Jump to content
ZASHAGALKA ZASHAGALKA (New Member) New Member

General Election Thread - 2008. NOVEMBER 4, HERE we come.

Politics   (94,088 Views 3,294 Comments)
18,220 Visitors; 3,996 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

Clinton had her time when she dominated the debate, and the thread:

https://allnurses.com/forums/f313/clinton-win-brokered-convention-here-we-come-286444.html

Obama had HIS time when he dominated the debate, and the thread:

https://allnurses.com/forums/f313/obama-win-white-house-here-we-come-307814.html

I was content with this, as McCain was a dud of a pick, in MY mind, and the minds of lots of conservatives.

But. Reality is reality. IN REALITY, PALIN was a game-changer. The last 80 pages of the Obama thread should more likely be called the PALIN thread. We have entered the big time. The Conventions are rolling by, Labor Day is gone, and it's time to consider, not just individual candidates, but the GE - the General Election as a whole.

So. I'm starting a GE thread for election day. I will be posting my thoughts about the election, from now on, here. It's not fair to go to November with the thread being Obama's. Or Clinton's. Or, even McCain's or Palin's.

It's a GENERAL ELECTION.

Y'all are free to continue to post on the Obama thread, of course! I will no longer post GE thoughts there. Let me also say that I intend to stick more to the issues and less on running down the other side in this thread. No more "0bama" with a zero, or "Sen. Dunham", or any other cute tricks. I will stick to serious discussion here. Or try. It might take some time to break old habits. Feel free to call me on it.

Thanks.

~faith,

Timothy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/SQZcF_tIJTI/AAAAAAAAFNI/IAeTVV36ydY/s400/VeraBaker.jpg

Edited by ZASHAGALKA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FIRST thing I want to do is steal a few posts from the OBAMA thread. I want to recall these thoughts for the post election wrap-up and I have them marked on a sticky by my computer. Instead, I'll mark them here, for future reference:

THIS POST (#118 of the Obama thread), and link, in my opinion, BEST sums up why each Party went with their respective candidates:

This is a wonderful analysis of this election and why each party nominated the person they did. I will be saving this for use in the November election post-mortem thread:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/06/the_general_election_a_frame_o.html

"The Republican Party seems to understand that it faces a bear market. After all, it has nominated a bear market candidate. John McCain is not the first, second, or even third choice of most Republicans. However, they believe he has cultivated a stable image as an anti-Bush Republican. Whether this belief is accurate, we do not know for sure. What we do know is that there is a non-trivial probability that it is accurate. Therefore, we can conclude that nominating McCain was the safe choice for the party, given the macro environment and the party's goal of electoral victory."

. . .

"As we all know, there were two factions in the Democratic electorate that were equally divided. The superdelegates had to break the tie. They sided with Obama. Why did they do this? Why not go with the safer bet?

 

My sense is that it occurred for many reasons, including the following two. First, the party elite (and the intellectual class of the party, broadly defined) preferred Obama to Clinton. Either because of his appeal, or lingering Clinton fatigue, they wanted him over her. Second, thanks to easy access to relevant data, they believed they could afford the additional risk he might bring. Their knowledge of the macro environment made them more willing to take on a candidate with a possibly lower likelihood of victory because they expect a higher expected partisan payoff should he win. This is known as risk-accepting or risk-tolerating behavior; it is different from the GOP's orientation. The Democrats generally expect to win, so they are inclined to take a little electoral risk to get a candidate they really like."

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second post I want to recall, post #1011 from the Obama thread:

It referenced a graph from another post:

2731550219_ab8deb156b-thumb-480x360.jpg

"Just keep telling yourself that there is no statistical way Obama can lose. This has ALWAYS been the Democrat's downfall: they are overconfident . . . UNTIL the Wed after election day.

 

And then, same old story: HOW COULD WE HAVE LOST??!?

 

And then the same old explanation: THOSE REPUBLICANS WITH THEIR DIRTY TRICKS!!?!

 

See, I'll tell you why Democrats keep losing. It's really simple and Obama has bought into it, hook, line and sinker:

 

Thomas Franks summed it up in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Democrats have this idea that their message is so superior that voters that vote for Republicans are really voting against their economic self-interests because they have been fooled by cultural issues such as abortion, or better yet, Karl Rove's dirty tricks.

 

It never ever dawns on Democrats that maybe just maybe, 1. People aren't stupid and they might actually believe that voting for a Republican IS in their economic self-interest, and 2 More important, people pick up on the vibe that they are idiot dupes and don't appreciate being thought of as idiot dupes.

 

THIS is the basis of Obama's 'bitter' comment. Those silly center right voters, if only they weren't so bitter, they'd see their true self-interests.

 

The PROBLEM with this line of thought is at NO time does it allow for the possibility that Democrats maybe, just might, need to sell their message better. This is a true blind spot for Democrats, and, true to form, Republicans exploit it each and every election.

 

I'll remember this graph and show it back to you, after the election. After all, McCain winning is statistically all but impossible, right?"

(I removed the actual quotations as a post from another thread so that this post can be quoted, here.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Thompson 9/2/08 RNC Convention:

"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President.

 

But it does reveal character.

 

This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders.

 

Strength.

 

Courage.

 

Humility.

 

Wisdom.

 

Duty.

 

Honor.

 

It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the Presidency?"

I didn't understand the remark about dating an exotic dancer in Thompson's bio of McCain. But. The POW story, in detail, was compelling. To quote Chris Matthews: "it sent shivers. . ." I doubt though, it was the same kind of shivers.

WOW.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have my Fred Thompson For President t-shirt and cap. :D

steph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still have my Fred Thompson For President t-shirt and cap. :D

steph

Me, too. MINE has "Texans for Thompson" on the back.

My FIRST choice for the Republicans, and tonight, you can see why. When he's on his game, he's formidable. He got hit for being aloof. You know what: I'm tired of having Daddy Presidents. I could use an aloof President that will leave me alone and let me live my life.

THAT would be the best thing Washington could do for the lives of the middle class. Leave us alone.

That would be 'change I could believe in': "We're going to leave you alone". . . IF ONLY. Unfortunately, both Republicans AND Democrats have bought into bribing Americans from the public trough of their own money.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:yeahthat:

if only . . . ...

(i've got to go to bed . .. great idea for a thread - be back tomorrow).

steph

change i could believe in: "we're going to leave you alone"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Thompson, 9/2/08 RNC Convention:

"To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.

 

History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

 

Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy.

 

And a Supreme Court that could be lost to liberalism for a generation.

 

This is not reform.

 

And it's certainly not change.

 

It is basically the same old stuff they've been peddling for years. America needs a President who understands the nature of the world we live in.

 

A President who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

 

We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

 

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

 

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

 

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

 

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

 

My friends, we need a leader who stands on principle.

 

We need a President, and Vice President, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking.

 

And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade."

Just WOW.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

 

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

 

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

 

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

 

~faith,

Timothy.

Yep . . . . we are one of the "businesses" that might just be taxed further into shutting down and letting go our employees . .

steph:yawn: (sleepy . . soo sleepy .. get up from the computer . . .:typing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) - 9/2/08 RNC Convention:

"If John McCain is just another partisan Republican, then I'm Michael Moore's favorite Democrat. And I think you know that I'm not. Sen. Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man, who I think can do great things for our country in years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times in America."

Ouch.

"I'm honored to say a word about the great lady John McCain has selected for his running mate. Gov. Palin, like John McCain, is a reformer. She's taken on the special interests and the political power brokers in Alaska and reached across party lines to get things done. The truth is, she is a leader we can count on to help John McCain shake up Washington."

Wow. I expected an endorsement for McCain, but was surprised to see him endorse Gov. Palin.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

November 4, 2008: here we come!

Barack Obama for president!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to close out the discussion of whether Gov. Palin was ever a member of the Alaska Independence Party. The claim, by an AIP party secretary, is that Gov. Palin joined the party in 1994, attended their 1994 convention, and switched to the Republican party in 1996, just before running for Mayor of Wasilla.

Not true. She has been a registered Republican since 1982. This link shows her voter registration history since 1990, well before the claim of a 1994 affiliation with AIP:

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/palin-voting.pdf

Gov. Palin admits attending, briefly, their convention in 2000 because it was in Wasilla and she was the Mayor, attending in THAT capacity. And. There is a youtube of a 1.5 min speech she gave, on video, to their 2008 Convention, in her capacity as Gov, in which she refers to the AIP, multiple times, as "your party".

It's a lie, easily disproved by fact. Voter registration records are public records.

But this IS true: Hillary Clinton was once a Republican. During her freshman year, she was the President of the Wellesley Young Republicans.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×