2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[mr_genius]

would you also like to argue that Reagan and Clinton lost the debates and won the election?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I know the GOP here will take this with a grain of salt given the source, HuffingtonPost, but i think it is worth a read.

 

Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?

 

The synopses of the article is this:

Even though the most recent round of national polls show a tie or McCain lead, that might be significantly misrepresenting the real "mood" of the electorate. Polls are conducted using weighting. And it used to be fairly heavily weighted democratic for the better part of the spring and early summer. Now that we are in September, all of a sudden post-GOP convention, it's now 48% Dem - 48% Rep, which is a fairly sizable shift.

 

Gallup's own GOP identification (including leaners) has swung six points in the last month, from 42 percent of voters to 48, according to tables provided to the Huffington Post. Meanwhile, solid and leaning Democrats have fallen from 52 to 48 percent of those polled. For political scientists who believe that partisanship is largely stable over time -- and who take note of the advantage in voter registration being experienced by Democrats during the same period -- the newly GOP-heavy poll samples can raise eyebrows.

 

They also point out that voter registration is states that track party show that registered democrats out number republicans 42 million to 31 million. And they add that polls often dont reflect newly registered voters.

 

They do point out that it is entirely possible it really is 48-48, but that just doesn't seem very likely given the current political climate.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Flash Tizzle]

UH OH

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...k_on_a_pig.html

 

Obviously, I don't actually believe he meant it in the way it'll be portrayed. "Pig" more than likely refers to current Bush policies. It's just not an intelligent choice of words. I read, albeit through the comments on a conservative blog (so I don't know if it's true), that Biden claims Palin as VP would be a "step back for women." Not good.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Flash Tizzle

[HuskyCaucasian]

UH OH

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...k_on_a_pig.html

 

Obviously, I don't actually believe he meant it in the way it'll be portrayed. "Pig" more than likely refers to current Bush policies. It's just not an intelligent choice of words. I read, albeit through the comments on a conservative blog (so I don't know if it's true), that Biden claims Palin as VP would be a "step back for women." Not good.

I tend to think this is slightly more news worthy:

 

What they DONT mention is in essence, Obama supported "age appropriate" sex-education for children as a means of teaching them what was proper or inproper touching, as well as to protect them against pedophiles.

 

Obama quickly responded:

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

 

So, the McCain groupies have now mocked community organizers and teaching kids how to avoid pedophiles. Classy. Honorable.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

talk about dead on, this projection was made in the middle of august:

[HuskyCaucasian]

UH OH

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...k_on_a_pig.html

 

Obviously, I don't actually believe he meant it in the way it'll be portrayed. "Pig" more than likely refers to current Bush policies. It's just not an intelligent choice of words. I read, albeit through the comments on a conservative blog (so I don't know if it's true), that Biden claims Palin as VP would be a "step back for women." Not good.

Quick follow up:

Obama is fond of this particular phrase. To wit, in 2007:

'I think that both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,' Sen. Barack Obama said yesterday in a telephone interview. 'George Bush has given a mission to General Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.

 

And so is John McCain. Speaking about Hillary Clinton....

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health-care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the 1990s.

 

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.

 

Context is everything folks, but I'd expect context doesnt apply to the McCain Campaign. The WHOLE quote:

"John McCain says he’s about change too and so I guess his whole angle is ‘watch out George Bush - except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education, policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics – we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.’ That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing, something different. But you know you can’t put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Edited September 10, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

That’s just calling something the same thing, something different. But you know you can’t put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

I can agree it's a fair point that the expression can be judged as sexist. Perhaps it's one of those that should be retired.

 

But I wonder...if the Obama campaign flipped out at a remark like that...wouldn't they be accused already of having played the race card?

[Rex Kickass]

I can agree it's a fair point that the expression can be judged as sexist. Perhaps it's one of those that should be retired.

 

But I wonder...if the Obama campaign flipped out at a remark like that...wouldn't they be accused already of having played the race card?

