The Official Election 2008 Thread!

[marthanoob]

Voting least worst aka strategic voting doesn't solve anything, Americans have spent a majority of the time voting that way. Look where it's gotten us? there's only 5 presidents I can think of in the Modern day (1900s - Today) that are worth mentioning who were "beneficial".

It has its ups and downs.

Hypothetical situation -
There are two candidates, one from Party #1 and one from Party #2. The media covers those parties and only those parties. The citizens with greater awareness know there is a third party candidate who would be much more favorable to lead the country than either of the two more hyped candidates. The aware also know that the candidate from Party #2 is more favorable than the candidate from Party #1. Immediately before the elections, the candidate from Party #1 smears the candidate from Party #2. The attack, although not wholly true, is successful. The aware know that the least favorable candidate will win if they do not vote for the candidate from Party #2 or if they do not use the same dirty tactics in response.
In the current circumstances (America), this type of polarization is almost inevitable as long as there are no miracle candidates.

 

[Aesir]

It has its ups and downs.

Hypothetical situation -
There are two candidates, one from Party #1 and one from Party #2. The media covers those parties and only those parties. The citizens with greater awareness know there is a third party candidate who would be much more favorable to lead the country than either of the two more hyped candidates. The aware also know that the candidate from Party #2 is more favorable than the candidate from Party #1. Immediately before the elections, the candidate from Party #1 smears the candidate from Party #2. The attack, although not wholly true, is successful. The aware know that the least favorable candidate will win if they do not vote for the candidate from Party #2 or if they do not use the same dirty tactics in response.
In the current circumstances (America), this type of polarization is almost inevitable as long as there are no miracle candidates.

Or you abandon the horrible electoral college, it's a rotten system that creates a two party system (which is a horrible party system to begin with.)

The problem with the two party system is that they'll always try to keep the elections in their favor, you could have two horrible guys running for office and the American Public will be none the wiser because they've made the efforts to silence any outside opposition.

Not only that it's the only system where you can come in 1st in the popular vote and still lose the general election.

A more favorable system would be Instant Run Off Voting, where instead of voting for a single candidate you would rate your candidates, this would do away with the spoiler effect and you would get a far more accurate democratic process.

 

[RDK]

Do you have anything to back this up besides the following?

I don't want to go digging for specific quotes, but I just think Biden did a generally bad job. He's never been a good public speaker. The whole reason he lost his Democratic nomiation bid back in '88 was because he got caught plagiarizing an entire speech off of somebody else.

There is some sort of semantics issue between "marriage" and "civil union". The democrats want "domestic partnerships", basically a civil union with less benefits, to have the same financial and legal benefits as marriage and civil unions.
They do this because the public is unwilling to allow same-sex couples to be "married".

That's beside the point; generally Democrats are in favor of full rights given to gay "couples", and they vary on exactly what the couple is to be refferred to as (marriage, civil union, etc.). Fundamentalist Republicans are the ones who are either staunchly opposed to it or at least get a little itchy around the subject.

My point was that Biden was pussyfooting around the subject when he should have just laid it out straight.

Not only that it's the only system where you can come in 1st in the popular vote and still lose the general election.

A more favorable system would be Instant Run Off Voting, where instead of voting for a single candidate you would rate your candidates, this would do away with the spoiler effect and you would get a far more accurate democratic process.

The electoral college is perhaps the most convoluted and ridiculously over-the-top system ever invented. The problem is that because people demand that priority be given to states with larger populations, the individual vote itself is basically worthless outside of the popular vote if you don't have support from the major states. How people think that was actually a good idea is beyond me.

 

[Deleted member]

A ranking system is not much better. It doesn't necessarily fix vote-spoiling; in fact, it probably would make voting more daunting for apathetic voters. They'd rank their 1st choice and then arbitrarily rank the others.

The most accurate democracy is one where votes always count. If 50% vote A, 30% vote B, and 20% C, then A would get half the seats and the rest would be divided among B and C respectively.

