
Deciding Obama cannot possibly do a single thing right before he has even taken the oath =/= people fed up with 8 years of incredibly poor administration under Bush.
No one can say people are judging Bush with no record to base it off. Right now, the right is responding to Obama as if they've already suffered under 8 years of super liberal madness and the verdict is in.
Originally Posted by CountArach: What are the worst parts of DailyKos she represents? As one who only gets my news about that race from the Kos and wherever they link to I get a one-eyed view. What is it that is so bad about her?
Just interested.
She's the embodiment of partisanship - what doesn't matter is how good an idea is, it matters if the democratic party supports it. She's an ideologue who places ideologies above results. She lies and exaggerates easily checked facts. She doesn't think, she parrots the dailykos agenda, a divisive, us-vs-everybody who doesn't fully agree with us attitude.
And more votes have been counted, and she's not getting any closer.
Originally Posted by : For once I'm not gonna provide a link, 'cause that would just be wrong. BUt here you go, evidence that the Westboro Baptist Church hasn't gone away:
Good grief, I have the most un-Christian thoughts whenever I read about them.
A candidate does not win that many states, nor upset so many "safe" states for the other party, simply by being the "he's not from them" candidate. A clear majority of our electorate actively CHOSE Senator Obama as our next President. This was not a 2000 -- where Bush won in Florida because too many Dems opted out by voting Green; this was not 1976, where any nominee who was from the party that wasn't the party of Nixon had a clear route to victory. Obama won, W-O-N.
Over the next year, we will begin to learn his agenda and the direction he will take us. To actively oppose for the sole purpose of opposing is the kind of partisan obstructionism the GOP so decried from 2000 through 2006. Let us oppose his policies where they can be demonstrated to do harm to the USA and our interests, but opposing soley to say "we don't like what you are" is rather pointless.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost: One suspects that if the GOP reflected the views of men like Seamus more consistently, they would be in power for a thousand years.
Yes. Alas, we have morons like Don Young in party leadership.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit: Yes. Alas, we have morons like Don Young in party leadership.
CR
I think I may have to actually become a card-carrying GOPer and start remaking the party from my county on up. The current crew has made a hash of it, I certainly can't it up any worse.
I think I may have to actually become a card-carrying GOPer and start remaking the party from my county on up. The current crew has made a hash of it, I certainly can't it up any worse.
Funny, I'm changing my official party identification to the big "I", as I've abandoned ship on the Republicans. I've never been a very good party loyalist, and I feel really bad that the party has been reduced to what it currently is. I've heard screeds and read essays in which John McCain, an honest to goodness American hero is being pilloried by his party for blowing the election on purpose, for not being "Republican" enough, and for betraying the party's ideals.
Maybe there is a need for a party for social conservatives and religious zealots. Maybe there's a need for a party dedicated to supporting the interests of big business and seeing that they receive regular checks from the federal government. The first is theocratic, the second is mercantilist, and I am neither. If that's what the so-called party faithful declare their party to be about, then I clearly don't belong there. And I am disgusted with the treatment McCain and Palin are receiving from the "faithful". And I'm really, really ashamed of the "impeach Obama now" movement. I want no parts of any organization that has anything to do with any of this. American patriots, regardless of their personal political philosophies, rally behind their leader in times of trouble and support him as best as they can, even if they disagree. They don't cry and moan and bitch that it's not their personal view. Not everyone that fought in WWI thought we should have, but they said their piece, then they went and died. I want to be that kind of American.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit: She's the embodiment of partisanship - what doesn't matter is how good an idea is, it matters if the democratic party supports it. She's an ideologue who places ideologies above results. She lies and exaggerates easily checked facts. She doesn't think, she parrots the dailykos agenda, a divisive, us-vs-everybody who doesn't fully agree with us attitude.
I don't see any specifics there. Besides, she didn't support the FISA legislation and the party leadership in both houses did. That's just one I can think of off the top of my head.
