Jump to content

*official* 2008 us election thread


Daaaaave

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So like, right now for example. The Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all, "What about the strain on our resources?" Well it's like when I had this garden party for my father's birthday, right? I put R.S.V.P. 'cause it was a sit-down dinner. But some people came that like did not R.S.V.P. I was like totally buggin'. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, and squish in extra place settings. But by the end of the day it was, like, the more the merrier. And so if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

puerto rico becoming a state deserves its own thread. the background and politics behind it is pretty deep.

the short answer is "maybe"

They have one or two observers in the House of Representatives, don't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by K-uglen:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

puerto rico becoming a state deserves its own thread. the background and politics behind it is pretty deep.

the short answer is "maybe"

They have one or two observers in the House of Representatives, don't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they have a single non-voting senator called a resident commissioner. he basically acts as a lobbyist for the interests of the island.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Xerxes T Billy:

So like, right now for example. The Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all, "What about the strain on our resources?" Well it's like when I had this garden party for my father's birthday, right? I put R.S.V.P. 'cause it was a sit-down dinner. But some people came that like did not R.S.V.P. I was like totally buggin'. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, and squish in extra place settings. But by the end of the day it was, like, the more the merrier. And so if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.

you are so gay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

puerto rico becoming a state deserves its own thread. the background and politics behind it is pretty deep.

the short answer is "maybe"

They have one or two observers in the House of Representatives, don't they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they have a single non-voting senator called a resident commissioner. he basically acts as a lobbyist for the interests of the island. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't that make people in D.C. feel even more cheated? icon_biggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be the first US election I really follow from announcements, through primaries, right to the day itself. Promising to be absolutely fascinating.

Would really like to see Edwards get in there somewhere, he's impressed me every time I've seen him interviewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by omni_paul:

This will be the first US election I really follow from announcements, through primaries, right to the day itself. Promising to be absolutely fascinating.

Would really like to see Edwards get in there somewhere, he's impressed me every time I've seen him interviewed.

with blogs, livestreaming townhall meetings, youtube, and netroots efforts, this is going to be the most interactive and accessible election maybe ever. and people all over the world will be able to watch and listen...and maybe even break a stereotype or two.

the idea behind starting this early (assuming it doesn't fade completely into obscurity) was to track this from the very beginning as it runs, give background as we get closer to election day and keep things up to date so you know why the sea has changed between now and next fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

with blogs, livestreaming townhall meetings, youtube, and netroots efforts, this is going to be the most interactive and accessible election maybe ever. and people all over the world will be able to watch and listen...and maybe even break a stereotype or two.

the idea behind starting this early (assuming it doesn't fade completely into obscurity) was to track this from the very beginning as it runs, give background as we get closer to election day and keep things up to date so you know why the sea has changed between now and next fall.

What a load of crap, this election will be as generic and formulaic as all the previous ones, give it up.

Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you’re being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don’t forget what you’re celebrating, and that’s the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by K-uglen:

I would like to plug this entertaining election game, by the way: http://www.80soft.com/pforever/info/index.htm

It is interesting.

I steered Gore to the Democratic nomination, then got humbled in the general (by Giuliani, IIRC). icon_biggrin.gif

Failed to get the nomination for Edwards (finished in the last 2 after Hillary dropped out before the convention). Then took over Biden's campaign, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Brownback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(CNN) -- Dropping a political bombshell, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday after revealing that he is gay and that he had an adulterous affair with a man.

With his wife standing quietly by his side, McGreevey -- a father of two -- spoke in calm tones as he described his struggle with his sexuality, "a certain sense that separated me from others." It was something that he said began as a child.

"At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is," McGreevey, a Democrat, said.

"And so, my truth is that I am a gay American," McGreevey said.

Speaking at a packed news conference in the Statehouse in Trenton, New Jersey, McGreevey admitted to an affair with a man and asked for his family's forgiveness.

"It was wrong. It was foolish. It was inexcusable," he said.

And McGreevey said he was stepping down from the state's highest office.

'"Given the circumstances surrounding the affair and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign," McGreevey said.

His resignation will take effect November 15, and State Senate President Richard Codey, a fellow Democrat, will serve the the remainder of his term, which ends in January 2006.

If McGreevey's resignation had taken effect before September 15, state law would have required a special gubernatorial election on November 2.