 

[Aesir]

A ranking system is not much better. It doesn't necessarily fix vote-spoiling; in fact, it probably would make voting more daunting for apathetic voters. They'd rank their 1st choice and then arbitrarily rank the others.

The most accurate democracy is one where votes always count. If 50% vote A, 30% vote B, and 20% C, then A would get half the seats and the rest would be divided among B and C respectively.

I agree winner takes all isn't very "democratic" in nature. I think generally people aren't stupid they know what they want, however if the people don't know who's running it's kind of hard to have a true democracy. Which is largely the case today, if you ask anyone off the street to name every candidate who's running they'll probably list Obama and McCain. Not realizing there's 4 other guys running for office as well.

It really comes down to media accessibility the dems and reps just have so much money backing them from special interests that it's impossible to compete with that as a third party. As long as the Commission of Presidential Debates continues to silence the third parties we'll forever be locked in a horrible system. In order to change the current system you need the power to actually do something about that, and unfortunatly only elected officials seem to have that type of power.


The problem is as follows.

- The current system doesn't work, and fuels the two party system, which isn't accomplishing much of anything.

- Change needs to happen but third parties who could bring the issue to light are silenced from the mass media.

Change isn't something that happens over night, it's a gradual process, but as long as the two parties continue to stop third parties from voicing their opinion the less hope there actually seems to be.

It's like third parties are ****ed if they do, ****ed if they don't. They could run and bring their ideas to the table, but they risk either A being painted as a spoiler or B being over looked and silenced by the two party's.

If they don't run nothing changes.

No wonder there's such a low voting turn out.

 

[Deleted member]

I disagree - people are stupid, they don't know what they're voting for. That's why Republicans capitalize on it. Read my previous posts.

 

[marthanoob]

I don't want to go digging for specific quotes, but I just think Biden did a generally bad job. He's never been a good public speaker. The whole reason he lost his Democratic nomiation bid back in '88 was because he got caught plagiarizing an entire speech off of somebody else.

Ok, good point. But relative to Palin, he did a better job. Clearly.

That's beside the point; generally Democrats are in favor of full rights given to gay "couples", and they vary on exactly what the couple is to be refferred to as (marriage, civil union, etc.). Fundamentalist Republicans are the ones who are either staunchly opposed to it or at least get a little itchy around the subject.

My point was that Biden was pussyfooting around the subject when he should have just laid it out straight.

Democrats do not want it laid out straight. Laying it out straight may turn away some religious moderates.
Democrats have always been politically correct, this is nothing new.

I disagree - people are stupid, they don't know what they're voting for. That's why Republicans capitalize on it. Read my previous posts.

I would not stereotype all people as stupid. It would be safe to stereotype most Americans as stupid.

 

[cman]

Ok, good point. But relative to Palin, he did a better job. Clearly.

Compared to the EXPECTED performances, Palin did much better, which is why many feel she won the debate. Although, from an 'unbiased by expectations' standpoint, i would agree with you.

 

[M.K]

When asked during the debate "who would you feel more comfortable voting for", 86% of the American Public chose Palin and 12% chose Biden. Her "likability" certainly helped her enough there.

 

[Aesir]

Del: Upon further thinking I have come to the conclusion that people are generally really stupid and need things spelt out for them.

You win this round.


Anyway on Palin:

Palin is just a likable version of Bush, I really mean that. Her Position on a lot of issues is virtually the same as Bush.

Nice to know after 8 years of driving this country into the ground people are still willing to go with a neo-conservative.

 

[cman]

When asked during the debate "who would you feel more comfortable voting for", 86% of the American Public chose Palin and 12% chose Biden. Her "likability" certainly helped her enough there.

I honestly love you. How can you be so rediculously dumb? I just don't get it? It's almost comical. Do you not see your overly obvious bias? I'm tempted to think it might be Poe's Law in effect here, but i doubt it. I just don't know. Every single one of your posts is like that.

Do you have any sources for this factoid?

