US General Elections

[Democratic Donkeys]

I figured we could take a break from squabbling about regional politics and take a turn squabbling about real politics.

So who do you plan to vote for? You can just vote, or you can explain why if you feel like it.

Will it be John "have you ever been experienced?" McCain, or will it be Barack "Hussein" Obama?

Or will Ron Paul make a stunning comeback and make every crazy person's dream come true?

If you're third party, then please explain, smugly if you like, why your candidate is better even though they have no chance of winning.

 

[Sydia]

I've got a feeling they'll vote in the 72 year old cancer survivor whose VP believes God wants her to build oil pipelines. Meaning the next 8 years will be Bush in drag, essentially.

Can't vote cos of some crazy technicality, but if I could, I'd vote Obama.

 

[Kor]

Or will Ron Paul make a stunning comeback and make every crazy person's dream come true?

[Sarcasm] Yeah screw that Ron Paul guy. Constitutional rights? Pffffffffffffffft! Who needs those?! And the economy? To hell with that too![/Sarcasm]

Congrats on making yourself look like a jackass. Not everyone that followed Ron Paul was crazy, merely very passionate about his ideas. For the record: passionate =/= crazy.

I'm so sorry his campaign wasn't more like McCain's.

Or maybe more like Obama's.

 

[Winter Vacationers]

I'll probably vote for Obama. I'm not really thrilled with either major candidate, but I really don't want McCain/Palin in there.

 

[Sydia]

Who in Babylon is Ron Paul?

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

I already voted absentee for Obama.

 

[Ann]

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal

 

[Kor]

Oh, and I'm voting Bob Barr btw.

Who in Babylon is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal tongue.gif

McCain isn't Conservative. Republican; maybe. Conservative; no.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal

So in other words we don't stomp on the homeless and rob them when they're not looking?

You say it like a bad thing...

 

[Ator People]

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal

For the record I voted McCain as well (well as soon as my absentee gets mailed in).

It's not that I don't like Obama, it's just that I disagree with his views on the issues that matter most to me. I could not in good conscience vote for a Democrat, as the party stands today.

 

[Sydia]

As a member of the Illuminati I know who'll win the election; the answer may surprise you -

Hang on, there's someone at the door.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I've paid close attention to American presidential politics since I was old enough to read, and started reading daily newspapers. I can remember the first Kennedy-Nixon debate.

The election environment this year looks like a realignment election, which comes along once a generation or so; the last pure realignment election was in 1980.

This election looks like 1980 in reverse, that is to say a blue wave as opposed to a red one.

I've been carefully keeping up with the national and state polls for President, the Senate and Congress, and trying to understand how valid the polls are this year. Yes, there are a couple of issues with the polling methods most of the polls have been using, but it has been possible to get a feeling as to what the problems are, and how they overstate or understate each party's support level.

The first problem is the number of households that only have cellphones, and no landlines. It's a significant portion of the electorate these days, but more in some areas than others. from what I can tell, only one polling organization (Pew) has been including cellphone numbers in their automated telephone interview process. Their results have been on the average 4 to 6 points more favorable to Obama than other polls. I couldn't say whether they compensate for the larger than average proportion of first time voters who plan to vote this year or not.

The second problem is the models each pollster uses, as they attempt to figure out the cross-section of so-called likely voters this year. There's little argument that the models are off, but the model descriptions are usually not published, and are often based on assumptions taken from recent presidential elections, even though the landscape has changed. For this year, very few models are accounting for non landline households that have cellphones, for the larger than normal increases in registered first-time voters; and the tremendouns turnout that's now expected for this election, with up to one-third of participating voters voting early or by absentee.

It's a developing Blue wave when states such as Montana, North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona have Obama within two percentage points of McCain, if not tied. My feeling is that Obama will end up with 350-400 electoral votes; the Democrats will pick up 8 to 10 seats in the Senate. and I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats end up with a 50-60 seat majority in the House (265 to 275 seats)

And all I can say is that the Republicans ought to be glad they ran against Barack. Had it been Hillary, the results likely would have been more lop-sided.

