US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 35 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-17-2008, 12:17 PM   #681
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:19 PM
If he called his wife the c word in public is that irrelevant too? Sometimes it quacks like a duck. He needs to step into 2008 in terms of womens issues-and from everything I've read about his record and his view he hasn't-one reason among others that I can't vote for him. Yes I care much, much more that he voted for covering Viagra and not female birth control (and can't even answer a question about that), but I also don't want a President who possibly jokes about rape- if that makes me dumb so be it. Just like I don't want to read rape jokes on Interference, and I have.

That "joke", if real, is just one part of the puzzle about him that I don't care for.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 12:38 PM   #682
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I already addressed this earlier. Its not evidence that Barack Obama was always for Bush's strategy of "As they stand up, we'll stand down". There is nothing here that suggest that Obama would wait until the Iraqi military forces had reached a sufficient level of capability to replace US forces before he would start withdrawing US combat brigades.

no, you're right, and yet you're wrong because you continue to misunderstand the entire situaiton. what it is evidence of is the fact that Bush and McCain are now coming around to Obama's plan of withdrawing forces and using those in Afghanistan.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 12:39 PM   #683
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Multiple issues may require action at the same time as in this case.


which is why allies and alliances matter.

gosh those NATO troops would be helpful right about now ...
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 12:40 PM   #684
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
If he called his wife the c word in public is that irrelevant too?

yes, of course it's irrelevant.

now, Pastor Wright's speeches, *THOSE* matter.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 12:58 PM   #685
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:19 PM
I just really have to wonder what the reaction would be if, in some bizarro world, Sen Obama had similar "humor".

politico.com

McCain's humor often backfires

Ben SmithThu Jul 17, 5:34 AM ET

Ever hear that joke about waterboarding? How about the one about killing Iranians? And why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

If you aren't familiar with those witty japes, then you've missed out on John McCain's lighter side. Rooted in a time before there was political correctness, and before there was the "South Park" backlash against political correctness, McCain's wisecracking persona is cutting at times, self-deprecating at others, and always amused by the political process swirling around him. Even in his pursuit of the White House, the candidate has — sometimes to the dismay of his handlers — managed to keep his sense of humor.

As he campaigns through the densest media thicket in American history, it's become clear that McCain hasn't acquired the layer of polish that produced, for instance, Ronald Reagan's gentle, oft-repeated jokes and Bill Clinton's colorful, folksy yarns.

McCain's humor, by contrast, makes him the political counterpart of the radio host Don Imus (whom he has defended): It's sharp, unrehearsed and, at times, way, way over the line. This cycle, he's drawn winces, and worse, for everything from a joking reference to domestic violence to a now-notorious little ditty about bombing Iran. Earlier in his political career, the Arizona press reported that he'd cracked a rape joke that would now probably end any politician's career, a joke his aides then and now say he doesn't recall making.

To McCain's friends and supporters, the humor is a mark of his authenticity. To his detractors, some of the jokes are offensive and out of touch with contemporary mores. What's undeniable, though, is that the humor, with its political risks and, to some, its charm, is intrinsic to John McCain. He is a man of a certain generation, with a machismo forged from his experience as a Navy pilot and an aviator, a candidate who is more comfortable in his own skin than with a teleprompter.

"If you know the difference between a Navy and an Air Force pilot, you get some of this — he's a Navy pilot," said former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. "He has a healthy irreverence for the stuffy, politically correct, 'You can't say that, You can't say that.'"

Irreverence in the abstract is one thing. But McCain's specific jokes can be harder for some to stomach. Liberal bloggers have recently revived what is by far the most offensive of McCain's reported jokes, one that his aides say he doesn't recall telling, but which was reported in the Tucson Citizen, an Arizona paper, during his 1986 Senate campaign:

"Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'"

His spokeswoman said at the time he didn't recall telling the joke, something his current spokesman, Brian Rogers, reiterated to Politico.

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, however, suggested that a series of McCain jokes about women, the rest uncontested by the campaign, suggest a serious lack of respect.


