Obama wins, Dems will crush the weak-ass republicans cuz...

dysanfel · Post by **dysanfel** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:37 am

forge wrote:on the EC maps - I just saw this site: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... vs_mccain/

and went over and changed all the 'toss up' states to whoever is up there at the moment and if McCain takes virginia which is currently down as a tie, then he still loses to Obama 273-265

then I changed NH and CO to McCain as they are states where Obama is up by less than 1% and it went to McCain 278-260

You getting very close to seeing the real picture. Dig one level deeper and look at the margins that have voted Democrat and Republican in the last 4 election cycles state by state. You will see a trend in the voting numbers.

Remember no Democrat has won Virgina in over 40 years, and Kerry had similar numbers as Obama during this time in the election. I just can't see Obama gaining ground where Kerry lost. Especially with white women over 50.

dysanfel · Post by **dysanfel** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:42 am

Tone Deft wrote: I'd rather chew on broken glass, not my cup of tea.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised how interesting it actually is. If you genuinely interested in politics it gets no more illuminating than a Politics and Elections class. You will be able to see beyond the meaningless liberal/conservative muckraking look into the hard facts that drive elections.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:16 am

interesting stuff.

can you recommend a book on Politics and Elections? it's really unlikely I'd take a class, if I were to take a class it'd be bass lessons.

is what you're saying a study of gerrymandering and overall voring district layouts?

how do you see it playing out? from here on out the world is playing to Ohio's socio-political tastes in choosing the next Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich?

ze2be · Post by **ze2be** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:37 am

I voted for that mac gey!

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:39 am

dysanfel wrote:
Tone Deft wrote: I'd rather chew on broken glass, not my cup of tea.
I think you would be pleasantly surprised how interesting it actually is. If you genuinely interested in politics it gets no more illuminating than a Politics and Elections class. You will be able to see beyond the meaningless liberal/conservative muckraking look into the hard facts that drive elections.

as stupid as it sounds the West wing really sparked an in American politics in me - that show got me totally hooked, they managed to make it look interesting. I guess that's good writing I'm interested in as much as anything though!

of course I'm not talking about getting educated on politics by a TV show, just that it got me interested enough to want to find out more because I knew very little about US politics before then so it made me bother to look into it.

but they must have done a pretty reasonable amount of research into the kinds of processes that go on despite the obvious left leaning bias

Machiavelli is one of those classics on my reading list for the 'one day when', the whole process and strategies of politics is definitely interesting

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:27 pm

just to ruin everyone's day, if you haven't noticed, the polls are showing an even split between Obama and McCain.

learn the issues, tell people about them.

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:06 pm

Tone Deft wrote:just to ruin everyone's day, if you haven't noticed, the polls are showing an even split between Obama and McCain.

learn the issues, tell people about them.

At this point I am trying to figure out which issue each candidate is truelly going to be able to push through in their 4 year term. I have talked with people in the Obama camp and they are saying he will directly go for an effort to end this stupid fucking war. Anybody know what the McCain camp is saying?

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:10 pm

seriously, do some research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... 3F11D8.htm
www.realclearpolitics.com

Obama - out in 16 months, from his site:

“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

McCain - continued occupation, from his site:

The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:21 pm

Tone Deft wrote:seriously, do some research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... 3F11D8.htm
www.realclearpolitics.com

Obama - out in 16 months, from his site:
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”
McCain - continued occupation, from his site:
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

I am not trying to compare issue to issue ideas. I want to know what each canidates prime goal will be once they get in office. History shows that a President can push 1 agenda through in a 4 year term if they are lucky. Speaking with people in the Obama camp they say he will go for ending the war. I want to know what McCains camp would say in comparison. I guess I will have to go mingle with some Republicans, which does not exactly sound that great to me.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:45 pm

Tone Deft wrote:seriously, do some research.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... 3F11D8.htm
www.realclearpolitics.com

Obama - out in 16 months, from his site:
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”
McCain - continued occupation, from his site:
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

(obama)Q: how do we end this war ?
(mccain)A: through securing long-term peace and security by establishing a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighboUrs and contributes to the defeat of terrorists.

IMO the damage is done in iraq and the mission is accomplished (the stop-selling-iraqi-oil-in-euros and install-a-more-compliant-puppet-government mission that is), iran is next - and neither candidate's promises or rhetoric rules out moving into iran next, nor can either candidate UNDO what's already been done in iraq. enjoy your show.

anyways....sticking with the bono of politics - Obama's still on track with Iran, no apparent change in policies there. The middle-east will play out as we would have expected it to with George W in charge. It's amazing to see people become doe-eyed with the concentrated doses of hope-iates the media are administering and the "we'll leave iraq" rhetoric but he's still talking agro on Iran ? on that note did anyone else see his 'flip-flopping' on foreign policy/threat levels RE: iran ? Youtube is garbage for politics as a rule, but never-the-less worth sifting through on occasion... and it makes a convenient trough for the mainstream's slop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05M ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

so what's that all about ?

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:55 pm

Iran is not a threat, that's all chest beating. any mention of Iran by the politicians is just to fill the void of a new, real threat to take focus away from the TWO wars we're already fighting.
in the coming years, Iran could maybe make 1 nuke. their military is practically non-existent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... t_war.html

McCain has a 90% voting record similar to Bush. what do you think he'd do? bomb the shit out of all of them. career military guy from a military family, who's described himself as a 'military president.' war is life as he knows it, it's natural.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:01 pm

Iraq was about WMD's remember ?
only that was a complete lie.

so why then are you so readily accepting the premise on Iran ?
I say you're accepting it because you're talking about how slow Iran would be making a nuke, or gearing up a worthy army for war.... you're acknowledging the current premise as if it bears some relevance.

why would you possibly think that after being blatantly lied to on Iraq ?

there's no point logically refuting the premise like the WMDs in Iraq premise was refuted. do you see how productive and meaningful that was ?

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:06 pm

when you have a president that doesn't follow logic or reason (or Pro Tools?) then all speculation is moot except anything that relies on his greed and arrogance.

_I_ did not buy the WMD Iraq thing, I was one of the people shouting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, prior to that I was pissed that the US was once again pissing all over the UN and not pushing the UN to get definitive answers.

even the reality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the poster boy for a fucked up Iran isn't what he appears to be, it's the clerics that are in power. the entire perception of Iran is wrong and geared for war.

oh shit.

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:10 pm

Tone Deft wrote:when you have a president that doesn't follow logic or reason (or Pro Tools?) then all speculation is moot except anything that relies on his greed and arrogance.

_I_ did not buy the WMD Iraq thing, I was one of the people shouting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, prior to that I was pissed that the US was once again pissing all over the UN and not pushing the UN to get definitive answers.

even the reality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the poster boy for a fucked up Iran isn't what he appears to be, it's the clerics that are in power. the entire perception of Iran is wrong and geared for war.

oh shit.

Amen to that! I think they should dump all of those rigs they are using and try out Live for a change.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:25 pm

then of course Iran and Hezbollah and we're right back at Israel, which both candidates support.

like it or not Israel might as well be another state in the US and will probably always have the US' protection and therefore get us into a lot of trouble. nothing is going to change that.

Obama wins, Dems will crush the weak-ass republicans cuz...

I am voting for