McGreevey said his affair and sexuality -- "if kept secret" -- would leave the governor's office "vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure."

The Associated Press reported that the man involved in the affair, a former government employee, demanded "an exorbitant sum of money to make it go away," a high-ranking administration official told the wire service. Cabinet members and administration officials learned of that threat Wednesday night, the source said.

Rumors, the AP reported, had been circulating for several years that McGreevey was gay, reaching the level of open hints on New Jersey talk radio shows.

Even as he acknowledged his sexuality, McGreevey spoke of the "suffering and anguish" he had brought to his family and friends, saying he would "almost rather have this moment pass.

"For this is an intensely personal decision and not one typically for the public domain," McGreevey said of his revelation. "Yet, it cannot and should not pass."

Once considered a rising star in Democratic circles, McGreevey, 47, served in the state Legislature and as mayor of the town of Woodbridge, New Jersey, before winning the governorship.

McGreevey won the seat in 2001 by a wide margin over former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler and took office in January 2002.

His administration has been buffeted by some scandal.

A Quinnipiac University poll released August 4 showed McGreevey's approval among state voters fell sharply after two Democratic fund-raisers were indicted on federal charges in July -- one of them accused of lining up prostitutes to discredit a witness in a tax fraud investigation, the other accused of extortion.

McGreevey and his wife, Dina, have a 2-year-old daughter, and he has another daughter from a previous marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by exchampionsfan:

Can anybody suggest some blogs on American politics? I don't really mind what each one's bias is as I'd hope to read more than one whilst following this election. Always been fascinated by American politics, should be a really interesting election.

I'm always looking at this one

Also, is there a difference between a primary and a caucus?

Yes, a primary is held like a normal election, with polling places, hours for the public to vote, etc. In most cases, voters can cross over and vote in the other party's contest (for example, Democrats voting in the Republican primary).

A caucus is a gathering of party activists, usually held in someone's home or church basement, places like that. Caucus attendees debate the pros and cons of each candidate, then at the end of the night line up for a candidate. In some cases they may also debate various resolutions, for example Republican caucus attendees may be asked to vote on a resolution that abortion should be illegal, and Democrats may be asked to vote on a resolution that the Iraq war should be wound up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the blog link, seems interesting although does it just concentrate on the issue of whether the best way for the Democrats to win an election is to have a candidate from the west?

I find it fascinating how bigger part geography plays in US elections. You wouldn't get the Tories here deliberately looking for a Scottish leader to try and win some more seats in Scotland yet the theory seems to work in America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by exchampionsfan:

Can anybody suggest some blogs on American politics? I don't really mind what each one's bias is as I'd hope to read more than one whilst following this election. Always been fascinated by American politics, should be a really interesting election.

Also, is there a difference between a primary and a caucus?

www.dailykos.com

www.redstate.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by exchampionsfan:

Can anybody suggest some blogs on American politics? I don't really mind what each one's bias is as I'd hope to read more than one whilst following this election. Always been fascinated by American politics, should be a really interesting election.

Also, is there a difference between a primary and a caucus?

www.wonkette.com

Not really a pure politics blog, but I prefer it to the ones constantly harping on this or that.

re: Why the US seems so geographically based:

Electoral math is pretty much the answer. You have to hit a certain number of electoral votes to win the election - but you can do this any way you want.

Regions tend to be segmented by politics as a result of both the math above, the history of politics and regions, and the demographics of the regions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral math is pretty much the reason that you have 7-10 'battleground states' that get submerged in political ads during every election cycle because they are the states where the two parties are neck and neck.

The rest of the states get next to nothing in terms of politicians speaking, visiting, or playing ads.

Essentially battleground states (or in some cases, regions) are like your marginal constituencies, except on a much, much larger scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by omni_paul:

So how do Democrat supporters feel about the notion that Obama setting a deadline for Iraq withdrawl makes him Al Quaeda's candidate of choice?

Or is that a line only our ******** PM is running?

The only reason it got any play at all here was because it was so outrageous. But the type of mouthbreathers who might believe what Howard said are also the types who would never give a damn what some foreigner thought. So no harm done.

And Obama's retort to Howard -- If he's so worried about Iraq, he might want to send a meaningful number of troops -- was a KO. I'd be surprised if Howard came out squawking again.