 

[M.K]

I honestly love you. How can you be so rediculously dumb? I just don't get it? It's almost comical. Do you not see your overly obvious bias? I'm tempted to think it might be Poe's Law in effect here, but i doubt it. I just don't know. Every single one of your posts is like that.

Do you have any sources for this factoid?

http://centristnetblog.com/palin/palin-biden-meet-expectations-in-vp-debate/

The initial pundit reaction was predictable: CNN and MSNBC called it for Obama, Fox News called it for Palin. However, even the CNN “analysts” agreed that Palin swept aside credibility questions with her performance and boosted GOP morale and any threat of Palin “dragging down” McCain was erased. Predictably again, the focus groups set up by CNN and Fox News split in their reaction. CNN/Opinion Rsearch’s instant poll shows a 51-39 Biden victory, with 84% believing Palin exceeded expectations and 64% believing Biden exceeded expectations. with 55% Fox’s text message poll went for Palin, 86-12.

I'm not dumb, and of course I'm biased. When you vote for someone in the election, you are placing your bias into one of their baskets. Assuming from your posts, you are biased against my position to support McCain/Palin, so I assume you support either Obama/Biden or are undecided.
Instead of making yourself seem like an arrogant know-it-all, maybe you should stick to the issues instead of throwing out needless insults, which only make you look even dumber than you claim me to be.

 

[Eor]

A text message poll conducted by Fox is incredibly biased, Fox appeals to conservatives while most liberals hate it, and therefore wouldn't be aware of such a poll. And a text message poll is based solely on the persons willingness to participate in it, unlike a web poll that people stumble upon. A text message poll is not at all an accurate reading.

Besides that, it's ridiculous that you'd take a single poll like that and then claim it reflects the "american public", when it clearly is only the feelings of people that watch Fox

 

[Firus]

A text message poll conducted by Fox is incredibly biased, Fox appeals to conservatives while most liberals hate it, and therefore wouldn't be aware of such a poll. And a text message poll is based solely on the persons willingness to participate in it, unlike a web poll that people stumble upon. A text message poll is not at all an accurate reading.

Besides that, it's ridiculous that you'd take a single poll like that and then claim it reflects the "american public", when it clearly is only the feelings of people that watch Fox

The same could be said about one of the biased liberal news sources -- and a vast majority of them are. Let's not pretend that there's even a single news source out there without a bias, because there isn't.

As polls go, it's nearly impossible to get a single poll that's going to accurately record things. To an extent, yes, but there's always going to be a poll by a news source which attracts certain people, an online poll targets people who regularly browse the internet, or even have access to the internet. Phone polls can end up getting a certain type of person more than another, on purpose or not, and some people may hang up the phone if they're in an angry mood.

Of course, that's not to say that things aren't looking grim for McCain/Palin. God, I hope no one stays home and doesn't vote because they think it's hopeless...

 

[cman]

I'm not dumb, and of course I'm biased. When you vote for someone in the election, you are placing your bias into one of their baskets. Assuming from your posts, you are biased against my position to support McCain/Palin, so I assume you support either Obama/Biden or are undecided.
Instead of making yourself seem like an arrogant know-it-all, maybe you should stick to the issues instead of throwing out needless insults, which only make you look even dumber than you claim me to be.

That is much better. Speak more sensibly, much like this one, and people will take you more seriously. In any case, you probably didn't deserve that. My apologies.

I am undecided, and leaning Obama, but anyone with so obviously one sided views really irk me, including die-hard Obama supporters. When you debate, try your very best to recognize your biases, and avoid them, because you lose credibility. Generally, people on a debate forum easily recognize it.

As for the issues, I find it funny when you try to make that claim after this, and more, bull****:

"I have Be careful, that can go both ways in the political world.
Now that I mention it, almost anything can.
The only good reason to see Obama in office, in my opinion, is to watch him totally flop on all his plans and drive this country right off a cliff. Then I can laugh while paying my $15.35 gallon of gas to drive to the airport to go to Iraq because I was drafted."

