2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

A good analogy of how the U.S. has become is being in a moderated forum which controls and censors everything you attempt to post.

And, I am NOT alluding to this place, rather I am merely using that as an example.

Your analogy aside, let's be clear here on a few things...

 

One, this is a privately-owned site, and so the owner can make whatever rules he damn well pleases. In this case, that includes removing certain content that is found offensive. That IS freedom - the freedom for SoxTalk to exist and do what it wants.

 

Two, like it or not, this is NOT a public place where you can say anything you please. If we find it offensive, we will take it down. Your "gay fairyoti" line, for example, is close to that line. Please tone that down a bit. (see how I didn't edit your post? Just requested that you follow the rules of our PRIVATE site?)

 

Three, if you think this site censors stuff, try some other Sox sites. We are more open than most. Shop around and see. Every site has its positives and negatives - if you want more "freedom", this is probably your best bet, IMHO.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

LMAO! The AP has apparently decided that pets is an important campaign issue:

 

In poll of pet owners, McCain tops Obama

 

Pet owners find McCain with his house full of animals more appealing than the petless Obama

 

From George Washington's foxhounds Drunkard and Tipsy to George W. Bush's terriers Barney and Miss Beazley, pets are a longtime presidential tradition for which the presumed Republican nominee seems well prepared, with more than a dozen.

 

Democratic candidate Barack Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have a pet, though he has promised his daughters a dog after the election, win or lose.

 

"From an image standpoint, nothing humanizes a candidate more than seeing him lovingly dote on his pet or toss a ball around on the White House lawn," says American Kennel Club spokeswoman Lisa Peterson.

 

An AP-Yahoo News poll found that pet owners favor McCain over Obama 42 percent to 37 percent, with dog owners particularly in McCain's corner.

 

"I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person -- caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners," said Janet Taylor of Plymouth, Mass.

 

Are you freaking kidding me?

[BigSqwert]

"I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person -- caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners," said Janet Taylor of Plymouth, Mass.

What a crock of s***.

 

Disclaimer: This is coming from a vegan.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Teaser for Wednesday's Weekly Poll Data:

Nothing officially public as best as I can tell, but there is a significant spoiler possibility based on some new polling data from june.

However, the data is from a pollster that was accurate in the 2008 primaries, but NOT in the 2004 presidential election.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Week in Review (July 2nd-8th)

It seems like the 4th of July weekend slowed down polling between July 3rd and July 9th. So, most of these polls were released Wednesday and Thursday of last week. Any impact of the Iraq “refinement” fued would not be shown here. However, the nation wide tracking polls have shown no change.

 

Lousiana (Southern Media & Opinion Research) McCain 52%; Obama 36%

Connecticut (Quinnipiac) – Obama 56%; McCain 35%

Gerogia (Strategic Vision) – McCain 51%; Obama 43%; Barr 3%

Florida (Strategic Vision) – McCain 49%; Obama 41%

Massachusetts (Rasmussen) – Obama 53%; McCain 33%

Connecticut (Rasmussen) – Obama 52%; McCain 35%

Rhode Island ( Rhode Island College) – Obama 53%; McCain 25%

Connecticut (Research 2000) - Obama 57%; McCain 35%

New York (Rasmussen) - Obama 60%; McCain 29%

Montana (Rasmussen) – Obama 48%; McCain 43%

Washington (Strategies 360) - Obama 47%; McCain 39%

Georgia (InAdv/PollPosition) - McCain 46%; Obama 44%; Barr (L) 4

Rhode Island (Rasmussen) - Obama 55%; McCain 31%

 

The only major point from this weeks polls is Montana. All the other polls seem to be par for the course. Montana, though, is a bit interesting. It's a complete and exact reversal of a month ago. What does this mean? I have no idea. Rasmussen is on my “use with caution” list, so it could just be a bad poll or an outlier. Only time will tell.

