Heartland

taylor wrote:simply the same mate , after 2000 death at home what president should to do ? speak cordially or cruise ?

I don't think Gore would have started the completely unrelated war in Iraq though.

The Democrats will lose again for a simple fact: It must get worse before it gets better. The paranoid, militant, bigot part of America, which seems to be the deciding political factor these days, exhibits a severe masochistic streak and wants more punishment. It's hard to imagine how this could happen after eight years of Pinky and Brain but apparently that is what they aim for.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't matter anyway. Bush will stage a big "October Surprise", declare martial law, and suspend the election. Game over, bring on the theocracy.

It would be funny if it wasn't something one could seriously see happening.

denny crane? surely tj hooker for president?

i'm disturbed by the beliefs of sarah palin.

emilystrange wrote:i'm disturbed by the beliefs of sarah palin.

The church she belongs to has links to Joel's Army.

Read it and be very very afraid.

i feel sick now

Old but classic...
*cackles*

I saw this online the other day.. amused me a bit:

markfiend wrote:(I'm not ignoring your PM Michael )

I'm still not convinced that Clinton supporters crossing party lines is a major issue; from what I can gather PUMA and the like are "astroturf" movements from the Repubs. Oh I'm sure a few people will be irrational enough to vote McCain simply to give Obama a bloody nose, but on the whole Clinton's supporters will come round when they realise what Palin actually stands for.

Well, recent polling (as of last night. Zogby, I think it was) suggested that 22% of Clinton primary voters (which in most, though not all, states means registered members of the Democratic party) claim they will vote for McCain. The may be willing to support McCain on the assumption that Hillary will be able to run again in 2012 (which will not be the case if Obama wins in November). Hillary herself has gone on record during the primaries saying that she thinks McCain would be a better president than Obama, and that she would be a better president than McCain. Sure, there are major policy differences, but the Democratic party has so emphasized "identity politics" in the period since Carter that a number of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain/Palin... because it advances a woman and because it helps set the stage for Hillary 2012.

markfiend wrote: If McCain's idea is that people will switch simply because Palin is a woman, well, it's more evidence that he doesn't get it (in Obama's words). Palin is diametrically opposed to almost everything Clinton's campaign ran on; I mentioned abortion simply as an example. The idea that women will vote for a woman whatever is actually pretty insulting to women.

Again, polling indicates that a significant number of Clinton supporters will turn to McCain. Anecdotally, I know a lot of women who are registered Democrats here in Texas, and they are downright excited about voting for McCain now that Palin is on the ticket. All of that being said, one of the major reasons for McCain to pick Palin would have to have been to sure up conservative Republican and libertarian leaning independent support, two groups that have been very lukewarm on his candidacy so far (in fact, in a little over 24 hours after the Palin announcement, the McCain campaign apparently raised 7 million dollars). Social conservatives are much more comfortable supporting McCain now, and due to her cancellation of some needless Federal projects in Alaska (the bridge to nowhere), small government libertarians and conservatives will now find the McCain ticket more attractive.

markfiend wrote: I think Palin actually risks alienating a large potential base of votes for McCain; I'd guess that a large proportion of the idiots who "ain't voting to put no n****r in the White House" are unlikely to vote for a ticket with a woman on it.

I think the number of idiots like that is quite small, and to be honest, they probably don't vote anyway.

markfiend wrote: Palin's lack of experience will matter; remember, just two years ago she was mayor of a town with 9000 inhabitants. Governorship of Alaska isn't much in terms of experience either. It might be big in area but in terms of population it's one of the smallest states. Palin would be "just a heartbeat away" from the Presidency, and given that that heart would be McCain's the issue of his health comes into play. He's had melanomas removed, what, four times now? And I've heard reports that he's getting forgetful.

The experience issue is relevant, but I don't think the Obama campaign can make much hay with it. It's a losing avenue of attack for them, because every time they attack her over it, they will be reminding people of his own lack of experience.

markfiend wrote: I agree that Biden isn't the best choice that Obama could have made, but Biden will surely destroy Palin in the VP debates.