"Senator Obama has stated that "her lack of proper judgement" can be seen when she did NOT abort the pregnancy when she found out about the baby's down syndrome disorder. He believes that the baby should have been aborted instead of allowed a life. How cruel, how inhumane, how intolerable, and how sickening is this statement to me? Incredibly cruel, inhumane, intolerable, and sickening. It is the epitome of a man who is on the verge of falling apart."

"If you people want to vote for someone who will tax you to death and screw you over till day turns to night, be my guest. I hope you realize that the sugar-coated bull**** that Obama drains from his noise hole is just empty words to get his libertarian *** into office and nothing else. "

 

[Eor]

Random samplings of a large enough portion of a population is accurate based on simple probability. Hanging up your phone does nothing, they just go to the next person. Phone polls aren't fully accurate, of course, since not everyone has phones. And no poll is fully accurate, because no one every asks everyone. But that's what the margin of error is for, and correctly done polls are almost always in the ball park. The poll he picked out of the list is a terrible poll because it's not random sampling, it's like polling people at the republican convention about which party should win.

My web poll part wasn't suppose to suggest that web polls are accurate, though looking back at it it comes off like that. Web polls aren't accurate for the same reason, only those who make the effort to answer are collected, and it only targets the population that browses the website. It's still an accurate poll, not of the population, but of "People interested in the issue that view this website."

 

[RDK]

Ok, good point. But relative to Palin, he did a better job. Clearly.

Why do you think Biden did a better job? Nevertheless, I think they're both terrible. Palin is an inexperienced, fundamentalist Nazi and Biden is your run-of-the mill socialist liberal who wants to tax the fvck out of the middle class.

Random samplings of a large enough portion of a population is accurate based on simple probability. Hanging up your phone does nothing, they just go to the next person. Phone polls aren't fully accurate, of course, since not everyone has phones. And no poll is fully accurate, because no one every asks everyone. But that's what the margin of error is for, and correctly done polls are almost always in the ball park. The poll he picked out of the list is a terrible poll because it's not random sampling, it's like polling people at the republican convention about which party should win.

My web poll part wasn't suppose to suggest that web polls are accurate, though looking back at it it comes off like that. Web polls aren't accurate for the same reason, only those who make the effort to answer are collected, and it only targets the population that browses the website. It's still an accurate poll, not of the population, but of "People interested in the issue that view this website."

You also have to take into account that as well as only a core group of people voting in that circumstance, people might vote nonchalantly, or choose somebody as a joke. For Fox to claim that a text vote reflects the American people is ludicrous because any Joe Blow and his twenty friends could all text in their votes as a joke (or they're most likely biased, since they're watching Fox News in the first place).

I don't think any poll is 100% accurate; even the polls like the Gallup and the more efficient ones can never correctly sample the views of every voter out there. And people actually come off on it as if it's a big surprise when the actual election doesn't go exactly how the polls predicted.

 

[Deleted member]

Your perspective is very skewed if you believe a yearly income of more than 250,000 a year is middle class. Biden did a better job than Palin because Palin is a moron - people only think she "won" because she didn't start drooling everywhere. She was way too colloquial for a formal debate and didn't answer many of the questions asked. She would dodge the question by going on some stupid soccer mom tangent.

For a fun drinking game, take a shot every time Palin says "maverick" or "You betcha". Gets you ****ed

 

[RDK]

Yes, Palin was annoying as ****, but Biden didn't answer any more directly than she did.

Refer to my post about the gray areas in their platform plan. Their idea of what is "middle class" and what is "filthy rich enough to be taxed to kindgom come" is ridiculous. Obama and Biden's plan for everything is TAX TAX TAX.

Although what kills me is that everyone seems to think it's okay to spend ****loads of money building schools and hospitals in a third-world country that we're at war with, and then has the gall to wonder why our public schools have gone down the ****ter.

 

[cman]

Yes, Palin was annoying as ****, but Biden didn't answer any more directly than she did.