I think I may have to actually become a card-carrying GOPer and start remaking the party from my county on up. The current crew has made a hash of it, I certainly can't it up any worse.
Me too. I plan on changing my affiliation to Republican. There is a big opportunity to re-shape the party when the power beasts are abandoning the party. More chances to be the captain when the entire crew is abandoning ship.
Originally Posted by CountArach: I don't see any specifics there. Besides, she didn't support the FISA legislation and the party leadership in both houses did. That's just one I can think of off the top of my head.
Corrected:
Originally Posted by : She's the embodiment of partisanship - what doesn't matter is how good an idea is, it matters if the democratic party dailykos crowd supports it.
A couple specifics: her lie about her degree, her exaggeration about her work at Microsoft, and ho here whole 2006 platform was George Bush is evil!.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff: Me too. I plan on changing my affiliation to Republican. There is a big opportunity to re-shape the party when the power beasts are abandoning the party. More chances to be the captain when the entire crew is abandoning ship.
I'm not interested in being the leader of a confederacy of dunces. I'm talking aobut grass roots work to rebuild and re-direct. Real conservatism and a party that stands for something.
Smaller Government. Government at the most local possible level. Fiscal responsibility. A less "free form" approach to the Constitution.
That's it.
My church is for my faith, my government need not, and quite probably should not, be. Legislating morality is nearly as effective as converting by the sword. As in, it ain't.
I will continue to oppose abortion "rights" as I believe that the unborn is a soul and human to be with rights of its own. Most of the other stuff is not really any of my business.
Originally Posted by : Wall Street plunged for a second day, triggered by computer gear maker Cisco Systems warning of slumping demand and retailers reporting weak sales for October. Concerns about widespread economic weakness sent the major stock indexes down more than 4 percent Thursday, including the Dow Jones industrial average, which tumbled more than 440 points.
Originally Posted by : Barack Obama was confronting a looming international crisis just hours after his White House election triumph.
The U.S. President-elect faced a triple threat with Russia, Israel and Afghanistan all threatening to test his mettle.
Originally Posted by : 'We live in a neighbourhood in which dialogue - in a situation where you have brought sanctions and you then shift to dialogue - is liable to be interpreted as weakness,' said Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
Asked if she supported any U.S. talks with Iran, she quickly said: 'The answer is no.'
Suprised?
Originally Posted by : In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai demanded that Mr Obama 'put an end to civilian casualties' by changing U.S. military tactics to avoid airstrikes in the war on the Taliban.
(This one I actually wish Obama would change)
It seems that whole thing about McCain dying in office vs. Obama facing WW3 in the first 100 days might not be too far off. But I guess I'm just a Cold War dinosaur who enjoys fear-mongering and making babies cry.
Originally Posted by Spino, quoting Am Uni: turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent).
This makes Kukri sad.
Again.
Seamus for POTUS in '12!
Ya'll look out in 32 years when Jacob the grandson runs and wins the 52nd POTUS appointment. He'll make you want to vote. I promise.
Originally Posted by CountArach: A politician embellishing the truth
It's not the lying so much as being an idiot when you do it, lying on easily verified facts, like what degrees you have, or heavily embellishing your job (ie. saying middle management is an 'executive' position).
In a way making such thickheaded mistakes is worse than the actual lying.
when the race is over...the really juicy things come out
man...we didn´t dodge a bullet there....more like a cannon ball.
You know, I was seriously weighing some of the things that bitter McCain aids had been accusing her of. But really, she didn't know Africa was a continent or that Canada and Mexico are part of the North America? They overplayed it a little bit I'm afraid. What's next? She couldn't figure out how to tie her shoes?
Let's be serious, you couldn't get elected dog catcher, let alone mayor or governor with out at least some level of intelligence. The accusations flying around now would have you think she's legally retarded. Like I said, the audaciousness of these later claims makes me doubt the credibility of all of them.
*Hmm, on second thought, I wouldn't be surprised if she couldn't name all the countries in North America- I can't either. But apparently, there's 23 of them.