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

[ICantSpellDawg]

This thread has ceased being informative. It is like listening to the blind argue over who's the ugliest. Time for a vacation from this thread.

Didn't you used to be a moderator?

I'm not all that interested in the election right now. It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.

[Gregoshi]

Didn't you used to be a moderator?

Yes, and? My comment was directed at the pointless level to which the discussion sunk. If I "played the person" rather than the ball, it was the collective persons as the discussion (as it currently stands) is not worthy of your good names. Emotion has taken over and logic lies murdered, face down in the gutter. I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"

It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.

Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.

Sorry for disrupting the thread and any offense taken by the participants. My intentions were good if my method was less so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, and? My comment was directed at the pointless level to which the discussion sunk. If I "played the person" rather than the ball, it was the collective persons as the discussion (as it currently stands) is not worthy of your good names. Emotion has taken over and logic lies murdered, face down in the gutter. I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"


Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.

Sorry for disrupting the thread and any offense taken by the participants. My intentions were good if my method was less so.

Oh no - I appreciated the step in - I was just suprised to see that "moderator" was not under your title. What happened, you were moderator for years?

[Big_John]

I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"

didn't you used to be a moderator?

[KarlXII]

Hey Greg, didn't you used to be a moderator?

[Gregoshi]

Okay gentlemen, let's not get carried away. Everything in moderation. To answer the question, I retired in from moderating in Oct 2006 to an Org life of pun and ninnery.

Oh look, there's an election in the US...

[Koga No Goshi]

If you arrive at the idea that "There is no good reporting, it's all advocacy in sheep's clothing," then you've arrived at a fallacy. I can think of many, many sources of news that are good more often than not:

The Economist
The Christian Science Monitor

To name just two that I don't think anyone is stupid/partisan enough to argue. And there are many more good sources, so long as you're willing to understand the difference between editorials and reporting. For all the slime that gets slung at it, the New York Times does more original reporting than any other two newspapers put together, and their archives are free, searchable, and extend back to the 1800s, which is extremely cool.

Factcheck and Snopes are also good places for factish facts. Even though it should not be accurate, since anyone can edit it, Wikipedia is shockingly on the mark most of the time.

There is an objective reality where things are true or false. Don't let the partisan bickering fool you into thinking otherwise.

I read and agree that all those sources tend to be relatively exhaustive in the sense that they try to cover everything. Even Wikipedia, which has become, to the right wing, hardly better than Pravda, is full of contrasting viewpoints and if you click on the "disputed" area and view what sections people are disputing for neutrality, you get an even broader perspective.

But, maybe my endorsing those sources makes them left-wing by default? I agree this "everything's partisan advocacy, it's just a question of left or right" is crap, there ARE facts, and not everything is spin. I've mentioned before that I think this is two things, the rise of ideology and the drop in critical thought in America, and a not at all accidental attempt to erode the notion of any form of reliable fact, just "subjective facts." The NY Times had this great editorial.. I read it maybe two weeks ago, so I don't have the link onhand. But basically it was about how, ideologically speaking, the right in America pretty much since the 60's has been engaged in combat with the left's embrace of "moral relativism", in the sense that (paraphrasing of course) there is no one truth, one correct answer, one correct religion or moral system, etc. But that, in the process of attempting to discredit this concept, they attack journalism, media, academia, books, authors, and attempt to undermine their credibility with constant accusations of "bias" and "political agendas/leanings." And, according to the author of the editorial, this is self-defeating since it creates the very same scenario the ideological right rails against, a context where there is no true set of facts, no mutually agreed middle ground, no hard evidence, just spin for one side or the other, and no single truth or universal truth.

But what I do know, I'm a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right Koga?

What I think is that this investigation has been going on since before the election, was initiated and carried out in Alaska's primarily Republican legislature, and a cry that Palin's abuse of power (which no one seems to deny here... the two main responses seem to be "I don't see what's so bad about it" or "the investigation had a biased guy in it") is all just political theater by the left or should be written off entirely because of one guy seems thin, at best. And this is not even getting into the inappropriate conducting of state business and other funny business that Todd Palin will be investigated for after the election, making calls from the Governor's office and basically blurring the line about whether or not he was using the weight of the office for personal business, and/or conducting official state business on his wife's behalf when he was not elected to any form of office.