"Some people can't tell the difference between a joke that is really off color and one that is off-the-charts offensive, and clearly some of John McCain's 'jokes' fall into that category," she said.

Outside the contested rape joke, the most notorious of McCain's gags about women's looks came in 1998, when Chelsea Clinton was 18.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked guests at a Senate Republican fundraiser. "Because her father is Janet Reno."

McCain's other jokes don't induce cringes quite as widespread, but Gandy said they were still likely to alienate women.

"The French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it," McCain told Fox News a few years ago.

And earlier this year, McCain responded to a question with the line, "And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago," provoking a round of tut-tutting for his reference to the old classic example of a leading question.

Women are far from his only target. Another favorite has been the elderly. He has recalled groveling for forgiveness when, during his 1986 campaign, he referred to a retirement community called "Leisure World" as "Seizure World."

In 1999, in the course of apologizing for his joke about Clinton — which he called "insensitive and stupid and cruel" — he recalled for reporters another bad joke: ''I said, 'The nice thing about Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs.'" (Earlier in the 2008 campaign season, he reworked that joke to make himself the target.)

McCain hasn't toned down the jokes, which often play better with the audiences at his town halls than when snipped out and recycled on YouTube, as was the case in an incident in which he — in jest — referred to a young man who asked about his age as "you little jerk," before telling him, "You're drafted."

McCain's political allies also sometimes feel the sting. He has jokingly threatened staffers with waterboarding (a practice he condemns as torture). After former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, a close McCain adviser, dismissed talk of a bad economy as mere psychology, McCain told reporters he planned to make Gramm — who had been seen as a prospective Treasury secretary — ambassador to Belarus.

McCain was also recently condemned by the government of Iran for suggesting that increasing U.S. cigarette sales to Iran could be "a way of killing 'em."

"We condemn such jokes and believe them to be inappropriate for a U.S. presidential candidate," said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini. "It is most evident that jokes about genocide will not be tolerated by Iranians or Americans."

Iranian criticism, though, is more or less a badge of honor for presidential candidates of both parties. And McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said McCain's humor is, more broadly, central to his appeal.

"He's long said that he's said and done things in the past that he regrets," Rogers said. "You've just got to move on and be yourself — that's what people want. They want somebody who's authentic, and this kind of stuff is a good example of McCain being McCain."

But while voters say they want authenticity, McCain's campaign may test how much of his raw humor Americans can take.

"The world has changed," former Sen. Kerrey said. "It's a lot harder to tell jokes than it used to be."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:17 PM   #686
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
can't wait for NATO to cough up those troops!

Well, lets do some basic math here:

number of Active Army combat brigades in the US Army: 44(rising to 48 by end of 2009)

number of Army National Guard combat brigades: 34

number of Active Marine combat brigades 9

number of reserve Marine combat brigades 3



Current Deployment in Iraq:

13 Active Army combat brigades
2 Active Marine combat brigades

Current Deployment in Afghanistan:

2 Active Army combat brigades
1 Active Marine combat brigade

Current Deployment in South Korea:

1 Active Army Combat Brigade

Current Deployment in Kosovo:

part of 1 Army National Guard Combat Brigade




Deployed US combat Brigades around the world:

Active Army 16 Brigades
Army National Guard .5 Brigade
Active Marine 3 Brigades




US combat Brigades not currently deployed to a conflict zone:

Active Army 28 Brigades
Army National Guard 33.5 Brigades
Active Marine 6 Brigades
Marine Reserve 3 Brigades



Provided that equipment levels for National Guard brigades are fully restocked and restrictions on the use of the National Guard lifted, the United States does not have to look to NATO for more troops although it would indeed help.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:24 PM   #687
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no, you're right, and yet you're wrong because you continue to misunderstand the entire situaiton. what it is evidence of is the fact that Bush and McCain are now coming around to Obama's plan of withdrawing forces and using those in Afghanistan.

Actually, it is you who continues to misunderstand things. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq regardless of the capabilities of the Iraqi military or the general situation in the country. Bush and McCain are for withdrawing forces from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it and would be willing to send such forces to Afghanistan, but not at the expense of the continued progress in Iraq.

So, no, no one is coming around to Obama's position with the key difference on Afghanistan being that he supports sending more troops there regardless of the situation in Iraq, while Bush, McCain and the US military will only send more troops to Afghanistan provided that it does not come at the expense of the progress that has been made in Iraq.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:38 PM   #688
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
which is why allies and alliances matter.

gosh those NATO troops would be helpful right about now ...
Nearly 30,000 non-US NATO troops are on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment. NATO's largest and only deployment outside of Europe in the 59 year history of the Alliance. In Iraq dozens of nations like South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland, Georgia, Australia, Azerbaijan, The Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Honduras, Nicaragua, Thailand, Slovakia, Philippines, Moldova, have sent troops over the past 5 years.

Despite the claims of Bush's opponents, Allies and Alliances have mattered over the past 7 years and have played significant roles in both conflicts.

But the majority of Democrats voted against Bush Sr's coalition to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, with John Kerry claiming that it was not a real coalition, so its not a surprise to see Democrats claiming the same thing about W and the coalitions that he has built.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:39 PM   #689
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Provided that equipment levels for National Guard brigades are fully restocked and restrictions on the use of the National Guard lifted, the United States does not have to look to NATO for more troops although it would indeed help.

maybe you should run this by the McCain campaign:

Quote:
On Tuesday, McCain proposed sending at least three brigades of troops to Afghanistan. His advisers said later they should be an unspecified combination of U.S. and NATO forces.

"Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them," McCain said in Albuquerque, N.M.

as well as Joint Chiefs Chairman .


so, altogether now: McCain is following Obama on Afghanistan, and yet without any troops because he's against pulling any out of Iraq (or is he? he's not quite sure how to spin this surge thing). so ... save us NATO?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:55 PM   #690
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:19 PM
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Actually, it is you who continues to misunderstand things. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq regardless of the capabilities of the Iraqi military or the general situation in the country. Bush and McCain are for withdrawing forces from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it and would be willing to send such forces to Afghanistan, but not at the expense of the continued progress in Iraq.

are you going to continue with this? even after all the bru-ha-ha over Obama "refining" his plans? have you read McCain's recent statements on the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan? and how he's now decided that perhaps conditions have suddenly improved enough so that he can withdraw troops? which is exactly what Obama wants to do?




Quote:
So, no, no one is coming around to Obama's position with the key difference on Afghanistan being that he supports sending more troops there regardless of the situation in Iraq, while Bush, McCain and the US military will only send more troops to Afghanistan provided that it does not come at the expense of the progress that has been made in Iraq.

Obama has been saying for a year that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. McCain responded (until a few days ago) that this wasn't true and that it was Iraq that was more important, it was Iraq that was the central battle ground in the war on terror.

the difference is that they are following Obama's position on Afghanistan, and yet McCain's plan is utterly unfeasible -- he wants to surge in Afghanistan without reducing US presence in Iraq all while balancing the budget by 2013.

and how? without NATO -- who were, if you remember, willing to send troops in 2001/2, but mighty Rumsfeld resisted back then. currently, leaders from Canada, the Netherlands, and the UK are under political pressure to reduce their military presence in Afghanistan.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:59 PM   #691
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
maybe you should run this by the McCain campaign:




as well as Joint Chiefs Chairman .
It is true that if the United States continues to restrict the use of National Guard Brigades as well as some not being deployable because of lack of equipment, that the requirement for both conflicts fall almost entirely on the active army combat brigades and active Marine combat brigades making increasing forces in one theater difficult without decreasing forces in the other theater. In addition, the military typically likes to have 2 brigades resting and training for every 1 brigade deployed over the long term, but can operate at a 1 to 1 ratio or if need be deploy the entire force.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long extended conflicts which is why there is a need for pacing the deployment schedual and the only reason that Mike Mullen says he does not have other forces to reach for without first reducing force levels in Iraq, is because of the restrictions currently imposed on using the National Guard, the readiness level of certain National Guard Brigades, and the fact that some Active Brigades are carrying out important training that has been neglected over the past few years because of the deployment rate to Iraq.

Quote:
so, altogether now: McCain is following Obama on Afghanistan, and yet without any troops because he's against pulling any out of Iraq (or is he? he's not quite sure how to spin this surge thing). so ... save us NATO?
Here is the key distinction that shows that is not the case:

Bush, McCain and the US military do support increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but unlike Obama, they are not willing to do so at the expense of losing or reversing the progress that has been made in Iraq over the past 18 months. The decision to possibly send units that were supposed to go to Iraq in 2009 to Afghanistan instead, is because of the sustainable progress they feel has been made on the ground in Iraq as a result of the Surge that Obama opposed and said would actually increase violence.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 02:18 PM   #692
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:19 PM
[QUOTE=Irvine511;5300085]
Quote:


are you going to continue with this? even after all the bru-ha-ha over Obama "refining" his plans? have you read McCain's recent statements on the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan? and how he's now decided that perhaps conditions have suddenly improved enough so that he can withdraw troops? which is exactly what Obama wants to do?

The Bush administration, McCain, and the US military have consistently for the past 5 years always been for sending more troops into Afghanistan, provided that it did not detract from the mission in Iraq. Obama has wanted to send troops to Afghanistan regardless of its impact on Iraq.

The Bush administration by the way has enlarged the number of US troops in Iraq 10 fold since 2001. The number of non-US NATO troops has gone up at an even greater rate.


Quote:
Obama has been saying for a year that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. McCain responded (until a few days ago) that this wasn't true and that it was Iraq that was more important, it was Iraq that was the central battle ground in the war on terror.
In 2007, over 5,000 people in Iraq were killed by Al Quada, double the number that were killed in Afghanistan by both the Taliban and Al Quada according to the US military.

Iraq has been the central front in the war against terrorism just based on the number of attacks and casualty levels. But as casualty levels have dropped in Iraq because of the Surge, and the growing capabilitiy of Iraqi forces, it has created the possibility that the United States could withdraw forces earlier than had been thought. General Petraeus told Congress in September 2007 that if progress continued or sped up, that by the summer of 2008 he might consider reducing force levels in Iraq below the non-surge level, but only if conditions on the ground warrented it.

Quote:
the difference is that they are following Obama's position on Afghanistan, and yet McCain's plan is utterly unfeasible -- he wants to surge in Afghanistan without reducing US presence in Iraq all while balancing the budget by 2013.
Which once again is false because McCain has never said he is against withdrawing US troops from Iraq to either come home or go to Afghanistan provided that conditions on the ground would allow it.

OBAMA: For increasing troops on the ground in Afghanistan regardless of the impact on Iraq.


MCCAIN: For increasing troops on the ground in Afghanistan if first conditions on the ground in Iraq can allow a withdrawal to begin without it impacting the progress that has been made.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 03:10 PM   #693
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Tie Vote? Obama-McCain 'Doomsday Scenario'

Presidential Election Could Result in 269-269 Electoral Vote Tie

By JENNIFER PARKER


WASHINGTON, July 17, 2008 —

Predicting the outcome of a presidential election is dangerous sport, but some political junkies are playing the game, running the numbers and coming up with a November surprise: a possible tie between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.

Let's call it the "doomsday scenario," and while it's highly unlikely, it is a mathematical possibility.

"Given how close it's been in the last couple years, there are some reasonable scenarios that you could get to a tie," said John Fortier, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College." "It's not the most likely scenario, but the states can add up that way where you have nobody getting to 270."

Under the sometimes wild and woolly American system of democracy, a presidential candidate must achieve at least 270 votes in the 538-member electoral college to win the White House.

If, for example, Obama wins all the states Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., won in 2004, and picks up Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, McCain and Obama would each win 269 electoral college votes -- locking the presidential election in a tie.


