We are just a week away...
22 states...Hillary wins 17 or 18 of them. Obama wins Illinois, Colorado, Alabama and Georgia and maybe one other. In Oklahoma, Edwards knocks Obama to third.
The republican results on Tuesday will more even between McCain and Romney. McCain wins the biggest ones, California and New York, Romney gets his home state of Massachusetts and again Colorado but loses near home Connecticut. Romney gets killed in the south and the west and Huckabee does very well in south winning Oklahoma and home state Arkansas.
After Tuesday night, Hillary will be way ahead but not complete and McCain considerably ahead of the others in republican delegates.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
We are just a week away...
22 states...Hillary wins 17 or 18 of them. Obama wins Illinois, Colorado, Alabama and Georgia and maybe one other. In Oklahoma, Edwards knocks Obama to third.
The republican results on Tuesday will more even between McCain and Romney. McCain wins the biggest ones, California and New York, Romney gets his home state of Massachusetts and again Colorado but loses near home Connecticut. Romney gets killed in the south and the west and Huckabee does very well in south winning Oklahoma and home state Arkansas.
After Tuesday night, Hillary will be way ahead but not complete and McCain considerably ahead of the others in republican delegates.
Your Magic 8 Ball's kung fu is way mightier than my Magic 8 Ball's Kung Fu
Let's see what happens in Florida. Money has got to start drying up for some of these Republican candidates. Also, 1) the Hillary-Obama soap opera may have more surprises around the corner; and 2) there is still time for Hillary to cry in an effort to turn around the voters in her birth state of Illinois.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Let's see what happens in Florida. Money has got to start drying up for some of these Republican candidates. Also, 1) the Hillary-Obama soap opera may have more surprises around the corner; and 2) there is still time for Hillary to cry in an effort to turn around the voters in her birth state of Illinois.
I suspect she has some massive ugliness up her sleeve for Mr. Obama!
(http://www.brutallyhonest.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/02/hillary.jpg)
(http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg)
I think Obama will also win Idaho, and possibly Tennessee. Given McCaskill's endorsement, he has a shot a Missouri, and Kennedy's support will certainly make a difference in Massachusetts. He might also end up with Minnesota. Hillary will take her home state, and its surroundings, and likely California.
I agree about Oklahoma--it tends to follow the beat of a different drummer when electing democratic nominees. Edwards may win his first state here.
The Movie hits before Tuesday!
Hillary The Movie (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yf7OImljSI%22)
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
The Movie hits before Tuesday!
Hillary The Movie (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yf7OImljSI%22)
And the hits keep coming.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary%27s+word:+It%27s+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I think Obama will also win Idaho, and possibly Tennessee. Given McCaskill's endorsement, he has a shot a Missouri, and Kennedy's support will certainly make a difference in Massachusetts. He might also end up with Minnesota. Hillary will take her home state, and its surroundings, and likely California.
I agree about Oklahoma--it tends to follow the beat of a different drummer when electing democratic nominees. Edwards may win his first state here.
I haven't seen any polling in Idaho since July.
Tennessee is interesting for the democrats. I show Hillary double digits ahead. The real interesting story of Tennessee is on the republican side. Fred Thompson was a shoo-in before he dropped out, now Huckabee is in the lead and everybody else scrambling for Fred-heads. I see most of them going to the more conservative candidate which bodes poorly for McCain. I predict Huckabee gets half of them and Romney gets the rest, which means McCain finishes a very poor third.
Kennedy's help in Massachusetts will be interesting. If she wins there after almost the entire Kennedy compound endorses Obama, it is a clear sign that no one cares what the Kennedy's think.
Why would you think Obama would do better in Minnesota? I haven't seen any polling there since September.
I think Edwards has done quite a bit of work in Missouri. I predict it will be one of the states he gets high teens or low twenties. I think he takes away more votes for Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate than from Hillary as the anti-Obama candidate. That means I think Hillary will win the show-me state.
In Tennessee it's Huck - 30, McCain 26, Romney 22.
All will hinge on Florida. Depends who gets momentum. If McCain comes on strong, expect him to take the lead in TN.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I think Obama will also win Idaho, and possibly Tennessee. Given McCaskill's endorsement, he has a shot a Missouri, and Kennedy's support will certainly make a difference in Massachusetts. He might also end up with Minnesota. Hillary will take her home state, and its surroundings, and likely California.
I agree about Oklahoma--it tends to follow the beat of a different drummer when electing democratic nominees. Edwards may win his first state here.
I haven't seen any polling in Idaho since July.
Tennessee is interesting for the democrats. I show Hillary double digits ahead. The real interesting story of Tennessee is on the republican side. Fred Thompson was a shoo-in before he dropped out, now Huckabee is in the lead and everybody else scrambling for Fred-heads. I see most of them going to the more conservative candidate which bodes poorly for McCain. I predict Huckabee gets half of them and Romney gets the rest, which means McCain finishes a very poor third.
Kennedy's help in Massachusetts will be interesting. If she wins there after almost the entire Kennedy compound endorses Obama, it is a clear sign that no one cares what the Kennedy's think.
Why would you think Obama would do better in Minnesota? I haven't seen any polling there since September.
I think Edwards has done quite a bit of work in Missouri. I predict it will be one of the states he gets high teens or low twenties. I think he takes away more votes for Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate than from Hillary as the anti-Obama candidate. That means I think Hillary will win the show-me state.
I am just making stuff up, to make my guy look better.[;)]
Seriously, the problem with the polls is that they don't state whether they interviewed just democrats or a mix of random voters. Tennessee, Minnesota, Missouri and Idaho are all open primaries/caucuses--areas where Obama does best. It is very difficult to predict which side people will choose to vote, so I don't believe the polling is very accurate (to the extent that it is ever accurate). Obama opened up an office first in Idaho, and will be visiting there this weekend. Minnesota is an independent minded state, and tends to be much more progressive than other states. In the past, Obama has done better with voters who label themselves as progressive or liberal (which is ironic since he also picks up more of the cross-voters). I think you are correct that Edwards continues to take some of the non-Clinton vote from Obama, but his strongest support seems to come from union members. Idaho and Tennessee have very low union numbers, since they are both right to work states. Edwards does do a bit better in Missouri, but polls still put him well below the 20% mark. In fact, they only state in which he is above 20% is in Oklahoma.
I could be wrong. A lot could happen in the next week, but I think you are selling Obama a little short to say he only takes 4 or 5 of the states.
My predictions for Super Tuesday are not meant to demean Obama. It is an unprecedented primary election night and Hillary was just first to be running and she locked in many of the party and democrat campaign regulars.
Primaries traditionally have been heavily influenced by the party wonks. Obama has done an incredible job at bringing new people to the process, but unfortunately, it is never enough during the primary season.
People know what they are getting with Hillary. She has been vetted and every part of her personal life and political career have been explored and scrutinized to fine detail. That is part of my fear with Obama...we still don't know that much.
I hope all the skeletons in all the closets get out in January and early February. Then we can move on and discuss the future president and what they will do for all Americans, not just what they have done for themselves.
^^I don't disagree--Clinton has been planning to run for a while, and getting a political machine running early on can be very beneficial in places like New York and California, which is why I suspect she will win there (although it didn't seem to help Edwards, who I believe was the first to declare).
Again, though, I don't think it will make a significant difference in some of the smaller and more rural states. Obama won in the rural areas of Nevada, which is why he got more delegates than Clinton. Those areas are not as dependent on party machines.
You are right as well--people know what they are getting with Clinton, which may be why so many prominent democrats are endorsing Obama. I have no doubt that the Kennedy endorsement will have an effect in Massachusetts. The Kennedy's are legendary there. I think that having Caroline's endorsement, coupled with the comparison to here father, may have even more signficance.
You know, they only decided to call it Super Tuesday after learning that it's my birthday... [^]
That's all. [:P]
I was looking at an Oklahoma tracking poll that has Clinton in a commanding lead.
Poll (//%22http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4dffc0e1-5935-45fa-ba6e-ce095522cc6d%22)
The one thing that leapt out at me was the fact that Edwards has very low support among the Black and Latino communities. Does anyone know why this would be the case?
Like we said, a lot can happen in a week. Edwards dropping out changes the whole scenerio.
Now I am split and undecided.
I love the inspiration of Obama and believe the country would benefit from a complete Washington outsider. He is getting people to care about elections like no one I have ever seen. How great would it be to have record numbers of voters, all engaged, ready to change America? Obama on the ticket could positively impact democrats in every other race in the country, from state rep to county commissioners.
I also love the brilliance and knowledge of Hillary. She has such an incredible grasp of every issue. Her question and answer sessions are breathtaking. While I was disappointed that her husband couldn't keep his pants up, his approach fixed the economy and kept us out of war. Peace and prosperity...something we haven't had during Bush's presidency. If she put the same type of people in her cabinet that he did, she could bring this country back.
What to do...what to do...
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Now I am split and undecided.
I love the inspiration of Obama and believe the country would benefit from a complete Washington outsider. He is getting people to care about elections like no one I have ever seen. How great would it be to have record numbers of voters, all engaged, ready to change America? Obama on the ticket could positively impact democrats in every other race in the country, from state rep to county commissioners.
I also love the brilliance and knowledge of Hillary. She has such an incredible grasp of every issue. Her question and answer sessions are breathtaking. While I was disappointed that her husband couldn't keep his pants up, his approach fixed the economy and kept us out of war. Peace and prosperity...something we haven't had during Bush's presidency. If she put the same type of people in her cabinet that he did, she could bring this country back.
What to do...what to do...
My money is all over an Edwards endorsement of Obama.
If he really likes Obama, that would be the smart thing to do. Endorsing Obama would clearly show his influence quickly and could change primary elections this Tuesday.
However, Hillary is still the favorite and endorsing Obama would put him out of favor if she wins.
Edwards will drop out after giving a great speech about poverty, then spend the rest of the day rebuilding homes in New Orleans with Habibtat for Humanity.
His message of poverty and how the federal government has let down the poor just didn't resonate with many people other than me. Americans are just blind to the poor. We would rather discuss tax cuts and troop manuevers than food stamps and homeless veterans.
Rm, some look at it that Bill Clinton brought peace and prosperity - other's that he ignored problems and pretended everything was fine. Remember that before he actually left the presidency we had 4 major terrorist attacks and a dot com bubble that was in free fall. Lets not forget there were more Clinton scandals, accusations, indictments, and the guy was actually impeached. Even after leaving office he was disbarred and banned from the practice of law. Bill's tenure is often looked at with rose lenses.
I'll give credit where due - he certainly did well in cutting spending (relative for a Washington politician of course), curbing new initiatives, cutting back on the military, and maintaining stability. And he was a well liked guy internationally.
BUT, he shares blame for his inaction on terrorism, a lack of a response to the housing and dot com bubbles, and no meaningful response to foreign nations: which passed the buck on of our current problems. He coasted for 8 years without addressing any of these concerns in spite of repeated warnings (irrational exuberance speech, repeated terrorist attacks, etc.).
Not that Bush has done much of anything to resolve those issues or even make them better. But Bush isn't running again, and really... neither is Bill. Which is funny, since about half the people I've heard who want to vote for Hillary comment on Bill.
- - -
I have a deep loathing for Hillary, I freely admit that. Partially policy driven, partially because of her tactics, but mostly I just don't like her as a person. I think she is motivated by what's best for Hillary. I'll try to ignore that because clearly it is not persuasive and she is a very intelligent and motivated woman.
However, what has she done? Her initiatives as first lady were failures. She has no meaningful legislation from her time in the Senate. Aside from "husband of Bill" (which got her a Senate seat) her next biggest dot on her Resume is "served on the Board of Wal-Mart." Which while impressive from a professional stand point usually doesn't win over too many Democrats.
She wants universal health care. More and greater entitlements. More restrictions on business. Cleaner energy. Choice on Abortion. An end to the war(s). Cheaper education. Standard democratic platform - but she refuses to clarify any issue. I think that's what reinforces my notion that she'll sell anything to get into office - but for some reason will not divulge exactly how, on what time line, or with what financing these things will get accomplished.
What's more, when I try to listen to her plans I can't help but feel she has no plans. On NPR last week (Friday?) she was talking about health care. Someone called and tried to clarify her position on funding from these measures by with: "are you saying..." to which she replied "I'm not saying anything." Which is exactly right.
- - -
One more thing. A vote for Hillary is for the establishment. A vote for Obama is against it. (as strange as voting for a senator in that light might be). I think we agree that the establishment on both sides of the aisle sucks at the moment.
Giuliani has abandoned his race for White House and is now backing John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination.
Obama spoke in Phoenix this evening and a couple of points that I would like to bring up.
He wants to pull our troops out of Iraq in 2009, but he also said that we need to reinforce our stance in Ahfganistan.
He wants all illegals to go to the back of the line to become American citizens. Not go through the process of going back to thier contry of origin and going through the process the correct way.
Every child who has the grades and desire to go to college should get the chance, but America should be ready to pay for this opportunity.
Veterans should get the care that they deserve and we should soulder the responsibilty to see that they should get the care.
Rumor, (and this is rumor in the southwest) is that part of his campaign in California will to be to give all illegals a valid drivers liscense in any state in the US.
Yes he has the charisma of JFK and MLK, but I just wish that instead of change that all of the candidates are talking about would give way to the actual plans that they have.
The Republican debate tonight shed some light as to what they stand for, but I still don't have a feel for what they really are going/planning on doing for the future. There was too much jabbing between McCain and Romney, Ron Paul had some valid points, and was supported at times by Huckabee.
To me, (JMO) there is no clear front runner, and at the rate they are dropping out before super Tuesday, I feel like throwing a dart at a dart board for my vote.
Just my thoughts, and observations.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Now I am split and undecided.
I love the inspiration of Obama and believe the country would benefit from a complete Washington outsider. He is getting people to care about elections like no one I have ever seen. How great would it be to have record numbers of voters, all engaged, ready to change America? Obama on the ticket could positively impact democrats in every other race in the country, from state rep to county commissioners.
I also love the brilliance and knowledge of Hillary. She has such an incredible grasp of every issue. Her question and answer sessions are breathtaking. While I was disappointed that her husband couldn't keep his pants up, his approach fixed the economy and kept us out of war. Peace and prosperity...something we haven't had during Bush's presidency. If she put the same type of people in her cabinet that he did, she could bring this country back.
What to do...what to do...
My money is all over an Edwards endorsement of Obama.
+3! Why else before Super Tuesday? This race will last past Tuesday. It's an exciting election year.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Rm, some look at it that Bill Clinton brought peace and prosperity - other's that he ignored problems and pretended everything was fine. Remember that before he actually left the presidency we had 4 major terrorist attacks and a dot com bubble that was in free fall. Lets not forget there were more Clinton scandals, accusations, indictments, and the guy was actually impeached. Even after leaving office he was disbarred and banned from the practice of law. Bill's tenure is often looked at with rose lenses.
I'll give credit where due - he certainly did well in cutting spending (relative for a Washington politician of course), curbing new initiatives, cutting back on the military, and maintaining stability. And he was a well liked guy internationally.
BUT, he shares blame for his inaction on terrorism, a lack of a response to the housing and dot com bubbles, and no meaningful response to foreign nations: which passed the buck on of our current problems. He coasted for 8 years without addressing any of these concerns in spite of repeated warnings (irrational exuberance speech, repeated terrorist attacks, etc.).
Not that Bush has done much of anything to resolve those issues or even make them better. But Bush isn't running again, and really... neither is Bill. Which is funny, since about half the people I've heard who want to vote for Hillary comment on Bill.
- - -
I have a deep loathing for Hillary, I freely admit that. Partially policy driven, partially because of her tactics, but mostly I just don't like her as a person. I think she is motivated by what's best for Hillary. I'll try to ignore that because clearly it is not persuasive and she is a very intelligent and motivated woman.
However, what has she done? Her initiatives as first lady were failures. She has no meaningful legislation from her time in the Senate. Aside from "husband of Bill" (which got her a Senate seat) her next biggest dot on her Resume is "served on the Board of Wal-Mart." Which while impressive from a professional stand point usually doesn't win over too many Democrats.
She wants universal health care. More and greater entitlements. More restrictions on business. Cleaner energy. Choice on Abortion. An end to the war(s). Cheaper education. Standard democratic platform - but she refuses to clarify any issue. I think that's what reinforces my notion that she'll sell anything to get into office - but for some reason will not divulge exactly how, on what time line, or with what financing these things will get accomplished.
What's more, when I try to listen to her plans I can't help but feel she has no plans. On NPR last week (Friday?) she was talking about health care. Someone called and tried to clarify her position on funding from these measures by with: "are you saying..." to which she replied "I'm not saying anything." Which is exactly right.
- - -
One more thing. A vote for Hillary is for the establishment. A vote for Obama is against it. (as strange as voting for a senator in that light might be). I think we agree that the establishment on both sides of the aisle sucks at the moment.
I would have to agree with that. In the last 7 years she has failed to pen her name on any legislation. During the Clinton presidency, her healthcare initiative, once published, was completely unfeasible, and ridiculous. Even members of her own party criticized "Hillary-Care" as an unworkable plan that would bankrupt the country.
She talks a good game, but I can't help but see something disturbing, just under the surface. I can't believe her. At least Bill could lie to me and make me feel good. She just makes me feel like I need a shower. I have always been a good judge of people, not by listening to what they say, but by listening to how they say it. When I hear her, my EVIL alarm goes off.
I sense that her ambition is for her alone. That's not good!
Can we start over?
Here are some of the statements made by Obama last night:
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=718453 (//%22http://%22)
I think Hillary would pick Richardson for a running mate, so I don't see any reason for Edwards to throw his support to her.
quote:
Originally posted by dbacks fan
Here are some of the statements made by Obama last night:
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=718453 (//%22http://%22)
I like Mr. Obama, he is fresh and offers the opportunity to escape "old" politics.
The problem with Mr. Obama is that he is in the mode of just saying things that we want to hear without focusing on how he is going to handle the repercussions of those actions. This shows me that he has no REAL ideas. He has idealisms, but nothing that can be implemented.
For instance:
His stance on raising the minimum wage. When the government mandates an increase in wages you always loose jobs and slow economic growth. It's a direct relationship. I have nothing against the increase in wages, but how is he going to address the increased unemployment as a result? The only way you can do this is through tax decreases or incentives for businesses, which I understand he is against.
He vows to bring the troops home. But says nothing about how he is going to ensure that the progress that has been made, and the infrastructure that has been built, is going to be kept from Iran when they take over. I love his compassion for the American people, but shouldn't he have some compassion for others as well. If a pull-out occurs in 2009 like he proposes, millions of people will be left to the will of a very angry group of Islamic extremists. How does he justify that. Regardless of your stance on the war, I think there is an obligation that exists. We can't ignore that in the name of politics.
His opinion on taxes is not understood by most of his constituency. He claims that he is going to take tax-breaks away from the wealthy. Under his plan, any family or small business (sole proprietorship or LLC) that makes over $75,000 a year would have their brackets adjusted back to pre-2001 rates. This means that most American families with two wage earners would get hit with a massive tax increase. I guess I just don't understand the people who support this? He seems to be appealing to our emotions with out addressing our ability to reason.
I need him to tell me HOW, not jut WHAT. He has shown a great deal of passion but no substance. I looked up his record, and he is another Senator that has never authored a single successful piece of legislature. Now he's telling me he has the experience to make policy? HOW?
Can we start over?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
His opinion on taxes is not understood by most of his constituency. He claims that he is going to take tax-breaks away from the wealthy. Under his plan, any family or small business (sole proprietorship or LLC) that makes over $75,000 a year would have their brackets adjusted back to pre-2001 rates. This means that most American families with two wage earners would get hit with a massive tax increase. I guess I just don�t understand the people who support this? He seems to be appealing to our emotions with out addressing our ability to reason.
I need him to tell me HOW, not jut WHAT. He has shown a great deal of passion but no substance. I looked up his record, and he is another Senator that has never authored a single successful piece of legislature. Now he�s telling me he has the experience to make policy? HOW?
Can we start over?
I agree that he has some great ideals but not real 'ideas' at this point...
About the tax thing, though... I'm pretty sure that most people in this country don't make more than $75,000, even with two incomes. Not everyone has college degrees, and let's face it: If you have a married couple that both work minimum wage jobs, that's $5.85 an hour * 40 hrs a week *52 weeks * 2 wage earners= $24,336. That's before taxes, even.
Another example: My dad is college educated, mom is not, and combined, they make less than the $75,000 benchmark... And we're an average family in Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
His opinion on taxes is not understood by most of his constituency. He claims that he is going to take tax-breaks away from the wealthy. Under his plan, any family or small business (sole proprietorship or LLC) that makes over $75,000 a year would have their brackets adjusted back to pre-2001 rates. This means that most American families with two wage earners would get hit with a massive tax increase. I guess I just don�t understand the people who support this? He seems to be appealing to our emotions with out addressing our ability to reason.
I need him to tell me HOW, not jut WHAT. He has shown a great deal of passion but no substance. I looked up his record, and he is another Senator that has never authored a single successful piece of legislature. Now he�s telling me he has the experience to make policy? HOW?
Can we start over?
I agree that he has some great ideals but not real 'ideas' at this point...
About the tax thing, though... I'm pretty sure that most people in this country don't make more than $75,000, even with two incomes. Not everyone has college degrees, and let's face it: If you have a married couple that both work minimum wage jobs, that's $5.85 an hour * 40 hrs a week *52 weeks * 2 wage earners= $24,336. That's before taxes, even.
Another example: My dad is college educated, mom is not, and combined, they make less than the $75,000 benchmark... And we're an average family in Oklahoma.
I don't know? I used to work for minimum wage too, most of us have. Being poor was my biggest motivation to get through college, and increase my skills. I worked 40-70 hours a week to pay for my college education. Lived with a room mate for $250 a month and ate Top-Raman soup. Paid 90% of my income to the University of Tulsa.
I've always viewed low wage jobs as a means, not an end, so I guess I don't have a very clear understanding of people that are content to live at minimum wage. In fact, I don't think anyone is content to live at minimum wage, and I think that's a good thing! I think it encourages ambition.
For a politician to make nearly every position on his platform a promise to give more money to people, or to give free services, only serves to make me more suspect. That money has to come from somewhere. It has to be extracted from the economy. There is no other way.
My point on the tax increases, is that Obama considers families & businesses that make over $75,000 a year as wealthy. I don't make this much, and my wife is a stay at home mommy. We squeak by because my wife is in charge of the checkbook. If taxes are increased on this group, It won't affect us directly, but the company I work for is an LLC, and that 3%-5% increase will mean that we will either need to increase our prices or eliminate one or two employees.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that tax increases have a more profound effect on "average Americans" than you think, and Mr. Obama has not addressed how he is going to avoid this.
We need a president that is better than what we've had for the last 19 years. I don't see that in this race, all I see is politics! We need to be a "
United States"!
Can we start over?
New polling has Obama almost even with Hillary in California, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
New polling has Obama almost even with Hillary in California, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
U have a link?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
This comes as no surprise to me. Smart democrats have this thing figured out. We will not be fooled (or cheated) again! The country can't afford it....
From the LA Times as of January 29th.
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-me-poll29jan29,1,3840493.story (//%22http://%22)
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Smart democrats
Oxymoron.
I read that poll...most of it was done before Edwards dropped out.
In Iowa, you could say who your second choice was. 40% of the Edwards folks listed Hillary and 25% of them listed Obama.
Iowa was a long time ago and not representative of the entire country.
If Obama picks up Edwards voters, it won't be on his message...it will be mostly anti-Hillary sentiment.
That's been the whole deal all along RM! The anti Hllary thing will win the day before the slick republicans have a chance to devour her.
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
Be careful CF. You're gonna upset the FOTarDed!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
Spin it Revolver!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
Cool! I'm above average!
Now I must strive to become exceptional!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
So, if I understand this, and this is kind of what I am understanding and pleas correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to tax those of us in the top 48% to help the lower 48%. I guess then if that is true, then my wife and I need to get a divorce so we will both be in the lower 48% and the taxes won't eat her business alive.
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="" face="" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
So, if I understand this, and this is kind of what I am understanding and pleas correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to tax those of us in the top 48% to help the lower 48%. I guess then if that is true, then my wife and I need to get a divorce so we will both be in the lower 48% and the taxes won't eat her business alive.
[/quote]
How did I become a phantom? that's strange.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
This comes as no surprise to me. Smart democrats have this thing figured out. We will not be fooled (or cheated) again! The country can't afford it....
oxymoron
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., smart democrat,).
Oh. Thanks. I assumed it was a pain pill taking moron. There's so many out there.
AOX, explain the spin to me? I linked DIRECTLY to the hard statistical numbers and to a website with pretty charts. I had no commentary and was clear to indicate extrapolation.
Are you having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction (spin)?
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="" face="" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
quote:
So, if I understand this, and this is kind of what I am understanding and pleas correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to tax those of us in the top 48% to help the lower 48%. I guess then if that is true, then my wife and I need to get a divorce so we will both be in the lower 48% and the taxes won't eat her business alive.
I heard a great analogy the other day. Someone compared Obama to the fable Robin Hood, because he wants to "take from the rich to give to the poor".
The problem is that Robin Hood did not take from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood took, from the Sheriff of Nottingham, the collected tax money, and gave it back to the people. Robin Hood was a tax protester.
Lord,
please help those victims of our public school system not to make any more stupid comments like this. -Amen
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
AOX, explain the spin to me? I linked DIRECTLY to the hard statistical numbers and to a website with pretty charts. I had no commentary and was clear to indicate extrapolation.
Are you having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction (spin)?
Spin is not synonymous with fiction.
"Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window? "
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
AOX, explain the spin to me? I linked DIRECTLY to the hard statistical numbers and to a website with pretty charts. I had no commentary and was clear to indicate extrapolation.
Are you having trouble distinguishing fact from fiction (spin)?
Spin is not synonymous with fiction.
"Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window? "
Yeah CF! Your truth-mongering is not welcome here! How dare you try to influence us with the dirty truth!TRUTHY! FICTION HATER!
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="" face="" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
So, if I understand this, and this is kind of what I am understanding and pleas correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to tax those of us in the top 48% to help the lower 48%. I guess then if that is true, then my wife and I need to get a divorce so we will both be in the lower 48% and the taxes won't eat her business alive.
[/quote]
Now you understand how it works.
Back to the topic of Super Tuesday...
There has never been a more important primary vote in the history of our country. Both parties have narrowed the fields and the democrats and the republicans are beginning to fight among themselves.
The ones in front (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) want to stay low for a few days knowing that any mistake will be magnified by forums like this. The ones behind (Obama, Romney and Huckabee) are trying everything to get on the news shows.
This could be the last week of the primaries. The party nominees will probably be fairly settled after next Tuesday.
But five days is forever in this election.
The upcoming debates and weekend TV talk shows are a must see for any election groupie like me.
Aox, after re-rereading my post I really can't see what you are talking about. When I am arguing for one side or another I freely admit I put the best spin I can on the data (while providing direct links TO the data). In this instance I made no commentary at all except to slightly mock Wikipedia, date the data, and to explain an extrapolation.
If at all, I erred on the side of NOT spinning anything but fully explaining the data.
Please, to show me what standards I should live up to - post the data without putting a spin on it. I'm really curious to know what I did. Without correcting me, I can't improve.
Let's not forget the massive plans for the Get Out The Vote campaigns in Cali now taking form!
The Republicans will settle on McCaintwin even though it's causing the conservarats within the party fits.
The Democrat fight will keep going. Unless Obama pulls the upset.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="" face="" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cannon_fodder
48.42% of American households make more than $75,000 a year (2006).
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm
(pretty charts instead of real data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Tulsa County averages just over $40,000 per hosuehold, suggesting that around 35% of the state makes more than $75K (assuming the ratio holds).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Unemployment/RDList2.asp?ST=OK
The Senator's state of Illinois is close to the national average, so one would imagine 48% are above $75K.
So, if I understand this, and this is kind of what I am understanding and pleas correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to tax those of us in the top 48% to help the lower 48%. I guess then if that is true, then my wife and I need to get a divorce so we will both be in the lower 48% and the taxes won't eat her business alive.
Now you understand how it works.
[/quote]
Thanks guido, some times I have to write it out that way so that I'm clear on what I'm asking. Too many years in the technical field having to explain to people in laymens terms.
I agree the next few days will be interesting to see who has a melt down. By next Wednesday we will know who the candidates are, thats why I am watching intently now.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Back to the topic of Super Tuesday...
There has never been a more important primary vote in the history of our country. Both parties have narrowed the fields and the democrats and the republicans are beginning to fight among themselves.
The ones in front (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) want to stay low for a few days knowing that any mistake will be magnified by forums like this. The ones behind (Obama, Romney and Huckabee) are trying everything to get on the news shows.
This could be the last week of the primaries. The party nominees will probably be fairly settled after next Tuesday.
But five days is forever in this election.
The upcoming debates and weekend TV talk shows are a must see for any election groupie like me.
I'm a bit of a political junkie myself, but I had to turn my XM Radio off of the political channels this afternoon. It's getting rough, and there is less and less substance. The candidates are mad with trying to find dirt on each other. If I were to listen to it all day, I would end up with road-rage on the drive home.
At least monitoring this forum offer's some levity from the extremes on both sides.[:D]
P.S. Jennifer & Ricky say hi!
Looks like we've turned the page thank goodness.
The Democrats are the rock stars....
Clinton vs. Obama: A must-see!
Latest buzz in H'wood is, 'Can you get me a ticket?'
By Paul J. Gough
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3i877e4787aa6b183a1da4ef7019b91b44
The Republicans just rock. No stars.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Let's not forget the massive plans for the Get Out The Vote campaigns in Cali now taking form!
The Republicans will settle on McCaintwin even though it's causing the conservarats within the party fits.
The Democrat fight will keep going. Unless Obama pulls the upset.
I predict just like New Hampshire, the Clintons will be bussing in voters, only this time from California's neighbor to the south.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Let's not forget the massive plans for the Get Out The Vote campaigns in Cali now taking form!
The Republicans will settle on McCaintwin even though it's causing the conservarats within the party fits.
The Democrat fight will keep going. Unless Obama pulls the upset.
I predict just like New Hampshire, the Clintons will be bussing in voters, only this time from California's neighbor to the south.
Now just a second a minute with New Hampshire. What about the Kucinich recount (even though he is out of the race).
What a good debate tonight between Obama and Hillary. Hillary did great tonight, I think in part, because of the format and stage. She is just so strong in a question and answer format and sitting down made her feel at ease.
Obama clearly wants to stand up and give a speech. The early parts tonight, he was kind of rocking and looking around the theater, speaking to the audience instead of the panel or the cameras.
This was the best performance by both of the candidates I have seen. Obama really impressed me with his wit and he just delivers great lines. Hillary has such a grasp on the issues and truly has the history of trying to lead.
I am still undecided. I am leaning toward Obama because it would be great to have his coattails helping democrats across America. Having him on the ballot would mean more democrats win in places like Oklahoma. I will probably change my mind tomorrow because I think having a woman president will help change the dynamic in every workplave in America.
Either of these two will wipe the floor in a debate with Romney or McCain.
I agree, RM--great debate, one that actually focused on the issues, and (with minor exceptions) very little about the horserace. You could tell that the media was annoyed--they wanted fireworks.
Clinton usually does come across as having a better grasp of all the facts, but I think Obama held his own this debate, more so than others.
I tried to watch a bit of the republican debate last night. I couldn't imagine four years of any of those guys.
I thought tonights debate was very good. We finally got a chance to hear some actual plans and ideas that mean something. I found it interesting that while not exactly in lockstep with each other, they are only about a half to three quarters of a step apart from each other. The last question from Blitzer I found interesting about wether or not either one of them would be the others VP for the democratic ticket. I actually wish that I could read lips to know what they said to each other after the debate. I also think that Edwards has not thrown his support behind either one trying to work out a deal to be VP.
As for Romney and McCain, I think that that's going to be a gloves off, knock down, drag out with a lot of finger pointing as to who said what. I think that they could be their own worst enemy in the overall picture but we will have to wait and see. I look forward to their debate to see what happens.
They really toned down in the debate last night. I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues. It was almost a snoozer.
Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything. I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology. It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans. This is what irritates me most.
I don't want to hear about what they want to do. I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it. Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it. The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote. Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers. I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.
Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying. He lost all of my respect last night. He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him! That's just sad.
When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend. That's going to be tough for them. Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.
