United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Strangelove
Numbers from 538.com:

Electoral vote projection: Obama 330.6 - 207.4

Win percentage: Obama 82.8% - 17.2%

Popular vote projection: Obama 51.1% - 47.1%

Swing states:
Colorado - Obama +5.8
Florida - Obama +1.3
Indiana - McCain +0.5
Michigan - Obama +7.1
Missouri - McCain +0.8
North Carolina - McCain +0.5
New Hampshire - Obama +3
Nevada - Obama +1.8
Ohio - Obama +1.9
Pennsylvania - Obama +6.2
Virginia - Obama +3.9

Were these the margins that Bush had over Kerry at around this time last election? I don't feel like looking it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Were these the margins that Bush had over Kerry at around this time last election? I don't feel like looking it up.

Way to go, Edwards.

We need a civilian national defense force that is just as strong and just as powerful as the military..whose with me?

Gimme a gun and some condoms and I'll be right there with ya.

Originally posted by BackFire
Gimme a gun and some condoms and I'll be right there with ya.

Condoms?

You gave me the clap long ago BF.

You said you'd keep that quiet.

You know what this proves? My perversion is bipartisan. I should be president.

Originally posted by KidRock
We need a civilian national defense force that is just as strong and just as powerful as the military..whose with me?

I am certain that Erik Prince is right there with you.

Originally posted by Devil King
I am certain that Erik Prince is right there with you.

What is wrong with having a civil defense force that is as powerful as our military? Its just like the police..but the military instead will be policing us.

Originally posted by KidRock
What is wrong with having a civil defense force that is as powerful as our military? Its just like the police..but the military instead will be policing us.

The rules don't apply to them; that's what is wrong with them. They get to opperate exactly like a legitimate military entity, but don't have to follow the guidelines that were proposed to regulate such a group. Besides, these groups aren't "civil" defense groups, they're private armies that can operate under their own auspices. But, if you have another option, feel free to feebly toss it out.

Originally posted by Devil King
The rules don't apply to them; that's what is wrong with them. They get to opperate exactly like a legitimate military entity, but don't have to follow the guidelines that were proposed to regulate such a group. Besides, these groups aren't "civil" defense groups, they're private armies that can operate under their own auspices. But, if you have another option, feel free to feebly toss it out.

So you think Civilian Security Force means PMC's? I meant it cant mean a military force I guess if its distinguishing between the military and civilian defense force.

but we cant rely only on our military to achieve defense objectives.

Originally posted by KidRock
What is wrong with having a civil defense force that is as powerful as our military? Its just like the police..but the military instead will be policing us.

If it's just like the police and will serve that basic purpose, then why have one to begin with?

Originally posted by KidRock

but we cant rely only on our military to achieve defense objectives.

Why not, It's part of their job afterall? But if you really think the Army,Navy, Airforce etc. can't defend America, do you REALLY think a bunch of weekend warriors and yokels with guns will defend us? Also, what would they be defending us from exactly?

The Right is taking a pro-active stance and already making moves to blame-shift as to why Palin isn't going to impress this coming Thursday, smart move, it's just a little too transparent.

Claims that the moderator of the debate is an Obama supporter and will be biased against Palin have already begun to circulate.

MCain is okay with it and has confidence Ifel will be objective.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Right is taking a pro-active stance and already making moves to blame-shift as to why Palin isn't going to impress this coming Thursday, smart move, it's just a little too transparent.

Claims that the moderator of the debate is an Obama supporter and will be biased against Palin have already begun to circulate.

MCain is okay with it and has confidence Ifel will be objective.

She is publishing a book that is dependent on the election of Obama? 😱 That could be a conflict of interest. After all, if McCain is elected, her book will not sell.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
She is publishing a book that is dependent on the election of Obama? 😱 That could be a conflict of interest. After all, if McCain is elected, her book will not sell.

As McCain noted, that doesn't mean she would be unable to do her job and be objective.

Her being biased would only help Palin, though. This is just laying the ground work for an excuse incase Palin flops, shows a lack of confidence in Palin from her own side.

Originally posted by Robtard
As McCain noted, that doesn't mean she would be unable to do her job and be objective.

Her being biased would only help Palin, though. This is just laying the ground work for an excuse incase Palin flops, shows a lack of confidence in Palin from her own side.

I will keep it in mind when I watch the debate. If I sense that the questions are not balanced, I will take that into consideration when judging the debate, and I suggest you do the same.

I reject the idea that her book will do poorly if Obama doesn't win. It would still be a big success simply because of the excitement Obama has garnered, regardless of whether he wins or not.

And it certainly doesn't mean that she's biased. The foundations for such a claim are very shaky. We'll see though.

Originally posted by BackFire
I reject the idea that her book will do poorly if Obama doesn't win. It would still be a big success simply because of the excitement Obama has garnered, regardless of whether he wins or not.

And it certainly doesn't mean that she's biased. The foundations for such a claim are very shaky. We'll see though.

It only raises the question. Even if success of her book was dependent on the election of Obama, she could still be enough of a professional to do her job correctly. We will see.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will keep it in mind when I watch the debate. If I sense that the questions are not balanced, I will take that into consideration when judging the debate, and I suggest you do the same.

See, the Right has already done their part and you'll be watching with a biased eye, seeing biased where bias probably doesn't exist.

Ifel's book has been known since at least July, if the McCain camp really thought she'd be bias and it would harm Palin, they could have contested it. Reagan got Rather thrown out of a debate, McCain could have done the same.

I sincerely hope Ifel keeps her mouth shut for the most part, Palin will just hang herself.

Originally posted by Robtard
See, the Right has already done their part and you'll be watching with a biased eye, seeing biased where bias probably doesn't exist.

Ifel's book has been known since at least July, if the McCain camp really thought she'd be bias and it would harm Palin, they could have contested it. Reagan got Rather thrown out of a debate, McCain could have done the same.

Incorrect. Looking for a bias is not a bias. However, there will be people who will make a forgone conclusion that bias will be there before the debate, but these people will have already made their minds up. I do not do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
...I sincerely hope Ifel keeps her mouth shut for the most part, Palin will just hang herself.

It seems to me that you are one of those people who have already made their minds up.