 

Depends on if its revealed Obama billed the government to sleep at home that day.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I can agree it's a fair point that the expression can be judged as sexist. Perhaps it's one of those that should be retired.

The problem is that when you look at the whole paragraph of what he said, it isnt even in the vicinity of sexist. He CLEARLY was referring to the policies, not the people. Yes, should he tread more lightly these days? Yea, unfortunately. Like i said a while back, ANYTHING that is even in the ballpark of possibly seeming if you squint your eyes looks kinda sorta like sexism, the McCain campaign will pull out the card.

 

Obama aide Anita Dunn responds to the McCain campaign's claim that Obama compared Palin to a pig:

Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.

[clyons]

Carter lost to Reagan during the debates, Mondale lost to Reagan during the debates, Clinton beat Bush I during debates, Clinton beat Dole during debates, Gore lost to GW Bush (unbelievable as it may sound that GW could defeat ANYONE in a debate) during the debates. Kerry sucked during the debates, lost.

 

Even if these debate "wins" are true, that certainly doesn't equate to cause and effect with respect to the election victories. That's circular reasoning (at best), and offers no real support for your conclusory assertion. Are you seriously contending that these elections were "close" until the debates decided things? That both of Reagan's landslides were horse races until he verbally bested Carter and Mondale, respectively? That voters were radically undecided about tossing and/or retaining incumbent presidents despite recessionary (Bush I) and robust (Clinton) economies until they heard the candidates reply to verbal queries from Jim Lehrer or Bernard Shaw on a common stage? That's just not accurate. Debates may go a long way towards wooing undecideds, but to say that elections are won or lost during them is a real stretch. And this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue; both history and political science bear this out.

Edited September 10, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[lostfan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080909...clatchy/3040652

Federal deficit soaring, but McCain, Obama offer no answers By David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers

Tue Sep 9, 5:32 PM ET

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Just weeks before the government's fiscal year ends Sept. 30 , the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday projected a near-record federal budget deficit of $407 billion , sharply higher than White House projections six weeks ago and more than double last year's figure.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Mammoth federal-budget deficits feed inflation, make America dependent on foreign lenders, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on the growing national debt and drain capital savings from more productive investments.

 

The widening gap between what the government spends and the revenue it brings in is sure to weigh on the next president and impede his efforts to spend on new or larger programs or to cut taxes.

 

Yet John McCain and Barack Obama show few signs that they're ready to take tough steps to curb deficits, according to budget analysts.

 

"I don't think either candidate is treating the deficit, or the debt, seriously. And I don't see any proposals from either one that would make the situation any better," said Robert Bixby , the executive director of the Concord Coalition , a bipartisan budget-watchdog organization.

 

Maya MacGuineas , the president of the bipartisan Center for a Responsible Federal Budget , said in a statement that both candidates "are promising hundreds of billions more in spending and tax cuts than they are paying for."

 

Republican nominee McCain has promised to balance the budget by 2013, but most analysts consider that goal elusive unless lawmakers make radical changes in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funding. McCain has made no such dramatic proposals.

 

Obama issued a statement Tuesday on the new data, promising that he'd "bring real change by cutting taxes for middle-class families and small businesses, paying for all his proposals to reduce the deficit" and working toward fiscal responsibility. He'd let tax cuts for the wealthiest earners expire and would impose higher taxes on certain corporations.

 

However, the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center has found that Obama's tax-reduction plan would increase the national debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain wants to leave existing tax cuts in place rather than let them expire, which the center said would add $5 trillion to the debt.

 

The CBO also offered a dismal forecast Tuesday, projecting a record deficit of $438 billion in the coming year due to the slowing economy, which would reduce tax receipts to the Treasury.

 

That fiscal 2009 deficit could rise another $83 billion if Congress , as expected, adjusts the alternative minimum tax. The deficit projection also doesn't include the potential costs to taxpayers from last weekend's seizure of mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . The CBO had estimated a takeover cost of $25 billion , although financial experts suggest that it could exceed $100 billion .