On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government. McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines. While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country. They provide clear economic explanations that make sense. This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate. All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.
I may be wrong. Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?
If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They really toned down in the debate last night. I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues. It was almost a snoozer.
Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything. I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology. It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans. This is what irritates me most.
I don't want to hear about what they want to do. I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it. Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it. The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote. Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers. I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.
Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying. He lost all of my respect last night. He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him! That's just sad.
When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend. That's going to be tough for them. Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.
On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government. McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines. While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country. They provide clear economic explanations that make sense. This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate. All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.
I may be wrong. Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?
If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!
Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished. A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.
What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc. So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients. I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They really toned down in the debate last night. I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues. It was almost a snoozer.
Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything. I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology. It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans. This is what irritates me most.
I don't want to hear about what they want to do. I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it. Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it. The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote. Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers. I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.
Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying. He lost all of my respect last night. He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him! That's just sad.
When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend. That's going to be tough for them. Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.
On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government. McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines. While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country. They provide clear economic explanations that make sense. This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate. All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.
I may be wrong. Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?
If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!
Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished. A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.
What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc. So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients. I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.
Hey, thank you, that was very well put. I was impressed with both of them but I am leaning towards Obama. Quick wit, represents the future and his wife is awesome. Switched over to c-span to watch her talking about the same time of the debates. An asset to her husband. Bill on the other hand will give conservatives a hammer to use against the Clintons personally and the country be damned. Obviously, Hillary steps into an office she is familiar with and the transition would be quick and effective because of that but the following 3 1/2 years would be hell as conservatives will never let up.
Important at this point to realize that the Republican party is the circus right now. Conservatives are working hard to identify themselves as separate from the party and willing to jump to libertarian or not vote at all and destroy the host if necessary to accomplish their goals. I listened all day this week to Beck, O'reilly, Ingraham & co. and was frankly surprised at the hatred of McCain they espouse. Yet they don't trust Mit either. Huck is their guy but they know he's angling for VP. They actually hinted at moving towards becoming Obama republicans like the Reagan Democrats.
Honestly, this forum and this city are so deep into the conservative republican forest I don't think they will ever understand what is happening in the rest of the country. The turnouts for democratic primaries are setting records. Republican support is fractured among the candidates and turnout weak. libertarians will elect not to vote rather than support McCain. Change isn't just a slogan this year, it is imminent.
My favorite this week is the Senator Denem(sp?) being interviewed on NPR by a BBC reporter about his new book that shows how he has spent his career stopping wasteful Democratic spending. Yeh, I know, from a republican dominated Congress with a 15 year span of deficits. A caller from OKlahoma called and asked him to please use the correct word usage when referring to the "Democrat Party" which should be noted as the Democratic Party. He said he wouldn't until someone could prove to him that it was wrong and that everyone refers to them that way. He then suggested that such negative, republican bashing people should make their remarks on his website rather than calling in (so that they could more effectively be ignored one surmises). Sounds like a Coburn clone. They only listen to themselves then wonder why they are accused of being out of touch.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
They really toned down in the debate last night. I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues. It was almost a snoozer.
Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything. I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology. It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans. This is what irritates me most.
I don't want to hear about what they want to do. I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it. Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it. The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote. Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers. I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.
Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying. He lost all of my respect last night. He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him! That's just sad.
When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend. That's going to be tough for them. Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.
On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government. McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines. While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country. They provide clear economic explanations that make sense. This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate. All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.
I may be wrong. Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?
If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!
Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished. A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.
What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc. So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients. I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.
So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.
Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me. I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side. So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.
I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]
What is McCain's 'transcendent threat is radical Islamic radicalism' but fear? What is Romney's 'close the borders' but fear and indignation? When pusch comes to shove the candidates will always extort support by drawing on fear. Fear of want, fear of tyranny, fear of exploitation. Wrap it in the flag, have it whistle Yankee Doodle, but it is all about scaring your base into action.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.
Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me. I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side. So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.
I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]
Well, no I'm not agreeing with you. It's not pandering, it's campaigning. A fine but crucial difference.
My point was really that each party internally seems overall to agree on a set of ideas to advance in the general. Again, for the Democrats it's universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, etc. Both Hillary and Obama agree on these things by and large, and the differences are really pretty minor. So knowing that the planks don't necessarily depend on the person behind them, what we're voting on is on how the personality will advance the ideas.
I think important information is being communicated right now, but it's not policy driven, it's tonal. It's not particularly "emotional" either, though it is thematic and built around broad ideas rather than minutiae.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
What is McCain's 'transcendent threat is radical Islamic radicalism' but fear?
Umm...common sense? Unless you feel that fundamental islamic behavior isn't a threat to civilized nations.
quote:
What is Romney's 'close the borders' but fear and indignation?
What's wrong with indignation? Seems the American people are significantly indignant about illegal immigration as well.
quote:
When pusch comes to shove the candidates will always extort support by drawing on fear. Fear of want, fear of tyranny, fear of exploitation. Wrap it in the flag, have it whistle Yankee Doodle, but it is all about scaring your base into action.
Sounds like your pushing the fear of fear yourself. At least these two guys have actual reasons to show concern for issues that matter to the American people.
Islamic threat: not as much as an aggressive China arming it. Why does McCain never ever ever mention the Yellow Peril?
Indignation: an emotion, apparently off-limits. A stretch I know, but still.
No fear pusching here: can you restate the final point, that did not register very clearly through the haze.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.
Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me. I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side. So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.
I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]
Well, no I'm not agreeing with you. It's not pandering, it's campaigning. A fine but crucial difference.
My point was really that each party internally seems overall to agree on a set of ideas to advance in the general. Again, for the Democrats it's universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, etc. Both Hillary and Obama agree on these things by and large, and the differences are really pretty minor. So knowing that the planks don't necessarily depend on the person behind them, what we're voting on is on how the personality will advance the ideas.
I think important information is being communicated right now, but it's not policy driven, it's tonal. It's not particularly "emotional" either, though it is thematic and built around broad ideas rather than minutiae.
Understood. Unfortunately changing the definitions doesn't change the facts or lack there of. It may be enough for some, but not for me.
I just watched the debate again (it was on at the Chineese Buffet on 71st. Mmm Foo Young and Politics).
Both candidates keep referring to "My Plan" this, and "My Plan" that. That tends to make me think that they have a plan.
All I'm asking is to see it. Is that too much for a constituent to ask?
Both Mitt and McCain outline their plans in excruciating detail, wether you agree with it all or not. You can go to their websites and view exactly how they will accomplish each goal. They show where the money comes from, where it goes.
When you go to either Hillary or Obama's sites you can review all of their issues. They have done a very good job of spelling everything out, but they both left out one detail, the economics. The "issues" link on Hillary's site is a wonderland of new programs and policies with out a single word about how WE are going to pay for it. The "issues" link on Obama's site uses the word "Plan" exactly 30 times without detailing any plan! His site also offers Billions of dollars in new programs without a single word about where the money will come from. I started to count the number of new programs on Obama's site but I kept getting distracted and finally gave up. It's a bunch!
I'm not against being bribed for my vote, but don't offer to bribe me unless you have the money!
McCain on health system reform (//%22http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm%22), for instance, does not have a single figure in it. Not one. NOT ONE. Veteran's issues? No figgers. Nada. (//%22http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm%22) All conjecture.
Shall I do Mitt or has anyone even looked at the site?
I voted today.
I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.
I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.
My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.
I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.
But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.
I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.
Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
McCain on health system reform (//%22http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm%22), for instance, does not have a single figure in it. Not one. NOT ONE. Veteran's issues? No figgers. Nada. (//%22http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm%22) All conjecture.
Shall I do Mitt or has anyone even looked at the site?
Tim, these aren't new programs he's proposing. These are existing programs that are already funded. But you are correct, he could do a better job of explaining that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Quote
Tim, these aren't new programs he's proposing. These are existing programs that are already funded. But you are correct, he could do a better job of explaining that.
I am not going to spend the next year or so beating up on whoever is nominated, but McCain does not even mention Social Security as one of his issues. That is a live issue. So what direct correlations are you referring to that he and Mitt are supposed to be better at than the Dems? SHENANIGANS!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I voted today.
I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.
I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.
My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.
I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.
But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.
I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.
Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.
Thanks RM. That's the first logical reason I've heard. Not that I agree with your choice, but it was made for the right reason.
I have a two year old little girl. If she was elected president, Elmo would be her vice president. She would run on a straight platform of candy and princesses, and the White House would be moved to Nana's house!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I voted today.
I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.
I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.
My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.
I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.
But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.
I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.
Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.
Well played, RM.
I'm voting for my son. White kids are the only ones of the group that won't have a leg up on admission requirements and additional scholarship options when they apply for college. They have no "it's not a quota" quotas in government office, large corporations, or bid proposals to pass business their way. I think women and minorities are given advantages my son will not have - which in a competitive world means they are to his detriment.
So because of that, I will not vote for a woman. I will not vote for a black man for president. I will not cast a vote for anyone but a white male to hold that office. For my son.
- - -
Same logic, but funny how it sounds horrible when I use it to rationalize a vote for a white male.
Insert "Mormon" and make the same argument. Or "Prisoner of War." Along with woman and black neither have ever held the post. I also disagree with the notion that the man is keeping women down, but that's another thread.
(in case someone is daft, the above is a point - not a statement of belief or intention)
CF....do you bet?
Based on your logic, there should be just even odds on all competitive sports and no point spreads.
Cun't figure this out....ACDC must need material for her act.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
February 1, 2008
Coulter wants Clinton over McCain
Posted: 12:55 PM ET
Ann Coulter said Thursday she'd back Hillary Clinton over John McCain.
(CNN) — In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.
Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only.
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
Coulter took aim at McCain's positions — particularly his fervent anti-torture stance — and said he and Clinton differ little on the issues. Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination.
"John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said.
Coulter is the latest high profile conservative to express dismay with McCain's surging candidacy. Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday McCain's rise was the product of a 'fractured' conservative base and an "uninspiring" GOP presidential field.
"He is not the choice of conservatives, as opposed to the choice of the Republican establishment — and that distinction is key," Limbaugh continued. "The Republican establishment, which has long sought to rid the party of conservative influence since Reagan, is feeling a victory today as well as our friends in the media."
McCain has long been at odds with conservative members of his party. — Exit polls from the early-primary states have shown the he has consistently lost among those primary voters who identify themselves as conservative. But he passed a key test Tuesday in winning Florida's primary, the first early contest that only allowed registered Republicans to participate.
Reacting to criticisms from his party's most conservative quarters, McCain told the San Francisco Gate Thursday, "I'll continue to reach out to all in the party, try to unite the party, until everybody realizes that the only way we're going to defeat the Democratic candidate is through a united party."
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Cun't figure this out....ACDC must need material for her act.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
February 1, 2008
Coulter wants Clinton over McCain
Posted: 12:55 PM ET
Ann Coulter said Thursday she'd back Hillary Clinton over John McCain.
(CNN) — In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.
Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only.
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
Coulter took aim at McCain's positions — particularly his fervent anti-torture stance — and said he and Clinton differ little on the issues. Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination.
"John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said.
Coulter is the latest high profile conservative to express dismay with McCain's surging candidacy. Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday McCain's rise was the product of a 'fractured' conservative base and an "uninspiring" GOP presidential field.
"He is not the choice of conservatives, as opposed to the choice of the Republican establishment — and that distinction is key," Limbaugh continued. "The Republican establishment, which has long sought to rid the party of conservative influence since Reagan, is feeling a victory today as well as our friends in the media."
McCain has long been at odds with conservative members of his party. — Exit polls from the early-primary states have shown the he has consistently lost among those primary voters who identify themselves as conservative. But he passed a key test Tuesday in winning Florida's primary, the first early contest that only allowed registered Republicans to participate.
Reacting to criticisms from his party's most conservative quarters, McCain told the San Francisco Gate Thursday, "I'll continue to reach out to all in the party, try to unite the party, until everybody realizes that the only way we're going to defeat the Democratic candidate is through a united party."
McCain has always made efforts to be inclusive and work with members of both parties. I guess that hurts some ultra-conservatives!
Wonder if Rush will do the same...sure won't hurt Obama.
Gaspar, I'm fairly liberal on several things (immigration, gay marriage, religion) but on other things I fault McCain. One, there is no legal precedent for Writ of Habeas for combatants.
Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity. Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably). The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).
I don't know who my horse is. If I was voting Democrat it would be Obama just for the fact that I loath Hillary and am inspired by Obama. Libertarians will not be allowed to run a candidate again it looks like. So as a default Republican I'm torn between McCain (like his stance on immigration and the need for defense), Romney (best economic ideas) and Ron Paul (mostly to spite the establishment as all his good ideas are offset by totally wack job ones).
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).
My advice to republicans...don't vote for president. Your guy can't win and your choices are all flawed.
Send a message to the national party.
Better choices or we stay home.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar, I'm fairly liberal on several things (immigration, gay marriage, religion) but on other things I fault McCain. One, there is no legal precedent for Writ of Habeas for combatants.
Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity. Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably). The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).
I don't know who my horse is. If I was voting Democrat it would be Obama just for the fact that I loath Hillary and am inspired by Obama. Libertarians will not be allowed to run a candidate again it looks like. So as a default Republican I'm torn between McCain (like his stance on immigration and the need for defense), Romney (best economic ideas) and Ron Paul (mostly to spite the establishment as all his good ideas are offset by totally wack job ones).
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).
I know! It's really disappointing. RM may have a point. I certainly won't stay home on election day, but I bet a lot of Republicans will.
I think a strong 3rd party candidate could totally upset the apple cart at this point! I'm always willing to listen to a candidate that is actually saying something, but no one has peeked my interest.
I have usually voted Republican, but not because I have some attachment to that party, I try to ignore party affiliation and vote according to the candidate that makes the most sense and has a clear plan with goals that I agree with. This has typically put me behind a Republican (except for that one time I threw my vote away on the little general).
I would vote Democrat, if there was a candidate that made a lick of sense, but there's not. If I had to vote as a Democrat in this election, I think I would vote Obama too, because Hillary has no clear plan and has already proven she can produce failure. At least Obama hasn't produced anything as silly as Hillary's health care plan yet.
I'm still up in the air, but I hope that Romney can pull it off. I'd be more comfortable with him than McCain. I respect McCain but I think the country needs a business person, not a politician.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar, I'm fairly liberal on several things (immigration, gay marriage, religion) but on other things I fault McCain. One, there is no legal precedent for Writ of Habeas for combatants.
Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity. Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably). The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).
I don't know who my horse is. If I was voting Democrat it would be Obama just for the fact that I loath Hillary and am inspired by Obama. Libertarians will not be allowed to run a candidate again it looks like. So as a default Republican I'm torn between McCain (like his stance on immigration and the need for defense), Romney (best economic ideas) and Ron Paul (mostly to spite the establishment as all his good ideas are offset by totally wack job ones).
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).
I know! It's really disappointing. RM may have a point. I certainly won't stay home on election day, but I bet a lot of Republicans will.
I think a strong 3rd party candidate could totally upset the apple cart at this point! I'm always willing to listen to a candidate that is actually saying something, but no one has peeked my interest.
I have usually voted Republican, but not because I have some attachment to that party, I try to ignore party affiliation and vote according to the candidate that makes the most sense and has a clear plan with goals that I agree with. This has typically put me behind a Republican (except for that one time I threw my vote away on the little general).
I would vote Democrat, if there was a candidate that made a lick of sense, but there's not. If I had to vote as a Democrat in this election, I think I would vote Obama too, because Hillary has no clear plan and has already proven she can produce failure. At least Obama hasn't produced anything as silly as Hillary's health care plan yet.
I'm still up in the air, but I hope that Romney can pull it off. I'd be more comfortable with him than McCain. I respect McCain but I think the country needs a business person, not a politician.
What if Bloomberg decided to toss his hat in?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My advice to republicans...don't vote for president. Your guy can't win and your choices are all flawed.
Send a message to the national party.
Better choices or we stay home.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
McCaint as Dr. Strangelove!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo
And from the scum that gave us 8 years of Bu****:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080201/ts_alt_afp/usvotenader_080201152658
I think he could get my vote. I'm not as familiar with him as the other candidates (obviously) and can easily spot issues I disagree with him on. But overall I think he'd get my vote (socially liberal, economically conservative, and moderate in most areas).
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Gaspar, I'm fairly liberal on several things (immigration, gay marriage, religion) but on other things I fault McCain. One, there is no legal precedent for Writ of Habeas for combatants.
Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity. Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably). The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).
I don't know who my horse is. If I was voting Democrat it would be Obama just for the fact that I loath Hillary and am inspired by Obama. Libertarians will not be allowed to run a candidate again it looks like. So as a default Republican I'm torn between McCain (like his stance on immigration and the need for defense), Romney (best economic ideas) and Ron Paul (mostly to spite the establishment as all his good ideas are offset by totally wack job ones).
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).
I know! It's really disappointing. RM may have a point. I certainly won't stay home on election day, but I bet a lot of Republicans will.
I think a strong 3rd party candidate could totally upset the apple cart at this point! I'm always willing to listen to a candidate that is actually saying something, but no one has peeked my interest.
I have usually voted Republican, but not because I have some attachment to that party, I try to ignore party affiliation and vote according to the candidate that makes the most sense and has a clear plan with goals that I agree with. This has typically put me behind a Republican (except for that one time I threw my vote away on the little general).
I would vote Democrat, if there was a candidate that made a lick of sense, but there's not. If I had to vote as a Democrat in this election, I think I would vote Obama too, because Hillary has no clear plan and has already proven she can produce failure. At least Obama hasn't produced anything as silly as Hillary's health care plan yet.
I'm still up in the air, but I hope that Romney can pull it off. I'd be more comfortable with him than McCain. I respect McCain but I think the country needs a business person, not a politician.
What if Bloomberg decided to toss his hat in?
I would have to consider it. I think he has the potential to strip votes from both parties. I would want to analyze his positions. As it stands, I don't know enough about his critical positions.
Powell/Bloomberg '08!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And from the scum that gave us 8 years of Bu****:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080201/ts_alt_afp/usvotenader_080201152658
LOL!
I think he's almost necessary. He just strips the crazies out of the party. He keeps the radicals from messing up the numbers. You should thank him.
Reflects better for the Democratic party when the people dressed in clothing made from their own hair arrive at the polls to vote for Nader rather than Hillary or Obama.
Nader is like the fuel filter on your car. Keeps dirt from burning up your engine!
(http://www.icomefromreykjavik.com/halli/archives/myndir/darthnader.jpg)
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
Onward Christian Socialists marching on for the war . . .
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
Did he apologize for threatening to dam up the Illinois River from entering Oklahoma?
As Governor of Arkansas, he was certainly no friend of Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
I like Huck. He's not viable, but I like him.
I'm leaving in 5 minutes to go see the Huck-meister. Not my horse, but I'd like to hear what he has to say. He has a good shot on a VP ticket I think.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm leaving in 5 minutes to go see the Huck-meister. Not my horse, but I'd like to hear what he has to say. He has a good shot on a VP ticket I think.
Some day I dream of a Fair Tax, but probably won't happen in my lifetime!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
Did he apologize for threatening to dam up the Illinois River from entering Oklahoma?
As Governor of Arkansas, he was certainly no friend of Oklahoma.
No, he didn't.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I voted today.
I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.
I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.
My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.
I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.
But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.
I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.
Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.
Guess we are going to cancel eachother out, RM.[;)] Like you, I will support whomever wins, but I wanted to share why ultimately I will be voting for Obama. As you know, I have young children, too, and my vote will be because of them. I want them to grow up in a different United States.
As a post-baby boomer, my only memories of politicians have been mired in scandal--watergate, iran-contra, white water--the list goes on and on. People my age naturally assume that every politician is corrupt. I am sure that Obama is not a saint, but he elevates the debate to a more civil level. He "appeals to the better angels of our nature" and provides us with a sense that we can do better. His speeches are less about himself (something that always bugged me about Edwards), and more about us and what we can achieve. In that way, he truly is the JFK of this generation.
I want my children to grow up with the idea that it is ok to disagree, to discuss issues, without attacking a person. I want to move beyond the belief that liberals or conservatives are evil, and to recognize that we all have views to share. I want our country to at long last move beyond the Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters. I want my children to believe that serving a political office is a worthwhile pursuit, not simply an opportunity to destroy another's character.
I am voting for more than Obama--I am voting for what I want our country to be--and against what I have grown so tired of. I don't think that Clinton's faults are altogether her own, but she does remind us of scandals and bickering and government shut downs. I am ready to move beyond that.
While it would be nice to have a woman president, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the first woman president gets there with much help from her husband's coattails. I want a woman who gets there totally on her own. And while I would never vote for a candidate simply because they are a minority or a woman, I do believe that race relations in our country are much worse than relations between men and women.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying. He lost all of my respect last night. He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him! That's just sad.
Whoa. First off, ALL politicians say lots of things people want to hear... then they vote for them. It's called democracy.
And to suppose that Harvard-grad Barack Obama doesn't understand what he's saying? Wow, you are certainly the mind reader, eh?
You realize the Dems said the same thing about Reagan?
I voted for Reagan in 1984 because I believed him when he said he would reduce the federal deficit; hey, he told me "what I wanted to hear" so I voted for him...
Some of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes:
"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"------------------------------------------------
"We have never interfered in the internal government of a country and have no intention of doing so, never have had any thought of that kind."Ronald Reagan, 1982
------------------------------------------------
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
------------------------------------------------
"History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
------------------------------------------------
"We now know that inflation results from all that deficit spending."- Ronald Reagan, February 5, 1981
While President, announcing a plan to curb inflation by eliminating the federal deficit within three years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I27480-2004Jun9)
Now, I'll vote for a tax-and-spend liberal over a spend-and-spend "conservative" any day of the week...