OTOH, the simpleton scare tactic that seems likely to have more traction is that Obama is a closet Muslim. I keep seeing this thrown at him over and over. Some people really seem to want to prove that he's some Manchurian candidate, as insane as that seems.

And if Obama is still being featured in articles which ask, "Is America ready (for a black president)?" a year from now, I'm pretty sure he'll lose. People are treating him like his only noteworthy quality is his race, and if we're still focused on that instead of his qualities as a candidate he's toast.

His Harvard Law Review background will also fall flat. He could be the coolest mf in the room, and the write-up the next day will still suggest that he was imperious, aloof, and uncomfortable hanging with the plebs. The media no longer (if they ever did) respects elites who don't try to hide it. Witness the inexplicable 'George Bush is a cool dude, and Al Gore is some nerdy know it all' coverage that dominated the 2000 election.

Obama does not fit the mold of what a president looks and sounds like, and his only chance is that people are tired of the same old same old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama does not fit the mold of what a president looks and sounds like

See, I think he sounds every inch what a statesman should sound like when he speaks.

Dare I use the word articulate? I know that's taboo, but I use it only in comparison to Bush, who is so blatantly inarticulate it's worthy of note.

And I'm glad to hear the deadline issue is a non-starter. Here's hoping 07/08 sees the removal of the conservative parties in both Australia and the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm nowhere up to speed with US politics, and haven't been for at least a couple of years, but is it fair comment to say that Obama is running 4 years too early? While he's obviously very articulate and is vocal in his clearly defined views over key issues (namely Iraq), his lack of experience strikes me as a very easy stick for the media and Republicans to beat him with, before even having to touch upon any other issues.

I think the best chance the Democrats would have would come through running Edwards, who impressed me last time around. Don't for the love of god run Hilary, she'll get slaughtered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by exchampionsfan:

Thanks for the blog link, seems interesting although does it just concentrate on the issue of whether the best way for the Democrats to win an election is to have a candidate from the west?

I find it fascinating how bigger part geography plays in US elections. You wouldn't get the Tories here deliberately looking for a Scottish leader to try and win some more seats in Scotland yet the theory seems to work in America.

To a certain extent it's a reaction to the conventional wisdom that the Democrats have to nominate someone who appeals to the South in order to win.

The argument the Western Democrats are making is that the Republicans are tied so much into the big-government conservatism and morality of the South that the more libertarian Rocky Mountain West (historically a very Republican region) is finally starting to have second thoughts about throwing in with the Republicans and is therefore ripe for the picking if the Democrats don't nominate another liberal Northeasterner like Kerry (or Hillary). Their argument goes that the population growth in the Rockies is such that you can get to an electoral majority by picking off a few of the Rockies states and basically telling the South to gtf.

As Andy Jordan said, the US is much more fractured than the UK. There was a book written about 20-25 years ago called "The Nine Nations of North America" that pointed out how North America is much more divided than Canada/Mexico/US. Parts of Arizona and Mexico have more in common than Arizona and the rest of the US. Alberta has more in common with Wyoming than with the rest of Canada.

I think to a certain extent that's why you see so much flag-waving in the US, because that's really the only thing that ties the country together. Me as a Michigan native, I think different from Oregonian Daaaaaave, who thinks different from AJ, who thinks different from Splendid, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president

And a Virginia Republican Party spokesman is bleating something we will hear ad nauseam over the coming months, "one of the most liberal members of the United States Senate." Which is not entirely inaccurate, but will translate into "he's a commie who wants to kill your babies" in a certain kind of conservative ear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions for D.

What are the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primarys?

What made the 1960 election more significant than any in the 47 years that have followed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by alilaw:

I'm nowhere up to speed with US politics, and haven't been for at least a couple of years, but is it fair comment to say that Obama is running 4 years too early? While he's obviously very articulate and is vocal in his clearly defined views over key issues (namely Iraq), his lack of experience strikes me as a very easy stick for the media and Republicans to beat him with, before even having to touch upon any other issues.