I think to look at the total Palin story and for the one thing to pull out of it is "the investigation was biased!" is a thin deflection attempt.

It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.

Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.

How are we either gloating or kicking in a way that is at all inappropriate or disproportionate to the sore winner syndrome of the last 8 years, especially right after 2004? We haven't made Republicans hold their subcommittee meetings in subbasements yet. And we haven't won the election, nor would I presume to say we're certain to.

RE: Moderatorship, never judge a book by its cover, not only do these guys have a rough job, but also, I used to be a moderator too. Which a lot of you would laugh at, I'm sure. As I said to Kukri when I came back, I am thoroughly enjoying just being a "regular poster", because as mod, I stayed well clear of personal involvement in political discussions and controversial topics, and sincerely did the best job I could of being impartial. (Which meant that both left and right insisted I was biased for the other side when I would have to step in during flame wars or when things got out of hand.... I took that as a sign I must be doing the job right.)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Koga, What is wrong with you?

Now you are saying that "conservatives" believe Wikipedia to be like Pravda? Do you honestly believe that one party or one ideology corners the market on truth? How deluded can you be?

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga, What is wrong with you?

Now you are saying that "conservatives" believe Wikipedia to be like Pravda? Do you honestly believe that one party or one ideology corners the market on truth? How deluded can you be?

I believe that conservatives have much more of an issue with Wikipedia, yes, because I believe that a complete and thorough inclusion of all facts about particularly the last 8 years will appear "bad" for conservatives. So their response to that has been to attack its credibility. That's their response to anything which reports facts without backwards-bent attempts to talk about the last 8 years in a gray, not positive, not negative light.

My list of what I consider overtly biased is far shorter than most conservatives who wind up in arguments over credibility and bias. Fox is one. MOST things with an overt religious or patriotic slogan as part of their name (we're usually talking small online blogs or news sites) would be another. So yes, I do think the cries of bias are not equal. Look at the myth that "the media is liberally biased." I've never had a prob with anything but Fox news. But your side claims the whole of the entire media is biased for the left. Such a grandiose claim with so little evidence ever provided except thorough reporting of things which perhaps made conservatives look "bad", isn't really mirrored by me or anyone I know on the left in reverse.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe that conservatives have much more of an issue with Wikipedia, yes, because I believe that a complete and thorough inclusion of all facts about particularly the last 8 years will appear "bad" for conservatives. So their response to that has been to attack its credibility. That's their response to anything which reports facts without backwards-bent attempts to talk about the last 8 years in a gray, not positive, not negative light.

My list of what I consider overtly biased is far shorter than most conservatives who wind up in arguments over credibility and bias. Fox is one. MOST things with an overt religious or patriotic slogan as part of their name (we're usually talking small online blogs or news sites) would be another. So yes, I do think the cries of bias are not equal. Look at the myth that "the media is liberally biased." I've never had a prob with anything but Fox news. But your side claims the whole of the entire media is biased for the left. Such a grandiose claim with so little evidence ever provided except thorough reporting of things which perhaps made conservatives look "bad", isn't really mirrored by me or anyone I know on the left in reverse.

I love Wikipedia.

Is MSNBC on your list?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Regarding Wikipedia; (long winded prologue)

In spite of my radical independent/moderate/nonpartisan stance, and in spite of the way I am going to vote in November, I still consider myself conservative.

That being said, I suppose my definition of conservative is different from others. I'm more of a "think before you shoot" and "take care of the poor" kind of conservative. And I am also non-theistic, so I can't say that God condemns certain social behaviors, and that most of them are none of my business. I really just want a slim, sleek, streamlined government that stays out of most private things and only steps in to help those who need it the very most, i.e. national disasters, healthcare, and education, defense, etc. The government needs to stop much of this discretionary spending and cut lots of other unnecessary programs.

Not being Republican or Democrat, and not supporting most of the current Republican platform, I can see why some may no longer consider me conservative, but from my perspective the Republicans aren't actually conservative, they are reactionary, radical, and they have very liberal economic policies and very authoritarian foreign policies and stances on civil liberties. The Republicans have gone a place where actual conservative ideals would never go. That's my silly viewpoint.

