2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[whitesoxfan101]

Biden would be smart to avoid attacking Palin at all costs during their debate. Let her dig her own grave.

[southsider2k5]

Biden would be smart to avoid attacking Palin at all costs during their debate. Let her dig her own grave.

 

Reading some of Biden's choice comments, he is too busy digging his own grave to dig anyone else's.

[whitesoxfan101]

Reading some of Biden's choice comments, he is too busy digging his own grave to dig anyone else's.

 

I agree with this too, which is why the VP debate is going to be so fascinating. It could be a trainwreck either way. I just fear for Palin in this debate, she doesn't seem like she knows what she is talking about yet. The inexperience shows. Biden says things that are dumb, but Palin says things that imply lack of knowledge, and that can look really bad.

Edited September 23, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[Cknolls]

I put a lot of stock into Survey USA, McCain should be worried....

Virginia - Obama +6

Obama (D) - 51%

McCain ® - 45%

 

Obama takes 91% of democrats and McCain takes 87% of Republicans. The tie breaker is independents which make up 22% of those polled. McCain edges out Obama ONLY 48-45. That's nearly a tie. McCain needs those independents to win VA.

 

I also just noticed this: "Among women, Obama led by 6 points before Sarah Palin was named to the GOP ticket, now leads by 16."

 

 

 

There seems to be quite a bit of gloom over a SurveyUSA poll of Virginia that puts Obama up by 6 percent.

 

(I note SUSA has Obama ahead, 49 percent to 45 percent in "Central Virginia," a sub-sample of about 200 voters.)

 

No offense to the fine folks at Survey USA, but I decided to go back and check their last poll in Virginia's 2006 Senate race. They had Jim Webb ahead of George Allen, 52-46. The final results were Webb's 49.6 percent to Allen's 49.2 percent, a margin of 9,329 votes out of 2.37 million cast. SUSA had the state's marriage amendment polling at 42 percent support,and it ended up passing with 57.1 percent of the vote.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Voter hijinks in Ohio as Republicans try to disqualify thousands of absentee ballots.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...30318/1055/NEWS

Oops, sorry, it was a DEMOCRAT trying to disqualify thousands of absoentee ballots.

 

If Ohio polling looks like Chicago, 'thank' Brunner

 

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has a reputation as the most partisan state official in Ohio. And she works hard to earn it. The Democrat's latest stunt rejected absentee ballots for thousands of Republicans.

 

But it's not her first rodeo. Almost as soon as Brunner was elected in 2006, she tried to remove several Republican county elections officials, including Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert Bennett. They accused her of "storm trooper tactics" to silence critics.

 

Then Brunner spread an alarm that Ohio's electronic voting machines were vulnerable to tampering - a favorite claim of the paranoid left. Elections officials who participated in Brunner's study called her conclusions over-hyped "leaps in logic" and said, "The report itself could be viewed as an attack on the elections system ... (that) planted seeds in the mind of the public to mistrust those who oversee elections."

 

Brunner also demanded an overhaul of voting methods just before the March primaries, causing meltdowns in some precincts.

 

And now she's hassling Republicans who want to vote for John McCain.

 

Two Hamilton County voters have sued, accusing her of "the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters."

 

The John McCain campaign sent out more than 1 million applications for absentee ballots to Republicans. Each had a line at the top next to a box: "I am a qualified elector."

 

Brunner sent a memo telling county election officials to reject those applications for absentee ballots if the box was not checked. "Failure to check the box leaves both the applicant and the board of elections without verification that the applicant is a 'qualified elector'," she wrote.

 

But that's contrary to state law and Brunner doesn't have the authority, according to the lawsuit and an opinion from Hamilton County's Republican Prosecutor Joe Deters.

 

Ohio law allows voters to request an absentee ballot on the back of a grocery sack if they want to, as long as they include their name, address, date of birth, signature and either a driver's license number, last four Social Security numbers or a valid picture I.D.

 

There is nothing in the law about checking a box to verify a qualified voter. The voter's signature is enough, because that's what is checked to send ballots, said Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Greg Hartmann, who ran against Brunner in 2006 and is now county chairman for the McCain-Palin campaign. "It's just bald partisanship," he said. "She's trying to disqualify likely McCain voters."

 

The Deters opinion said "it is equally reasonable that the squares are intended simply as bullet points in an inartfully designed application."

 

Brunner said, "While state law does not require a check box, the McCain-Palin campaign designed its form to require that voters check a box to affirmatively state they are qualified electors."

 

Sen. Gary Cates, R-West Chester didn't buy it. "This is not a time to give people the appearance that voters are being suppressed," he said.

 

Majority Floor Leader Sen. Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, said, "Take the politics out and you'd think the state's chief elections official would err on the side of allowing people to vote."

 

State law requires local officials to notify voters if their applications are rejected. That will cause confusion, especially for elderly absentee voters, Hartmann said. It's also costly and time consuming in an election year.

 

Since the Florida debacle in 2000, most states have made voting easier. Ohio now lets anyone get an absentee ballot. This year, Ohio could again decide a close election - and Brunner is inviting the kind of lawsuits and suspicions that destroy public trust.

 

She said Hamilton County "may face other lawsuits or even challenges to the rights of those whose applications they would process" if her memo is ignored.

 

Brunner's web site says she "wants to ensure that Ohio elections are free, fair, open and honest; and to encourage the highest level of participation in our democracy." So why reject 1,500 voters in Hamilton County and thousands more in Ohio?

 

An honest mistake? With Brunner's partisan record, not likely.

 

Laying litigation landmines to lawyer the outcome if Democrats don't win? That fits like a tinfoil hat with her irresponsible attack on Ohio's voting machines.

 

Raw partisanship? Ring the jackpot bell.

 

"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines," Barack Obama said on Sept. 3.

 

I think he was talking about Brunner - the partisan secretary of state who is doing her best to bring Chicago elections to Ohio.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Voter hijinks in Ohio as Republicans try to disqualify thousands of absentee ballots.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...30318/1055/NEWS

Oops, sorry, it was a DEMOCRAT trying to disqualify thousands of absoentee ballots.

I have been thinking... would it be a good idea to have voting and voting machines handled by commissioners of some sort that are NOT tied to a political party?

 

[Balta1701]

I have been thinking... would it be a good idea to have voting and voting machines handled by commissioners of some sort that are NOT tied to a political party?

And we're going to find those people where?

[BigSqwert]

Campbell Brown last night:

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown. "This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

[NorthSideSox72]

And we're going to find those people where?

soxtalk?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Campbell Brown last night:

:notworthy

[whitesoxfan101]

Palin may be strong, tough, and confident, but I don't think the McCain camp's treatment of her has been sexist. I think it's moreso been an admittance of her lack of knowledge on key issues. They aren't afraid to let her talk because she is a woman, they are afraid to let her talk because she doesn't know what to say. Am I wrong? It's certainly possible, but to me, that's the only way to read into why she has been so protected. I think the biggest reason the McCain/Palin ticket has seen it's poll numbers decrease recently other than the economy is the fact they won't let Palin talk. Having somebody with experience questions not talk is bad strategy, because voters can only assume she doesn't get it.

Edited September 24, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[kapkomet]

Palin is a straight talker. (I know, that's a bad pun from the "Straight Talk Express"... but read me out).

 

What I mean by that is, and I think Rex said it best in another thread, she gives a POLI 101 answer to a POLI 401 question, she talks plainly and simple. She doesn't give the "political bulls*** answer" that you'd hear from any of the other three. What does that mean? Most Americans, it's nothing - as a matter of fact, might even be somewhat refreshing. Our darling media? It means they will lamblast every freaking answer she has on anything until the cows come home, because she's not "sophisticated". Is that good or bad? It's both, frankly.

[StrangeSox]

Palin is a straight talker. (I know, that's a bad pun from the "Straight Talk Express"... but read me out).

 

What I mean by that is, and I think Rex said it best in another thread, she gives a POLI 101 answer to a POLI 401 question, she talks plainly and simple. She doesn't give the "political bulls*** answer" that you'd hear from any of the other three. What does that mean? Most Americans, it's nothing - as a matter of fact, might even be somewhat refreshing. Our darling media? It means they will lamblast every freaking answer she has on anything until the cows come home, because she's not "sophisticated". Is that good or bad? It's both, frankly.

 

I have to disagree with that. She gives the POLI 101 answer because she doesn't understand it at a higher level (imo). Ignorance is not refreshing to me. You can have a very solid understanding of the issues at hand and still be able to explain things in simple terms. Some people have great knowledge but are poor teachers/ explainers. She appears to have a simple understanding of the issues, hence her simple explanations.

[whitesoxfan101]

Palin is a straight talker. (I know, that's a bad pun from the "Straight Talk Express"... but read me out).

 

What I mean by that is, and I think Rex said it best in another thread, she gives a POLI 101 answer to a POLI 401 question, she talks plainly and simple. She doesn't give the "political bulls*** answer" that you'd hear from any of the other three. What does that mean? Most Americans, it's nothing - as a matter of fact, might even be somewhat refreshing. Our darling media? It means they will lamblast every freaking answer she has on anything until the cows come home, because she's not "sophisticated". Is that good or bad? It's both, frankly.

 

I am not going to disagree with any of this, but they have to let her talk more. A lot more. It's going to aid in getting them beat if they don't. The only other point I'll make it some people could call giving the POLI 101 answer straight talk, others would call it lacking knowledge. I am not sure if she even knows how to give the POLI 401 answer, and that's a concern.

Edited September 24, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[kapkomet]

I have to disagree with that. She gives the POLI 101 answer because she doesn't understand it at a higher level (imo). Ignorance is not refreshing to me. You can have a very solid understanding of the issues at hand and still be able to explain things in simple terms. Some people have great knowledge but are poor teachers/ explainers. She appears to have a simple understanding of the issues, hence her simple explanations.

I do agree that is the case on some issues. Absolutely.

 

Others, I think she knows her stuff but they don't want to have to sit there and defend every word she says.

 

I think the debates will prove some of both sides out.

 

[Balta1701]

Others, I think she knows her stuff but they don't want to have to sit there and defend every word she says.

Another key part of it is that she just might not be familiar with some of the, let's say, "Code words" used by both sides to avoid actually stating their positions. Like how opposing abortion in the case of rape or incest becomes talking about a "Culture of life" or something like that.

[kapkomet]

Another key part of it is that she just might not be familiar with some of the, let's say, "Code words" used by both sides to avoid actually stating their positions. Like how opposing abortion in the case of rape or incest becomes talking about a "Culture of life" or something like that.

I don't agree with your exact example, but I agree with your point.

 

[lostfan]

Palin is a straight talker. (I know, that's a bad pun from the "Straight Talk Express"... but read me out).

 

What I mean by that is, :lolhittingand I think Rex said it best in another thread , she gives a POLI 101 answer to a POLI 401 question, she talks plainly and simple. She doesn't give the "political bulls*** answer" that you'd hear from any of the other three. What does that mean? Most Americans, it's nothing - as a matter of fact, might even be somewhat refreshing. Our darling media? It means they will lamblast every freaking answer she has on anything until the cows come home, because she's not "sophisticated". Is that good or bad? It's both, frankly.

That was in another forum actually

[lostfan]

We will see in the debates, maybe not for certain, but we'll at least have a much stronger indication. IMO if you want to refute the fact that your candidate doesn't know something what better way to say it then to have him/her go out there go tell everybody. If you can't do that, you can't do that though... and you can't hide it for that long, either. If you can, there's nothing to worry about. I've noticed at her speaking events where she is getting friendly softball questions from the crowd, they'll ask her a question, and she gives an answer that makes them all smile and feel good, but it doesn't actually answer the question. One example: someone asked if she could get more specific on her views to show people how smart she is, she said sure I can, ask me anything, play stump the candidate even. That was her whole answer though.

 

Obama went through this earlier in the primaries though, his campaign had pretty strict discipline when he was bringing himself out, and on managing his image. But he had months and months to do it, too. Palin has weeks. We will be able to see during the debates what her answers to questions are (depending on how tough the moderator's questions are).

[Steve9347]

We will see in the debates

Maybe not. McCain's running...

[Rex Kickass]

Palin is a straight talker. (I know, that's a bad pun from the "Straight Talk Express"... but read me out).

 

What I mean by that is, and I think Rex said it best in another thread, she gives a POLI 101 answer to a POLI 401 question, she talks plainly and simple. She doesn't give the "political bulls*** answer" that you'd hear from any of the other three. What does that mean? Most Americans, it's nothing - as a matter of fact, might even be somewhat refreshing. Our darling media? It means they will lamblast every freaking answer she has on anything until the cows come home, because she's not "sophisticated". Is that good or bad? It's both, frankly.

 

If I'm a professor, I want the answer to the poli 401 question at the poli 401 level.

If I'm a voter, I want a candidate who can answer above a poli sci 101 level too.

 

It's not about sophistication or bulls***, its about knowing and understanding the actual issues. It's pretty clear that she doesn't. And that is an unmitigated bad thing.

[kapkomet]

If I'm a professor, I want the answer to the poli 401 question at the poli 401 level.

If I'm a voter, I want a candidate who can answer above a poli sci 101 level too.

 

It's not about sophistication or bulls***, its about knowing and understanding the actual issues. It's pretty clear that she doesn't. And that is an unmitigated bad thing.

That's why I said it's both good and bad.

[southsider2k5]

If I'm a professor, I want the answer to the poli 401 question at the poli 401 level.

If I'm a voter, I want a candidate who can answer above a poli sci 101 level too.

 

It's not about sophistication or bulls***, its about knowing and understanding the actual issues. It's pretty clear that she doesn't. And that is an unmitigated bad thing.

 

There is always this too. Just because she gives a 101 answer, doesn't mean she doesn't know it on a 401 level. You risk alienating a lot more people the more detail you get into. Its the same reason Obama stayed vague for the first year of his campaign, and ran for President after two years in Congress instead of 6. The less that other party has to pick apart of your record, the better.

[BigSqwert]

Another example of why they won't let her do interviews:

 

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

 

Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

 

Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.

[StrangeSox]

There is always this too. Just because she gives a 101 answer, doesn't mean she doesn't know it on a 401 level. You risk alienating a lot more people the more detail you get into. Its the same reason Obama stayed vague for the first year of his campaign, and ran for President after two years in Congress instead of 6. The less that other party has to pick apart of your record, the better.

 

I could buy that if she ever let a 401 answer slip out. Hell, even a 201 answer. She just hasn't demonstrated any strong knowledge at this point.