 

Ok, with the officially released polls out of the way, here is the major story of the week to me. Zogby just released a 21 day long polling of all 50 states (or some they say, some states have no data). Here's the basics:

Obama wins 273-160 with 105 too close to call.

Here's the big deal: Bob Barr. According to their polls, he pulls anywhere from 4-9% in KEY states including Nevada, Arizona, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana. According to their polls in those states, Obama wins thanks to Bob Barr. In some of these swing states, 1 or 2 percent could swing the state one way or the other. Barr pulling 5% is a MAJOR deal.

 

Key a CLOSE eye on Bob Barr. He very well could be the Ross Perot of 2008.

 

118 Days until Election Day

Edited July 9, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Quick Update:

Chuck Todd on MSNBC just said he's heard a LOT of private polling shows Obama ahead by small margins in Indiana.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd like to see ONE of these candidates promote a program or policy set that would actually make government less wasteful and more efficient. As of now, both candidates, and for the most part both parties, have stances on the issue that are mildly delusional.

 

The Democrats see a problem - need for alternative energy, lousy schools, etc. - and their reaction is to throw money at government agencies to solve the problem. This is incredibly flawed. Most government agencies are hugely wasteful, and don't contribute as much to the economy as the private sector. Why they think this is the answer is beyond me.

 

Then you have the Republicans, who think that if you simply cut budgets by X%, you will magically make government more efficient. Have any of these guys and gals ever actually functioned in the business world? If you take an already inefficient agency or department, and simply cut their budget by some amount of money, what do you think the result will be? It won't be more efficient government. It will be less efficient, with less services delivered (probably even more of a drop than the spending reduction), because the people left are all lifers who are just protecting their jobs. This is an assinine method for reducing government waste.

 

How about a real program. How about we get some non-government business fire teams (consultants) to analyze these agencies and departments as businesses, and follow their recommendations. That may mean spending more in some places (where they are relatively efficient, or where staffing shortages are decimating their services), and spending less in other places (where money is being wasted). Put actual, real performance standards in place, and here's a novel idea... reward good performance. Look at outsourcing to private industry. Use the money saved from the spending cuts (which are now targeted in an intelligent way) to cut taxes, or fund areas that need more help, or pay off some debt, or hire more competent people at higher salaries (since you will have fewer people doing the work). Or heck, all the above.

 

Please, someone in power, be serious about cutting government waste. I'm tired of this grade school campaign trail garbage that won't do a damn thing.

[lostfan]

I'd like to see ONE of these candidates promote a program or policy set that would actually make government less wasteful and more efficient. As of now, both candidates, and for the most part both parties, have stances on the issue that are mildly delusional.

 

The Democrats see a problem - need for alternative energy, lousy schools, etc. - and their reaction is to throw money at government agencies to solve the problem. This is incredibly flawed. Most government agencies are hugely wasteful, and don't contribute as much to the economy as the private sector. Why they think this is the answer is beyond me.

 

Then you have the Republicans, who think that if you simply cut budgets by X%, you will magically make government more efficient. Have any of these guys and gals ever actually functioned in the business world? If you take an already inefficient agency or department, and simply cut their budget by some amount of money, what do you think the result will be? It won't be more efficient government. It will be less efficient, with less services delivered (probably even more of a drop than the spending reduction), because the people left are all lifers who are just protecting their jobs. This is an assinine method for reducing government waste.

 

How about a real program. How about we get some non-government business fire teams (consultants) to analyze these agencies and departments as businesses, and follow their recommendations. That may mean spending more in some places (where they are relatively efficient, or where staffing shortages are decimating their services), and spending less in other places (where money is being wasted). Put actual, real performance standards in place, and here's a novel idea... reward good performance. Look at outsourcing to private industry. Use the money saved from the spending cuts (which are now targeted in an intelligent way) to cut taxes, or fund areas that need more help, or pay off some debt, or hire more competent people at higher salaries (since you will have fewer people doing the work). Or heck, all the above.