But... as a "conservative" I see wikipedia as a flawed but very useful source of quick information. You need to cross-check it with a real source, and not take anything there as proven fact, but it serves a great purpose.

This is leading somewhere... hold on... here it is.

"Conservapedia"

This is the embarrassment of the human race. Have you seen this crazy bogus nonsense?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Just browse the entire thing, one random page after another.
Here's one:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sulfates

The sulfates are compounds of one or more metallic elements with the sulfate ion. This is a large class of minerals, whose members have few properties in common. In general they are light in color and transparent to translucent. None are hard, and most are fragile.

Ripped directly from The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals, this is the entirety of the article on sulfates. This was an article I could swallow as just a sad mistake, when Wikipedia has, you know, useful data in it. Now read the horrible articles about liberal/conservative politicians, and especially about religious/social issues. This thing is a travesty, just like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage or Sean Hannity. None of this is conservative. None of this is moderate or liberal or socialist or anarchist. It's absolute nonsense, and it's hateful, partisan, and divisive, and it also by the way serves no useful purpose.

Conservapedia; the worst excuse for an "encyclopedia" ever. From a former Republican, and a conservative. This is why we need Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a useful, extremely biased encyclopedia of supposed knowledge.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why are you a conservative? What are you trying to conserve?

Why would you even call yourself that?

[Koga No Goshi]

Why are you a conservative? What are you trying to conserve?

Why would you even call yourself that?

His post though is the reason I don't believe I'm being "partisan" regarding parties and Wikipedia. There are a lot of people out there insisting it's left-wing. To my knowledge there is no Liberalopedia to counter the "right wing bias" of Wikipedia. ;)

And, as I have already stated 20 times Tuff.... MSNBC has a progressive lineup now, in the last year or two it's headed more that way and I believe it's a balancing out of the fact that there were so few progressive viewpoints on mainstream TV and certainly nothing to counter Fox. So the short answer, yes, it has a slant. But you focus so much on MSNBC, the cry of "liberal media" has been around for years, even when Fox was the only overtly biased thing on mainstream network news. So I wish you guys would stop trying to reframe the picture like bias started with MSNBC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

His post though is the reason I don't believe I'm being "partisan" regarding parties and Wikipedia. There are a lot of people out there insisting it's left-wing. To my knowledge there is no Liberalopedia to counter the "right wing bias" of Wikipedia. ;)

And, as I have already stated 20 times Tuff.... MSNBC has a progressive lineup now, in the last year or two it's headed more that way and I believe it's a balancing out of the fact that there were so few progressive viewpoints on mainstream TV and certainly nothing to counter Fox. So the short answer, yes, it has a slant. But you focus so much on MSNBC, the cry of "liberal media" has been around for years, even when Fox was the only overtly biased thing on mainstream network news. So I wish you guys would stop trying to reframe the picture like bias started with MSNBC.

I used to never watch Fox for the reasons you cite - I do now and MSNBC makes me feel better about it.

My point is that I've never heard a Conservative utter the words that Wikipedia is biased. I've never read it on this board either. I have, though, heard Stephen Colbert rail against it saying
that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts" and "if enough people decide that something is true it is true according to Wiki" - the second one is a paraphrase. Colbert is a "progressive". Other than him and a number of college professors I have never heard anyone else show the same concern for partiality and accuracy.

I guess that by my personal experiences and in-depth use of Wikipedia - I could make the generalization that progressives dismiss Wikipedia?

[Koga No Goshi]

I used to never watch Fox for the reasons you cite - I do now and MSNBC makes me feel better about it.

It would be interesting if there were any reliable stats out there for how many people are single network, vs. multiple source news viewers. Because what has always bothered me about Fox is the cultiness about it... I can only go off what I've observed, Tuff, so I'm not going to stretch and say this applies to you or anyone else... but I've run into a LOT of people who get their back REALLY up, and a big chip on their shoulder, and get really vocal about how they won't watch anthing but Fox because the rest of the newsmedia is b.s. and liberal. Like borderline hostile over it. And when I've seen that attitude I always am a bit afraid if people are pulling info only from Fox--- and from arguing with people over the years, I haven't seen a ton of reason to believe that most of them pull from anywhere else.

