Org Mobile Site
Thread: The Final US Election Thread
At least Darcy Burner, darling of the netroots and koskids, is losing! (very narrowly, and maybe because of her moronic claim that she got a degree in economics from Harvard, when she didn't, and had to deal with the fallout from that in the closing week).
CR
CR
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Sure.
he. i still remember last time we engaged in politics.... Sure.
*shudders and thinks about when the EB tavern was temporarily closed b/c of political flame wars*
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
At least Darcy Burner, darling of the netroots and koskids, is losing! (very narrowly, and maybe because of her moronic claim that she got a degree in economics from Harvard, when she didn't, and had to deal with the fallout from that in the closing week).
CR
Its still too close to call. 41% counted and she is down 51-49.At least Darcy Burner, darling of the netroots and koskids, is losing! (very narrowly, and maybe because of her moronic claim that she got a degree in economics from Harvard, when she didn't, and had to deal with the fallout from that in the closing week).
CR
I've been sceptical of Obama ever since he started being competitive, and I still am (albeit slightly less). The first few months after his inauguration should be interesting and I'll follow it closely.
Even though I didn't like the tone and some of the themes of his campaign, I feel sorry for McCain. On the other hand I seriously hope that Palin will go back to Alaska and won't come back.
Even though I didn't like the tone and some of the themes of his campaign, I feel sorry for McCain. On the other hand I seriously hope that Palin will go back to Alaska and won't come back.
As the election has ended, I think the preponderance of anti-Obama rhetoric went up significantly, probably in a response to the (in my mind) disgustingly unsportsmanlike response by the victors. While I don't have a problem with saying "Obama won", or anything as such; there are some examples that I witnessed today that were...disturbingly confrontational.
This isn't my first election folks, but I've never been on the losing side before, so I guess this is how it feels, but even when Kerry or Gore lost it wasn't this bad. There has been alot of racist confrontations today between blacks and whites in my town, and I don't want it to continue.
The fear-mongering that has occurred (black students telling white ones that the whites are "gonna be slaves") is disturbing to hear, and it makes all the whites very confrontational. While I might not comprehend the "historicity" of this event, it doesn't help when all the Obama supporters are shouting from the rooftops that they won, as if it was ever in doubt, and rubbing everyone's face in it?
I was surprised there wasn't more violence between the Obama supporters and McCain supporters. It's not because the McCain supporters were picking on Obama supporters as Communists, Socialists, or anything like that. I was quite willing to forget there was ever an election until the Obama supporters began their tirade. What happened to viewing content of character over skin color, and getting on with our lives? Tomorrow it'll be better though.
It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
Local elections were fine, except the race between two candidates (A black republican and female democrat) was so close they've had to call in manual counts.
We also banned gay marriage!
This isn't my first election folks, but I've never been on the losing side before, so I guess this is how it feels, but even when Kerry or Gore lost it wasn't this bad. There has been alot of racist confrontations today between blacks and whites in my town, and I don't want it to continue.
The fear-mongering that has occurred (black students telling white ones that the whites are "gonna be slaves") is disturbing to hear, and it makes all the whites very confrontational. While I might not comprehend the "historicity" of this event, it doesn't help when all the Obama supporters are shouting from the rooftops that they won, as if it was ever in doubt, and rubbing everyone's face in it?
I was surprised there wasn't more violence between the Obama supporters and McCain supporters. It's not because the McCain supporters were picking on Obama supporters as Communists, Socialists, or anything like that. I was quite willing to forget there was ever an election until the Obama supporters began their tirade. What happened to viewing content of character over skin color, and getting on with our lives? Tomorrow it'll be better though.
It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
Local elections were fine, except the race between two candidates (A black republican and female democrat) was so close they've had to call in manual counts.
We also banned gay marriage!
Originally Posted by TinCow:
I posted it because I thought it was interesting and well-written. I thought that under the current circumstances the opinion of the daughter of the last person to run a major Presidential campaign on a platform of segregation would be interesting to a few posters. I am not quite sure why you are offended by it it being posted.
I guess I'd like to hear from you why you think the Republican party under George W. Bush has been segregationist? The author is making a direct comparison between her father (before he sang Kumbaya and reformed himself) and Geroge W. Bush in 2008 in the particular, and by extension the GOP in 2008 at large. You appear to be applauding her comparison. I'd like to hear some justification for that.I posted it because I thought it was interesting and well-written. I thought that under the current circumstances the opinion of the daughter of the last person to run a major Presidential campaign on a platform of segregation would be interesting to a few posters. I am not quite sure why you are offended by it it being posted.
Originally Posted by :
It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
The situation now is different to what it was in 2000. There is a financial disaster and two wars. Bush did not face those same obstacles.It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
Originally Posted by :
It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
What CA said, and, 2000 was a very hotly contested election which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And yet Al Gore called for people to support the decision. The circumstances were very different, there is no real question about legitimacy about last night's end result.It's also interesting that everyone is calling for unity behind the President, when Bush didn't get unity in 2000 until a major U.S. disaster?
I was 10 in 2000.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I was 10 in 2000.
*Pats Strike and gives him a Power Ranger doll* HeheI was 10 in 2000.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
*Pats Strike and gives him a Power Ranger doll* Hehe
I liked football*Pats Strike and gives him a Power Ranger doll* Hehe
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I liked football
Bratty little hyper kid, breaking the windows.I liked football
Anyhow, the point is, 2000 had a lot of bitterness because it was not decided in a clear voice from the voters. It came down to one state which the Supreme Court halted vote counting on and simply called it for Bush. Of course people felt bitter. Weaker democracies (or perhaps democracies with more alert and attentive citizens) would have seen violence over that.
No super-majority, thank god. All those Republicans complaining about the Gang of 14 should be thanking their lucky stars that reason prevailed there. Will W and Cheney spend the rest of their days dropping claims of executive power like they were live ferrets?
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I guess I'd like to hear from you why you think the Republican party under George W. Bush has been segregationist? The author is making a direct comparison between her father (before he sang Kumbaya and reformed himself) and Geroge W. Bush in 2008 in the particular, and by extension the GOP in 2008 at large. You appear to be applauding her comparison. I'd like to hear some justification for that.
Did you even read that article? It makes no claims at all that Bush was segregationist. It compares the impact of Wallace's stance on segregation and the resulting national about-face to Bush's policies in handling issues like Iraq and domestic spying and the subsequent rejection of the Republican party in yesterday's election. There is nothing in there about Bush or the current Republicans being segregationists. It compares the turnabouts, not the issues which caused them.I guess I'd like to hear from you why you think the Republican party under George W. Bush has been segregationist? The author is making a direct comparison between her father (before he sang Kumbaya and reformed himself) and Geroge W. Bush in 2008 in the particular, and by extension the GOP in 2008 at large. You appear to be applauding her comparison. I'd like to hear some justification for that.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
What CA said, and, 2000 was a very hotly contested election which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And yet Al Gore called for people to support the decision. The circumstances were very different, there is no real question about legitimacy about last night's end result.
Koga:What CA said, and, 2000 was a very hotly contested election which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. And yet Al Gore called for people to support the decision. The circumstances were very different, there is no real question about legitimacy about last night's end result.
You're smarter than that. The Supremes decided that is was inappropriate to recount part of, but not all of, the Florida vote. Given our knowledge of how certain locales break for certain candidates, it is NOT unreasonable to suggest that ANY partial recount is a form of favoritism.
Gore lost in 2k because: 1) 90k Floridians were deranged enough to throw away their votes on the Green Party because GORE wasn't being eco-centric enough when 2k of those 90k in Gore's column would have ended the Bush presidencey before it began, & 2) Gore couldn't win his home state.
Subsequently, several recounts were conducted, sponsored by newspapers who had endorsed Gore, and none of these "recounts" altered the results.
Decry the electoral college system that made the minority popular vote sufficient to elect Bush if you will. Decry what Bush did in office subsequently if you will. The voting results were correct.
Al Gore and Nixon both did the correct thing after narrow defeats.
Originally Posted by drone:
No super-majority, thank god. All those Republicans complaining about the Gang of 14 should be thanking their lucky stars that reason prevailed there. Will W and Cheney spend the rest of their days dropping claims of executive power like they were live ferrets?
No prob. Bush pardons Cheney for the whole shebang 1998 to present, then resigns 19 Jan 09. Cheney then returns the favor. Both skip the innauguration and hunt quail.No super-majority, thank god. All those Republicans complaining about the Gang of 14 should be thanking their lucky stars that reason prevailed there. Will W and Cheney spend the rest of their days dropping claims of executive power like they were live ferrets?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Koga:
You're smarter than that. The Supremes decided that is was inappropriate to recount part of, but not all of, the Florida vote. Given our knowledge of how certain locales break for certain candidates, it is NOT unreasonable to suggest that ANY partial recount is a form of favoritism.
Gore lost in 2k because: 1) 90k Floridians were deranged enough to throw away their votes on the Green Party because GORE wasn't being eco-centric enough when 2k of those 90k in Gore's column would have ended the Bush presidencey before it began, & 2) Gore couldn't win his home state.
Subsequently, several recounts were conducted, sponsored by newspapers who had endorsed Gore, and none of these "recounts" altered the results.
Decry the electoral college system that made the minority popular vote sufficient to elect Bush if you will. Decry what Bush did in office subsequently if you will. The voting results were correct.
Al Gore and Nixon both did the correct thing after narrow defeats.
None of this was relevant to people staying up late at night on Nov 4 2000, Seamus. All that stuff was established record long afterwards. On the night in question everyone was up saying that the count looked like it was going to Gore and that it was later stopped. There was a lot of confusion and frustration and pretending like no one had any reasonable cause to feel bitter after 2000 is revisionism. It is absolutely no comparison whatsoever to last night, and it's ridiculous for anyone to do so and expect credibility.Koga:
You're smarter than that. The Supremes decided that is was inappropriate to recount part of, but not all of, the Florida vote. Given our knowledge of how certain locales break for certain candidates, it is NOT unreasonable to suggest that ANY partial recount is a form of favoritism.
Gore lost in 2k because: 1) 90k Floridians were deranged enough to throw away their votes on the Green Party because GORE wasn't being eco-centric enough when 2k of those 90k in Gore's column would have ended the Bush presidencey before it began, & 2) Gore couldn't win his home state.
Subsequently, several recounts were conducted, sponsored by newspapers who had endorsed Gore, and none of these "recounts" altered the results.
Decry the electoral college system that made the minority popular vote sufficient to elect Bush if you will. Decry what Bush did in office subsequently if you will. The voting results were correct.
Al Gore and Nixon both did the correct thing after narrow defeats.
Originally Posted by :
Decry the electoral college system that made the minority popular vote sufficient to elect Bush if you will. Decry what Bush did in office subsequently if you will. The voting results were correct.
Al Gore and Nixon both did the correct thing after narrow defeats.
None of this really changes what I said, Seamus. I said people were frustrated because the vote came down to one hotly contested state, and the recounting was stopped. If that wouldn't make voters feel aggravated, regardless of what the whole story looks like in retrospect, I don't know what would. Saying "it turns out the counts were correct" after the fact doesn't change how people felt when they were told that the recount was being stopped by order of the court, on procedural considerations the electorate in general neither knew about nor were fully informed about at the time.Decry the electoral college system that made the minority popular vote sufficient to elect Bush if you will. Decry what Bush did in office subsequently if you will. The voting results were correct.
Al Gore and Nixon both did the correct thing after narrow defeats.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Both skip the innauguration and hunt quail.
I believe that last time Cheney took up his gun to hunt quail he nearly killed his hunting buddy.Both skip the innauguration and hunt quail.
I'd stay home if I were Bush.
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy:
I believe that last time Cheney took up his gun to hunt quail he nearly killed his hunting buddy.
I'd stay home if I were Bush.
maybe well get lucky....I believe that last time Cheney took up his gun to hunt quail he nearly killed his hunting buddy.
I'd stay home if I were Bush.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Did you even read that article? It makes no claims at all that Bush was segregationist. It compares the impact of Wallace's stance on segregation and the resulting national about-face to Bush's policies in handling issues like Iraq and domestic spying and the subsequent rejection of the Republican party in yesterday's election. There is nothing in there about Bush or the current Republicans being segregationists. It compares the turnabouts, not the issues which caused them.
Of course I read the article. Despite being a bigot and an anti-intellectual, I am literate. As for where the comparison to segreationist policies came from, I quoted where she drew a parallel earlier in the thread. Here's where you do the same:Did you even read that article? It makes no claims at all that Bush was segregationist. It compares the impact of Wallace's stance on segregation and the resulting national about-face to Bush's policies in handling issues like Iraq and domestic spying and the subsequent rejection of the Republican party in yesterday's election. There is nothing in there about Bush or the current Republicans being segregationists. It compares the turnabouts, not the issues which caused them.
Originally Posted by :
I posted it because I thought it was interesting and well-written. I thought that under the current circumstances the opinion of the daughter of the last person to run a major Presidential campaign on a platform of segregation would be interesting to a few posters.
This can be taken one of two ways. 1) Wallace was the last segregationist as in the final one but you somehow see an association to the current administration or 2) was the last as in the most recent prior to the current. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the first, but I still don't understand how the daughter of a segregationist comparing her father's campaign of hatred and terror against blacks comparing her father, who evolved past his sins to Bush who hasnt' (according to her) is relevant to a discussion on last night's results. I still don't know exactly what you're trying to say with the original post and how you found it enlightening that an Alabama Democrat party hack thinks Bush was worse than her race-baiting segregationist father. She at least can claim to be repairing her father's legacy. I am very curious about your motivations, about what exactly you were trying to say.I posted it because I thought it was interesting and well-written. I thought that under the current circumstances the opinion of the daughter of the last person to run a major Presidential campaign on a platform of segregation would be interesting to a few posters.
Coleman won - thank goodness, how could people vote for Franken?
And there's been a lot more votes counted, and Darcy Burner is losing by a slightly larger margin (almost 2000 votes, up from 600 votes).
And a great piece by the Onion on what obsessive supporters do after he's won.
CR
And there's been a lot more votes counted, and Darcy Burner is losing by a slightly larger margin (almost 2000 votes, up from 600 votes).
And a great piece by the Onion on what obsessive supporters do after he's won.
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
And a great piece by the Onion on what obsessive supporters do after he's won.
Man, The Onion is on fire lately. Great stuff!And a great piece by the Onion on what obsessive supporters do after he's won.
Merkeley won in Oregon.
Most of the votes left to count in WA-08 (Burner) are from Democratic Counties.
Most of the votes left to count in WA-08 (Burner) are from Democratic Counties.
Yeah, the Burner race will be close. But that woman represents all the worst bits of dailykos koolaid drinkers, and I really don't want her in Congress.
But even King County is just barely going for Burner right now - and the first batch of votes they counted was 57% for Burner, and these later votes will be after the whole degree stupidity she put herself in. If she loses King, she's done for, and it could be that way.
CR
But even King County is just barely going for Burner right now - and the first batch of votes they counted was 57% for Burner, and these later votes will be after the whole degree stupidity she put herself in. If she loses King, she's done for, and it could be that way.
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Coleman won - thank goodness, how could people vote for Franken?
I could ask the same thing about those who voted for Coleman. Coleman won - thank goodness, how could people vote for Franken?
In any case, be careful about counting your eggs before they're hatched. We've first gotta do a recount before anything's official, as Coleman's supposed margin of victory was along the lines of 475 votes (out of roughly 2.9 million cast). It's probably going to be a few weeks before we know the results for certain.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Man, The Onion is on fire lately. Great stuff!
Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job Man, The Onion is on fire lately. Great stuff!
Does anybody have the tally of pro-life deomocrats elected this year to the House and Senate?
Bobby Bright - House
Kathy DahlKemper - House
Steve Driehaus - House
Any others? What does that put the total House and Senate Democratic pro-lifers at?
Usually when there is a Republican Pro-life candidate vs a Democratic pro-life candidate I root for the Democrat just to get them in there.
Bobby Bright - House
Kathy DahlKemper - House
Steve Driehaus - House
Any others? What does that put the total House and Senate Democratic pro-lifers at?
Usually when there is a Republican Pro-life candidate vs a Democratic pro-life candidate I root for the Democrat just to get them in there.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Yeah, the Burner race will be close. But that woman represents all the worst bits of dailykos koolaid drinkers, and I really don't want her in Congress.
But even King County is just barely going for Burner right now - and the first batch of votes they counted was 57% for Burner, and these later votes will be after the whole degree stupidity she put herself in. If she loses King, she's done for, and it could be that way.
CR
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?Yeah, the Burner race will be close. But that woman represents all the worst bits of dailykos koolaid drinkers, and I really don't want her in Congress.
But even King County is just barely going for Burner right now - and the first batch of votes they counted was 57% for Burner, and these later votes will be after the whole degree stupidity she put herself in. If she loses King, she's done for, and it could be that way.
CR
Just interested.
Also an update on Tubes' race in Alaska:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...296/558/655425
Tom Begich (Brother of the Democrat and a man highly placed in the campaign team) says the following:
Originally Posted by :
Last precincts in - Mark won them, new numbers are: Begich 103,337 (47%) to Stevens 106,594 (48%) 100% in. Estimate is 60 - 75 thousand yet to count. We are told 15% are from Juneau which I am trying to confirm. We won 64% of the vote in Juneau.
Last precincts in - Mark won them, new numbers are: Begich 103,337 (47%) to Stevens 106,594 (48%) 100% in. Estimate is 60 - 75 thousand yet to count. We are told 15% are from Juneau which I am trying to confirm. We won 64% of the vote in Juneau.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I still don't understand how the daughter of a segregationist comparing her father's campaign of hatred and terror against blacks comparing her father, who evolved past his sins to Bush who hasnt' (according to her) is relevant to a discussion on last night's results. I still don't know exactly what you're trying to say with the original post and how you found it enlightening that an Alabama Democrat party hack thinks Bush was worse than her race-baiting segregationist father. She at least can claim to be repairing her father's legacy. I am very curious about your motivations, about what exactly you were trying to say.
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.I still don't understand how the daughter of a segregationist comparing her father's campaign of hatred and terror against blacks comparing her father, who evolved past his sins to Bush who hasnt' (according to her) is relevant to a discussion on last night's results. I still don't know exactly what you're trying to say with the original post and how you found it enlightening that an Alabama Democrat party hack thinks Bush was worse than her race-baiting segregationist father. She at least can claim to be repairing her father's legacy. I am very curious about your motivations, about what exactly you were trying to say.
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?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO