US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.
 
So we should defend your unsubstantiated accusations?
 
Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.

Unfortunately I have a problem seeing the video on that site, so I'll have to take the blog writer's word for it. It definitely does appear misleading and the link between Limbaugh and McCain isn't justified. It's a poor ad. Nowhere near as bad as McCain's sex ed ad, however.

As for you asking us to defend the emails, I think it's you who should defend such an outlandish accusation. I don't suppose you would happen to have a shred of evidence to support that "bet," would you?
 
As far as the ad goes, yes, tying McCain's immigration record with Limbaugh's statements is definitely deceitful.

As far as the email allegations go, you're turning around and doing exactly the same thing yourself by saying "bet the Obama campaign did it."
 
Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.

You were the one who said he had done this before, and failed to prove Obama had done anything to remotely "cross the line" before.

That said, this is a deceitful ad, in a similar vein to the McCain ad about the pig and the lipstick, although McCain's was a blatant lie and this is accusing McCain of guilt by association.

And, as Diemen said, this doesn't touch the sex ed ad.

This ad is disappointing.
 
Oh, and to say Obama's team was probably behind the e-mail thing without a shred of proof other than the fact that he's running against your candidate is just stupid.
 
Credible feminist organizations have thrown their support to the Obama campaign.

The Associated Press: Women's rights groups endorse Obama for president

Women's rights groups endorse Obama for president

By ANN SANNER – 22 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women's rights groups endorsed Barack Obama for president Tuesday, asserting the historic selection of a female Republican vice presidential candidate does not make up for John McCain's lack of support on issues important to women.

"We don't think it's much to break a glass ceiling for one woman and leave millions of women behind," said Eleanor Smeal, chairman of the Feminist Majority Political Action Committee.

Smeal was among leaders from six organizations that announced their endorsement of the Democratic presidential nominee at a news conference.

Obama also won the support of the National Organization for Women, which said it has not endorsed a candidate for president since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro shared the Democratic ticket in 1984. Ferraro was the first female major-party vice presidential candidate.


NOW backed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries. "We join with her in saying 'no,'" said NOW President Kim Gandy, referring to a line Clinton used at the Democratic convention last month. "No way, no how, no McCain."

Gandy and Smeal dismissed polls that suggested McCain has received a boost in support from white women after he picked Palin.

"The die is not cast yet," Smeal said.

An Associated Press-GfK Poll of likely voters last week showed Obama's lead among women at 49 percent to 44 percent. The same AP-GfK poll showed that white women are backing McCain over Obama, 53 percent to 40 percent.

Gandy predicted women will quickly swing their support to Obama once they know where Palin stands on the issues. The Alaska governor opposes abortion except in the case of a threat to the mother's life.

However, data from the recent AP-GfK poll suggests that it might be difficult for Obama to win over some white women.

The survey, conducted Sept. 5-10, found 65 percent of working-class white women say Palin shares their values, 71 percent said so of McCain, compared to 52 percent for Obama and 46 percent for Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden.

The McCain campaign said it was unhappy with NOW's decision to endorse Obama.

"It's extremely disappointing that an organization that purports to be an advocate for all women not only opposes but feels compelled to go out of its way to criticize and make negative comments about the only ticket in the presidential race with a woman on the ticket," Palin's spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail.

Smeal said the organizations have and will continue to protest any sexism in the presidential campaign, but she added, "We think it's time to get off issues such as lipstick and on to the issues, really, that are challenging this nation."

Gandy criticized Republicans for changing their tone on sexism.

"I love it that Republicans have discovered sexism in the media," she said. "Because they didn't see any of it when it was being directed at Hillary Clinton. But once Sarah Palin got a dose of it, which we also pointed out, they were all over it." She did not explain how her group defended Palin from sexism.


Obama was also endorsed by leaders from Business and Professional Women/USA, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Congress of Black Women and the Women's Information Network.
 
"It's extremely disappointing that an organization that purports to be an advocate for all women not only opposes but feels compelled to go out of its way to criticize and make negative comments about the only ticket in the presidential race with a woman on the ticket," Palin's spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail.

Wow, this spokeswoman really doesn't get it, does she? :ohmy:
 
Unfortunately I have a problem seeing the video on that site, so I'll have to take the blog writer's word for it. It definitely does appear misleading and the link between Limbaugh and McCain isn't justified. It's a poor ad. Nowhere near as bad as McCain's sex ed ad, however.

yeah, this one is gettin' real ugly real fast.
 
As far as the ad goes, yes, tying McCain's immigration record with Limbaugh's statements is definitely deceitful.
You know, I was just thinking that how the McCain campaign responds to this ad could be quite revealing. Will he dare to disassociate himself from Limbaugh?
 
I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too.



First and foremost, there is absolutely zero to be gained from this by the Obama campaign. A highly offensive personal attack that really reveals nothing of any substance other than some cute personal photos of her family no doubt gains her nothing but truckloads of sympathy. Think about it. It’s not like there are hot steamy emails there revealing a three-way affair between her, Cindy McCain and Mike Huckabee. There’s no evidence of her stupidity (and no need to go looking for it) or anything criminal. There’s nothing remotely embarrassing in it for her. It makes the hackers look (rightly) terrible, directs sympathy towards her, and absolutely nothing gained in return. To think it would have been backed by the Obama campaign or under their instructions is absolutely ridiculous. They would be seriously pissed that something like this has happened, it’s nothing but a free kick for her.

Plus, it happens all the time now - people like Lindsay Lohan getting their private email/phone/myspace/photos hacked and splashed all over these kind of sites all the time. That Palin uses a private Yahoo account has been fairly well documented in the news as well recently, has it not? I think you can safely put it down to the same sort of people after the same sort of results. Nothing more.
 
Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

If only Senator McCain had done as Obama had asked and not been a complete douchebag, the tone of this campaign would be very different. This is a "tough race."


I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.

Actually, I wouldn't put it past McCain's team to have done it themselves to continue their lame portrayal of Palin as a victim of unfair and cruel opponents.
 
Hopefully, the tide is turning back in Obama's direction...what was it Clinton said....'It's the economy, stupid'.
 
Actually, I wouldn't put it past McCain's team to have done it themselves to continue their lame portrayal of Palin as a victim of unfair and cruel opponents.

The group "Anonymous," the same group that went after Scientology earlier this year, have admitted in a press release to hacking her e-mail account. They must be in cahoots with the Obama campaign. That's my guess.

Hopefully, the tide is turning back in Obama's direction

I've read in several places today that it is. The novelty is wearing off of Palin, and she's losing her sheen due to her lack of understanding of crucial issues, and McCain's getting slammed for saying that "the economy is fundamentally strong."
 
Democrats Face Historic Voter Hurdle

Analysis By Scott Rasmussen

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Much has been made this year about how the fundamentals favor the Democrats. An unpopular Republican president, a war that has dragged on beyond the limits of public tolerance, a declining number of people identifying as Republicans and a worrisome economy all set the stage for the Democrats to reclaim the White House.

While citing these factors, Rasmussen Reports and many others have not often pointed out another fundamental—the difficulty Democrats have in attracting a majority of the popular vote.

Since 1860, the year that Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, only three Democrats have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote. Each of the three—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter—were aided by extraordinary circumstances.

Roosevelt was elected during the depths of the Great Depression. Johnson was elected less than a year after he assumed the presidency following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Carter was elected in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, a time that makes even the current challenges faced by the Republican Party seem tame by comparison.

For a while, it appeared to many that Barack Obama might be able to expand the traditional limits of Democratic appeal and break through the 50% ceiling. But despite all the polling done by Rasmussen Reports and others this season, he has not yet broken through that barrier.

Still, for much of the year, it seemed like a Democrat winning 49% or 50% of the vote should be able to capture the White House. After all, the GOP was fragmented and less than thrilled with their nominee. So, if a Ron Paul or a Bob Barr picked up two or three percent of the vote, many expected that McCain would be doomed.

Now, with the addition of Alaska's conservative governor, Sarah Palin, to the ticket, McCain has succeeded in uniting his party and ramping up its enthusiasm. In fact, it now seems that Hillary Clinton, an unsuccessful contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, might drain a point or so of support from Obama. That appears to be as likely as Libertarian Party candidate Barr grabbing a few votes from McCain.

If the Democrats have an historic ceiling around 50% and the GOP is united, those fundamentals suggest a toss-up, and that’s what we have in the country today. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows McCain and Obama in a very competitive race heading into the debate phase of the campaign.