Refer to my post about the gray areas in their platform plan. Their idea of what is "middle class" and what is "filthy rich enough to be taxed to kindgom come" is ridiculous. Obama and Biden's plan for everything is TAX TAX TAX.

Although what kills me is that everyone seems to think it's okay to spend ****loads of money building schools and hospitals in a third-world country that we're at war with, and then has the gall to wonder why our public schools have gone down the ****ter.

You know the amazing thing about ignorance.......

Is that schools help get rid of it. You do realize that a large portion of the reason we are in this mess is that the afgan infrastructure was so shot to **** after the war with the soviets, that the taliban were easily able to move in and preach their rediculous ideas, and the people bought it because they were desparate. So unless you want a never ending cycle of idiotic hate spewing out of the middle east, let's build some schools and hospitals.

 

[marthanoob]

Why do you think Biden did a better job? Nevertheless, I think they're both terrible. Palin is an inexperienced, fundamentalist Nazi and Biden is your run-of-the mill socialist liberal who wants to tax the fvck out of the middle class.

Doing a better job debating means you have a better knowledge of the issues and better debate etiquette.
Your judgement of their viewpoints is not included in how well they did debating.

I suppose if you look at it practically, appeal would be part of doing a good job. In that sense, Palin comes off slightly better.

 

[Eor]

Why did you quote me by my old full name

 

[M.K]

I think we can all agree that no poll can accurately show the overall feeling of the American Public towards either candidate until the final election (and even then there are still the ones who don't vote and complain about who got nominated).

 

[marthanoob]

So unless you want a never ending cycle of idiotic hate spewing out of the middle east, let's build some schools and hospitals.

Yes, but does it always have to be the white man's burden?

 

[RDK]

You know the amazing thing about ignorance.......

Is that schools help get rid of it. You do realize that a large portion of the reason we are in this mess is that the afgan infrastructure was so shot to **** after the war with the soviets, that the taliban were easily able to move in and preach their rediculous ideas, and the people bought it because they were desparate. So unless you want a never ending cycle of idiotic hate spewing out of the middle east, let's build some schools and hospitals.

I really couldn't care less what the Afghans think. I do care whether or not they have WMDs that empower them to act on their hatred.

Oh no, the Middle East hates America. So does the rest of the world. Are we going to spend millions of U.S. money to go build schools every place else that hates us?

]Why did you quote me by my old full name

Because I miss your old name. :/

But seriously, that's not why. I didn't notice your post until I had already quoted Marthanbob, so I just copied and pasted your post into mine and copied the quote formatting but replaced his name with yours. Apparently it was subconscious.

 

[Eor]

I think we can all agree that no poll can accurately show the overall feeling of the American Public towards either candidate until the final election (and even then there are still the ones who don't vote and complain about who got nominated).

I disagree with that, for reasons I've stated. Want to explain why you think that?

 

[cman]

I really couldn't care less what the Afghans think. I do care whether or not they have WMDs that empower them to act on their hatred.

Oh no, the Middle East hates America. So does the rest of the world. Are we going to spend millions of U.S. money to go build schools every place else that hates us?

Well its our responsibility to rebuild schools that we destroy. And they don't need WMDs to attack us. They could use planes (hint hint), or use a cyber attack, or they could probably just steal or buy a nuclear weapon, or something else that I can't even imagine.

And in case you didn't get the subtle hints before, their opinion caused 9/11. Remember? You are being extremely short sighted here. Please try to see that.


Marthanoob: Was that an intentional reference to the poem?

 

[AltF4]

I hate all the mudslinging in the debates... Honestly it makes me like both of the candidates less when they go back and forth on it. Part of what makes me (and many others I know) so upset about the election is that we feel forced to pick between the lesser of two... not evils, but unfavorable choices. The bickering just reinforces that.

 

[marthanoob]

Marthanoob: Was that an intentional reference to the poem?

Yes, and although Kipling did not intend the poem to be a satire at all, that is how it is commonly referenced as.

 

[Jam Stunna]

http://www.thehoustonposts.com/

In case you guys thought that the lunatics were only attacking Obama.

