US Presidential Elections

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

i read this article by Bobby Kennedy in the Rolling Stone magazine, pretty scary stuff for "the greatest democracy in the world TM"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_vote/print

---

Nice job finding this

Normally this is a huge issue and definitely helped Bush in 2000 and 2004. On the flip side, JFK is widely accepted to have ahem...had connections with some er, people who may or may not be connected with certain organisations - allegedly.

The aspects of this race that gives me the sense that this will not be as critical factor as historically are:

African American turnout likely to be much higher than ever before

The Obama "ground game" - this essentially involves "get out the vote effort" but also is precision around voter registration and eligibility issues

The mid terms in 2004 flipped many states, gubernatorial mansions and state legislatures into Dem control


Clearly the core analysis is right - the US system is utterly corrupt and a part of election strategy is to "out - corrupt" your opponent

The Dems are vastly superior at this stuff than before, so I remain bullish for Dem hopes




ps - just finished Angler by Barton Gellman - a stufy of Cheney - umissable reading

Yeah, corruption pays. Wooo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Nice job finding this

Normally this is a huge issue and definitely helped Bush in 2000 and 2004. On the flip side, JFK is widely accepted to have ahem...had connections with some er, people who may or may not be connected with certain organisations - allegedly.

The aspects of this race that gives me the sense that this will not be as critical factor as historically are:

African American turnout likely to be much higher than ever before

The Obama "ground game" - this essentially involves "get out the vote effort" but also is precision around voter registration and eligibility issues

The mid terms in 2004 flipped many states, gubernatorial mansions and state legislatures into Dem control


Clearly the core analysis is right - the US system is utterly corrupt and a part of election strategy is to "out - corrupt" your opponent

The Dems are vastly superior at this stuff than before, so I remain bullish for Dem hopes




ps - just finished Angler by Barton Gellman - a stufy of Cheney - umissable reading

---

You left out Hispanic voters. They will have a big say in this election. The 44% who voted for Bush in the last election is now down to less than 30%. They are enraged by being sterotyped as all illegals by Fox, CNN (Dobbs) Coulter and various other right wing nutjobs on Talk Radio. They are moving to the Dems in large numbers.
http://hispanic.cc/hispanics_will_pu...er_the_top.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar

You left out Hispanic voters. They will have a big say in this election. The 44% who voted for Bush in the last election is now down to less than 30%. They are enraged by being sterotyped as all illegals by Fox, CNN (Dobbs) Coulter and various other right wing nutjobs on Talk Radio. They are moving to the Dems in large numbers.
http://hispanic.cc/hispanics_will_pu...er_the_top.htm

---

there was a worry that the hispanic vote that went with Hilary wouldnt go with Obama but that fear appears to not have materialised.

I love watching CNN for political coverage, as i feel they are relatively impartial but i detest Lou Dobbs, the populist.... populist my arse. He'd vote Republican if he didnt think he should be president himself. The living embodiment of american fear-mongering. Brings on weak guests to shout down and passes smart arse remarks when someone catches him out. Cant stand the guy....

Angus, i read that article in the Rolling Stone and found it pretty easy online when i searched. Their political commentary, while naturally very pro-Democrat/Obama, is pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

i read this article by Bobby Kennedy in the Rolling Stone magazine, pretty scary stuff for "the greatest democracy in the world TM"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_vote/print

---

I'm just going to bed so haven't had time to really read that article, but just remember reading one dealing with ths issue in Time this week: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...853300,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Clearly the core analysis is right - the US system is utterly corrupt and a part of election strategy is to "out - corrupt" your opponent

---

Also ensures the 2 party state as almost impossible to challenge it.

Corruption is why we win!

I predict an Obama landslide - first indications should be about midnight our time when the first results from some of the Virginia counties come it. They are usually a good indication of which way the wind is blowing.

Obama's granny just died. Take note Stephen Ireland.

A couple of handy guides to the complexities of tomorrow night:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5003326.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...08/7705795.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Obama's granny just died. Take note Stephen Ireland.

---

California GOP files FEC complaint over Obama visit to Grandmother.
Click

Nice timing:rolleyes:

I hope they(GOP)get their ass handed to them tomorrow.

