United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've never been a fan of "Hispanics are going to go..." "Rural whites are going to go..." "Urban blacks are going to go..."

The Palin pick was a "gamechanger", it kept McCain in this and allowed him to try and recast himself, but it will not be the ultimate determinant.

"Likely voters" is inherently skewed towards Republicans, and doesn't actually reflect the current voter identity demographics.

It's hard for me to understand why citizens of the U.S. were not completely offended by the pick.

I still am.

Originally posted by inimalist
not necessarily, because destroying the state will also polarize public opinion against you, leaving you with no strongholds in the population to hide and nowhere to safely launch attacks from, both of which are essential for the weaker party to continue survival.

You don't need to encourage public support. The government will do that for you. Resistance usually results in a crackdown on rights and liberties in most cases.

As far as the public, you just have to let them know why you are doing what your doing.

A resistance operates by secrecy, if the government can find you to the point where you have to constantly replenish you ranks, then your nto doing your job.

Originally posted by chithappens
It's hard for me to understand why citizens of the U.S. were not completely offended by the pick.

I still am.

Some people were. Primarily some women, since the pick suggested to some of them that McCain thinks women are stupid and trivial enough to simply vote for a ticket that has boobs attached.

Though, some do seem this stupid.

But the ones that aren't don't like the pick.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
You don't need to encourage public support. The government will do that for you. Resistance usually results in a crackdown on rights and liberties in most cases.

As far as the public, you just have to let them know why you are doing what your doing.

A resistance operates by secrecy, if the government can find you to the point where you have to constantly replenish you ranks, then your nto doing your job.

god, we are soooooo off topic [if anyone wants, we'll switch to PM], but can you throw out some examples of these?

my understanding is that resistance groups are unable to act without public protection because, if not, the public will turn them over. Because they are not militarily capable of attacking the state, if they know where they exist, they get annihilated.

I "liked" the pick... as an outside observer, purely for the entertainment value. And regardless of how cynical a move it was, it seems to be proving politically smart thus far. I doubt the Republican bounce is a result of purely McCain's crappy speech.

I think everyone liked the pick for that reason. It made McCain not boring. At least for a little while.

Though now I'm rather bored with her. Really, if you take away her lips and boobs she's just another far right extremist.

For them to keep the enthusiasm going for her they're going to have to go to some extreme measures. They're going to need a nipple slip or something.

Originally posted by BackFire
Some people were. Primarily some women, since the pick suggested to some of them that McCain thinks women are stupid and trivial enough to simply vote for a ticket that has boobs attached.

Though, some do seem this stupid.

But the ones that aren't don't like the pick.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I "liked" the pick... as an outside observer, purely for the entertainment value. And regardless of how cynical a move it was, it seems to be proving politically smart thus far. I doubt the Republican bounce is a result of purely McCain's crappy speech.

Sigh

The only vested interest I have in this election is that it continues to entertain me...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I "liked" the pick... as an outside observer, purely for the entertainment value. And regardless of how cynical a move it was, it seems to be proving politically smart thus far. I doubt the Republican bounce is a result of purely McCain's crappy speech.

"purely for the entertainment value" and "proving to be politically smart" seem to contradict each other, at least if I'm voting because I care at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
By that rhetoric, the American public should be equally wary of McCain.

Edit: I really think you're shooting your load early, the election is two months away and we still haven't heard them go 1-on-1 in the debates, enough can change to sway the vote either way in the time remaining. The only thing your polls and whatnot are showing right now, it's going to be a close race.

No, the public wouldn't be as wary of McCain. He HAS experience (whether you agree with his policies or not is fine, but as least you know he can lead) and isn't being pushed by the media down people's throats.

At the expense of the more qualified candidate. (and yes, I mean Hillary)

Yes, it's early.

But I sense, as many others on the web, and talk radio have (and these polls are now showing)...that a shift has taken place.

The veil has been removed. Obama will no longer win on Bush hatred and his good looks and good speeches about change.

People will look at both cadidates, what they've done (or haven't) and what they'll do.

It'll be close, I've said that from the start. (I'd be as surprised as anybody if we keep seeing these +10 point polls for McCain...though Obama could really screw up in the debates I suppose)

But I think in the end people will pick substance over style, and elect McCain.

Not particularly contradictory. The entertainment value she's provided I referred to is in keeping this race competitive.

Talk radio? Come on. Talk radio is meaningless.

Those people make Olbermann look like a bastion of fairness.

The "shift" is little more than a predictable convention bounce, and interest in Palin; which won't last when people hear her relatively generic far right view points and realize that she's not anything new or different outside of her boobs. I mean, there's a reason why the McCain camp is refusing to let her get out and talk to reporters or really do much of anything on her own, and it's not because they have great confidence.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Not particularly contradictory. The entertainment value she's provided I referred to is in keeping this race competitive.

I DON'T VOTE BASED ON ENTERTAINMENT.

Originally posted by chithappens
I DON'T VOTE BASED ON ENTERTAINMENT.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Not particularly contradictory. The entertainment value she's provided I referred to is in keeping this race competitive.

Entertainment is entertainment and has nothing to do with policy, hence nothing to do with my vote.

Nothing about the "entertainment value" should make any political campaign more intriguing.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, the public wouldn't be as wary of McCain. He HAS experience (whether you agree with his policies or not is fine, but as least you know he can lead) and isn't being pushed by the media down people's throats.

At the expense of the more qualified candidate. (and yes, I mean Hillary)

Yes, it's early.

But I sense, as many others on the web, and talk radio have (and these polls are now showing)...that a shift has taken place.

The veil has been removed. Obama will no longer win on Bush hatred and his good looks and good speeches about change.

People will look at both cadidates, what they've done (or haven't) and what they'll do.

It'll be close, I've said that from the start. (I'd be as surprised as anybody if we keep seeing these +10 point polls for McCain...though Obama could really screw up in the debates I suppose)

But I think in the end people will pick substance over style, and elect McCain.

McCain was pushed down our throats (as well), he was pushed until he became the nominee. So it this isn't just an "Obamania" thing.

I think you're overestimating this "shift"? McCain choose a woman, an attractive woman at that, so of course there was a shift (more of a nudge). She's the very first woman to run for such an office, so all eyes will be on on her for the moment.

Personally, I'm already over it. As BF stated, you remove the pretty face and she's just another Conservative candidate. She isn't the anti-establishment/good-ole-boy/go-against-the-grain "barracuda" that has been paraded before us. She's little more than a sexy diet-version of Cheney.

I sincerely think your overestimating McCain's and Palin's "substance", but we shall see. IMO, both Obama and Biden will shine in the debates as compared to McCain and Palin.

To be perfectly honest and objective, I heard more substance from Obama/Biden during their convention speeches than I heard from McCain/Palin during theirs.

Originally posted by chithappens
Entertainment is entertainment and has nothing to do with policy, hence nothing to do with my vote.

Nothing about the "entertainment value" should make any political campaign more intriguing.

You took two parts from something I posted and said they were difficult to reconcile. I pointed out that it was pretty easy to reconcile them, from my view; but didn't imply that you in particular should, would or could reconcile them.

I didn't say anything about policy. I don't really have any vested interest in either candidates policies; although I am philosophically most aligned socially to left and fiscally probably the centre; so my political affiliation would be most closely with the Democratic candidate.

And I'm not sure how increased entertainment value doesn't make a political campaign more intriguing.

Originally posted by BackFire
Talk radio? Come on. Talk radio is meaningless.

Those people make Olbermann look like a bastion of fairness.

The "shift" is little more than a predictable convention bounce, and interest in Palin; which won't last when people hear her relatively generic far right view points and realize that she's not anything new or different outside of her boobs. I mean, there's a reason why the McCain camp is refusing to let her get out and talk to reporters or really do much of anything on her own, and it's not because they have great confidence.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20080908/TV.NBC.Olbermann/

At least they'll still be commentators. I find them entertaining.

Of course, I don't get MSNBC on campus anyway.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Speaking of Olbermann, he and Chris Matthews have been removed from anchoring MSNBC's election coverage.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20080908/TV.NBC.Olbermann/

At least they'll still be commentators. I find them entertaining.

Of course, I don't get MSNBC on campus anyway.