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

[ICantSpellDawg]

As a follow-up to my previous statement, I will offer a suggestion on top of my criticism of the superficial system.

My distaste for the generic and ugly partisan terms "left" and "right" does not diminish when you are tested for both economic and social libertarianism versus economic and social authoritarianism.

To truly get a feel for my viewpoint, and crudely predict "me" on a "chart", you'd need thousands of dimensions, one for each viewpoint. Then, you could arrange the dots on that chart as something similar to an electron probability cloud. You could almost predict me with a chart so dynamic.

People are bigger than two dimensions, and frankly, even with a thousand plotted points along a thousand different dimensions of political viewpoints, you still could not accurately predict me or anyone else. Unless of course, they adopted every position on the Republican, Democratic, or other partisan platform, precisely, without exception.

I do not see the world in black and white, in red versus blue, in stark terms of authoritarian versus libertarian, or in 2 dimensions across a graph, dividing us and separating us and classifying us like insects. I believe we have so much more unique things to offer than a generic dot on a generic graph about generic concepts. To even come close to describing the unfathomably complicated matrix that is the human mind, you cannot simply list two coordinates on a graph.

To conform to such simplicity, is to diminish humanity itself. There's a whole universe, between the reds and the blues and the greens and the yellows, there are metallics and and shades and hues and shapes and textures and flavors and sounds, all of them unique, all of them worthy.

When I hear people speak up and say "I am a Republican or I am a Democrat", I shudder. Chances are, they do not conform to two-thirds of their own party's platform, yet they will become emotionally attached to this large conforming group, and begin to criticize wholesale anyone who disagrees with their party, even if they happened to agree on the issue itself!

I might have a lot of views similar to TuffStuff, for example, on limiting federal power and cutting spending. Yet, if I were to criticize his party, there's a chance he might take it personally. Or his candidate, he might identify with and take it personally. Perhaps Tuff himself is better than that, but many people are not. They cling like frightened monkeys to the hides of giant monolithic organizations that couldn't give two centipede turds about them, short of obtaining their vote and their money. This is why I dislike conformity... it diminishes the human being into a square block, another brick in the wall of a castle, the occupants of each castle firing cannonballs at one another.

Organized religion, nationalism, racism, sexism, partisanship... it all flows from the idea of mass conformity, so that those at the top can control us, predict us, and criticize us and keep us all in line, conforming to their shape.

I refuse. Dang it, I believe in many so-called conservative viewpoints, and language dictates that I might have to come up with labels to identify myself with. But I refuse to bend to a defect in our thinking, our language, simply to mollify my critics and fit in with my friends. I differ on some issues, and I refuse to register as a member of a party, I will listen to the opposition and those third parties as well, I will form my own opinion. I will not wave a flag unless it includes anyone who wants to be my friend, nor will I ever be "proud to be white", nor will I join any group claiming to represent my spirituality whilst dictating it for me.

I won't be plotted on a map, nor will I become a Red or Blue American. I won't find just one generic opponent to criticize, nor will I defend people who I agree with when they are wrong. I won't become another cog in the system, I won't dehumanize myself or my opponents by advocating groupthink. If you identify with a party, that's your business... if you identify with a candidate, thats your business. If you follow a major religion or philosophical movement, kudos for you.

However, when it becomes such a part of you that you immediately trust anyone who identifies with the same things you identify with, if you begin to form ideas about people you don't know because they identify with some group or person, if you begin to assume and criticize someone when you don't really understand them, if you become part of the machine and lose yourself to your ideological overlords, and become just another soldier in the great war of ideas between two or more great powers who could not care less about you... I feel sorry for such a person. That is where assumption, misconception, misinformation, propaganda, groupthink and ignorance deteriorate humanity to the point where there is at least one channel on TV that has lost all sense of reality and will continue to spout ideological talking points and spin news stories no matter what the circumstance, and will remain ignorant, loyal followers until the bitter end.

In short, I think it's insulting to diminish a person to a mere label, or a one-dimensional or two-dimensional measure. Plus a lot of blah, blah, blah that followed.

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, "New Deal" conservative. I get it. No borders, no boxes. This is the 21st century, who needs definitive parameters?

[m52nickerson]

Teh gays marrying, woman's rights to choose, from a ........ a .....conservative........no ....I mean.....

Tuff's world is crumbling.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization,

You don't get it!

I am against legalizing most kinds of drugs, and especially all drugs which are purely addictive and harmful.