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As a post-baby boomer, my only memories of politicians have been mired in scandal--watergate, iran-contra, white water--the list goes on and on. People my age naturally assume that every politician is corrupt.
Your words make me sad. I don't feel this way, mainly because I have put an effort into trying to get to know elected officials on a personal basis. I go to campaign functions, town hall meetings, public meetings, and rallies sometimes just to understand the motivation of the politicians. I can name dozens of politicians who were elected to office and served the public honorably, without any scandal.
Maybe I am just looking locally and you are right about higher office. Maybe the deals it takes to be a congressmen or governor or president makes all of them untrustworthy. Maybe I am just naive.
I hope you are wrong about all politicians and right about Obama. If it takes your vote in him to restore your confidence in all politicians, I would say that your vote is a wise one.
Hate the game, not the playa . . .
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by tulsacyclist
I'm pretty certain Huckabee has no fans here on this board but I did attend the Huckabee campaign stop out at the airport today. There was a great turnout there, packed house with young and old alike. Good times.
Did he apologize for threatening to dam up the Illinois River from entering Oklahoma?
As Governor of Arkansas, he was certainly no friend of Oklahoma.
No, he didn't.
According toi the World, it looks as though he scapegoated our attorney general. What a hillbilly that Huckster is.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As a post-baby boomer, my only memories of politicians have been mired in scandal--watergate, iran-contra, white water--the list goes on and on. People my age naturally assume that every politician is corrupt.
Your words make me sad. I don't feel this way, mainly because I have put an effort into trying to get to know elected officials on a personal basis. I go to campaign functions, town hall meetings, public meetings, and rallies sometimes just to understand the motivation of the politicians. I can name dozens of politicians who were elected to office and served the public honorably, without any scandal.
Maybe I am just looking locally and you are right about higher office. Maybe the deals it takes to be a congressmen or governor or president makes all of them untrustworthy. Maybe I am just naive.
I hope you are wrong about all politicians and right about Obama. If it takes your vote in him to restore your confidence in all politicians, I would say that your vote is a wise one.
I think that local and national politics are totally different. You cannot get to know presidential candidates on a personal basis, so they are much more at risk of character attacks.
I think you also jumped to conclusions. I never said
I thought all politicians are corrupt. I was pointing out a very serious problem we have with citizens' attitudes. You cannot deny that there is a general malaise toward our government these days. People don't vote, don't care. I tend to think that has something to do with thirty years of scandals. Many of the scandals were unfounded, and most were media driven. But the tit-for-tat you get between democrats and republicans, where it is easier to attack the person than to defend the idea, only fuels the problem. My vote for Obama is because I do believe that many, many politicians choose that career to serve the common good. I may disagree with their approach, but that doesn't mean they are evil or out to ruin my way of life. To me, a vote for Obama is a recognition that we can never raise ourselves up simply by pulling others down. It's a vote to move beyond the character assassinations, and the simplistic labeling of "vast right wing conspiracies" and "liberal elite." We are all just people with different points of view, and its time we treated eachother with that respect.
I am not naive--I am sure that some will continue with character assassinations. But I am hopeful that if the vast majority of americans stand up and vote for someone whose core position is
enough already, perhaps the media, the political pundits, the spin doctors--all of those whose job it is to destroy politicians--will finally get the message.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My advice to republicans...don't vote for president. Your guy can't win and your choices are all flawed.
Send a message to the national party.
Better choices or we stay home.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative. Vote for someone not backed by Special Interest groups or big money. He has never taken a pay raise, never voted to raise taxes, voted against the war in Iraq. HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
"The economy is likely to weigh heavily on the minds of Super Tuesday voters as they head to the polls - more than half of Americans now think the economy is in a recession and they believe overwhelmingly that the worst is yet to come.
The poll found that Clinton and Obama both have the support of 41 percent of Democratic primary voters - a drastic change from early January, when Clinton led Obama by 15 percentage points. While Clinton's overall support has remained steady, Obama has made significant gains among men, particularly white men, and African Americans. White male voters are split nearly evenly between the two Democrats, and Obama holds an 12 percentage point advantage among men overall.
Obama has also seen his support among women rise by 11 percentage points, and he now trails Clinton by only 7 percentage points among that group. He trails Clinton narrowly among Democrats but leads her among independent voters by 13 percentage points. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/03/opinion/polls/main3783743.shtml
and down the stretch they come......
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Now I am split and undecided.
I love the inspiration of Obama and believe the country would benefit from a complete Washington outsider. He is getting people to care about elections like no one I have ever seen. How great would it be to have record numbers of voters, all engaged, ready to change America? Obama on the ticket could positively impact democrats in every other race in the country, from state rep to county commissioners.
I also love the brilliance and knowledge of Hillary. She has such an incredible grasp of every issue. Her question and answer sessions are breathtaking. While I was disappointed that her husband couldn't keep his pants up, his approach fixed the economy and kept us out of war. Peace and prosperity...something we haven't had during Bush's presidency. If she put the same type of people in her cabinet that he did, she could bring this country back.
What to do...what to do...
I know how you feel. Think I am going to vote for Hillary though.
Hubby and daughter are voting for Obama.
Son undecided.
OK, RM--you made your predictions before Edward's dropped out. What are your predictions now, only a few hours before polls open? What are the total delegates you are predicting? Care for a friendly wager?
Sure.
Hillary sweeps the east. New York, Massachussetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware. Obama makes it close in Massachusetts, Delaware and New Jersey.
Obama wins Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Utah, Alabama and Georgia.
Hillary sweeps the rest. California, Missouri and Arizona will be close, but she wins big in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, Tennessee, Alaska, and Arkansas.
The key is to watch the east first. If Obama gets more than 40% in New York and wins Massachusetts, the rest of the nation will be close.
Missouri and California are the closest. If Obama can win either one, he will be within a hundred delgates of Hillary at the end of the night.
I predict he won't win either and will be over 150 delgates behind. No media will call California until at least midnight our time.
Final state count... Hillary 16 Obama 6
Don't think we will know the nominee until long after tommorow.
Super delegates will hold the power most of whom are status quo which helps Billary. The average voters don't really matter.
West coast states make up %30 of the delegates. I'm not staying up.
I think you really underestimate the momentum Obama has. He's raised more money, got more endorsements in the past month by far than Clinton. Being on the upswing, I am betting that most undecided will sway towards Obama.
EAST COAST: Obviously, Hillary will win in New York. Recent polls have Obama & Clinton in a dead heat in Massachusetts, but I imagine she will maintain a slight lead, though its an open primary, which benefits Barack. New Jersey, Connecticut, & Deleware have a tie between the two. I imagine that New Jersey will go to Clinton, since it's more blue collar, though it is semi-open, too. Ultimately, Hillary gets 3, Barack 2
South--Hillary gets Oklahoma, Arkansas & Tennessee. Barack gets Georgia & Alabama.
Plains--Kansas now has Barack ahead, as well as Missouri. I predict Barack gets both, along with Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Idaho, & Colorado.
West: Arizona & New Mexico will go to Hillary, and Alaska will go to Barack.
California--this is the most difficult to predict. Hillary has a lot of workers on the ground, but Barack has gotten so much momentum there. Latest polls have them in a statistical tie, or Obama slightly ahead. While I am not as confident, I have a feeling tha Obama will win just slightly.
Ultimately, Obama 14 states, Clinton 8.
I agree of the total pledged delegates up for grabs, there will be a very low overall difference, since none is a winner take all. Even if Clinton gets California, I predict that the delegates will be almost evenly divided in that state.
The Mexicaints wont vote for Osama....
California is turning big time for Obama despite the hispanic vote concept....
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Secondly, no one should talk about energy independents or rising gas prices when they voted to further restrict domestic drilling and/or allow more refining capacity. Or at least provide a viable alternative (nuclear presumably). The US has more oil under federal control than Iraq but we can't touch it... we don't really need the 2 or 3 Trillion dollars nor do we really care about energy independence (could go on and on).
...
At the moment, I'm leaning towards Paul just to show I'm not happy with the status quo (if he had a chance of winning I would probably not vote Paul).
The government got way too big, spending got out of control. The huge pressure to finance all of this spending keeps the US engaged in operations overseas that it does not need to be involved in.
Do you know that a big reason we "depend" on foreign oil when we could be drilling our own is that it is a scheme to finance our debt? Are you aware that we have deals set in place with foreign governments to 1) Sell oil in dollars and 2) Re-invest part of that in our national debt - So in other words, the foreign oil dependancy is a scheme to get us to finance all of this debt we have. The federal government has not only gotten too large, it has grossly overstepped the boundaries of LOGIC in its largesse. It hit a logical financial limit a long long time ago.
The United States essentially went bankrupt in 1971. Dropping the gold standard meant that, before 1971, the dollars we paid people overseas had value, they could be exchanged for a set amount of gold. After 1971 they became backed by nothing, and have greatly distorted in value as time goes by and we print print print.
Imagine this. Our government got too big at the same time our manufacturing base lost its' dominance in the world. Government spending in the 50s and 60s grew, and we started taking a few too many liberties with the way we gave out dollars to foreigners. What we had was a gold-backed dollar we were handing out, but reserves dropped and dropped - It equated to fractional reserve banking gone wild. We fought a war that wasn't neccesary with money we didn't have. But this was 40 years ago. The Vietnam war bankrupted us. We had exploited fractional reserves far past their limit, and could no longer back our dollars with gold since we had spent WAY too much money we simply DID NOT HAVE. Nixon dealt the death blow in 1970 when he lifted import quotas on oil. More dollars going out, no more gold to back them.
As spending shot skyward, defecits were growing, and the country was going bankrupt, more complex schemes came about to finance our out of control government. This goes back to what I mentioned about agreements with oil producing nations. We COULD drill ANWR... But it works better this way: Buy oil from places like Saudi Arabia. Dictate to them that they take dollars for oil. Also dictate to them that a portion of this money we pay them, they re-invest in our debt. So by importing our oil from these foreign nations, we have a mechanism to finance our huge defecit spending. Without it, we would be more limited in who would buy our debt - or heaven forbid we limit ourselves to spending just the money we have.
Guess which nations didn't like being told to only denominate oil in dollars, and to reinvest a portion in our debt? If you guessed Iraq and Iran you get a cookie :)
The reason we went to war in Iraq was because Saddam wanted to switch his oil sales from dollars to euros.
Iran has already converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies. But they pose a bigger threat soon. They are planning to open a commodities exchange. There are currently two major exchanges: NYMEX in New York and IPE in London. There are currently three oil markers: West Texas Intermediate, North Sea Brent Crude, and UAE Dubai Crude. All three are denominated in US dollars. Iran is going to start a new major exchange, with a new price marker denomoniated in Euros. This has the potential to be very serious for the US dollar and the price we pay for oil here in the US. This is why we are threatening action with Iran.