"It is implausible, but given what has happened in the last two elections you cannot thoroughly dismiss the implausible," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Under the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if one candidate does not get 270 votes, the decision gets kicked to the House of Representatives, where each state gets a vote -- a formula that would likely guarantee an Obama victory.

"Each state delegation would have one vote and whoever won a plurality of that state's delegation would get that state's vote," said Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar at Georgetown University.

That could get tricky, especially in states where Republican and Democratic members split the state evenly.

House Decides President in 'Doomsday Scenario'

If the election is kicked to the House, Obama or McCain would have to control a majority of the 50 state delegations to win the White House. The newly elected and re-elected House members would vote in any doomsday scenario, Fortier said.

Currently, the Democrats hold a 26-21 lead among state delegations in the House, with three states split down the middle: Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi.

The Democrats are expected to pick up even more House seats in November, which suggests Obama would coast to victory.

If neither presidential candidate gets a 26-state delegation majority in the House, then all eyes will be on the Senate, which picks the vice president in any doomsday scenario.

"The House simply must do it, but if there's no president-elect by the time the president has to take office in January, then the vice president-elect has to assume the duties of the office Jan. 20," said Walter Berns, an electoral college specialist at the American Enterprise Institute.

"The vice president could serve all four years as president unless they broke that deadlock in the House along the way," Fortier said.

Nancy Pelosi for President?

But what if there was a tied electoral vote, neither presidential candidate could get a 26-state delegation majority in the House, and the Senate deadlocked on the vice presidential pick?

Then, Fortier said, the Presidential Succession Act would kick in.

"That would be the speaker of the House," Fortier said, " So the acting president would be Rep. Nancy Pelosi."

If Congress never decides on the president or the vice president, the speaker of the House could serve all four years as president, Fortier said.

Farfetched as it may seem, an electoral vote tie has happened before.

The 1800 presidential election resulted in a tied electoral vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House ultimately decided in Jefferson's favor, which is why it's Jefferson's likeness you see on Mount Rushmore and on the nickel instead of Burr's.

That presidential election hiccup led to the 12th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says the House picks the president and the Senate decides the vice president.

Congress again intervened in disputed elections in 1824, and in 1876, which was ultimately decided by a special electoral commission.

Say What?! 'Doomsday' Possible but Unlikely

There is a 0.48 percent chance of an electoral tie, according to Nate Silver, who runs the FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right Web site that has run the numbers on various election-night scenarios.

That's about a one-in-200 chance of the doomsday scenario actually happening.

"It's still a possibility this year," said Nathan Gonzales, political director of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "It's unlikely but it could happen."

Before the 2004 election, The Washington Post reported that a computer analysis found no fewer than 33 combinations in which 11 battleground states could divide to produce a 269 to 269 electoral tie.

It's hard to imagine an election closer than 2000, where former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote, but President Bush won a majority of electoral college votes.

But November's presidential election is gearing up to be closer than expected. Despite public unease with the war in Iraq, an economy in turmoil, and an unpopular Republican president, Obama leads McCain by only 3 percentage points among likely voters, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Campaigns Fight for Battleground States

The electoral vote numbers game is why the campaigns spend millions of dollars on television ads and get-out-the-vote organization in key battleground states.

Florida, the state that ultimately decided the 2000 election, has 27 electoral votes up for grabs -- the biggest electoral prize of the battleground states. Next is Pennsylvania with 21 electoral votes, Ohio with 20 electoral votes and Michigan with 17 votes.

The presidential and vice presidential candidate who win the popular vote get all the electoral college votes every state except Nebraska and Maine, which allocate their electoral votes proportionally.

With more than three months to go before Americans go to the polls, political junkies are running the electoral vote numbers, as are the campaigns, all trying to figure out which state will hold the key to the White House.

"We've identified 14 battleground states where the candidates and the campaigns are going to devote the most resources and spend the most time," said ABC News political director David Chalian.

