Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Tigercat]

And who says it has to be man bites dog to be news, dog bites children trumped the first black president! Vive les chiens!

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I would probably have felt better about Jesse Jackson if he didnt want to cut Obama's nuts off

My new favorite card is the "out of context" card. How many different meanings can "I want to cut his nuts off" have?

Jackson just comes off bitter and jealous, what a tool.

[timmynausea]

My new favorite card? The nap card. A local judge was voted out of office by a surprisingly wide margin. Credit is being given to an advertising campaign that centered on how he fell asleep during a murder trial.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Interesting stuff. Newsweek has released some behind the scenes stuff from both campaigns. (They got more behind the scenes access to the campaigns, in return for a strict promise not to publish any of this before election day).

Fozz, every 4 years, I eagerly await this issue. The whole election campaigning shit is made tolerable to me knowing that they had been continuously working on this issue.

[remper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Did you miss this up the thread?



Stupid candyass son of a bitch lacked the balls & good sense to use what was sitting on the table begging to be used. As I mentioned last night (this morning?) those boos you hear when he panders to Obama aren't solely directed at The New Messiah.

The fact that he was not wanting to ok smear tactics and pander to fear are the reasons that I would've actually considered voting for McCain. What you are calling "candyass" I believe is also known as "integrity." Too bad that as the McCain campaign got rolling, any message he was sending about the issues were interspersed with comments trying to equate Obama with terrorism, or radical afrocentrism to whip up "white man's fear." McCain's concession speech was classy all the way. It's too bad his campaign couldn't stay that way before the election.

[JPhillips]

I know they don't know what they're doing and are just a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign, but amazingly 538 did pretty well using political sabremetrics.

Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically—for instance, assigns North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time—comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.

We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidates with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Fozz, every 4 years, I eagerly await this issue. The whole election campaigning shit is made tolerable to me knowing that they had been continuously working on this issue.

Well, we have further throwing of Palin under the bus, this time from CNN. Although firing someone after the campaign is.. well.. a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left.. especially since the guy would probably be switching over to Palin ANYWAY

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Sources: McCain aide fired for ‘trashing’ staff « - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) — Randy Scheunemann, a senior foreign policy adviser to John McCain, was fired from the Arizona senator's campaign last week for what one aide called "trashing" the campaign staff, three senior McCain advisers tell CNN.

One of the aides tells CNN that campaign manager Rick Davis fired Scheunemann after determining that he had been in direct contact with journalists spreading "disinformation" about campaign aides, including Nicolle Wallace and other officials.

"He was positioning himself with Palin at the expense of John McCain's campaign message," said one of the aides.

Senior campaign officials blame Schuenemann specifically for stories about the way Wallace and chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt mishandled Palin's rollout — stories that the campaign says threw them off message in the critical final weeks of the campaign.

Another aide said McCain personally was "very disappointed by Randy," who worked for McCain for many years in the Senate.

Scheunemann became close with Palin during her debate prep process.

[DaddyTorgo]

looks like i missed some good stuff on the last page that i'd want to miss that wouldn't really surprise me

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Well, we have further throwing of Palin under the bus, this time from CNN. Although firing someone after the campaign is.. well.. a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left.. especially since the guy would probably be switching over to Palin ANYWAY

Fozz, here was what I said on May 17

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I love reading stuff like this, which I why eagerly anticipate the special Newsweek issue that comes out after the election that gives all of the behind-the-scenes stuff that we don't know about at this time.

I found this to be really funny, "She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies."

I am still more interested in reading the behind-the-scenes stuff between Obama and the Clintons, that truly was a war. The Palin stuff is reading more like an old episode of Dallas.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know they don't know what they're doing and are just a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign, but amazingly 538 did pretty well using political sabremetrics.

Vegas Vic is the gold standard of election predictions.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Palin stuff is reading more like an old episode of Dallas.

Funny that you say that. I was just telling my brother that the Palin story has played out like a TV series. It seems like Americans love her and/or love to hate her, making her one of the most intriguing politicians that I can recall.

And, now with the Stevens indictment and by his apparent re-election (which is something so outlandish that it probably would not be believable even in the most cheesy of TV dramas), we have an ancient Senator likely going to prison, giving Palin (the guest star) a chance to join the (national) cast by running for his (likely) soon-to-be vacant seat in January.

Only in America.

[Arles]

It looks like Palin was trying to win at all costs while McCain was more worried about losing gracefully. I have to admit, I liked Palin when she came on the scenes and really don't think she hurt McCain's chances, but I think I'd prefer she settle into a senator role or even the "Howard Dean role" in the RNC.

Everyone loves the losing candidate during their concession speech. People were talking about how gracious John Kerry was in his in 2004. The reality is that once you have lost, your opponents like you a great deal more because you are no longer a threat (and their guy/gal just won). So all this "if McCain just would have been more like today he may have done better" crud is just that.

IMO, McCain didn't buy into the theory of tax cuts, his oddly conceived health care plan, his campaign's approach to the economic crisis and some of the other "constructed" items of his platform. McCain also lacked the ability to speak about things he didn't truly believe and convince people to follow him. If he was being true to himself, he would have simply talked about a foreign policy strategy, cutting pork and eliminating corruption. That's all he really cares about and it's why he was always a terrible presidential candidate.

The goal for the republican part in 2012 should be to find 1-2 candidates (pref under 60) they can rally behind and focus on a decision between those two. Maybe a social conservative vs a fiscal conservative. What they did in 2008 was have 4 candidates (Romney, Huck, Rudy, Thompson) that each picked off a piece of the conservative electorate. The end result was that independents and non-conservatives went with McCain and the election was lost at that point.

So, the lesson should be to pair down the list fairly early and focus on 2-3 options (like the dems did with Hillary, Obama and Edwards). Otherwise, we'll have another candidate the non-conservative voters like but who won't win an election.

[Swaggs]

Dola... anyone seen the "final" (I know there are still a handful of uncounted ballots out there) breakdown of the percentage of registered Dems vs GOP vs Indies? That seemed to be one of the legit criticisms of some of the polls, so it would be interesting to see what the actual weights were and which pollsters got the closest.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Arles

It looks like Palin was trying to win at all costs while McCain was more worried about losing gracefully. I have to admit, I liked Palin when she came on the scenes and really don't think she hurt McCain's chances, but I think I'd prefer she settle into a senator role or even the "Howard Dean role" in the RNC.

Everyone loves the losing candidate during their concession speech. People were talking about how gracious John Kerry was in his in 2004. The reality is that once you have lost, your opponents like you a great deal more because you are no longer a threat (and their guy/gal just won). So all this "if McCain just would have been more like today he may have done better" crud is just that.

IMO, McCain didn't buy into the theory of tax cuts, his oddly conceived health care plan, his campaign's approach to the economic crisis and some of the other "constructed" items of his platform. McCain also lacked the ability to speak about things he didn't truly believe and convince people to follow him. If he was being true to himself, he would have simply talked about a foreign policy strategy, cutting pork and eliminating corruption. That's all he really cares about and it's why he was always a terrible presidential candidate.

The goal for the republican part in 2012 should be to find 1-2 candidates (pref under 60) they can rally behind and focus on a decision between those two. Maybe a social conservative vs a fiscal conservative. What they did in 2008 was have 4 candidates (Romney, Huck, Rudy, Thompson) that each picked off a piece of the conservative electorate. The end result was that independents and non-conservatives went with McCain and the election was lost at that point.

So, the lesson should be to pair down the list fairly early and focus on 2-3 options (like the dems did with Hillary, Obama and Edwards). Otherwise, we'll have another candidate the non-conservative voters like but who won't win an election.

All good points.

I would add that I believe (and will be interested to see if there is eventually research to back it up) that McCain's age was a surprisingly undermentioned and under-reported factor in this election for swing voters.

[cartman]

The shaded/shaped maps from 2004 from a few pages back have been updated for 2008:

Election maps

[ColtCrazy]

I'll be honest when I start by saying that neither candidate was my first choice. However, the more I've studied Obama, the more I've been impressed. I thought last night's victory speech was very energizing. Say what you will about poll numbers, but to see that many people together to hear him speak was inspiring to say the least.

A friend of mine and I discussed this earlier today. He's not convinced Obama will be successive at learning on the job. I'm not sold he'll be a successful president, but you can see the energy is there. You can tell there's a lot of hope in the country right now. I honestly think we would have been fine with McCain, but I think McCain had a finite ceiling of success he would have had. I'll give you that Obama may end up not being the messiah so many want him to be, but I think there's potential....real potential that this could be a successful term.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by cartman

The shaded/shaped maps from 2004 from a few pages back have been updated for 2008:

Election maps

Interesting, thanks for the link Cartman.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, McCain didn't buy into the theory of tax cuts, his oddly conceived health care plan, his campaign's approach to the economic crisis and some of the other "constructed" items of his platform. McCain also lacked the ability to speak about things he didn't truly believe and convince people to follow him. If he was being true to himself, he would have simply talked about a foreign policy strategy, cutting pork and eliminating corruption. That's all he really cares about and it's why he was always a terrible presidential candidate.

Well said, and pretty much what I was trying to explain to my girlfriend last night. The reason I was enthusiastic about McCain was his foreign policy vision - the rest of the stuff, who cares. There's basically no difference between his tax plan and Obama's, and generally there were only technical differences between their domestic approaches. But there is a sharp difference in the way they each imagine America's role as a world power.

As for 2012, it depends on what happens. If the economy rebounds, the world remains stable, and Obama doesn't do anything really un-Presidential, he'll almost certainly be re-elected. If the economy worsens, I think Romney or somebody will be the GOPs nominee, and will have a good shot. If peace fails to break out in the Middle East, and Americans are getting killed by Muslims, then somebody like Giuliani will be the nominee, and will have a better than good shot.

For all that Palin is supposed to be appealing to the "base", she's not particularly conservative. I would describe her as a Dubya-style Republican, socially somewhat conservative/moderate; spectacularly and outspokenly religous; but not particularly visionary in terms of domestic or foreign policy in any meaningful way.

[JPhillips]

My favorite country is Asia.

Cameron: I wish I could have told you more at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lack the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. We're told by folks that she didn't know what countries that were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being the Canada, the US, and Mexico. We're told she didn't understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country just in itself ... a whole host of questions that caused serious problems about her knowledgeability. She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled.....was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went. She didn't accept preparation for that interview when the aides say that that was part of the problem. And that there were times that she was hard to control emotionally there's talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings......

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

For all that Palin is supposed to be appealing to the "base", she's not particularly conservative. I would describe her as a Dubya-style Republican, socially somewhat conservative/moderate; spectacularly and outspokenly religous; but not particularly visionary in terms of domestic or foreign policy in any meaningful way.

Agree completely. I read a very pro-fiscal conservative article on her around March and that's what made her interesting to me. Yet, when she started stumping, it seemed she offered very little from that perspective. I can see why the social conservatives liked her, but she was a bit of a letdown from a fiscal standpoint.

[st.cronin]

The religious stuff is what typed Palin as right-wing, both to her supporters and detracters. Both sides let that aspect of her persona shape their perceptions of her to a really weird degree, imo.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The religious stuff is what typed Palin as right-wing, both to her supporters and detracters. Both sides let that aspect of her persona shape their perceptions of her to a really weird degree, imo.

Her character issues, gaffes, and unintentionally comedic moments did far more to shape my perception of her than anything she might have said about religion.

[larrymcg421]

I'm surprised they still haven't called North Carolina for McCain. I mean I know Obama is ahead in the vote totals right now, but as Vegas Vic told us:

What's going on there is that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance now in North Carolina. There just isn't a big enough coalition of African Americans statewide and elitist liberals and college students in Charlotte and the Research Triangle Park area to pull it off.

John Edwards didn't even win his own precinct for John Kerry in 2004, and North Carolina has been a solid Republican state in modern presidential elections, with the lone exception being Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford in 1976.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm surprised they still haven't called North Carolina for McCain. I mean I know Obama is ahead in the vote totals right now, but as Vegas Vic told us:

Yes, I was clearly wrong on that. Perhaps a better example of how North Carolina has changed is Kay Hagen's 53-44 blowout of Elizabeth Dole in the senate race. This was Jesse Helms' old senate seat. North Carolina also elected it's first female governor, also a democrat.

It's not just in eastern North Carolina, either. In the mountains, Obama carried Buncombe County by 15 points, which includes my hometown of Asheville. Downtown Asheville has become a trendy, eclectic, artsy area.

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Obama wins Indiana and North Carolina, a big wow from me there. I didn't think he had a chance in hell in Indiana, despite the tightening over the closing weeks of the election.

And Obama was never close in North Dakota or Arizona despite what the tightening in polls there suggested. I think the North Dakota polls were half-assed at best, while Arizona was maybe just showing a standard poll tightening of things towards the end that wasn't borne out by the results.

All in all, it seems the polls got most of it right. Virginia and North Carolina were considered close but ultimately went for Obama. Ohio was close, but also a lean Obama which is where it ended up. Pennsylvania was an 11 point margin, which is about where the polls had it all along. Missouri was a virtual tie towards the end with a tiny lean for McCain, and that's exactly where that one went.

I think Fivethirtyeight.com has proven itself with this election.

As a life long Hoosier, I am very happy that the Hoosier state joined the rest of the Midwest, Northeast, and Pacific states in electing Barrack Obama as the next president. I thought he had a chance of winning. First, the polls were showing it was close. Perhaps more importantly, Obama campaigned here heavily (as well as visiting here far more often then McCain), had way more ads on television then McCain, and had an extremely strong ground game. McCain pretty much ignored the state. Essentially, the Obama campaign kicked the crap out of the McCain campaign in Indiana yet Obama only won here by about one percent. Indiana may no longer be a Republican strong hold, but I think it's safe to say it continue to go Republican in most future presidential elections.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Feel free to ignore it, but it's certainly a valid point. I'm not claiming that the Republicans haven't put these kinds of people in certain positions, but the assertion that Obama can say those things and then assume that the other half of the country actually believes it is severely misplaced. Obama turned this election into a Bush referendum and McCain took the fall for it. That option will not be available in 4 years and he'll also have to explain why his 'unity' platform didn't pan out once he actually entered the Oval Office. Chosing a man like that to be in a high office does nothing for unity.

I don't think most Democrats could have imagined that we would elect George W. to a second term. In my opinion, America seems to be trending towards two term presidents. The country is in pretty bad shape right now. If the economy starts to turn around during Obama's first term, I think he will be reelected. I don't think it will matter that much to the average independent voter. (the people who decide elections).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The religious stuff is what typed Palin as right-wing, both to her supporters and detracters. Both sides let that aspect of her persona shape their perceptions of her to a really weird degree, imo.

Earlier I read the opinion of one of her Alaskan Republican colleagues and it seems to add up. There were two things:

1) He said that she is one of those personalities that instinctively understands what someone she meets expects of her and then acts in a way that makes her immediately likable. However it's not to be trusted or thought of as being "her" but merely the persona for that moment - not deliberately deceitful but the consequence of insecurity and a genuine wish to please.

2) He also says that, while she presumes to be socially conservative, there isn't a lot of commitment behind it. It seems she takes on expected positions without really thinking it through. Her colleagues in the Republican party are disappointed in her in that she's done little that they had expected of her as governor in the way of social conservatism. She's shown no willingness to act on her views.


I note she attended the pentecostal church for 34 years yet she insists she's not pentecostal which, considering the extreme positions taken by pentecostals, is peculiar . In an interview with The Frontiersman she made the right socially conservative comments about creationism in schools (students should be presented with both this and evolution) but when asked if she believed in evolution she refused to answer. Both examples of apparent support for an idea but without any genuine commitment or knowledge behind it.

It does seem to me that these two things are connected - the will-to-be-liked chameleon personality and the lack of depth and genuine commitment to the views she holds. It explains her rabbit-in-the-headlights reactions (the Couric interview etc) where she seems to have little depth of understanding behind the positions she takes. It explains that immediate appeal which fades with time and greater understanding that characterises the response of many to her.

My own reaction to her is that she's a pleasing personality but shallow. There's no real sincerity - which allows her to claim to be a crusader for ethics and integrity yet become the enthusiastic attack-dog for McCain.

She may prove to become the perfect, populist politician

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Her character issues, gaffes, and unintentionally comedic moments did far more to shape my perception of her than anything she might have said about religion.

She made the same mistakes as the average nutjobs in any office or small town makes. The kind of people who might have a hard time finding more than 2 or 3 nations on a globe, but think they really know something about the world. The people who know absolutely zero about science, so they actually believe they are onto a real breakthrough when they target some fundamental part of science research as a waste of money. Those people are not hard to find. They just don't often become Governor AND be wrapped in a beauty pageant body. People liked her because of her overt religious beliefs and that she shared the same limited view of the planet that they did.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Earlier I read the opinion of one of her Alaskan Republican colleagues and it seems to add up. There were two things:

1) He said that she is one of those personalities that instinctively understands what someone she meets expects of her and then acts in a way that makes her immediately likable. However it's not to be trusted or thought of as being "her" but merely the persona for that moment - not deliberately deceitful but the consequence of insecurity and a genuine wish to please.

2) He also says that, while she presumes to be socially conservative, there isn't a lot of commitment behind it. It seems she takes on expected positions without really thinking it through. Her colleagues in the Republican party are disappointed in her in that she's done little that they had expected of her as governor in the way of social conservatism. She's shown no willingness to act on her views.


I note she attended the pentecostal church for 34 years yet she insists she's not pentecostal which, considering the extreme positions taken by pentecostals, is peculiar . In an interview with The Frontiersman she made the right socially conservative comments about creationism in schools (students should be presented with both this and evolution) but when asked if she believed in evolution she refused to answer. Both examples of apparent support for an idea but without any genuine commitment or knowledge behind it.

It does seem to me that these two things are connected - the will-to-be-liked chameleon personality and the lack of depth and genuine commitment to the views she holds. It explains her rabbit-in-the-headlights reactions (the Couric interview etc) where she seems to have little depth of understanding behind the positions she takes. It explains that immediate appeal which fades with time and greater understanding that characterises the response of many to her.

My own reaction to her is that she's a pleasing personality but shallow. There's no real sincerity - which allows her to claim to be a crusader for ethics and integrity yet become the enthusiastic attack-dog for McCain.

She may prove to become the perfect, populist politician

Yup. I have a feeling the next two years will be the "shaping" of Palin. Someone is going to run her, and create her views to be most electable. She IMHO is W in a skirt. Likeable personality that can relate to the common man, but not really someone who runs their own political life.

[GrantDawg]

On a more local front, I'm surprised the need for a run-off in the Senate race was as close as it was. Voter turn-out was lower than expected in Georgia (78% against 90%. Still higher than 2004 at 76%), but to give my own county as an example:

Newton has been a pretty solid hot-bed for the GOP for last decade, with only a handfull of the old Southern Democrats still holding that party affilation, but mostly every local seat held by Republicans with a good percentage uncontested. I just noticed that a Democrat won the Sherriff's race (by 62 votes), the County chair is now a Dem at 57% of the vote, and 3 of five commision seats are now Dems.

My thought is that this could actually be less that there are less Republicans now, and more that the Dems voted (some for the first time) and some Republicans just stayed home. Two factors would play to that. 1) Excitement over Obama drove the Dems, and 2) The Republicans were not excited about McCain here, and didn't feel like he would win anyway.

For those who feel like the GOP would be wise to run another moderate Pres canidate, I think there is a message here. The Southern GOP will not turn out as well with a moderate at the top of the ticket. The South could start turning bluer if they feel the GOP is leaving them behind, not by social conservatives turning Dem, but by them just staying home. You might be happy to not have their votes, but you will never win a national election without them.

[GrantDawg]

BTW, this county went to Obama by a very slim margin. This is the same county that went over-the-top Huckabee in the primaries (and that was after McCain had already almost completely locked down the nomination).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Newton has been a pretty solid hot-bed for the GOP for last decade, with only a handfull of the old Southern Democrats still holding that party affilation, but mostly every local seat held by Republicans with a good percentage uncontested. I just noticed that a Democrat won the Sherriff's race (by 62 votes), the County chair is now a Dem at 57% of the vote, and 3 of five commision seats are now Dems.

Very different demographics in Newton (and neighboring Rockdale) than there used to be.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yup. I have a feeling the next two years will be the "shaping" of Palin. Someone is going to run her, and create her views to be most electable. She IMHO is W in a skirt. Likeable personality that can relate to the common man, but not really someone who runs their own political life.

On the Larry King show Bill Mayer commented on where the Republican party could go from here. He argued that if they wanted to continue down this know-nothing, intellect-fearing, Joe six-pack, God-on-our-side road then they should stick with Palin but he would rather they returned to the Republican party of his youth representing big business, low taxation and fiscal responsibility. Despite Mayer's obvious left leaning position I suspect many Republicans might agree with him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Amusing video on The Onion..........

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Despite Mayer's obvious left leaning position I suspect many Republicans might agree with him.

Many former GOP members likely agree. It was the turn to the religious right and embracing of social prejudices that drove me out of the party. Until it stops being the party of "let's push Christianity down the throat of everyone" and "we must stop the < insert most hated minority group at the time >", I don't care if they win any election. Get back to something that truly matters, that can be measured with real numbers, and more common ground can be found.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My favorite country is Asia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Get back to something that truly matters, that can be measured with real numbers, and more common ground can be found.

What you're really seem to be saying is "abandon the things that are most important to you & come work on the things most important to someone else". That's not 'common ground', that's capitulation.

As I said in another thread, I'm cool with anybody who wants to split the party/change parties/whatever. But demeaning the priorities of a recent & potential future partner with bullshit like "something that truly matters" isn't going to fly well nor far.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Very different demographics in Newton (and neighboring Rockdale) than there used to be.

True dat.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What you're really seem to be saying is "abandon the things that are most important to you & come work on the things most important to someone else". That's not 'common ground', that's capitulation.

Capitulation? Is it really "most important to you" to force Christianity onto others? Is it really "most important to you" to constantly find minority groups to attack? I didn't think I was asking that much, but apparently I underestimated how important those two missions are to some people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Capitulation? Is it really "most important to you" to force Christianity onto others? Is it really "most important to you" to constantly find minority groups to attack? I didn't think I was asking that much, but apparently I underestimated how important those two missions are to some people.

This may come as a real shock to you (apparently) but supporting the values & beliefs people have is actually more important to some folks than {gasp} even money. Not only is it an ethical/moral imperative for a lot of people, but on a more practical level it's also a simple matter of defending their own quality of life.

You can agree, disagree, whatever with their priorities but what you do at your own peril politically is underestimate or flat out deny just how important those various issues are.

WARNING: OVERSTATEMENT AHEAD !
Okay, having been warned that I'm intentionally overstating this to make a point here, I believe that the following quote may become increasingly relevant for a lot of voters in the next couple of years. "What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?" More to the point, there's going to be a lot of people (me very much included) who really don't see the gain in even hypothetically perfect fiscal policy if it's maintained in a country that's not enjoyable or even downright unbearable to live in.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yes, I was clearly wrong on that. Perhaps a better example of how North Carolina has changed is Kay Hagen's 53-44 blowout of Elizabeth Dole in the senate race. This was Jesse Helms' old senate seat. North Carolina also elected it's first female governor, also a democrat.

It's not just in eastern North Carolina, either. In the mountains, Obama carried Buncombe County by 15 points, which includes my hometown of Asheville. Downtown Asheville has become a trendy, eclectic, artsy area.

The Research Triangle continues to have an influx of northeast liberals. This is not the ultra-conservative rural state it used to be; Charlotte and Raleigh continue to grow and are the New York and LA of the state. And many of these folks live in surrounding counties.

I remain amazed at how well the Dems swept everything in Wake County, right down to the local elections, including kicking out incumbent Repubs. So much for fixing the school board here...

What makes it worse is all the Dem scandals at the state level, including our Speaker of the House getting sent to prison for corruption in getting the lottery in place (which included a stealth vote when key opponents were recessed), the whole Mike Nifong affair (Governor Easley appointment), the massive bloating of the state budget over the last 9 years or so (with Kay Hagan in a key role no less!), and various other scandals, and people let them get an even BIGGER stranglehold on state politics. Sigh.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Amusing video on The Onion..........

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Wow. I thought maybe you hadn't the thread. What a worthless contributor and liar you are.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

(with Kay Hagan in a key role no less!)

From what I have read and heard, Kay Hagan won more because Dole simply didn't care to keep the job. When she did decide to even try campaigning, it was with inflammatory ads that received widespread negative response. It appears she is likely more interested in moving to K Street than being in the Senate and threw the race to Hagan. So, I believe that had more to do with Dole's complete ineptitude as a candidate than Hagan being the best possible choice.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Wow. I thought maybe you hadn't the thread. What a worthless contributor and liar you are.

I'm not sure what 'hadn't the thread' means, but The Onion has been cited several times in this thread. The article posted earlier was pretty funny as well.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure what 'hadn't the thread' means, but The Onion has been cited several times in this thread. The article posted earlier was pretty funny as well.

Sorry, hadn't read the thread. I am referring to your continued refusal to admit you were wrong, even though you said you would admit it if you were.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Sorry, hadn't read the thread. I am referring to your continued refusal to admit you were wrong, even though you said you would admit it if you were.

That's the way he always is. Don't let it bother you.

Most of us have learned to ignore everything he says.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Sorry, hadn't read the thread. I am referring to your continued refusal to admit you were wrong, even though you said you would admit it if you were.

Well, that's not completely true. I'll try to make this the be all, end all of explanations.......

1. I was way off on the electoral vote. I said around 285 for Obama and he obviously picked up some key wins (he may still get one or two more).

2. I was wrong on Pennsylvania. I'll be interested to see the breakdown of voters in the final tallies (perhaps they are available, though I have only seen exit polling thus far).

3. There were several states where I was correct in regards to final percentage, but not sure if the percentage argument played out. Same thing there in that exit polling is the only data at this point, so we'll wait to see if the actual numbers pan out. Ohio could be very interesting in that regard, as there is some mention that the Democrat turnout may actually be really high in that state due to the voters who switched to Democrat to vote for Hillary and never bothered to switch back. That would obviously throw a HUGE wrench in my poll weight theories. It would also explain the phenomenon that JPhillips pointed out in regards to the high turnout for Democrats that didn't actually inflate the Obama vote.

4. When I made my initial post regarding vote totals, the nation vote hovered in the 3-4% range. Since then, it has settled into a 6-7 point margin, so the national polls probably will be relatively accurate in the end, despite the state numbers variance. Most of the battleground state numbers slid in favor of McCain in relation to predictions, but the heavy partisan turnout in Democratic areas offset any gains.

It'll be interesting to see the actual polling data as it comes out in the coming days/weeks.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Capitulation? Is it really "most important to you" to force Christianity onto others? Is it really "most important to you" to constantly find minority groups to attack? I didn't think I was asking that much, but apparently I underestimated how important those two missions are to some people.

As a registered Republican, please let me know which minority is next on my list to attack. I must have missed the latest newsletter.

[SFL Cat]

"Change We Can Believe In"

So far it just looks like Clinton retreads, which I find interesting in and of itself.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

As a registered Republican, please let me know which minority is next on my list to attack. I must have missed the latest newsletter.

That would be gays.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

That would be gays.

The gay community may not be welcome on either side of the tracks with the African-American vote also coming out against them. Time to create a gay political party.