Oh, I disagree. They've put Biden in a very bad position here. His strength lies in the fact that he can be a very effective attack dog, true. But attacking "that nice lady who looks like a librarian" could backfire on them with voters (in fact, historically, being too "rough" with woman candidates in debates has tended to alienate voters). The pick has effectively disarmed what is probably Biden's biggest strength in a campaign.

markfiend wrote: I'd argue that winning the election isn't about swinging the independent voters, it's about getting your own voters actually out to vote. Given low turnout (always a given) well, no-one says in the polls that they're not going to vote do they?

Well, there is a motivated core that will always vote, no matter what. In a race that is as closely contested as I expect this one to be, independent voters matter. That being said, as a practical matter, I expect that they will matter more to Obama--not because there aren't enough Democrats or anything like that, but because he is relying on the youth vote, which is a very dangerous idea. The youth vote tends to be unreliable. Historically speaking, if it is cold, rainy, snowy, overcast or just generally nasty out, youth turnout drops precipitously. Further, since the election is in November, there is the college issue to deal with: a lot of the voters who propelled Obama to the top in the primary will be coming up on the end of the semester, they will be stressed out, crunched for time, etc. Relying on the youth vote is very dangerous, because they tend not to vote. The biggest, most reliable voting block in the US is actually senior citizens (and the biggest special interest group is the AARP--this is why we will not see any meaningful social security reform), and they will vote overwhelmingly for McCain this time out (though I think Hillary would have carried them if she had been the nominee).

markfiend wrote: Oh and on the creationism issue, she is on record as saying: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Given that she's also in favour of "abstinence only" sex-ed, that seems to be a contradiction, and betrays an alarming (although not unexpected for a right-wing Republican) tendency to let ideology trump reality.

Eh. It's not an issue I get excised about, because school control is local in the US.

markfiend wrote:

taylor wrote:simply the same mate , after 2000 death at home what president should to do ? speak cordially or cruise ?

I don't think Gore would have started the completely unrelated war in Iraq though.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. "Regime change" in Iraq was official Clinton admin policy before it was Bush admin policy.

markfiend wrote: I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't matter anyway. Bush will stage a big "October Surprise", declare martial law, and suspend the election. Game over, bring on the theocracy.

I don't think anything like that will happen. Depending on who wins the election, though, you may see an Israeli attack on Iran in November/December/January. If Obama wins, I would expect Israel to take action independently and without consulting the US. I would also expect more aggressive rhetoric directed at the former Soviet republics from Putin if Obama wins (I suspect that if the election were Clinton vs McCain, Putin might well have decided against the adventure in Georgia. He's clearly banking on an Obama victory).

To be honest I think I'm basing a lot of my analysis on wishful thinking and what I hope will happen...

Anyhoo.

sultan2075 wrote:Well, recent polling (as of last night. Zogby, I think it was) suggested that 22% of Clinton primary voters (which in most, though not all, states means registered members of the Democratic party) claim they will vote for McCain.

Really? Then they're crazy. Are they forgetting about (for instance) the SCOTUS appointee(s) McCain will inevitably install? The current make-up of the court isn't brilliant from a Democrat point of view, do they think it'll get any better with four more Republican years?

sultan2075 wrote:Social conservatives are much more comfortable supporting McCain now, and due to her cancellation of some needless Federal projects in Alaska (the bridge to nowhere), small government libertarians and conservatives will now find the McCain ticket more attractive.

Social conservatives (sc. theocratic authoritarians) ought to be ecstatic about her, I agree. Clicky.

sultan2075 wrote:The experience issue is relevant, but I don't think the Obama campaign can make much hay with it. It's a losing avenue of attack for them, because every time they attack her over it, they will be reminding people of his own lack of experience.

Yes, that wasn't exactly my point. What I mean is that because of Palin's (relative) lack of experience, the Republican can't campaign on Obama's inexperience any longer. Her appointment has effectively defused the experience argument for both sides.

sultan2075 wrote:Oh, I disagree. They've put Biden in a very bad position here. His strength lies in the fact that he can be a very effective attack dog, true. But attacking "that nice lady who looks like a librarian" could backfire on them with voters (in fact, historically, being too "rough" with woman candidates in debates has tended to alienate voters). The pick has effectively disarmed what is probably Biden's biggest strength in a campaign.

Hah. I hadn't considered that angle. Good point.

And on the whole, I'm sure you know more about who's voting for who... and what you're saying is deeply worrying in terms of Obama's prospects. Especially when I've heard suggestions that opinion polling tends to overestimate the support for black candidates in the US in general.

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote: Oh and on the creationism issue, she is on record as saying: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Given that she's also in favour of "abstinence only" sex-ed, that seems to be a contradiction, and betrays an alarming (although not unexpected for a right-wing Republican) tendency to let ideology trump reality.

Eh. It's not an issue I get excised about, because school control is local in the US.

Fair enough. Personally, I would consider it a litmus test; if someone is far enough down the rabbit hole that they support teaching magic in science lessons, well, I wouldn't consider that person fit for public office.

sultan2075 wrote:Depending on who wins the election, though, you may see an Israeli attack on Iran in November/December/January. If Obama wins, I would expect Israel to take action independently and without consulting the US.

Ugh. That's probably even worse than my (admittedly unlikely) scenario.

sultan2075 wrote: I would also expect more aggressive rhetoric directed at the former Soviet republics from Putin if Obama wins (I suspect that if the election were Clinton vs McCain, Putin might well have decided against the adventure in Georgia. He's clearly banking on an Obama victory).

I don't think McCain could afford to start a new Cold War with Putin; I don't think there's the stomach for that kind of open-ended conflict given the way the Iraq situation has gone to hell. Effeectively, unfortunately, I think it means that Putin has carte blanche to do as he damn well pleases in the former Soviet republics.

i wouldn't be too concerned about being rough with the woman candidate. she's a tough cookie and will give back more than she gets.

A rock and a hard place.

Obama is far too socialist for me, while McCain seems out of touch and, to be honest, far too old.

I think this is the year a third candidate could stand a real chance.

As a US citizen ( Embarassed and not proud of it),

Great, we're embarrassed of you too , since you clearly failed your civics. Which wonderful country did you move to, since you must have left the USA?

It's sad that the American people do not get to elect their president, yet the government claims to be a democracy. That whole for the people, by the people bs we're fed. Winning the popular vote means absolutely nothing.

The USA is a Republic. Always has been. Can't think of any country which uses the popular vote to elect a president (though there may be one), but that does not mean they are not based on democracy.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Obama ... socialist

nodubmanshouts wrote:Obama is far too socialist for me

Is he planning to nationalise all the US' major industries? I must admit that I hadn't heard that.

American "left-wing extremism" is "center-right" in Europe...

I said he's far too socialist for me -- not that he's to the left of 1980's Labour!

I'm not into having a government look coddles me, which is what Obama proposes.

nodubmanshouts wrote:The USA is a Republic. Always has been. Can't think of any country which uses the popular vote to elect a president (though there may be one), but that does not mean they are not based on democracy.

Hem hem.



And we call ourselves a "Republic" as well.

Obama is centre-right from a European viewpoint. US politics is so far skewed to the right that I suppose he might look socialist from the borderline-fascist viewpoint of the Republicans.

Yet for "homeland security" nonsense, domestic surveillance and spying, and generally bringing-the-population-in-line, big government appears to be fine. As I wrote above, masochism...

nowayjose wrote:Yet for "homeland security" nonsense, domestic surveillance and spying, and generally bringing-the-population-in-line, big government appears to be fine. As I wrote above, masochism...

Agreed. Further, they're libertarian in terms of tax breaks for the rich, authoritarian in terms of policing other people's sexuality. The Republican party looks insane from a rational standpoint.

markfiend wrote:The Republican party looks insane from a rational standpoint.

They're sane and logical considering the motivation for their politics is the continued fleecing of a controlled majority by a minority. If you can tell people how they should have sex (and if), you have them by the balls, literally. Religion provides the wider framework for that. And the rest is just about making sustainable profit off of those you control.