 

The CBO's latest estimate for fiscal 2008 is $18 billion higher than the Bush administration's projection six weeks ago. The record is $413 billion in fiscal 2004. Fiscal 2007's deficit was $161 billion .

 

"The significant expansion in the deficit is the result of a substantial increase in spending and a halt in the growth of tax revenues," the CBO said.

 

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that one big reason the deficit went up was the stimulus that President Bush signed into law in February. The CBO said that another large part of the deficit's unexpected growth came from rising unemployment-benefit payments and higher spending to cover insured deposits in insolvent financial institutions.

 

Another boost to the deficit came from Congress and Bush's appetite for discretionary spending, which is expected to rise by $85 billion , or 8.1 percent, in the current fiscal year, mostly because of higher defense costs.

 

The CBO projected that economic growth would slow to a 1.5 percent annual rate this calendar year and 1.1 percent next year. Even if the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2011 , the deficit would be $325 billion the following year.

 

To bridge the gap between spending and tax revenues, the federal government borrows, increasing the national debt. It's grown from $5.7 trillion in 2000 to almost $9.7 trillion on Tuesday.

 

Analyst Bixby doubted that either presidential candidate's proposals would make a serious dent in the deficit and debt.

 

"Even if both of them can pay for their new initiatives and not make the situation any worse, the situation is unsustainable," he said. "Simply treading water is not good enough if you are headed over the falls."

[Balta1701]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080909...clatchy/3040652

The constituency favoring a balanced budget has never and will never be anywhere close to as large as the people in that constituency think it is.

[whitesoxfan101]

The debates don't mean a whole lot unless somebody f***s up really badly, IMO. Outside of something earth shattering happening, I don't see the debates having a big affect on who wins. Everybody already knows where the candidates stand on the issues and so on. The only debate that could matter is the vice presidential debate. Between Palin's inexperience and Biden's combustability, you perhaps could get the "earth shattering" event there.

[EvilMonkey]

I also think that debates, unless very one sided, don't seem to have a huge impact. But occasionally you have race-changing events, like what Hillary had during her Senate run. When that one guy came across the stage towards her demanding that she sign a pledge, that sealed his fate, especially with women. I think the VP debates will provide more excitement, with people wondering which will happen first, Joe insult women or Sarah have a brain cramp.

[lostfan]

The constituency favoring a balanced budget has never and will never be anywhere close to as large as the people in that constituency think it is.

Unfortunately, this is correct.

[NorthSideSox72]

The constituency favoring a balanced budget has never and will never be anywhere close to as large as the people in that constituency think it is.

I find this is true of almost any issue-specific constituency.

 

And on the debate topic, it can make a difference, but it hasn't lately. Kerry stomped all over Bush in the 2004 debates - the after polls showed that clearly, even among Bush supporters - and that did raise Kerry's poll standing a bit each time. But every time, shortly after, the bump Kerry got would fade away.

 

[kapkomet]

I find this is true of almost any issue-specific constituency.

 

And on the debate topic, it can make a difference, but it hasn't lately. Kerry stomped all over Bush in the 2004 debates - the after polls showed that clearly, even among Bush supporters - and that did raise Kerry's poll standing a bit each time. But every time, shortly after, the bump Kerry got would fade away.

I pretty much think that this is going to turn into an election night barnburner. By the way, it will be only a week or so after the Sox (not the f'in Sawks) win the W.S.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is of interesting note.

http://www.wsaz.com/political/headlines/28118604.html

New polling from Mark Blankenship Enterprises shows the John McCain/Sarah Palin Republican presidential ticket has a 5% lead over the Barack Obama/Joe Biden Democratic presidential ticket in West Virginia.

 

A poll of 432 registered and likely voters taken over this last weekend shows McCain/Palin with 44% support compared to 39% support for Obama/Biden. 17% of voters are undecided.

