United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

- Power corrupts.
- More power = more corruption.
- Constantly voting the same party into office = more power for that party = more corruption.

Cases in point: since Nixon, there have been more Republican than Democratic presidencies. Not coincidently, the worst political scandals (Watergate, Iran-Contra and arguably the Iraq War) have involved Republican presidencies (Clinton lying under oath about head was bad, but it's hardly on the same level; Repubs needed to make it seem so cuz they're still smarting from Watergate).

The beauty of having more than one political party is that it provides some measure of checks and balances. When the party in power starts screwing up, you vote the other party in. When that party starts screwing up, you vote another party in (or in our case, you vote the first party back in).

Our government works best when voters think outside their little partisan box. Blind allegiance = fertile ground for political corruption.

Originally posted by Strangelove
538.com's projections:

Electoral college: Obama 303.1, McCain 234.9

Win Percentage: Obama 71.5, McCain 28.5

Popular Vote: Obama 50.1%, McCain 48.3%

Electoral College: Obama 306.5, McCain 231.5

Win Percentage: 73.9%, 26.1%

Popular Vote: Obama 50.2%, McCain 48%

Originally posted by Strangelove
New numbers again:

Electoral College: Obama 306.5, McCain 231.5

Win Percentage: 73.9%, 26.1%

Popular Vote: Obama 50.2%, McCain 48%

Do you remember what the numbers were when Palin first came on, they favoured McCain right?

(If so), Shows the potential of the Palin backfire, she has outshined McCain, which is a very bad move for a VP to do, now people are losing interest in her and her negatives are starting to take center stage, which ultimately makes McCain look like a turd.

In the weeks following the RNC, the number did favor McCain, sometimes substantially.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html

This article from 538.com discusses the effect of including cell phone users in polling.

Here's a map of electoral projections including and excluding those numbers.

The cell phone seems to bluen up the map.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/murdoch-obamas.html

Murdoch: Obama's economic policies are 'naive'

Interesting how the only news sources KidRock and Sithsabre use to slam Obama are from FOX.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Interesting how the only news sources KidRock and Sithsabre use to slam Obama are from FOX.

I dont see how it matters where someone said something?

Yes. The source matters.

Sourcing someone who has a factual and obvious bias negates their credibility.

Originally posted by KidRock
I dont see how it matters where someone said something?

absolutely

it shouldn't matter where Rupert Murdoch says anything, it should be taken as BS, be it Fox or that bastion of socialism, CNN.

FOX is NOT news. It's GOP advertised propoganda, and no thinking person takes it seriously. It even edits itself.

www.outfoxed.org

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes. The source matters.

Sourcing someone who has a factual and obvious bias negates their credibility.

I guess there is nobody with any credibility in this world if you're saying whoever has bias has no credibility.

Would what Murdoch say be any different if he said it on say..CNN?

His opinion on economics should be heard as he is a very successfull businessman.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess there is nobody with any credibility in this world if you're saying whoever has bias has no credibility.

Would what Murdoch say be any different if he said it on say..CNN?

His opinion on economics should be heard as he is a very successfull businessman.

There are people without bias.

No, it wouldn't matter where he said it. He's still bias and partisan. Him being a good business man means nothing on that.

His opinion can be heard all you want, he's not an authority on it though.

Originally posted by BackFire
There are people without bias.

No, it wouldn't matter where he said it. He's still bias and partisan. Him being a good business man means nothing on that.

His opinion can be heard all you want, he's not an authority on it though.

I would say he is an authority on it. Obviously what he says will matter more then what joe shmo says about economics..people should put more faith in his word then the average joe.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26803296

Democrats Seek Changes To Wall Street Bailout Plan

Democrats moved quickly to propose changes—including possible help for homeowners and a salary cap for CEOs.

lol Democrats want to tell a company they cannot pay their CEO what they want. Capping off a CEO's salary..whats next? Raising the minimum wage?

It's not Socialism! *puts paper bag back over head*

Originally posted by KidRock
I would say he is an authority on it. Obviously what he says will matter more then what joe shmo says about economics..people should put more faith in his word then the average joe.

No.

Simply having money doesn't make one an authority on the workings of the Economy. He may know more about it than the average joe, but that's not what authority means.

If you accept him as authority than you must also accept the liberal leaning owner of MSNBC as authoritative too, who thinks Obama's plan is better than McCain's. At which point it all becomes moot because two 'authorities' disagree. Why do they disagree? Because they're each bias. Which takes us back to my original point - someone who is clearly bias cannot be an authority, an authority needs to be objective.

An authority on the economy is an economist. Not every rich person.

Originally posted by BackFire
No.

Simply having money doesn't make one an authority on the workings of the Economy. He may know more about it than the average joe, but that's not what authority means.

If you accept him as authority than you must also accept the liberal leaning owner of MSNBC as authoritative too, who thinks Obama's plan is better than McCain's. At which point it all becomes moot because two 'authorities' disagree. Why do they disagree? Because they're each bias. Which takes us back to my original point - someone who is clearly bias cannot be an authority, an authority needs to be objective.

An authority on the economy is an economist. Not every rich person.

Economics: The social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Murdoch's business deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services..and from the billions of dollars he has made I would say he knows this well. An authority is just someone who is an expert in the subject. I dont know anybody who say say Murdoch is not an expert in the things above.

And on your point of bias. Would former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker be an authority if he came out and said "McCains plan sucks"?

*ahem*

Originally posted by lord xyz
FOX is NOT news. It's GOP advertised propoganda, and no thinking person takes it seriously. It even edits itself.

www.outfoxed.org

I wonder why people continue to attack Fox yet there is nothing at all wrong with news coming out of MSNBC.

Oh thats right..cause they are evil republicans.