I catch MSNBC "when I can", but it's not like "OMG THEY WENT LIB, I LIVE THERE NOW." I tune into it about as much or little as I did before.... I've always watched a mix of everything, even Fox, plus gone online to look at BBC and such. I would LIKE to think Fox viewers generally do the same but... I doubt it. Correct me if that's hugely off. Was it Cheney? Or Rove? I can't remember which one, who bragged about how they made sure the TV was never on anything but Fox.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It would be interesting if there were any reliable stats out there for how many people are single network, vs. multiple source news viewers. Because what has always bothered me about Fox is the cultiness about it... I can only go off what I've observed, Tuff, so I'm not going to stretch and say this applies to you or anyone else... but I've run into a LOT of people who get their back REALLY up, and a big chip on their shoulder, and get really vocal about how they won't watch anthing but Fox because the rest of the newsmedia is b.s. and liberal. Like borderline hostile over it. And when I've seen that attitude I always am a bit afraid if people are pulling info only from Fox--- and from arguing with people over the years, I haven't seen a ton of reason to believe that most of them pull from anywhere else.

I catch MSNBC "when I can", but it's not like "OMG THEY WENT LIB, I LIVE THERE NOW." I tune into it about as much or little as I did before.... I've always watched a mix of everything, even Fox, plus gone online to look at BBC and such. I would LIKE to think Fox viewers generally do the same but... I doubt it. Correct me if that's hugely off. Was it Cheney? Or Rove? I can't remember which one, who bragged about how they made sure the TV was never on anything but Fox.

I just converted my girlfriend to a generic form of conservatism. She has become so in the bag for McCain that I have to talk her out of it and remind her that our guy already lost (Romney). I remember telling her to only go to Fox news when you want Republican talking points and to focus on internet news, descriptive e-articles and professional blogs for real news.

Smart people can sniff out bias. I do love fox news because I think that they are better people and more entertaining to watch, but that doesn't mean I buy into their talking points. I go to MSNBC when my blood pressure is too low and can't seem to get the energy to punch a kitten - it usually does the trick. CNN is like the Times, but at least they try.

[Koga No Goshi]

I just converted my girlfriend to a generic form of conservatism. She has become so in the bag for McCain that I have to talk her out of it and remind her that our guy already lost (Romney). I remember telling her to only go to Fox news when you want Republican talking points and to focus on internet news, descriptive e-articles and professional blogs for real news.

Smart people can sniff out bias. I do love fox news because I think that they are better people and more entertaining to watch, but that doesn't mean I buy into their talking points. I go to MSNBC when my blood pressure is too low and can't seem to get the energy to punch a kitten - it usually does the trick. CNN is like the Times, but at least they try.

That's my problem with it in short. I don't think they aim for the smart people who can sniff bias. They aim for the people still meaning to get their GED's who won't know the difference. Sorry if that sounds very nasty, it's not meant to be, I'm just in a bit of horror that people treat it as a "totally serious Fair and Balanced" news source. In fact that's the argument I get a lot. "No, Fox isn't biased, I actually think they're pretty balanced, but the rest of the damn media is liberal." I have no idea what that means generally except that media journalists tend to play P.C.--- racism is bad, education is good, after school programs are good, the rest of the world is not inferior just different, etc. Beyond that I'm not sure, specifically, what people mean when they make the claim that the whole rest of the media is lib.

[Lemur]

Stay classy, Missouri!

[OverKnight]

Free speech in all its glory.

I'd like to back track a bit. At the end of the Democratic Primaries, the emerging theme seemed to be that a long drawn out campaign for the nomination would hurt Barack Obama in the General Election. Did this turn out to be true or not and why?

Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.

Thoughts?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.

Thoughts?

I don't know. They proved ineffective to convince Democrats. Republicans and Independents are a bunch of Race-bating morons, so maybe it will fly this time?

Most people were not paying much attention in the primaries.

[Lemur]

Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.

This is the classic argument for a long primary. The notion being that a protracted contest will bring up all the dirt, test the campaigns and toughen the candidates. And that's more or less what happened, so I guess it's a good argument. Clinton didn't hold back in the primary, so a lot of mud got flung, and just about every valid line of attack was explored.