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

There have only been a total of 6 Democratic Presidents to ever be elected President while winning 50% or more of the popular vote, in US history. They are:

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter


In 2004, George Bush was re-elected President of the United States winning 50.73% of the popular vote. There are only two Democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected President winning 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt.
 
Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

There have only been a total of 6 Democratic Presidents to ever be elected President while winning 50% or more of the popular vote, in US history. They are:

Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
Franklin Pierce
Franklin Roosevelt
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter


In 2004, George Bush was re-elected President of the United States winning 50.73% of the popular vote. There are only two Democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected President winning 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt.


Those stats don't say anything about the 2008. Anything before the 1964 is really pointless. If we could get African Americans and women to not be able to vote,
the GOP would get over 50%. :shrug:



If you want to include everybody
then we should at least start with the Civil Rights act in 1964.

LBJ got 61 %

Has any Republican ever got 61% ?
 
Those stats don't say anything about the 2008. Anything before the 1964 is really pointless. If we could get African Americans and women to not be able to vote,
the GOP would get over 50%. :shrug:



If you want to include everybody
then we should at least start with the Civil Rights act in 1964.

LBJ got 61 %

Has any Republican ever got 61% ?

Fine, lets just do 1964 and up. Makes the Republicans and what George Bush did in 2004 look even better.

There have only been 3 Democratic Presidents elected to office since 1964. Only one was re-elected President. In only 2 of the 4 elections that they won, were they able to get 50% or more of the popular vote. With the exception of 1968 and 2000, every Republican elected to President since 1964 has received 50% or more of the popular vote.

There has not been a single Democrat since 1964 to be re-elected with 50% or more of the vote like George Bush was in 2004.


LBJ has the largest popular vote percentage total in history at 61%. Nixon in 1972 was close though with 60.67%.

The greatest Electoral Landslide in history was Ronald Reagan's 1984 victory where he won 58% of the popular vote and won every state in the Union except Minnesota. He only lost that state by 3,000 votes.
 
Yes but is we are merely stating facts here

It is a irrefutable fact that more Americans voted for John Kerry for President
than the number of Americans that voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

So, Reagan's 1984 landslide falls behind both Al Gore and John Kerry in number of votes.


More American went to the polls for Al Gore or John Kerry than for Reagan in a single election.
 
Which brings you full circle back to the historical fact that still has the rest of the world outside the United States absolutely gobsmacked:

More people voted for George Bush in the 2004 election than for any other candidate in history.

We’re still all waiting for you to explain that one.
 
Score a negative, lying, deceitful ad for Obama:

Political Punch

I bet his team was behind Palin's personal emails being hacked, too. For all those people in this forum who, somehow, have yet to believe that Obama has crossed the line, please defend this, both the ad and the emails.

The ad crosses the line. I find it disappointing, to say the least, but I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Remember, it's you that's been trying to paint those planning to vote for Obama as worshipers of He Who Can Do No Wrong. I know I've never made such claims.

There's a lot of people clamoring for Obama to "hit back hard" and if this is what they mean I hope he won't continue in that direction. It diminishes him (as it has diminished McCain) and it could prove harmful to him in a way that it isn't to McCain due to the "angry black man" thing that Irvine astutly pointed out.

I don't need to defend the e-mails because I don't think Obama's team was involved in that.
 
Which brings you full circle back to the historical fact that still has the rest of the world outside the United States absolutely gobsmacked:

More people voted for George Bush in the 2004 election than for any other candidate in history.

We’re still all waiting for you to explain that one.



W is actually one of the least popular U S Presidents ever.




The fact that more people voted for him than for any other candidate in history.
Is saying nothing more than the fact that in 2004 the country had a population or 300 million and there really was not a viable 3rd party candidate.

In 1964 when L B J got one of the highest percentages - 61.1%
the population was 192 million.


Each of Bill Clinton's elections had a viable 3rd candidate in Ross Perot.

Bill Clinton beat the GOP candidate by 9 %.

George Bush II only beat Kerry by 3 %.

1992 election results

Clinton 43 %
Bush 37.4 %
Perot 18.9 %

1996

Clinton 49.2 %
Dole 40.7 %
Perot 8.4 %
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom