2008 Election Talk

[shmeep]

I always love to get your take on things, mlm. Your view of the debate is very interesting. You come at things while thinking like a lawyer (imagine that) and that's not at all the way my mind functions. You seem to notice things that don't make it out of my subconscious.

I completely agree on the electability issue. More people from other parties just like Obama better and will cross party lines for him. Hillary's negatives are just too high. Would she still win? Probably. But Obama will win even bigger. I'm with you in agreeing that she'd make a terrific president, but...I wouldn't be nearly as excited about it.

I know the polls show McCain doing fairly well against both Dems, but I just don't believe that's reflecting reality at all. When you consider that Democratic voter turnout has been much larger than Republican turnout even in many of the Red states, I don't see how these numbers can be real. I know they poll "likely voters," but when it comes down to it, when they ask a Republican, they'll say McCain, but will they actually go to the polls? McCain isn't generating the kind of excitement both Clinton and Obama are getting wherever they go. The Dems are fired up and will vote in droves. The Republicans are resigned and may participate, but many won't. That will make all the difference.

In a year with millions of new voters and young people without landlines (they don't call cell phones for polling), I don't see how pollsters can get a very accurate number. We get a rough idea and it often turns out to be close, but the actual numbers are becoming further and further from the polls this cycle and I don't see them becoming any more accurate unless they come up with a new way to poll.

[matilda]

It's about Nader.

I know the results from last time BUT are you fullas worried?

Cheers

M

[mlm828]

matilda said:

It's about Nader.

I know the results from last time BUT are you fullas worried?

Cheers

M

I'm not particularly worried about Nader at this time. In 2000, when he siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore to give the election to the Shrub (with the help of the Supreme Court), he was the candidate of a party, the Green Party. When he ran on his own, without being the candidate of a party, in 2004, he got a lot fewer votes. As far as I know, he is not running as the candidate of a party this time. As far as I'm concerned, he's running only to satisfy his ego.

[Chris]

matilda said:

It's about Nader.

I know the results from last time BUT are you fullas worried?

Cheers

M

I'm not the expert on US elections - obviously ;D - but I would guess he wouldn't have that much influence on this election. First off, he's too old. I know he's just two years older than McCain but he's 73, that's just too old for a president in my opinion.
Secondly - he's run four times earlier, why wopuld people keep voting for him, he's obviously not going to win anytime soon. I would be inclined to vote for an independent kandidate if I were to vote but I think I would give up on a kandidate that keeps running and running simply because I couldn't take him seriously. If you didn't get the message the fourth time you ran for president, maybe you are not smart enough to be the president.

mlm828 said:

As far as I'm concerned, he's running only to satisfy his ego.

Hope his ego won't get hurt then. ;D

- Chris

[Eyphur]

Dispite the fact that I was in Advanced Placement Government class in high school, I am somewhat confused as to how the primary election process works. I have never voted in a primary election before (what do you expect when it's the week before finals) and I'm not clear on how it works. Do I ahve to declare myself to be a member of a political party before I can vote? I concider myself to be an independent voter with conservative leanings. I have voted for candidates from both parties as well as independent candidates in past general elections. Can someone explain the process to me?

Also, I plan to spend sometime this week researching the candidates plans, goals and stances on various issues. However one thing about Hillary is bugging me. A week or two ago Bill came to town campaigning for Hillary and at the rally (or whatever it's caled) where he spoke there were some protesters from the local catholic university who are pro-life. Bills message to them was basically "there's nothing that can be done about it, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned so why bother trying?" So my concern is "Is thsi attitude confined to one controversial issue or does Hillary have a similar stance toward other issues as well?"

[mlm828]

eyphur said:

Despite the fact that I was in Advanced Placement Government class in high school, I am somewhat confused as to how the primary election process works. I have never voted in a primary election before (what do you expect when it's the week before finals) and I'm not clear on how it works. Do I have to declare myself to be a member of a political party before I can vote? I consider myself to be an independent voter with conservative leanings. I have voted for candidates from both parties as well as independent candidates in past general elections. Can someone explain the process to me?

It varies from state to state, and even from party to party. In California, for example, only voters who registered as Republicans could vote in last month's Republican primary, but both registered Democrats and those who registered as "nonpartisan" (independents, in other words) were allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. You can probably find the answers to your questions at the Ohio Secretary of State's web site.

[inuvik]

Well, the Alberta election happened Monday. I wonder if we have set some kind of record?

The Conservatives won again, their 11th straight majority . They have now governed for 37 years, I guess it will be 4 more now! 72 out of 83 seats.

The two major opposition parties were reduced by half, and one even lost official party status.

Wow.

[mlm828]

"Wow" is right. I hope this isn't a foreshadowing of the results south of the border in November.

By the way, isn't the name of the winning party -- "Progressive Conservatives" -- an oxymoron?

[inuvik]

mlm828 said:

By the way, isn't the name of the winning party -- "Progressive Conservatives" -- an oxymoron?

Ha ha!

[maggiethecat]

Just when you think it's over . . .

Was anyone else as amazed as I was -- and stayed up til the wee hours to get the word -- that after all the pundits said her campaign was as dead as the proverbial dodo, that Hillary WON in Ohio and Texas last night? This thing is going to go down to the wire and, whatever else you can say, it's great theatre. But now, with six weeks to go until Pennsylvania, I fear it's going to get very nasty and acrimonious and just plain dirty.

But not boring. What a year!

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

Was anyone else as amazed as I was -- and stayed up til the wee hours to get the word -- that after all the pundits said her campaign was as dead as the proverbial dodo, that Hillary WON in Ohio and Texas last night?

I was a little surprised, but not that surprised. Obama had a lot of momentum, but I never thought Hillary's campaign was as dead as many of the pundits assumed. I thought the way she righted the ship was quite impressive.

maggiethecat said:

This thing is going to go down to the wire and, whatever else you can say, it's great theatre. But now, with six weeks to go until Pennsylvania, I fear it's going to get very nasty and acrimonious and just plain dirty.

Based simply on the numbers, I don't think there's any way for either candidate to go into the convention with the nomination sewed up. So we may end up with something that hasn't been seen in a long time -- a nominee selected in the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms."

I do not look forward to the prospect of Hillary and Barack sniping at each other until the convention. This year, of all years, we Dems must not shoot ourselves in the foot, as we've done so many times before.

McCain paid the obligatory call on W today. I bet that's the last time we see those two together for a long time. I wonder how successful McCain will be in distancing himself from the Shrub, given that he's either supported most of his failed policies all along or embraced them in order to get the nomination. Whatever else the GOP does, I expect them to rely heavily on fear-mongering, with McCain as the nominee.

[carl1951]

Mags said "I thought the way she righted the ship was quite impressive. "

Can she do the same for the Ship of State?

Hillary also won Rhode Island.

McCain is definitely the Republican's man. He's gone to the next step: Finding a running-mate.

Now the big question: Will Michigan rerun? Florida did have both names on the ballot, will they?

Obama did win Vermont.

This Sat is on to Wyoming.

[Kasman]

carl1951 said:

Mags said "I thought the way she righted the ship was quite impressive. "

Can she do the same for the Ship of State?

I'm reminded of a line from "Yes, (Prime) Minister" - that the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top!

[carl1951]

Kasman: That has earned you a Karma!

Later, Carl

[Kasman]

carl1951 said:

Kasman: That has earned you a Karma!

Later, Carl

Why, thank you, Carl.