 

[RDK]

Palin the Impaler? LMFAO.

I'm so calling her that from now on.

 

[Chaco]

Palin the Impaler? LMFAO.

I'm so calling her that from now on.

I lol'd at that too.

But bad thing is I actually saw a sign with:

Obame for CHANGE

"Come Help A Negro Get Elected"

It's pure awful.

And the other fact that is kind off pushing it too far though is that the said they would sue if Obama lost. That's all crap.

And anyone heard of the possible indightment?

 

[TVTMaster]

So, anyone else think that "Senator Government" was no accident? That's either epic win or epic fail right there and it's kind of hard to tell.

 

[1337marth]

I truly support Barrack Obama, He seems to be very conserved about the wars, an I really want the people out. Also I do not like McCain VP choice, because Palin seems to try to be too funny, and exciting. We need someone caring not funny.

 

[Aesir]

I truly support Barrack Obama, He seems to be very conserved about the wars, an I really want the people out. Also I do not like McCain VP choice, because Palin seems to try to be too funny, and exciting. We need someone caring not funny.

Lol what? conserved on war? Do you have any idea what Obamas proposal on his policy on the middle east?

More war. He wants to move the war to Pakistan and the Afghanistan that's the last place you want to bring American Soldiers too. They're tribal people and they'll just keep fighting using every possible resource they have. It's an unwindable situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if he enabled a draft, Democrats have been known to do that for their wars. (note last part of my post was more subjective then objective. Just a personal observation on my part.)

 

[marthanoob]

Lol what? conserved on war? Do you have any idea what Obamas proposal on his policy on the middle east?

More war. He wants to move the war to Pakistan and the Afghanistan that's the last place you want to bring American Soldiers too. They're tribal people and they'll just keep fighting using every possible resource they have. It's an unwindable situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if he enabled a draft, Democrats have been known to do that for their wars. (note last part of my post was more subjective then objective. Just a personal observation on my part.)

I read somewhere that Afghanistan is called "the graveyard of empires". Geopolitically, that name makes perfect sense.
I know he looks disfavorably at Pakistan, but I doubt he would do something as rash as outright invasion of it.
Can you cite?

 

[Aesir]

THis is where being informed voters comes in handy...

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Just search Pakistan on this page.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

you should find it. =\

 

[marthanoob]

THis is where being informed voters comes in handy...

Just search Pakistan on this page.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

you should find it. =\

I skimmed it, I could not see anything about direct invasion or occupancy (although some things imply this). I only saw the emphasis on increasing influence.
What is he thinking? Reading that made me feel uncomfortable. No wonder it was not on the news.
Basically, forcing democracy on a country does not work, if the people do not want it. How do foreign policy analysts miss this simple concept?

 

[Aesir]

I skimmed it, I could not see anything about direct invasion or occupancy (although some things imply this). I only saw the emphasis on increasing influence.
What is he thinking? Reading that made me feel uncomfortable. No wonder it was not on the news.
Basically, forcing democracy on a country does not work, if the people do not want it. How do foreign policy analysts miss this simple concept?

Well obviously if you want to be elected you don't include things like "occupation" or "Invasion" as those carry negatives.

But it's clear he's going to wage War with a country in hopes of winning it, which can't be done. No Power in the world has ever conquered that territory even Russia tried to do it and it failed.

 

[1337marth]

Lol what? conserved on war? Do you have any idea what Obamas proposal on his policy on the middle east?

More war. He wants to move the war to Pakistan and the Afghanistan that's the last place you want to bring American Soldiers too. They're tribal people and they'll just keep fighting using every possible resource they have. It's an unwindable situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if he enabled a draft, Democrats have been known to do that for their wars. (note last part of my post was more subjective then objective. Just a personal observation on my part.)

They couldn't draft anyway, there is so much to learn about weapons and technology, it is not like WWII or Veitinam. Also well he said instaed of Staying in Iraq where t is calm he would attack the source like Alkida instead of staying in the calmer Iraq, and Afghanistan.