posted
"I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way."
a 60% chance of winning a state probably means that the state is within a couple percentage points. I'd say thats fairly close.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
curious, what was mcCain's platform in 2000?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
The Bradley effect is what you are referring to, and analysts have been tracking it since 1982. Studies have suggested that the effect has been diminishing over time. I believe currently if you give the Bradley effect the full extent of it's power, you subtract 6 percentage points from the black candidate. Remember though, if you subtract 6 points, you are saying that Obama is as polarizing a figure as you can get in a black candidate. I think his mixed heritage along with his very concerted effort to distance himself from the "discontent minority" stereotype will significantly erode the Bradley Effect in this instance. I wouldn't give that effect more than two maybe three points in Obama's case.
Of course the poll data will continue to fluctuate until election day, but I think the momentum is clearly in Obama's favor and at worst support for Obama will remain around it's current level.
edit: In Obama's case there is also a curious "Reverse Bradley Effect" that analysts are attempting to account for. The Bradley Effect seems to slightly effect Obama's actual vote in states with below 10% black population, but in 25+% black population states his performance is understated based on polls.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would have serious problems returning to a more republican format for electing the President. Its a highly elitist concept and given the way things work, I suspect that the electoral college wouldn't consist of the smartest and most well informed but rather of the richest and most well connected which would be a disaster.
I think we'd do much better with a genuine direct election of the President but I'd like to see a non-partisan election the way many mayoral elections are held. Rather than having parties nominate their candidates who are then given a spot on the general election ballot, we would have one nation wide primary held about 2 months before the general election. Everyone regardless of party affiliation would have to petition to be on the primary ballot. If parties wanted to endorse a candidate, they could but they would have no authority to prevent other party members from being on the primary ballot and no recognition of their endorsement on the ballot itself. The primary would be an instant run off election, and the top two candidates would then select running mates and be placed on the final election ballot.
I know its unlikely to ever happen, but I think it would lead to less partisanship and a more diverse slate of candidates. Since candidates wouldn't have to cater to a particular party to be nominated, I think we'd get more genuine centrists and more candidates who actually think for themselves rather than regurgitate a party platform that is the marriage of strange bedfellows. We might, for example, get a candidate who was antiabortion and anti-death penalty, or a candidate who favored gun rights and lower military spending.
I don't much like the idea of returning to a super republican way of doing things either, but that having been said, I think our current system needs some major overhauls. Maybe my biggest change would be to go back to the President and Vice President running separately. Even if that means that the P and VP are of different parties. I don't think the VP should get a virtual free ride. People vote top of the ticket and then when the top of the ticket dies they get stuck with whoever was the most politically advantageous rather than who is the best guy for the job. I think they should run separately. If they want to campaign together then fine.
I also want Congressional term limits. Or maybe some sort of rule to let the really good politicians stay, like you have to get better than 70% of the vote in your district or state to even be on the ballot after you've already been in Washington for two terms. It's the entrenched long term incumbents who I think do most of the damage to our country. I think things were better when the turnover rate was higher.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
A lot of the polls were just fine in the primaries. The only one that was really, really off was New Hampshire and to a lesser extent Iowa, and that has far less to do with the Bradley Effect than it does the way the polls were conducted. Obama's greatest strength in the primaries was blacks and young people. Those two groups were undersampled in the Iowa polls, so Clinton and Edwards were stronger in the polls than reality. For New Hampshire, polling groups OVERsampled those two groups at the expense of seniors and women where Clinton was strong, so her resulting victory wouldn't have been a surprise if the polling had been done differently.
The Bradley Effect is when people lie about who they voted for because they don't want to appear racist, but there's no evidence that in those early races such an Effect actually took place. The fact that Obama had done so well in overwhelmingly white states like Iowa I think is good anecdotal evidence to the contrary of the supposed Effect.
I think Obama's chances are better than 50/50 in Florida, mostly becaus of registration rolls. Democrats are up by over a hundred thousand, and Republicans are down by more than that number. I think it'll be a close state, but he has a good chance this year, both considering the fact that the ground game there is better than it was over the last 8 years, and the fact that the governor doesn't at all appear interested in helping McCain in the final weeks of the eletion. To say nothing of the fact that the large student population in Florida is more motivated than they've maybe ever been. It'll offset, to a small degree, the senior vote that might go to McCain.
I think there might be a Bradley Effect, but like BlackBlade says, it's probably only 1-3 points at best. But like BB also mentioned, the "Reverse" Bradley Effect might be the real game changer. Black turnout is expected to be at its highest rate EVER in history in this election, and it's expected that he'll get 95% of the black vote, which might put states like Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia over the top. McCain could win Ohio AND Florida in that case and still lose the election. Not even counting the tens to hundreds of thousands of new black voters in some of these states, and I've seen some of the registration numbers, it's staggering, the enthusiasm gap is going to more than make up for the Bradley Effect I think.
I think it's going to make for some surprising results on election night.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if that means that the P and VP are of different parties.
You don't think that would result in even more partisan bickering? At this point anyway? I mean, the contrasting ideals of the two parties won't exactly disappear even if their influence is diminished.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than taking over the presidency in the case of the president's death, the VP doesn't have any obligations or powers. In other words, he doesn't even need to be in DC. He can sit at home and wait to be called on, if that should happen. In 220 some odd years we've had how many VPs take over for the president? 3? Harrison/Tyler, Lincoln/Johnson and JFK/Johnson. It isn't something that's going to happen very often, but when it does, I'd like the guy who takes over to be qualified for the job, and actually have people look at him when he's chosen.