THIS is an example of why I hate labels and groupthink. You assume you know your fellow man when you don't, and criticize parts of them that don't exist! To plot me on a graph is to do the same thing, simplify me into a straw man. It's oversimplistic and irrational.

I won't be turned into an easily defined set of generic ideas to be bashed. I demand to have specific criticisms of specific ideas, not generic ones lobbed at generic opponents. To group and lump ideas and people together so blithely is to diminish them and create a straw man.

I refuse.

[Askthepizzaguy]

When asked, I tell people that I'm a mixed-up kinda guy. As I've said in other threads, I believe in the right for married gay couples to carry concealed handguns. I believe in small government and an end to the War on Drugs. What does that make me? I have no idea. And I'm not bothered for half of a second about it.

Most of those views are on the libertarian side of the spectrum, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're consistently libertarian.

Some people call libertarians "conservative" because they CONSISTENTLY oppose big brother governments!



Others call them "liberal" for having such tolerant and relaxed social views, because they CONSISTENTLY favor liberty over control.

What do we call you? Whatever you want, as long as it makes sense. But remember, labels are flawed and simplistic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looking at this makes me wonder how party whips exercise power in America. Anyone care to explain?

They don't carry the kind of "whip-hand" that they would in a parliamentary system. Yes, the whips do a lot of "you need to support your team" kind of encouragement, and this can be coupled with warnings that failing to vote a certain way can end up with you getting shifted to less important committees or even not receiving support from the parties Congressional or Senatorial committee.

Various Congressional caucuses wield just as much power as the appointed whip. In the Senate, you can even get a group of 10-20 Senators together and -- if they stick to their guns -- this cabal can effectively derail most efforts until they get their way (remember the gang of 14?).

A representative can't really be "whipped" too hard if they have strong support among their constituency. Each rep has a district of roughly 650k people. In that district, about 500k will be eligible to vote based on age etc. No more than 80% of those will actually bother to register and no more than 67% of those will show up for any vote. With 50% + 1 of those you win your seat back.

So, if the rep has 140K people who support her staunchly, she's in a position to tell the whip to go himself when he comes a callin'.

There's always a tension between being a party loyalist and a maverick who does their own thing. Our culture likes mavericks, so it can play well.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Wow, I think I found a label I could enjoy...

"Maverick"





Wait, doesn't McCain call himself a maverick? D'oh! There goes that idea...

[Divinus Arma]

And if someone is hit by a car, the ambulance doesn't require a credit card to be swiped before they take him to the emergency room.

You're right. They just get the bill later. And if they can't afford to pay, they are off the hook for the moment. And if they can afford to pay, they get nailed to the cross.

Then the insurance company cancels their plan. Then the victim has a permanent disability. Then he has a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage.

[Big_John]

pizzaguy, were you a drama major by any chance?

[Divinus Arma]

Shoulda said "Republicans for Obama". If being a conservative means promoting social darwinism, then I reject it.

Maybe I'm just a Republi-tard-o-crat.

[Koga No Goshi]

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, "New Deal" conservative. I get it. No borders, no boxes. This is the 21st century, who needs definitive parameters?

This line of questioning you are subjecting Pizza to can just as easily be turned around on you, Tuff. What exactly is "conservative, small government" about thinking the government should be involved with people's personal choices about end of life, life partners, and drug use? So called Conservatives in the U.S. have this perpetual defensive mindset, like they have "been pushed far enough and are now drawing a line in the sand." No more change. We've had enough. What about all of those "conservative" and Constitutionalist ideas about how if something does not directly infringe upon your freedom, or harm you, it should be legal and allowed? That core philosophy which is supposed to dominate a stripped-down minimalist constitutional democracy seems to evaporate everytime the right finds some controversial social or moral wedge issue they can bible thump on.

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow, I think I found a label I could enjoy...

"Maverick"





Wait, doesn't McCain call himself a maverick? D'oh! There goes that idea...

*Sighs, and does another shot of tequila*

You forgot to wink at the camera, Pizza.

P.S. Pizza, don't take this forum as any sort of representational cross section of the battle lines that are out there. I personally know more people who voted Bush once or twice who are registered Rep and voting Obama this year than I can count. Including two old friends from high school, an aunt and uncle, and my dad. It's not exactly the shocking, unheard of-upset for Reps to be disgruntled and dissing toeing the party line this year.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG is attempting to sensationalize his support for Obama using the word and association "conservative" when it is not sensational.

I hardly think anyone will change their vote because of a sensational word like "conservative". When I think "conservative", I think wild parties filled with naked people having all kinds of illegal fun. Surely everyone wants a piece of THIS action! Yeah! I want to be a conservative ROCK STAR!!!



I hardly think I could change anyone's vote anyway. If you are going to vote, that means you took the time to register to vote, or are willing to drive to a poll. If you're willing to do that, voting means something to you. Something worthy of your time.

If it's something you really care about, reading my whimsical musings will not change your vote. If your mind is set, nothing I can say will affect it.

On the other hand, if you're still undecided at this point, you must think the candidates are donkey and elephant behinds, respectively, or you are sadly and grossly under-informed. If you're too negative, chances are you've listened to mostly the partisan attack ads or have just grown cynical over time, and nothing I do will inspire you to change your mind. If you're under-informed, I'm afraid I haven't got the time or energy to do the research for ya, so stay home and do something less dangerous than voting blindly.

In any case, I'm just some wacko typing in a magic box. No one really cares what I think, nor should you. Make up your own minds.

I saw a lot of signs that said "Republicans for Obama" on my way to work today. I can tell they were really popular with the McCain-Palin people who shared the parking lot with them and stood on opposing street corners. Fact is, people are jumping ship, conservatives and Republicans alike, to avoid the sinking and stinking ship that is the GOP nominee who was too moderate for conservatives and too conservative for moderates, and his inexperienced yet busty wench who is the holder of the sacred gold pocketwatch with a crucifix on it capable of hypnotizing the "crazy base" part of the Republican party and forcing them to obey her brutal commands and vote for her in spite of the fact that she has no idea what she is talking about, and focuses on attacking her opponent while totally avoiding her own media issues, scandals, and faults.

I wish independent conservatism like mine was "sensational", but frankly I am not sure anyone listens to me!

*Sighs, and does another shot of tequila*

You forgot to wink at the camera, Pizza.

P.S. Pizza, don't take this forum as any sort of representational cross section of the battle lines that are out there. I personally know more people who voted Bush once or twice who are registered Rep and voting Obama this year than I can count. Including two old friends from high school, an aunt and uncle, and my dad. It's not exactly the shocking, unheard of-upset for Reps to be disgruntled and dissing toeing the party line this year.

I used to be in the GOP. It's true, because it rhymes.

Now I quit because Bush has steered the ship of America into the iceberg (oh, what a horrendously strained metaphor) of Iraq.

Iceberg of Iraq. Sandbar of Iraq.

[Askthepizzaguy]

pizzaguy, were you a drama major by any chance?

Stage gives me that certain kind of fright... what's it called?

Stage something fright.

Here, it's just my fingers which do all the work, and my eyes which bear the shame of all my typos and grammatical errors. I can deal with that.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think those of us who get too tied up in platforms and social agendas and ideologies and political affiliations kinda forget something, too.

I think most people out there don't really "weigh the choices." I honestly don't. I know that's cynical and takes a dim view of the voting mass in general but running into someone, anyone, who will passionately or even interestedly discuss the differences between the parties/candidates on a wide range of the issues, is very rare. An awful lot of people don't vote and, even out of those who do, the reasons usually have very little to do with the specific issues per se.

Regarding "conservative", I hear two completely dominant, overwhelmingly common reasons people vote Republican. "Taxes" and "defending ourselves." There is just a general perception that Republicans will lower taxes-- and even people making far less than the groups that tend to get any substantial tax cuts under Republicans tend to think this. I think the second group tends to be more ideological than the first group, but still... a lot of people just have the general perception that America is a frightfully insecure, vulnerable place surrounded by enemies bent on destroying us left and right, and that we need someone constantly talking about that in order to be or feel safe.

The people who get into the economics of tax policies, or the nuances of foreign policy effectiveness and his plan vs. the other guy's plan, are the minority. I think if Tuff or anyone else thinks that a big majority of the people who go out to the booths and vote Republican give a rat's gluteus about abortion or gay marriage or marijuana (or coke) they're mistaken. Those "soccer mom" and "joe the plumber" cliches that people always talk about-- those people are generally busy with day to day concerns and don't sit around reading Wikipedia about Keynes economics or comparing MSNBC's coverage to CNN's coverage. They just think eh I'm having trouble paying all my bills, the Reps will lower my taxes. Even if they make $47,000 or $62,000 a year and probably won't change one way or the other no matter who they vote for.

[Askthepizzaguy]

[sarcasm]

Tsk tsk, Koga...

Dare you suggest that America is a place that is safe enough? Why, we can never be safe enough, or have low enough taxes for the rich!

We need enough nuclear missiles to blow up the Earth precisely 999 and 1/2 times, no more, no less, and we must have them all armed and ready to go just in case we need to wipe out the human race as a last, horrible gasp of spite should Russia attack us or Iran bomb Jerusalem. And you know the Christians will be ever so pleased to bring about Armaggeddon so they can meet their God Jesus riding on the back of a ICBM heading for the Middle East. (You know, that whole general region. It's all such a bad place full of sand, we don't need it anyway. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, what's the difference?) Bomb their huts and take their oil, I always say.

We also need the most advanced and powerful military on the planet, and we need to spend 10 times as much as our nearest major competitor, nevermind our silly alliances and the lack of any other major superpowers. We also have to have them all deployed overseas in other people's countries so they won't get all uppity.

As for taxes, paying taxes is Un-American. We fought a war for independence from the British Empire so we would never have to pay taxes or help the poor or educate the children or cure the sick, only to build bigger and bigger bombs and also provide subsidies for corn, dung beetle research, NASA space programs, and tax cuts for the oil companies and CEO's of the world responsible for our current financial meltdown. Reward the corrupt and let the innocent starve, I always say! Kill them all and let God sort em out I always say!

[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm overload. Brain entering self-destruct mode... in 3... 2... 1...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...whew... I feel better now!

[KarlXII]

nevermind our silly alliances and the lack of any other major superpowers.

Why hello there.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If China had a broad coalition of allies willing to side with them in a war against the United States, European Union, or NATO in general... or if they weren't 20 years behind us militarily or still a developing nation.... or if they weren't spending a tenth of what we were on military needs...

Maybe I'd see them as a threat. As it stands right now, their big threat is being able to buy and sell us on the open market. Oh to be deeply indebted and dependent on another nation's manufactured goods... this was not such a brilliant strategy.

[CountArach]

So how about that election, hey?

[KarlXII]

So how about that election, hey?

Husar just told me in the chat the reason he doesn't care about the Election Thread,

"Show me a thread about the German Elections that reach 118 pages, and then I'll care"

Something a long the lines of that.

[JR-]

Danial Hannan, a UK conservative on why he has his fingers crossed for Obama:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../19/do1904.xml

I like Hannan, and have a lot of sympathy with his argument, even though my natural inclination would be towards the republicans.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Chicago Tribune published a thoughtful and impressive endorsement of Senator Obama which, I think, hits several nails on their heads.

(I know, just another liberal media lickspittle editorial from a newspaper that has never in its 100 plus year history endorsed a ... Democrat candidate?)

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

...

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[OverKnight]

I guess adversity leads to some navel-gazing.

Fact-check article on the ACORN controversey. Essentially we have hyperbole on one side and some obfuscation on the other.

[PBI]

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.

[Lemur]

(I know, just another liberal media lickspittle editorial from a newspaper that has never in its 100 plus year history endorsed a ... Democrat candidate?)

Actually, The Chicago Tribune is generally regarded as favoring the Republicans by a small margin. It's not a rabid partisan outlet, but the editorials swing to the right.

Quite a few right-leaning newspapers have come out for Obama, including The Salt Lake Tribune.

If that is Obama's constituency, then maybe he doesn't consider him conservative either?

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.

[m52nickerson]

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.

I think it is. There are many people on both sides of the isle who highly respect Colin Powell.

[KukriKhan]

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.

It's probably just a blip on the radar of 'the big picture', but, for this up-to-now undecided, unaffiliated voter-citizen, it's huge... monster huge. I'll be watching Gen Powell's interview with intense interest this morning.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, The Chicago Tribune is generally regarded as favoring the Republicans by a small margin. It's not a rabid partisan outlet, but the editorials swing to the right.

Yes, I know. I was getting my retaliation in early. My ironic flourish withered nonetheless.

Oh the shame. My feeble irony deficiency exposed publicly by an educated prosimian.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One wonders if irony deficiency can be remedied by spinach?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Economist has a nifty little map reflecting the Global Electoral College. It's based on the premise that if the world could have a say in the US election, what would the verdict be?

Apparently the answer is that Senator McCain would win Cuba.

(And Moldova, to be fair. Not to mention, sub-Saharan Africa seems to be up for grabs).

The GOP. Bringing global socialism even to the very doors of reactionary dictatorships.

[Kralizec]

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

I find it hard to believe that the numbers are so skewed towards Obama in Pakistan, for example.