If a country like Iraq or Iran switches from trading oil in dollars to trading oil in euros, it exposes the dollar for its weakness. We in turn pay higher prices. $90 oil happened because of nations trading oil in Euros. If everyone sold oil in dollars, we could just print dollars and give them to them. When they switch to euros, it exposes the inflation. Now, if we increase the supply of dollars, the price of oil goes up. We are exposed.
The Iranians did not create this problem. The problem goes back to our government seeking ever larger federal budgets, seeking to spend money it doesnt have, and the federal reserve printing dollars from nothing. Only by reducing the size of government, and reducing spending can we halt this crazy endless cycle of creating money, borrowing money, and laundering money through oil sales to feed the massive hunger of our government.
A foreign country like Iraq won't facilitate our defecit spending by buying our debt and protecting our dollar - so we invade them and install a new government. Can you see why they hate us? Likewise, in Saudi Arabia we keep in power a regressive and oppressive regime that the people hate, simply because they are a good sport in selling us oil in dollars and buying our debt. The people hate the regime. The US government supports the regime. Can you see why they hate us?
The NATIONAL DEBT DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. We have by and large been lead to believe that the huge number we hear quoted (a number in the trillions of dollars) is "tolerable" and "not really a problem the average person should worry about". That money comes from somewhere. When the federal budget grossly exceeds incoming revenue, dastardly methods can and will be resorted to to create that money by various methods of manipulation. We have gone for DECADES giving people money that never existed in the first place. We just create it and hope they take it. This system is on the verge of collapse. As other powers such as China or Russia see the moment arise, we sit in a very precarious situation with the confidence in our dollar a mere event away from destruction.
If you believe in free markets, small government, self reliance, and personal liberties, there is no other candidate in the same ball-park as Ron Paul. There is such corruption that stands to lose if a man like Ron Paul were in power that the effort from day one has been to discredit, discredit, discredit him as a "nut". Fighting against an out-of-control government is not "crazy". Defending our garunteed constitutional rights even in the face of security challenges is not "kook" behaviour. Insistance upon fighting wars only when the nation is at serious risk is not lunacy, it is wisdom and understanding of history. Believing that some elected officials are doing the dirty work of giant corporations and private banks isn't "conspiracy nonsense", it is an essential realization we must come to grips with if we are to ever overcome the massive odds we have against us in the fight for freedom.
I think one of the downfalls of America is the fact that the free society that the founders envisioned turned out to be SO successful that we could STILL live a great life at the same time we are being robbed blind. We do have it good in America, which is one reason why people think Ron Paul sounds crazy. How could everything he says is wrong be wrong if we have it as good as we do? All I can say is that we can still live good while being stolen from and manipulated as much as we are, that is just a testament of how strong America is. I suppose we could be satisfied with the status quo. But how about this: Why don't we shake off some of the baggage that is holding us down from our true potential? Life without a monstrous government and monstrous central bank. Truely free markets. Truely free society. Your life as YOU want to live it, not as the government sees it for you. A financial system that doesn't create money for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. A prosperity system with no limits, restrictions, or high price of entry.
If that is "insane" then somebody get me my straight jacket.
Two things come to mind. One is that when the budgets were "balanced" in the 1990's why didn't that create havoc with the world markets? According to your construct the balancing of spending/revenues should have created fiscal panic. Instead there was steady growth.
Two, is the recognition that oil companies would rather buy both crude and refined oil products overseas, add a profit margin and market to Americans without the mess of drilling in our backyard and building expensive refineries. That is a critical recognition that you correctly note. Our oil companies have been marketers for the past 40 years. They have little interest in the dirty work as long as there are secure sources. When we went into Nam, the allegations were made that potential reserves and cheap labor were the real reasons.
With that in mind one can see why Germany specifically and Europe in general, is excelling in R&D for solar power, wind power and other alternatives while we sit back and insist it isn't viable until we've drilled holes in everyone's back yard and the right investors own the rights to any other energy source. Yet in Germany common folk are being encouraged to contribute to their grids and mass transit is a given. Our paradigm does not and will not allow that encouragement.
Ron Paul is an interesting figure head for a movement to reality based thinking. His politics make sense on a basic level but his main strength imo is pointing out how far we have strayed from a successful formula. However, from listening to right wing radio recently, he has his own hypocrisy baggage and they intend to use it if he starts to succeed. Plain and simple, we're screwed because the driver of our economic bus is drunk on oil, screaming scripture, firing his AK out the window and aiming the bus at anyone who dares criticize. When the bus crashes and we sort out the carnage, changes will be made.
OK pmcalk...you are on.
We agree on 15 of the 22.
We differ on these seven states.
Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).
We should know early on the first two.
California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
OK pmcalk...you are on.
We agree on 15 of the 22.
We differ on these seven states.
Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).
We should know early on the first two.
California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.
Obama will win California. Our first Technocrat.
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/300039
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
OK pmcalk...you are on.
We agree on 15 of the 22.
We differ on these seven states.
Connecticut and Delaware in the east.
Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota in the middle. Alaska up yonder. And California (way left).
We should know early on the first two.
California is everything. It counts more than the other six combined. Obama will win in San Francisco and San Jose...Hillary will win in Hollywood, Los Angelas and San Diego. Whoever gets Sacramento will win the state.
Just one clarification--I said Obama will get 2 out of the five for the east coast. I am guessing that it will be Connecticut & Deleware, but it may be two others. Still on?
Also, winning means most popular vote, not most delegates, right?
One more thing--we originally had a difference of 8, with you saying Obama only gets 6, I said 14. But you only have a difference of 7. Which state are we forgetting?
There are three ways to count wins tonight. Most overall votes, most states, and most delegates.
I say we count each way and two out of three is the winner.
Obama versus Hillary, head to head.
Dinner for both families at a local restaurant?
Sounds good. So just 2 out of 3 overall, regardless of the specific states? That's good, because I was really getting a headache trying to figure out the different counts, and what we left out.
I am guessing the spread may be 100 delegates (Hilldog in the lead) after today....that close.
If Georgia is any indication, this is Obama's night. Exit polls have him up 2 to 1 over Clinton.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
If Georgia is any indication, this is Obama's night. Exit polls have him up 2 to 1 over Clinton.
Here's Drudge's early reporting...
http://www.drudgereport.com/
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
One more thing--we originally had a difference of 8, with you saying Obama only gets 6, I said 14. But you only have a difference of 7. Which state are we forgetting?
We forgot Missouri.
You say Obama, I say Hillary.
Obama carries two of the five eastern states.
On the other hand, looks like I was wrong about Missouri.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Two things come to mind. One is that when the budgets were "balanced" in the 1990's why didn't that create havoc with the world markets? According to your construct the balancing of spending/revenues should have created fiscal panic. Instead there was steady growth.
You were correct in putting quotations around the word balanced, since they were never truely balanced. We were still paying billions to service the debt we already had, and more importantly they were CLAIMING to have a balanced budget while raiding social security funds to make it "balanced". Spending was not equal to or less than revenues, when you take into account the fact that social security was supposed to be saved for the people when they inevitably would need the benefits they were currently paying in for.
Also, an interesting observation can be made about oil prices and our defecits. In 1998, when defecit spending was under control, oil was $11 a barrel. Not as much debt to monetize, and all of a sudden we are only printing $11 and sending it to Saudi Arabia compared to printing $50 and sending it to Saudi Arabia in 2005. Makes you wonder if the "supply and demand" that dictates oil prices isnt really consumption versus production so much as it is the amount of debt the government needs to get foreigners to buy from us.
Mrs. President....
Or am I a bit too early with this?[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Mrs. President....
Or am I a bit too early with this?[:D]
???Right now Obama has more states than Clinton with 11. Even Missouri is still in play--with the numbers practically tied. The delegate numbers are less than 50 apart. So yes, a little early.
Why no reports on New Mexico?
Next up--Louisiana, my guess it goes for Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Mrs. President....
Or am I a bit too early with this?[:D]
Hold up there, HS. It ain't time yet by a long shot. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Mrs. President....
Or am I a bit too early with this?[:D]
???Right now Obama has more states than Clinton with 11. Even Missouri is still in play--with the numbers practically tied. The delegate numbers are less than 50 apart. So yes, a little early.
Why no reports on New Mexico?
Next up--Louisiana, my guess it goes for Obama.
Obama just took the lead in Missouri.
And seriously, how bout ole Huck? He's winning whole states! After Iowa, I was sure he was dead in the water, but he's taking it right to McCain!
Also, there're a lot more evangelicals than I thought there were.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
...there're a lot more evangelicals than I thought there were.
Sadly...
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Ron Paul is an interesting figure head for a movement to reality based thinking. His politics make sense on a basic level but his main strength imo is pointing out how far we have strayed from a successful formula. However, from listening to right wing radio recently, he has his own hypocrisy baggage and they intend to use it if he starts to succeed. Plain and simple, we're screwed because the driver of our economic bus is drunk on oil, screaming scripture, firing his AK out the window and aiming the bus at anyone who dares criticize. When the bus crashes and we sort out the carnage, changes will be made.
Thats a good way to put it, him being a figurehead of a movement. Ron Paul the person is not popular, and he is not winning any votes based upon personality, character, or likeability. It is his message that people like. Is he the perfect candidate? No. But for small government constitutionalists, he is the best thing we have in the running right now, and has a principled record going back decades that I don't see any other politician holding a candle to.
Him going around talking about all the ways the government and financial systems are broken gets people to open their eyes. They think, probably at first, this guy must be out of his mind. Then they start seeking out answers. Then they see that he makes some great points that you never would have heard from traditional media or status quo politicians. Then they realize how important it is that we start heading in the right direction, and change things for the better. They don't become supporters of Ron Paul, they become supporters of the advice our founders gave us.
What hypocrisy baggage do you speak of btw?
I have heard the one about him adding some funding for his district in a bill, then voting against it when he knew it would pass without trouble. I can see him being a hypocrite there, but I can also see justification in getting something from the federal taxation WHICH HE OPPOSES but his constituants still pay against their wishes. He did all sorts of things that would be political suicide for most congressmen, such as opposing farm subsidys when his district is largely rural farmers. If he didn't at least throw them a bone every now and then, reclaim some of their money that the government took away if you will, he would probably lose his seat in congress and lose it hard.
Then there are the newsletters, which are a neat political trick that can do great harm to him. He didn't write them, but merely running news teasers quoting racist rants and tieing them to his name - even if you later clarify that those words were not his, the damage has already been done. And if he really had more knowledge of the racist newsletters than he claims, that would be a strike against him to me. If you have seen enough of Ron Paul tho, the racist stuff doesnt seem anywhere close to the type of rhetoric he has offered up consistently for decades. It just doesn't fit his character so I have an easy time believing those were not his feelings on the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Ron Paul is --
--snip--
So my question for you is, what's going to happen after all this primary stuff is over? At this point, RP doesn't seem poised to win any of the states still in contention, and he hasn't won any to date. What now? Will RP work to reform the Republican party from within? Will he push his agenda from without the party and try to put together (gasp!) a third? I mean, what are we talking here? Is this a movement or a one-off, cult-of-personality thing? Because I might be more interested in voting for Ron Paul if he had a better infrastructure behind him. And I'm sorry if that's too bourgeois, but I'm giving my vote to someone who can get me results, and without a party -- or confederates of some sort -- to support him in the other branches of government, RP might not be able to deliver
anything.