 

Many people think Obama didnt have a shot in hell of winning WV. Might be in play. Hillary... where are you?

[Balta1701]

This is of interesting note.

http://www.wsaz.com/political/headlines/28118604.html

 

 

Many people think Obama didnt have a shot in hell of winning WV. Might be in play. Hillary... where are you?

That's a frankly tiny sample size though.

[EvilMonkey]

What's up with Joe in this clip? Is he angling for a way to drop off the ticket or something? Or just shameless pandering to the PUMAs? Or both?

[lostfan]

You know why campaigns always turn negative? Always? It's actually kind of simple and it's really common sense, and should be for most people, but for some reason, quite often it's not. You have this:

Candidate 1: True Positive, True Negative

Candidate 2: True Positive, True Negative

 

Candidate 1 wants to tell people things about himself that are positive. He doesn't normally want to focus on Candidate 2's positives except for the obligatory show of respect, and he wants to avoid discussing his own negatives if at all possible. The same thing applies to Candidate 2, and before long, one of them runs out of positive things to say about themselves and discusses their opponent, and they aren't going to say positive things (unless they are stupid). The other candidate has to respond in kind now.

 

These campaigns get particularly ugly when you add False Positive and False Negative to the equation though.

[clyons]

Poll shows Obama increasing his lead in Ohio post-Palin:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stor...08/daily36.html

 

I am not at as knowledgeable about polls as others here appear to be. Is this anything?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Poll shows Obama increasing his lead in Ohio post-Palin:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stor...08/daily36.html

 

I am not at as knowledgeable about polls as others here appear to be. Is this anything?

here's what I've seen so far:

Post-Palin pick, the polls have tightened nationally with McCain in the lead in some. But on a state by state, it's gotten tighter, but Obama still holds the edge by a slim margin. That Ohio poll is the first poll where I've seen Obama take a slightly bigger lead in a state. Mostly, it's tightened by a point or two. In my opinion, that bolds well for Obama. After all the hits and Palin bounce, Obama still has a slight edge. But it wont take too much to swing one way or another.

 

And a poll done by FOX News/Rasmussen released 2 days before this one, shows McCain +7. Ohio has been VERY hard to nail down. Almost every other poll shows the other candidate int he lead. But, the Quinnipiac has almost 3 times the sample size as the FOX News/Rasmussen poll, so that might be something. Ultimatly., it comes down to weighting.

 

In my opinion, polls are not an accurate reflection of the electorate. They are a best guess projection. Yes they are based on strong research and principles, but in the end, you have to decide how to weight the poll and that is not an exact science.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[whitesoxfan101]

here's what I've seen so far:

Post-Palin pick, the polls have tightened nationally with McCain in the lead in some. But on a state by state, it's gotten tighter, but Obama still holds the edge by a slim margin. That Ohio poll is the first poll where I've seen Obama take a slightly bigger lead in a state. Mostly, it's tightened by a point or two. In my opinion, that bolds well for Obama. After all the hits and Palin bounce, Obama still has a slight edge. But it wont take too much to swing one way or another.

 

And a poll done by FOX News/Rasmussen released 2 days before this one, shows McCain +7. Ohio has been VERY hard to nail down. Almost every other poll shows the other candidate int he lead. But, the Quinnipiac has almost 3 times the sample size as the FOX News/Rasmussen poll, so that might be something. Ultimatly., it comes down to weighting.

 

In my opinion, polls are not an accurate reflection of the electorate. They are a best guess projection. Yes they are based on strong research and principles, but in the end, you have to decide how to weight the poll and that is not an exact science.

 

I think this whole election is hard to nail down. In all honesty, we are going to have to wait until November 4th and wait and see what happens. It's going to be a fun day and a very close race, and who knows who will win. I can't wait to see.

[BigSqwert]

Watched most of the forum on "Service" earlier tonight. Both candidates did very well and were refreshing to listen to. It's too bad that starting tomorrow it's back to mudslinging. I'm sure we can expect another 54 days of it too.