It's a double edged sword. A democratic victory in 2008 means he wouldn't be able to run for president until 2016 (assuming the likely scenario that the incumbent runs again for office). by that time, he's have hundreds of controversial votes under his belt to be used against him and he'd be blasted as a "beltway insider".

the experience thing works against him now, but he's going to be forefront in the media and the senate for the next 18 months for the run up to the election and by the end of it the inexperience tag isn't going to fit so well.

also: if you include his time in the illinois state senate, obama also has more total legislative experience than edwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Oggy73:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president

And a Virginia Republican Party spokesman is bleating something we will hear ad nauseam over the coming months, "one of the most liberal members of the United States Senate." Which is not entirely inaccurate, but will translate into "he's a commie who wants to kill your babies" in a certain kind of conservative ear.

if virginia's senators decide to follow kaine, it would be a fantastic coup for obama. warner and webb are both beloved by the netroots/moveon.org type crowd. this is also coming from the area edwards needs most. if he loses democratic grip on the south, he's in dire straits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a book written about 20-25 years ago called "The Nine Nations of North America" that pointed out how North America is much more divided than Canada/Mexico/US. Parts of Arizona and Mexico have more in common than Arizona and the rest of the US. Alberta has more in common with Wyoming than with the rest of Canada.

Read that on the internet some months ago, a good and interesting read, redrawing the borders internally and externally of all of North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rdysn5:

A few questions for D.

What are the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primarys?

What made the 1960 election more significant than any in the 47 years that have followed?

as listed above, iowa and new hampshire are the first two statewide elections to determine the presidential candidates. most of the candidates will spend a lot of time in both states talking to people and growing support, so many pundits look to these states to determine how well these guys can run a campaign. you also have the stereotypes of the rural, corn belt farmer and the intellectual new englander, so someone doing well in both states is generally thought to be able to perform well country-wide.

1960 was historic because of the marked differences between kennedy and nixon, especially in what was to become the apex of tensions in the cold war. not to be underestimated is that this was the first election to be broadcast largely on television, where image and charisma played an increasingly larger role.

imo, in no elections since then have two sides been so diametrically opposite of each other and the world issues loomed so large. the only one that comes close would be the 1968 election where nixon won by a thread and the segregationist wallace took the south vote setting up the "southern strategy" that switched the south from being a democratic stronghold to diehard republicans. humphrey never captured democratic imagination like kennedy did though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again (to support the Obama campaign), you've got to "strike while the iron is hot" so to speak. Obama may not have much experience and is very young etc, but if there's a general feeling for him, a "gap in the market" as it were and if he can get up some momentum now - then surely everything points towards now being the right time to run?

The situation is there for him to have a good chance of getting the Democrat nomination, you can't wait around for everything to be perfect because it could easily never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by alilaw:

I'm nowhere up to speed with US politics, and haven't been for at least a couple of years, but is it fair comment to say that Obama is running 4 years too early? While he's obviously very articulate and is vocal in his clearly defined views over key issues (namely Iraq), his lack of experience strikes me as a very easy stick for the media and Republicans to beat him with, before even having to touch upon any other issues.

I think the best chance the Democrats would have would come through running Edwards, who impressed me last time around. Don't for the love of god run Hilary, she'll get slaughtered.

While I would probably be in the camp of "Obama is running too early", others have run and won the presidency with as little or less experience, it's really down to what advisors he uses.

And I'm glad to hear the deadline issue is a non-starter. Here's hoping 07/08 sees the removal of the conservative parties in both Australia and the US.

It's a non-starter to somewhere between 60 and 70% of the country, the other 30-40% believe Obama is really Osama in disguise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other thing about Obama, media hype only lasts for so long when you are just 1 out of 100 senators. If he doesn't move now, he probably won't get a better chance.

I think I should take this time to point out that Kennedy was the last sitting member of either house of the US Congress to be elected president.

It is worth noting that both Nixon and Reagan won while not actually representing anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wds about the more time you have as a senator, the more controversial votes you've cast, giving the opposition bigger sticks to hit you with. Yesterday, Fox News was having a field day contrasting Hillary's October 2002 speeches in favor of the Iraq war resolution with her recent speeches against the troop increase. They were landing body blows.

The Iraq war resolution is going to be an albatross around the neck of anyone who voted for it. Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time, so he didn't cast any fateful votes. He has that advantage over Clinton and Edwards. Giuliani also didn't take part in the vote, but I doubt he can plausibly pretend that he would've voted against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.