One side point. The Repusblicans put themselves into this situation because of the way the winner-take-all delegate primaries and caucauses worked in the GOP this year. Mc Cain rarely ever got a majority of 50 percent or more in the early contests before he clinched the nomination, but he was able to take all of the delegates. Under the Democratic proportional rules, McCain would not have won anywhere near as many delegates, and I doubt he would have won the nomination. And before you say it could be another upset like Truman pulled over Dewey in 1948, keep in mind there were two national minor party candidates that year (Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats, and Henry Wallace and the Progressives) and more importantly, the polling organizations quit national or state polling after the first half of October, so they never pciked up on the surge by Truman in a number of states. (The Reagan surge was detected in 1980, but in those days before the internet, it was harded to see the polls in the last two weeks before the election which picked up the surge towards Reagan and the Republicans.)

(And if you're wondering I typed this entire missive without notes.)

 

[Govindia]

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal

For the record I voted McCain as well (well as soon as my absentee gets mailed in).

It's not that I don't like Obama, it's just that I disagree with his views on the issues that matter most to me. I could not in good conscience vote for a Democrat, as the party stands today.

Same reason here.

I'm voting McCain/Palin. I disagree a lot with Palin's stances, but McCain is the President, not her. McCain I'm reluctantly supporting because most of Obama's views are far too left/socialist for me to agree with. I still wish Romney or Rudy got the nomination for the Republicans.

Nice analysis Grossen. Who you voting for?

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I voted today.

I wrote myself in as Director of Soil and Water Conservation. Got several of my employees and my wife to spread the word and do it as well, might be fun if I get listed in the official tallies.

 

[Sydia]

I'm the only one that voted McCain, its proves my theory how TNP is liberal

For the record I voted McCain as well (well as soon as my absentee gets mailed in).

It's not that I don't like Obama, it's just that I disagree with his views on the issues that matter most to me. I could not in good conscience vote for a Democrat, as the party stands today.

Same reason here.

I'm voting McCain/Palin. I disagree a lot with Palin's stances, but McCain is the President, not her. McCain I'm reluctantly supporting because most of Obama's views are far too left/socialist for me to agree with. I still wish Romney or Rudy got the nomination for the Republicans.

Nice analysis Grossen. Who you voting for?

I'm not saying McCain is old, but if you consider his age, he's likely to die soon!

[/Zoidberg]

 

[Ator People]

I'm not saying McCain is old, but if you consider his age, he's likely to die soon!

I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience...I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said, "If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.''

 

[Haor Chall]

Same reason here.

I'm voting McCain/Palin.  I disagree a lot with Palin's stances, but McCain is the President, not her.  McCain I'm reluctantly supporting because most of Obama's views are far too left/socialist for me to agree with.  I still wish Romney or Rudy got the nomination for the Republicans.

Explain to me how Obama is even remotely "socialist".

And, helpfully, look at http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008.

And from their FAQ, just for Ann:

Q: You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.
In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.
Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

 

[Kor]

You just answered your own question.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care

All those programs being of course run by the State. These programs take from one group and give to another, separating it into even portions. At their core they are pretty socialist.


And just to put this out there, liberals were not the ones against Vietnam. Many of the wars we've been in were started by liberal Democrats. The traditional anti-war position is that of the conservative wing within the Republican party. The only reason conservatives have been given the blame for being "war mongering old boys club" is because of the shifts in modern politics. Such as the emergence of Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism in the US. It's made many of these centrists and moderates be lumped into the conservative wing. Of all the Republican candidates there was only one real traditional conservative among them. So being anti-war or being a "peace-nik" isn't a liberal view; it's a conservative one.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

[Sarcasm] Yeah screw that Ron Paul guy. Constitutional rights? Pffffffffffffffft! Who needs those?! And the economy? To hell with that too![/Sarcasm]

Congrats on making yourself look like a jackass. Not everyone that followed Ron Paul was crazy, merely very passionate about his ideas. For the record: passionate =/= crazy.

I'm so sorry his campaign wasn't more like McCain's.

Congratulations on falling for bait. You are certainly "passionate" enough not to realize I was joking, and called me a jackass to boot. Yes, Ron Paul supporters are the sanest smartest people on the planet.

 

[Kor]

Never said we were. We just oppose undeclared, unjust, and unending wars. We don't like nation building and maybe we're sick and tired of being called conspiracy theorists. Ron Paul predicted the current economic situation nearly 10 years ago and still he's called eccentric or a loon. Maybe it's time Americans stop listening to people that say change and follow someone that will actually make a change.

And I knew you were joking; you just aren't funny. A key component to humor.

 

[Sydia]

[Sarcasm] Yeah screw that Ron Paul guy. Constitutional rights? Pffffffffffffffft! Who needs those?! And the economy? To hell with that too![/Sarcasm]

Congrats on making yourself look like a jackass. Not everyone that followed Ron Paul was crazy, merely very passionate about his ideas. For the record: passionate =/= crazy.

I'm so sorry his campaign wasn't more like McCain's.

Congratulations on falling for bait. You are certainly "passionate" enough not to realize I was joking, and called me a jackass to boot. Yes, Ron Paul supporters are the sanest smartest people on the planet.

You mean you're...not a jackass?

 

[Jandrea]

If you folks want, I could add you to the current regional US presidential elections?

I set this up last weekend and just getting in the results today so I can forward it tomorrow. Iv been in contact with the founders and delegates so im getting the results in as we speak.

Fidelia (163) OBAMA IN THE LEAD
Caprecia (70) Obama won
New Folsom (79) too early
Antarctic Oasis (85) Obama won
Sapientia (110) too early
Technotopia (30) OBAMA IN THE LEAD
Paradisia (48) too early
The Last Kingdom (118) Obama won
New Sorvun (90) too early
Equalism (210) too early/still deciding.

Yes each region won by a candidate, he gains this points (1 point equals one nation).

Although north pacific is pritty big.... might as well scrap the entire thing..

 

[Haor Chall]

You just answered your own question.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care

All those programs being of course run by the State. These programs take from one group and give to another, separating it into even portions. At their core they are pretty socialist.

Uh, not quite. Obama may be an American "liberal" (or not) but I don't think McCain is pledging to remove the programs you're talking about. So if Obama is a socialist, McCain is and Palin definately is, right?

 

[Kor]

You just answered your own question.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care

All those programs being of course run by the State. These programs take from one group and give to another, separating it into even portions. At their core they are pretty socialist.

Uh, not quite. Obama may be an American "liberal" (or not) but I don't think McCain is pledging to remove the programs you're talking about. So if Obama is a socialist, McCain is and Palin definately is, right?

I never said they weren't. There is however a big difference between not removing the programs in place and expanding on them more.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Jesus was a socialist.

 

[Tresville]

And a jew!! There is a rumor he was black too!! But I am tanned...doesn't make me black.

I voted McCain here a while ago...but I am voting Barack come election day.

Frankly I don't like either candidate...I like the VD's more. But I had to pick Obama as McCain made himself out to be to much of a kiss ass in the debate. He also spent more time attacking Obama rather than using that time on the issues.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

To hell with the main parties, I'm voting for Brian Moore.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Ugh damn American public schools.

Kor if you are a Ron Paul supporter then you are the biggest liberal of them all! It's called classical liberal theory; what Ron Paul, Margaret Thatcher, and Reagan were the biggest exponents of and created the entire modern liberalism movement. In fact, it's called neo-liberalism everywhwere Rush Limbaugh haven't spread his fat filth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand! Liberal parties are the RIGHTWING PARTY!

Anyone who believes in freedom and capitalism is a liberal! You just get reform liberals like Obama who believe that since the Industrial Revolution, freedom can't be granted without equality of opportunity since how free can you be if you're doomed to your parents poverty, without education for economic mobility, without public healthcare to spare you of easily preventable diseases, without corporate monopolies or cartels fixing the prices? Where's the evil socialism in that?

As for Obama wanting to "spread the wealth around," silly rabbit. It's called progressive taxation! Been round since the income tax was introduced by Wilson in 1916 and forever, if you count the intent of selective tarrifs for crop exports in the Carolina (before there was a South) and Maryland. Socialism would be the government nationalizing all the banks and having the government run them, not giving them handouts when they screw up and hoping they give the money back eventually.

But wait... public education? Public healthcare? Public police and firefighting?
Gasp horrors, SOCIALISM!!!!