I do too. Is there any truth in the above though? I would have thought Obama would be clever enough - and wealthy enough from his book sales alone - to not need to put himself in that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I do too. Is there any truth in the above though? I would have thought Obama would be clever enough - and wealthy enough from his book sales alone - to not need to put himself in that position.

---

According to the article, his lawyers vetted the trip. There is nothing to say he didn't fund it himself anyway. GOP grasping at straws at this stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangeirish

According to the article, his lawyers vetted the trip. There is nothing to say he didn't fund it himself anyway. GOP grasping at straws at this stage.

---

pretty rotten straw to reach for if you're going to pick one eh? they've been grasping the whole time and have tried to paint obama as everything BUT american. except the fact is, conservative white men are a minority in this country and they don't seem to realize this. the combined voting power of liberal men, women, and minorities dwarfs them in scale and they are significantly leaning toward obama. obama's sh!t stinks too, particularly on the telecommunications immunity flip-flop and offshore drilling stances. all moderate b.s., time to hold the nose...

I actually know some seriously level headed people in Boston who have been democrats a lifetime but are voting McCain (McCainocrats) . They do not trust Obama and his wealth. They are very suspicious of him and will not vote for someone they know very little about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lofty9

I actually know some seriously level headed people in Boston who have been democrats a lifetime but are voting McCain (McCainocrats) . They do not trust Obama and his wealth. They are very suspicious of him and will not vote for someone they know very little about.

---

TBH I'm getting really sick of hearing his "change...change...change" manifesto. Instead I'd actually like to hear more about the policies that will help to implement this miraculous change. Surely that's the best way of proving to people that he will be a breath of fresh air. I'm surprised more Americans haven't got sick of hearing the same lines (then again, McCain is much the same). I'm sure he'll help to make America and the world marginally better, but that just isn't enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lofty9

I actually know some seriously level headed people in Boston who have been democrats a lifetime but are voting McCain (McCainocrats) . They do not trust Obama and his wealth. They are very suspicious of him and will not vote for someone they know very little about.

---

On the flip side of that, there are a lot of republican women in our area who have been put off by the thought of Palin becoming President, in the event McCain kicks the bucket. Also, she has pushed independents to Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lofty9

They do not trust Obama and his wealth.

---

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I don't even know how to respond to that.

---

Please respond, rather than making flippant remarks. They are suspicious of his odyssey and rise. They live in a city he was educated in and know a lot more about the judicial and political system there than I do. THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM!! Simple enough?

Really really tired of people saying "He doesn't talk about his policies" -WAKE UP FFS. Have you followed this race AT ALL. Did you watch the debates, did you watch the speeches, the interviews? Jaysus Christ its all out there FFS. On the other hand we have a McCain campaign that was to busy trying to smear to even bother there ass explaining their policies. "Cut taxes, stay the course," aye those are great policies :rolleyes: .

Also really sick of people saying "We don't know enough about him". Are you for real? TWO autobiographies, and he's been under the media microscope for 2 years solid, and the media periphary since 2004. And yet you're all comfortable with Palin, who you've known since 3 months ago - barely.

in my opinion, that excuse comes across as little more than thinly veiled racism. Obama is not wealthy, per se. Certainly not wealthy compared to Mr McCain and his 9 houses. Do your friends not recall the furore of a few weeks ago when John McCain, while trying to make himself out as "the common man" mentioned that he had 9 houses, but he wasnt sure - he couldnt remember the exact amount of houses he owns... LOL.

Obama has raised considerable money for his campaign, more than ever before, but he is not as wealthy as McCain. Your friends appear to have their wires crossed.

That said, i think McCain is a good person and would be a far better president than Bush was (not hard, i know). He just falls short on economic policy. Unfortunately for him, foreign policy is not the main issue this time round.

To the others who are sick of the Obama message, you need to research what he has said. He will bring about change in the medicare system, education system - by making them more easily available to all people. Regarding foreign policy, he intends to sit down and talk with Americas enemies, something that i think needs to be done. The hardline Bush stance has simply not worked on any level.

Obama as american president is a pretty exciting thing, in my opinion.

Obama, good for the world, bad for Ireland.

Hilary would've been a much more effective president, but nowhere near as charasmatic (depends on whether you view "the person" as being the important one or "the person behind the person").
I'd still vote for Obama if I had a vote today though. Big shackle off America's back if he wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

TBH I'm getting really sick of hearing his "change...change...change" manifesto. Instead I'd actually like to hear more about the policies that will help to implement this miraculous change. Surely that's the best way of proving to people that he will be a breath of fresh air. I'm surprised more Americans haven't got sick of hearing the same lines (then again, McCain is much the same). I'm sure he'll help to make America and the world marginally better, but that just isn't enough for me.

---

Can I respectfully suggest that in fact you don't ? Political parties globally have figured out that giving detailed policies is a one way ticket to losing

Any policy involves winners and losers and pols do not articulate policies without ensuring that the losers are irrelevant - hence the Obama 95% tax cut where the losers are the uber wealthy.

So, platitudes are the order of the day - providing details on policy is a non starter, unless they are populist with no downside

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

TBH I'm getting really sick of hearing his "change...change...change" manifesto. Instead I'd actually like to hear more about the policies that will help to implement this miraculous change.

---

All you want to know here.
Clear differences in policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Can I respectfully suggest that in fact you don't ? Political parties globally have figured out that giving detailed policies is a one way ticket to losing

Any policy involves winners and losers and pols do not articulate policies without ensuring that the losers are irrelevant - hence the Obama 95% tax cut where the losers are the uber wealthy.

So, platitudes are the order of the day - providing details on policy is a non starter, unless they are populist with no downside

---

Actually, I really, really do. The debates were very interesting for me as it gave me my first proper insight into each candidate's policies. Before then it was difficult to work out what each one stood for. It didn't make me less likely to vote for either one of them (although that was partly due to the fact that I'd already made my mind up. It was the same with Kerry in 2004. During that election the main talking point - from what I can recall - was Kerry's record in Vietnam. That has very little to do with how he would have acted as president of the US.

Every election in the US seems to be a popularity contest. I was in America for much of the last election campaign and all I was hearing was (to paraphrase) "Does Kerry have the character to be the Commander In Chief" or "Kerry is un-American". WTF do either of those things mean? I know of quite a few people who, despite never really having an interest in politics before, seem to absolutely love Obama and will deride you if you don't, when they actually know very little about what he stands for. I personally want to know what each candidates views are. That will show me whether they have the "character" required to be president, not whether they were discharged honourably from a war 30 years ago. I know the GOP are largely responsible for this, but the Democratics are culpable too.

For the record, I'd vote McKinney.

Can't get much more straightforward; there's a table explaining their stances on major issues further on in the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...854818,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

Actually, I really, really do. The debates were very interesting for me as it gave me my first proper insight into each candidate's policies. Before then it was difficult to work out what each one stood for. It didn't make me less likely to vote for either one of them (although that was partly due to the fact that I'd already made my mind up. It was the same with Kerry in 2004. During that election the main talking point - from what I can recall - was Kerry's record in Vietnam. That has very little to do with how he would have acted as president of the US.

Every election in the US seems to be a popularity contest. I was in America for much of the last election campaign and all I was hearing was (to paraphrase) "Does Kerry have the character to be the Commander In Chief" or "Kerry is un-American". WTF do either of those things mean? I know of quite a few people who, despite never really having an interest in politics before, seem to absolutely love Obama and will deride you if you don't, when they actually know very little about what he stands for. I personally want to know what each candidates views are. That will show me whether they have the "character" required to be president, not whether they were discharged honourably from a war 30 years ago. I know the GOP are largely responsible for this, but the Democratics are culpable too.

---

Sorry, I said it badly. I meant that ideally, yes, we would all genuinely like to see the actual policies from the candidates on a set of issues and then we could assess their appropriateness.

Firstly, history has shown us that candidates policies are directionally what they actually believe but are not really what they will do.

The other problem is that candidates set the questions - elections are supposed to be about competing answers to questions - in fact the campaigns compete to set the questions - and the media play along.

The Kerry issues you correctly reference were set by Rove and the media played along.

Sorry for the long response - where I end up is that "we" don't actually want detailed policies - I would really love to see them - but it is never going to happen because if candidates did that, the narrative would become about who would lose out as a result of those policies and that would become the story.

The nation generally has no cognitave attention span to actually weigh up the issues and to make a determination - which is precisely why the politicians have no interest in presenting the issues in the way that we would all like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Sorry for the long response - where I end up is that "we" don't actually want detailed policies - I would really love to see them - but it is never going to happen because if candidates did that, the narrative would become about who would lose out as a result of those policies and that would become the story.

The nation generally has no cognitave attention span to actually weigh up the issues and to make a determination - which is precisely why the politicians have no interest in presenting the issues in the way that we would all like.

---

that's a great post man, i think you nailed it. "framing" they call it, don't they? "framing the debate." vomit. regl'ar americans love narrative, story, romance. weepy string music and wheat fields during insurance adverts, that type of thing. their sports telecasts are constantly cutting away to secondary reporters for sappy human interest angles, nfl, olympics, all their manly sports. it's quite homosexual, really, while being as anti-gay as possible, if that makes any sense.

kerry tried unsuccessfully to stay above the rovian frame-slander regarding his vietnam record (only in america: a rich guy who actually went TWICE gets tarred while his opponent and associated cronies used their connections for every conceivable avenue out of the draft) - in doing so he only came off as "aloof" to the so-called middle american. he should've fired back swiftly and firmly - dick cheney got five deferrments for christ's sake (i think biden did too). this waffling only gave his detractors more ammo, i.e. his character and spine, his very manliness came into doubt. his fiction wasn't as "real" as beer-drinkin' buddy george's. obama has learned from this mistake, i.e. counter-attack and do it QUICKLY and strongly - drill your entire team to remain focused on the central message or theme of the narrative day.

an aside, the better half drove through the town of mattapan down the road today - hundreds of black voters lined up, obama signs everywhere, people in the street, a real vibe, a buzz. she drove past the lines, face upon face waiting to vote and started to lose it a little bit, and then was quickly all torn up with emotion. wonderful. it's already tomorrow in ireland, we in the u.s. have to wait a few more hours for ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lofty9

Please respond, rather than making flippant remarks. They are suspicious of his odyssey and rise. They live in a city he was educated in and know a lot more about the judicial and political system there than I do. THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM!! Simple enough?

---

Simple is a good word. As somebody has already pointed out, the man wrote two books, which explain his upbringing, political career and policies. Serious, level-headed people familiarise themselves with the people they comment on. Serious, level-headed people don't vote without doing so.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Simple is a good word. As somebody has already pointed out, the man wrote two books, which explain his upbringing, political career and policies. Serious, level-headed people familiarise themselves with the people they comment on. Serious, level-headed people don't vote without doing so.

adam

---

Every different type of person gets to vote, not just those who've read books about politicians. I've often commented on people without having read their biographies.

And reporting the opinion of some friends in America is a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion.

PA held for Obama which makes this a lame duck of a night. Happy to say I don't care :)

All Hail President Obama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

PA held for Obama which makes this a lame duck of a night. Happy to say I don't care :)

All Hail President Obama

---

Floridas looking reasonably good too right now.

Obama takes Ohio. Colorado close.


Game set and match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thischarmingman

Obama takes Ohio. Colorado close.


Game set and match.

---

Pretty much!:D

Palin-Joe the Plumber ticket for 2012?

RTE get prize for smallest studio - 3 people squeezed onto 2 man desk :p

Just a question of the size of victory now. Fox studio like a morgue apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Every different type of person gets to vote, not just those who've read books about politicians. I've often commented on people without having read their biographies.

---

Books aren't the only place people can educate themselves about politicians or issues. In this example, if you put 10 minutes into reading about Obama, you would realise that the opinion proffered by the people the OP claims to know is, to put it plain, ignorant. It's the opinion of people that don't deserve a vote.

Virginia goes for Obama.

Thats a wrap. :)

http://i33.tinypic.com/bjhf9c.jpg


All is well with the world for a few hours anyway.