The Ayers attack doesn't sound like news anymore; it feels like a re-heated leftover. It certainly lacks the quality of an argument that resonates with voters and will sway indies. If it were surfacing now for the first time, and being carefully packaged for maximum impact, who knows? So yeah, maybe the long primary insulated the Obama campaign somewhat.

-edit-

Stay classy, North Carolina! (Video)

Gibsonville, NC -- Parking lot politics in central North Carolina have some people crying foul.

A lot owner put up "no parking" signs targeting Barack Obama supporters.

"I was surprised because I couldn't believe anybody would do anything like that," says Shirley Pearson, an Obama supporter who lives near the lot.

Parking lot owner Tim Henderson is quite clear about the message he's sending from two identical signs he posted, warning "no parking" for Obama supporters or people with Obama bumper stickers.

"I don't know how many ways you can interpret it. If you're an Obama supporter, you've got an Obama sticker on your car, you're not welcome to park here," says Henderson.

-edit of the edit-

I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy ...

C'mon. 42% of my Island is non-white minority - 12% of the white population is Jewish. This election is a big deal to them. Couple that fact with the fact that the White vote is split and you have a tremendous lead for Obama, My little black 9 year old sister wants Obama, even thought he is a baby-murdering psychopath and wan't everyone to be married to gays while he bombs the Capitol and defecates on the Constitution.

It is to be expected.

Gore won by big numbers here. Kerry won by a small margin. I'd expect Obama to win big.

[woad&fangs]

Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia.

That's un-possible. I thought they were billed as insane hillbilly racists during the primary?...

[m52nickerson]

Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia.

I believe that is one of the groups that RCP does not include.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lemur, you sure you want to play the "Your wacky supporters are crazier than our wacky supporters" game?

It just leads to insanity.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Lemur, you sure you want to play the "Your wacky supporters are crazier than our wacky supporters" game?

It just leads to insanity.

CR

Um.. okay, some wierd new age health group, vs. people refusing people services or pastors telling people they'll go to hell for voting for our guy.

Yeah, it's balanced. We're just as bad, please excuse us CR.

Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia.

This site also shows an 8-point lead in West Virginia. But I have no idea if this is "reliable", I was shocked when I first saw that, myself. Polling methodology is pretty far outside my area of expertise so I try to just get general impressions instead of counting the outliers, but we have two sources now saying the same thing about WV.

[woad&fangs]

That site got their WV information from the ARG. I've been looking at electoral-vote.com for a while now.

[Ronin]

This is the classic argument for a long primary. The notion being that a protracted contest will bring up all the dirt, test the campaigns and toughen the candidates. And that's more or less what happened, so I guess it's a good argument. Clinton didn't hold back in the primary, so a lot of mud got flung, and just about every valid line of attack was explored.

The Ayers attack doesn't sound like news anymore; it feels like a re-heated leftover. It certainly lacks the quality of an argument that resonates with voters and will sway indies. If it were surfacing now for the first time, and being carefully packaged for maximum impact, who knows? So yeah, maybe the long primary insulated the Obama campaign somewhat.

-edit-

Stay classy, North Carolina! (Video)

Gibsonville, NC -- Parking lot politics in central North Carolina have some people crying foul.

A lot owner put up "no parking" signs targeting Barack Obama supporters.

"I was surprised because I couldn't believe anybody would do anything like that," says Shirley Pearson, an Obama supporter who lives near the lot.

Parking lot owner Tim Henderson is quite clear about the message he's sending from two identical signs he posted, warning "no parking" for Obama supporters or people with Obama bumper stickers.

"I don't know how many ways you can interpret it. If you're an Obama supporter, you've got an Obama sticker on your car, you're not welcome to park here," says Henderson.

-edit of the edit-

I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy ...

I am afraid that the answer to this question might make my head hurt...but I´m gonna ask it anyway..

you guys do have anti-discrimination legislation?....right??...anyone??

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am afraid that the answer to this question might make my head hurt...but I´m gonna ask it anyway..

you guys do have anti-discrimination legislation?....right??...anyone??

It depends on what you are discriminating against.