These people who buy party lines (especially the ridiculousness of the republicans since 1964) must be either the most selfish or the most coddled people in the world! Things cost money in a capitalist society! Can't stand the thought of paying taxes and hold an innordinate love for guns? Move to Afganistan! Pay no taxes, get no services you don't want to pay for (if any,) call yourself taliban and shoot at anything moving! Why not? Because you want the goods, services, and order provided by the government, you just don't want to pay for it!

Maitres chez nous? Sounds good if you still have the scars of sharing your fruit rollup at the age of four, but when your neighbours house is on fire and threatening to spread to yours, you don't talk about the "unfairness" of having to pay more taxes than bob your neighbour just because you earn more, or having to pay for everyone elses firefighting service just because you pay more taxes, you don't argue with the firefighters about how you should be able to choose the best firefighting service with your own money... YOU PUT THE GODDAMN FIRE OUT!

And it's because and not limited to these reasons that people outside of the US think Republicans are evil and Ron Paul supporters never reached the emotional maturity of an eight year old. So go ahead and laugh at our accents!

Ugh, a Canadian schooling Americans on their own history... Seacrest out.

 

[Heft]

Congratulations on falling for bait. You are certainly "passionate" enough not to realize I was joking, and called me a jackass to boot. Yes, Ron Paul supporters are the sanest smartest people on the planet.

You mean you're...not a jackass?

Now let's not go too far.

BW, that's the most mellow and confusing Black Power salute ever.

Breathe, sniffles, breathe. The condescending presumptuous arrogance thing doesn't help so much.

 

[Kor]

Ugh damn American public schools.

Kor if you are a Ron Paul supporter then you are the biggest liberal of them all! It's called classical liberal theory; what Ron Paul, Margaret Thatcher, and Reagan were the biggest exponents of and created the entire modern liberalism movement. In fact, it's called neo-liberalism everywhwere Rush Limbaugh haven't spread his fat filth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand! Liberal parties are the RIGHTWING PARTY!

Anyone who believes in freedom and capitalism is a liberal! You just get reform liberals like Obama who believe that since the Industrial Revolution, freedom can't be granted without equality of opportunity since how free can you be if you're doomed to your parents poverty, without education for economic mobility, without public healthcare to spare you of easily preventable diseases, without corporate monopolies or cartels fixing the prices? Where's the evil socialism in that?

As for Obama wanting to "spread the wealth around," silly rabbit. It's called progressive taxation! Been round since the income tax was introduced by Wilson in 1916 and forever, if you count the intent of selective tarrifs for crop exports in the Carolina (before there was a South) and Maryland. Socialism would be the government nationalizing all the banks and having the government run them, not giving them handouts when they screw up and hoping they give the money back eventually.

But wait... public education? Public healthcare? Public police and firefighting?
Gasp horrors, SOCIALISM!!!!

These people who buy party lines (especially the ridiculousness of the republicans since 1964) must be either the most selfish or the most coddled people in the world! Things cost money in a capitalist society! Can't stand the thought of paying taxes and hold an innordinate love for guns? Move to Afganistan! Pay no taxes, get no services you don't want to pay for (if any,) call yourself taliban and shoot at anything moving! Why not? Because you want the goods, services, and order provided by the government, you just don't want to pay for it!

Maitres chez nous? Sounds good if you still have the scars of sharing your fruit rollup at the age of four, but when your neighbours house is on fire and threatening to spread to yours, you don't talk about the "unfairness" of having to pay more taxes than bob your neighbour just because you earn more, or having to pay for everyone elses firefighting service just because you pay more taxes, you don't argue with the firefighters about how you should be able to choose the best firefighting service with your own money... YOU PUT THE GODDAMN FIRE OUT!

And it's because and not limited to these reasons that people outside of the US think Republicans are evil and Ron Paul supporters never reached the emotional maturity of an eight year old. So go ahead and laugh at our accents!

Ugh, a Canadian schooling Americans on their own history... Seacrest out.

First of all I guarantee my education level is higher than yours and the University I attended is probably higher rated than the one you attend/attended. Secondly, Ron Paul is not a liberal, nor are his ideas. You obviously have the definition of liberal and conservative confused. Ron Paul is a classic conservative and a constitutionalist. Modern shifts in the conservative wing have changed what people call conservatives. Maybe you need to read more of his policies and you might know this.

Before you decide to insult public schools maybe you should look at some of the "winners" private schools have created. Mostly dumb, arrogant rich kids that only have jobs because mommy and daddy have pull and are usually dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

[Sydia]

Damn, who'd have thought politics would be such a contentious issue?

Ugh damn American public schools.
...
As for Obama wanting to "spread the wealth around," silly rabbit.
...
Ugh, a Canadian schooling Americans on their own history... Seacrest out. 

First of all I guarantee my education level is higher than yours and the University I attended is probably higher rated than the one you attend/attended.
...
Before you decide to insult public schools maybe you should look at some of the "winners" private schools have created. Mostly dumb, arrogant rich kids that only have jobs because mommy and daddy have pull and are usually dumber than a bag of hammers.

Knock it off with the flamebait, sniffles and Kor, or I'm gonna have to shut this puppy down.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I thought it was just getting interesting.

Maybe next we can compare W-2s. *rollseyes*

 

[Sydia]

Just chucking a cold bucket of water on the potential flames. It's all fun and games until someone loses a bollock.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

BW, that's the most mellow and confusing Black Power salute ever.

That's because Brian Moore is from the Socialist Party USA.

They are mostly confused all the time because, as you may have noticed, Socialism is used as a constant scapegoat by the right wing of America and yet the Socialist Party doesn't get no props.

The mellow part is probably due to years of political suppression and Red Scare Era blacklisting, just a guess.

 

[Ann]

I'm not gonna bother with you guyson politics, TNP always seemed like the liberal feeder to me.

 

[Kor]

I thought it was just getting interesting.

Maybe next we can compare W-2s. *rollseyes*

Actually I'm unemployed at the moment, so let's not.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Kor, I'm not bashing public schools I'm bashing AMERICAN public schools which are under-funded and kicked in the groin by the same Ron Paul advocates who think
private enterprise is king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Perhaps you need a refresher course on just what he really believes in and which you claim to support.

I'm not here to have a pissing match over who goes to the best school, I'm arguing ideas and you present no evidence other party line traps. The fact that you didn't even bother to look up what liberal even means before shuddering at the sound of the word proves my point.

Honestly, look up classical liberal thought in the line of John Locke and Adam Smith things you inevitably had to have studied in that fancy school you can't help but bring up and say with a straight face that yes... Modern Conservatives are Classical Liberals. Just because you don't like the word doesn't mean you can't accept the fact! (And yes I'm leaving a "you're-a-jackass, might-not-like-it but-sniffles-you-should-accept-the-fact" joke wide open for you!)

 

[Kor]

<------American.

<-------Attended an American public school.

I have to ask this. Did you even read the link you posted?

The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), United States presidential candidate, have been labeled conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. Ron Paul's nickname "Dr. No" reflects both his medical degree and the insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Ron Paul is a classic conservative and a constitutionalist.

He is not a Liberal; he a Libertarian Conservative. He combines Libertarian ideas with Conservative ideas. It's commonly called Right-Libertarianism. The belief here is that to keep government small and limited you need to uphold the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

And I don't shudder at the word liberal. I shudder when people categorize others wrongly. Nothing wrong with being a liberal, but Ron Paul is not one.

 

[mr_sniffles]

<------American.

<-------Attended an American public school.

I have to ask this. Did you even read the link you posted?

The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), United States presidential candidate, have been labeled conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. Ron Paul's nickname "Dr. No" reflects both his medical degree and the insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Ron Paul is a classic conservative and a constitutionalist.

He is not a Liberal; he a Libertarian Conservative. He combines Libertarian ideas with Conservative ideas. It's commonly called Right-Libertarianism. The belief here is that to keep government small and limited you need to uphold the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

And I don't shudder at the word liberal. I shudder when people categorize others wrongly. Nothing wrong with being a liberal, but Ron Paul is not one.

And so the wiki link wars begin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#A...perty_movements

The theories are taken from the same source! ACKKK!

Please tell me (for your professor's sake at least) you never really took a poli sci course.

 

[Kor]

No I didn't because Poli Sci is useless. I have an Associates in Economics and a Masters in Engineering.

Just because they come from the same source doesn't mean they are the same. You fail to realize that.


And if I'm correct I thought we were told to not flamebait.