RM's prediction:
Final state count... Hillary 16 Obama 6
PM's prediction:
Obama 14-8.
At 12:30, Obama leads 13-8, with New Mexico still being counted.
Regardless, it looks like PM wins this one by a mile.
Don't be too sad, RM. You *did* win the KFAQ football pool.
Can someone tell me why 42,000 Oklahomans voted for a guy who is no longer running for President?
(John Edwards).
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Ron Paul is --
--snip--
So my question for you is, what's going to happen after all this primary stuff is over? At this point, RP doesn't seem poised to win any of the states still in contention, and he hasn't won any to date. What now? Will RP work to reform the Republican party from within? Will he push his agenda from without the party and try to put together (gasp!) a third? I mean, what are we talking here? Is this a movement or a one-off, cult-of-personality thing? Because I might be more interested in voting for Ron Paul if he had a better infrastructure behind him. And I'm sorry if that's too bourgeois, but I'm giving my vote to someone who can get me results, and without a party -- or confederates of some sort -- to support him in the other branches of government, RP might not be able to deliver anything.
I would like to think that people who support his message are behind the IDEA, and will continue to support those IDEAs even if the particular candidate Ron Paul is not successful.
The current scenario is thus:
If McCain doesn't get a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a brokered convention. The underground strategy of the Paul campaign has been, without getting too specific, to have all Ron Paul delegates at the convention. The delegates are bound by the popular vote only for the FIRST vote. If Mccain does not get a majority, there is a brokered convention where all of the delegates get to support whom they choose. The plan is to make sure the PEOPLE who are chosen as delegates and sent off to the convention are people who will support Ron Paul after the first vote.
If Mccain gets over 50% of delegates pledged too him before the convention, he is automatically going to win it, so Paul is out.
He may choose to run 3rd party, he may choose to give it up. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect a 3rd party might happen under certain circumstances.
If Obama is the democrat nominee, Paul would have a tough time getting the "independants" and anti-war people to vote for him. Mccain vs. Hillary is the perfect scenario for Paul to become a viable candidate, because fiscal and social conservatives hate both of them. Anti-war folks who really know the issues hate both of them. And a lot of people would vote for "Not Hillary or Mccain" just out of protest.
Back on the topic of the brokered convention. I think if the Paul campaign actually thinks this has a chance of getting Paul the nomination, they are out of their minds. Even if they could somehow succeed in getting a majority of delegates in that support Ron Paul, there would be a revolt against nominating someone who got 5% in the popular votes. I don't see Paul getting a majority of delegates in the convention, but I do see this strategy being somewhat successful in getting an abnormally large contigency of Paul supporters through the system. They are very organized in this one area. If Paul can sneak 15-30% of delegates through the system, they can have a powerful voice in choosing the nominee. IF this unlikely scenario comes to pass, I see them having the power to stand in the way of McCain. If Paul cannot win it, I think the Ron Paul delegates would choose Romney as the lesser of two evils, the more conservative choice, and back him. Ron Paul's delegate insurgency could be the end of the line for McCain in a brokered convention.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Can someone tell me why 42,000 Oklahomans voted for a guy who is no longer running for President?
(John Edwards).
225,000 Californians (105,000 at 44% reported, so you can extrapolate to above 200k) voted for Giuliani today.
I guess if you REALLY believe in someone, it is honorable to stick to your principles and cast a vote for that person anyway (assuming you never believed in that person's opponents one bit).
I wonder how many of these Edwards and Giuliani votes are people sticking to their principles, and how many are uninformed people who voted for the name they recognized.
The NYT has an interesting graphics about the election finals and how each county voted breaking it out to Democrats and Republicans.
here - http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/OK.html (//%22http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/OK.html%22)
Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.
Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.
She won in two of the three categories.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Ron Paul is an interesting figure head for a movement to reality based thinking. His politics make sense on a basic level but his main strength imo is pointing out how far we have strayed from a successful formula. However, from listening to right wing radio recently, he has his own hypocrisy baggage and they intend to use it if he starts to succeed.
Thats a good way to put it, him being a figurehead of a movement. Ron Paul the person is not popular, and he is not winning any votes based upon personality, character, or likeability. It is his message that people like. Is he the perfect candidate? No. But for small government constitutionalists, he is the best thing we have in the running right now, and has a principled record going back decades that I don't see any other politician holding a candle to.
Him going around talking about all the ways the government and financial systems are broken gets people to open their eyes. They think, probably at first, this guy must be out of his mind. Then they start seeking out answers. Then they see that he makes some great points that you never would have heard from traditional media or status quo politicians. Then they realize how important it is that we start heading in the right direction, and change things for the better. They don't become supporters of Ron Paul, they become supporters of the advice our founders gave us.
What hypocrisy baggage do you speak of btw?
I have heard the one about him adding some funding for his district in a bill, then voting against it when he knew it would pass without trouble. I can see him being a hypocrite there, but I can also see justification in getting something from the federal taxation WHICH HE OPPOSES but his constituants still pay against their wishes. He did all sorts of things that would be political suicide for most congressmen, such as opposing farm subsidys when his district is largely rural farmers. If he didn't at least throw them a bone every now and then, reclaim some of their money that the government took away if you will, he would probably lose his seat in congress and lose it hard.
Then there are the newsletters, which are a neat political trick that can do great harm to him. He didn't write them, but merely running news teasers quoting racist rants and tieing them to his name - even if you later clarify that those words were not his, the damage has already been done. And if he really had more knowledge of the racist newsletters than he claims, that would be a strike against him to me. If you have seen enough of Ron Paul tho, the racist stuff doesnt seem anywhere close to the type of rhetoric he has offered up consistently for decades. It just doesn't fit his character so I have an easy time believing those were not his feelings on the matter.
You answered the question. His voting for bills then against the same bills, even when it made sense to him or his district, is reminiscent of Kerry and Romney. Politically it was damaging. The accusations of racism and flip flopping don't have to be true as past races have shown. They simply have to be plausible and usable.
I think of Paul the same way Democrats think of Nader. Except more fiery and less lawyerly. His contribution will be as conscience to the party or figurehead for a new party and a generator of ideas others will take as their own. Even though I disagree with the starving government into a coma attitude, I enjoy his rants and his reality thinking.
As far as his/yours economic assumptions, I am simply not educated enough on the subject to do anything but listen, ask questions and point out inconsistencies. There are lots of experts on this forum to do the arguing.[;)]
This from electoral-vote.com
Hillary Clinton did well in Arkansas (Bill was governor after all), and in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California, as expected. Oklahoma we'll come to in a minute.
Obama did especially well in Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. Whut? Yes, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska. One of the big questions of this election has been the role of identity politics. Would white people vote for a black man, for example. Well, Idaho, Kansas, and Alaska are full of white people. In fact, they have very few minorities of any kind (except the Eskimos in Alaska). What gives?
Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people have to publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence. Now it becomes clear why Obama won North Dakota but Clinton won Oklahoma, a demographically similar state in the same part of the country: North Dakota had a caucus and Oklahome had a primary.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Can someone tell me why 42,000 Oklahomans voted for a guy who is no longer running for President?
(John Edwards).
225,000 Californians (105,000 at 44% reported, so you can extrapolate to above 200k) voted for Giuliani today.
I guess if you REALLY believe in someone, it is honorable to stick to your principles and cast a vote for that person anyway (assuming you never believed in that person's opponents one bit).
I wonder how many of these Edwards and Giuliani votes are people sticking to their principles, and how many are uninformed people who voted for the name they recognized.
I tend to think that this is a result of people who got mail in ballots in January. A friend of mine did the mail in only to have Edwards drop out, so now she feels like she wasted her vote.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Mrs. President....
Or am I a bit too early with this?[:D]
Hold up there, HS. It ain't time yet by a long shot. [;)]
Obama wins more states and apparently has more delegates than Hillary after Super Tuesday.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.
Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.
She won in two of the three categories.
Who won more delegates? If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.
If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)
Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.
Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired. Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Pmcalk predicted the results better than I.
Obama won more states. But Hillary won more delegates and had more overall votes cast for her.
She won in two of the three categories.
Who won more delegates? If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.
If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)
Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.
Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired. Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.
Delegate count (not including superdels) from CNN
Clinton 590
Obama 603
In light of yesterday's results, who do you think should be on suicide watch?
A. Mitt Romney;
B. Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter;
C. Ted Kennedy and other Endorsers of Obama;
D. Other
B
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Who won more delegates? If Hillary did, then you win, but I have seen different reports on that one.
If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have only bet on total number of states Obama's wins, since I still don't understand how delegates are awarded, and I figured she would overall get the popular vote (does any one know how that ultimately turned out?)
Still, all in all a very good night for Obama, though I wish he would have gotten either California or Massachussetts.
Obama does well in caucus states because his supporters tend to be younger and more inspired. Caucuses require more committed supporters than primaries.
Delegate count (not including superdels) from CNN
Clinton 590
Obama 603
[/quote]CBS says otherwise...
CBS News estimates Clinton has won 747 of the night's available delegates, compared to Obama's 744. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3794580.shtml
FoxNews has it Hillary 737 from last night with Obama 699. http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/states/
I don't know who to believe anymore.
Yesterdaze news.....
looking into my crystal ball sez the big mo is on Obama's side.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Yesterdaze news.....
looking into my crystal ball sez the big mo is on Obama's side.
My crystal ball concurs with Aox. See here:
http://www.intrade.com/
I tried to buy up Obama when he was bottom dollar, but they won't take U.S. credit cards anymore. I've got to figure out a different way to get money in there.
I agree the momentum is with Obama. I wouldn't be counting on any eggs before they hatch however.
Elections change every day.
It is a long time till the convention.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't know who to believe anymore.
Send me an email--we'll choose a restaurant, and by the time we go out, hopefully, they'll have this delegate mess all straightened out. If not, I'll treat.
This from the AP...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain won a commanding victory in the Republican delegate race over Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. Sen. Barack Obama, trailing much of the night, nearly pulled even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the contest for Democratic delegates.
McCain won 511 delegates to 176 for Romney and 147 for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in incomplete results. A total of 1,023 delegates were up for grabs in 21 states.
Overall, McCain led with 613 delegates, to 269 for Romney and 190 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at this summer's convention in St. Paul, Minn.
Clinton led with 584 delegates to Obama's 563. A total of 1,681 delegates were at stake in 22 states and American Samoa.
Overall, that gave Clinton 845 delegates, to 765 for Obama, with 2,025 delegates required to claim the nomination in Denver at this summer's convention.
The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences.
In some states, like Iowa and Nevada, local precinct caucuses are the first stage in the allocation process. The AP uses preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at county, congressional district or state conventions.
I think we tied.
I will pick a place that our kids will like.