Key battleground states include Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

"The three toughest blue states that the Obama folks have to defend are going to be Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire," Chalian said. "Those are the three targets for the McCain campaign to try to flip red."

November Election a 'Toss Up'

Political analysts say many of the key battleground states are repeats from 2004, but there are some new states where either candidate could make a move.

"You still have to look at Ohio, Florida and the three states that flipped between the two parties which would be New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico," said Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report. "But I think this year some of the newer battlegrounds are Colorado, Nevada, and we could see Michigan come into play."

The Cook Political Report, a respected election handicapper, sees the November election as a toss-up, with McCain currently holding a 240 to 219 electoral vote edge.

"What we're looking at is a very, very narrow group of states with 79 electoral votes up for grabs," Duffy said.

"There are not an infinite number of scenarios, but there are certainly many, many possibilities," she said.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 03:28 PM   #694
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:19 AM
I keep saying how much I hate our election process, all of it!!!!

After the 2000 debacle.

I did quite a bit of studying of the different scenarios.

I don't like the way that article is written, from an Obama-centric point of view.

It does not matter whose favor it plays out in.

The very concept that each state would get one vote however it is determined.

Is asinine !!


The least populated 26 states, that would be 52% of the 50 states, could choose the next President?

And those 26 small States would have what per cent of the 307,000,000? population of the country ?


And how do we even know those State delegations would even represent the will of the Presidential Voters of those states?
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 03:59 PM   #695
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:19 PM
The entire electoral college system makes no sense to me to begin with.

I guess you could argue that there might be a small handful of states this year which will receive national attention and the candidates' money because they have been upgraded to battleground status.

So what - the other 80% are still irrelevant.

Has anyone seen any interesting/reasonable proposals for changes to the current system?
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:09 PM   #696
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 12:19 PM
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention. This system works. Battle ground states change. And yes, that may mean at points in time the small states could elect the president. The system works.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:23 PM   #697
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:19 PM
I guess from my POV the system totally doesn't work and is nonsensical.

I am not sure the popular vote is the best alternative, that's why I was wondering if anyone had heard of any other proposals.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:33 PM   #698
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention.
What do you mean by this? That smaller states don't get campaigned hard?

I actually see where this could be an advantage, it could actually lead to a more informed vote rather than just this commercial vs that commercial.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:54 PM   #699
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention. This system works. Battle ground states change. And yes, that may mean at points in time the small states could elect the president. The system works.
My friend,

This is the "conventional wisdom" that we have been told since we were school children.

Just about every thing you have stated is wrong..


If you can step outside of everything you have always believed and argued.

I believe you will be able to see this.

Believe me.
I am speaking as one that used to make those very same arguments.
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 06:18 PM   #700
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:

Obama Hits the Gym, With Multiple Repetitions

July 17, 2008 10:38 AM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: While Obama spent 91 minutes at a campaign event yesterday, the Illinois Senator spent a total of 188 minutes in the gym yesterday – making three separate stops to Chicago gyms over the course of one day.

The presumptive nominee started his Tuesday with a short morning work out at the gym of his friend and longtime aide Mike Signator’s apartment building.

After flying to Indiana for a campaign event, and doing a round of local TV interviews, the Senator returned to his home in Illinois where he spent the afternoon hitting two more local area gyms for the duration of the day. Obama first visited Signator’s gym again, returning home briefly and then going to East Bank Club, a downtown gym which Obama regularly plays basketball.

Senator Obama has been known for his strict work out regimen – rarely missing a day in the gym even with a busy campaign schedule. But for reporters following Senator Obama as he strolled in and out of gyms six times over the course of one day - his multiple visits raised a few eyebrows – with even a campaign aide cracking a smile as the third gym stop of the day was announced.

Obama left the East Bank Club at 9 pm last night. A mere 11 hours later he was back in the gym again on Thursday morning.

Gee,

I can't remember when we had a President (or hopeful) that was more concerned about his leisure time physical activities.

leisure time physical activities = mountain biking and golfing

the more things Change

the more
__________________

deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×