 

Please, someone in power, be serious about cutting government waste. I'm tired of this grade school campaign trail garbage that won't do a damn thing.

Give this guy a standing ovation.

[kapkomet]

I'd like to see ONE of these candidates promote a program or policy set that would actually make government less wasteful and more efficient. As of now, both candidates, and for the most part both parties, have stances on the issue that are mildly delusional.

 

The Democrats see a problem - need for alternative energy, lousy schools, etc. - and their reaction is to throw money at government agencies to solve the problem. This is incredibly flawed. Most government agencies are hugely wasteful, and don't contribute as much to the economy as the private sector. Why they think this is the answer is beyond me.

 

Then you have the Republicans, who think that if you simply cut budgets by X%, you will magically make government more efficient. Have any of these guys and gals ever actually functioned in the business world? If you take an already inefficient agency or department, and simply cut their budget by some amount of money, what do you think the result will be? It won't be more efficient government. It will be less efficient, with less services delivered (probably even more of a drop than the spending reduction), because the people left are all lifers who are just protecting their jobs. This is an assinine method for reducing government waste.

 

How about a real program. How about we get some non-government business fire teams (consultants) to analyze these agencies and departments as businesses, and follow their recommendations. That may mean spending more in some places (where they are relatively efficient, or where staffing shortages are decimating their services), and spending less in other places (where money is being wasted). Put actual, real performance standards in place, and here's a novel idea... reward good performance. Look at outsourcing to private industry. Use the money saved from the spending cuts (which are now targeted in an intelligent way) to cut taxes, or fund areas that need more help, or pay off some debt, or hire more competent people at higher salaries (since you will have fewer people doing the work). Or heck, all the above.

 

Please, someone in power, be serious about cutting government waste. I'm tired of this grade school campaign trail garbage that won't do a damn thing.

 

If you ran for president on that platform, you'd get my vote.

[BigSqwert]

I'd like to see ONE of these candidates promote a program or policy set that would actually make government less wasteful and more efficient. As of now, both candidates, and for the most part both parties, have stances on the issue that are mildly delusional.

 

The Democrats see a problem - need for alternative energy, lousy schools, etc. - and their reaction is to throw money at government agencies to solve the problem. This is incredibly flawed. Most government agencies are hugely wasteful, and don't contribute as much to the economy as the private sector. Why they think this is the answer is beyond me.

 

Then you have the Republicans, who think that if you simply cut budgets by X%, you will magically make government more efficient. Have any of these guys and gals ever actually functioned in the business world? If you take an already inefficient agency or department, and simply cut their budget by some amount of money, what do you think the result will be? It won't be more efficient government. It will be less efficient, with less services delivered (probably even more of a drop than the spending reduction), because the people left are all lifers who are just protecting their jobs. This is an assinine method for reducing government waste.

 

How about a real program. How about we get some non-government business fire teams (consultants) to analyze these agencies and departments as businesses, and follow their recommendations. That may mean spending more in some places (where they are relatively efficient, or where staffing shortages are decimating their services), and spending less in other places (where money is being wasted). Put actual, real performance standards in place, and here's a novel idea... reward good performance. Look at outsourcing to private industry. Use the money saved from the spending cuts (which are now targeted in an intelligent way) to cut taxes, or fund areas that need more help, or pay off some debt, or hire more competent people at higher salaries (since you will have fewer people doing the work). Or heck, all the above.

 

Please, someone in power, be serious about cutting government waste. I'm tired of this grade school campaign trail garbage that won't do a damn thing.

 

I think www.NorthSideSox72_for_President_2012.com is still available.

[Rex Kickass]

Here's the problem. When you have a candidate who actually follows up on his promises to cut waste and make government "solvent" again, they're hated. Because either your pet project gets cut or your taxes go up, or both. And then you hate that governor who did exactly what you asked.

 

If you don't believe me, look at New Jersey.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's the problem. When you have a candidate who actually follows up on his promises to cut waste and make government "solvent" again, they're hated. Because either your pet project gets cut or your taxes go up, or both. And then you hate that governor who did exactly what you asked.

 

If you don't believe me, look at New Jersey.

No need for taxes to go up at all - not sure how that would happen with an efficiency program. And if it actually is done well, people can have MORE pet projects.

 

I think when people are "hated" for cutting government waste, its because they really aren't cutting waste. They are just arbitrarily cutting budget. Big difference.

 

[joeynach]

The one question I have on the election is is this election almost a default win for the democrats. Has the republican party lost by default because of the Bush administration. Meaning with very low approval ratings, the handling of IRAQ, katrina, etc....has this election already been decided. Basically meaning the republican party loses b/c its the same party that is so dissaproved of today. So the democrats, representing everything opposite of what we currently have win by defualt b/c they are different. Its kinda of situation where the current Republican party did so poorly the replacement is an automatic winner, kind of like replacing Dusty Baker or Dick Juaron. If this really is the case lets all go to vegas and bet the house on the Dems to win.

[NorthSideSox72]

The one question I have on the election is is this election almost a default win for the democrats. Has the republican party lost by default because of the Bush administration. Meaning with very low approval ratings, the handling of IRAQ, katrina, etc....has this election already been decided. Basically meaning the republican party loses b/c its the same party that is so dissaproved of today. So the democrats, representing everything opposite of what we currently have win by defualt b/c they are different. Its kinda of situation where the current Republican party did so poorly the replacement is an automatic winner, kind of like replacing Dusty Baker or Dick Juaron. If this really is the case lets all go to vegas and bet the house on the Dems to win.

Its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to call it in the bag for the Dems. See: Hillary Clinton.

 

[Rex Kickass]

No need for taxes to go up at all - not sure how that would happen with an efficiency program. And if it actually is done well, people can have MORE pet projects.

 

I think when people are "hated" for cutting government waste, its because they really aren't cutting waste. They are just arbitrarily cutting budget. Big difference.

 

The problem isn't the programs, most of the time, it's the debt.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem isn't the programs, most of the time, it's the debt.

At the municipal and sometimes state level, yes. At the federal level, no.

 

[Rex Kickass]

At the municipal and sometimes state level, yes. At the federal level, no.

If we were realistic, it would because we would stop using the Social Security trust fund to make our deficit less severe than it really is.

[bmags]

If we were realistic, it would because we would stop using the Social Security trust fund to make our deficit less severe than it really is.

 

ahh, the glory of the government IOU..when the U is the people.

[NorthSideSox72]

If we were realistic, it would because we would stop using the Social Security trust fund to make our deficit less severe than it really is.

I agree. That's why I have also been in favor of removing the SS income cap, to cover exactly that (and pass a law banning such use of those funds).

 

[bmags]

On the other hand, I'm a bit apprehensive. The income tax is so clearly progressive, that it was a nice counter argument to have when people say 'only rich people pay taxes' that payroll taxes were very much regressive. With a larger percentage of their income with the SS taxes than those making more, because of the 103?,000 tax cap.

[BigSqwert]

Another battleground state looking bad for McCain.

[----------]

Was that before or after obama showed us his laughable energy plan?

[southsider2k5]

If we were realistic, it would because we would stop using the Social Security trust fund to make our deficit less severe than it really is.

 

I'd prefer ending the Social Security system all together, but that is just me...

[NorthSideSox72]

Was that before or after obama showed us his laughable energy plan?

His plan has some holes, but its a far sight better than anything that McCain or Bush have offered. Although with McCain, he's sort of changed his mind a few times on it, so its hard to say what his plan really is.

 

[lostfan]

Very few leaders in this country actually know what the f*** they're talking about when it comes to energy, so frankly, I don't want to hear it.