But no, I don't think it would result in even more bickering. I think by and large the same party would get elected to both seats. I think if the party took over, they'd be forced to put up an electable VP, instead of just someone who has once facet that makes the actually presidential candidate more electable. I think once the parties got ahold of it, we'd get better quality VP candidates and they'd still get elected in pairs, but the real result is to force the parties to offer up better candidates or risk the opposing party's VP getting in instead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
More than three VPs have taken over because eight have died in office. Four from assassination, four from natural causes.
William Henry Harrison - John Tyler Zachary Taylor - Millard Fillmore Abraham Lincoln - Andrew Johnson James A. Garfield - Chester A. Arthur William McKinley - Teddy Roosevelt Warren Harding - Calvin Coolidge Franklin D. Roosevelt - Harry S Truman John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
ETA: Richard Nixon - Gerald Ford Not a death but that makes nine presidents that didn't last through their term.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than taking over the presidency in the case of the president's death, the VP doesn't have any obligations or powers. In other words, he doesn't even need to be in DC. He can sit at home and wait to be called on, if that should happen. In 220 some odd years we've had how many VPs take over for the president? 3? Harrison/Tyler, Lincoln/Johnson and JFK/Johnson. It isn't something that's going to happen very often, but when it does, I'd like the guy who takes over to be qualified for the job, and actually have people look at him when he's chosen.
But no, I don't think it would result in even more bickering. I think by and large the same party would get elected to both seats. I think if the party took over, they'd be forced to put up an electable VP, instead of just someone who has once facet that makes the actually presidential candidate more electable. I think once the parties got ahold of it, we'd get better quality VP candidates and they'd still get elected in pairs, but the real result is to force the parties to offer up better candidates or risk the opposing party's VP getting in instead.
You forgot Nixon/Ford. =P
I agree with this sentiment about VPs. But something I thought I'd ask for a bit more elaboration from on you is more specifics on why you think there should be congressional term limits.
The way I figure, we do have some checks in the system on them. They can be challenged and taken off the ticket in the primary, and that usually will work on getting them out. (I say usually because Lieberman springs to mind.) For example in my own congressional district, incumbent Chris Cannon was defeated in the primaries by new comer Jason Chaffetz. Now, I probably would have preferred Cannon to Chaffetz, but what can I do? I couldn't have voted in that primary, what with not being a Republican. Then there are elections, which is sort of a limit on the terms they can serve.
I ask this because I think there are very successful representatives that a majority would like to keep in office because they do continue to represent their constituency valiantly.
I don't like it when an incumbent loses their connection with their constituency. But I lean towards the belief that it's better to have no congressional limits, and just hope and pray that the people will do their research and vote for who they think will represent themselves the best.
That said, I could be swayed the other way. I only lean towards my belief and would be authentically interested to hear why you believe in limits.
Edit to add: The Nixon/Ford bit was to Lyrhawn, specifically. But I think it still applies because he wasn't included on the list above mine. Then again, the list above mine are only presidents who died in office.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Bradley effect is what you are referring to, and analysts have been tracking it since 1982.
Thanks, guys. I'd never heard of such a thing. And was it really only two polls that were off? I thought I remembered it being more dramatic than that. Maybe that's the key. The wannabe writer saw drama.
Also thanks to Paul. I suppose I confused a 60% chance with a 60% win.
I'm still curious how the youth vote will work out for Obama. Tradiationally, they're a group that just doesn't vote. They get something like a 3% turnout in normal circumstances? Obama could double their numbers and still not end up with much return on his investment.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an earlier posting, Strider shared the news that Christopher Buckley - son of William F Buckley - in a blog piece titled "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama".
Christopher Buckley had been writing the back page essay in the National Review. No more. His latest entry on "The Daily Beast" is Buckley Bows Out of National Review:
quote:I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.
Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review.
****
Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.
posted
Some more quotes from Buckley that were on CNN.
quote:"While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for," Buckley wrote.
"Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case," he also wrote.
quote:I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.
Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review.
Now, honestly, at this point, I go back to when orson scott card was leaning on the hatemail he received to be used as an exhibit to judge aspects of those with whom he disagreed.
Something said there resonates here. To detail it any further turns it into a cheap shot. But unsurprisingly, it turns out to be a white noise beneath the signal of everyone's ideology.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow I missed a lot of dead presidents, but I think that only serves to emphasize my point. I can't believe I forgot FDR. Sorry, my brain is focused on antebellum US history at the moment because of this class I'm taking.
quote:From Vadon: But I lean towards the belief that it's better to have no congressional limits, and just hope and pray that the people will do their research and vote for who they think will represent themselves the best.
I don't really have that kind of faith left. Incumbency breed inefficiency in my opinion. Goverment used to work better when there were higher turnover rates. People that stay there forever gather too much power around themselves and get their hands in too many pots. They develop enemies that make it hard for the best interests of the nation to be the highest regard because personal relationships are often so important these days in getting legislation passed. I think the more they stay there forever and entrench themselves, the more they'll be sucked in to the party affiliation machine that forces them to see the other side as the enemy instead of just other Americans they disagree with. It's a vicious circle that only strengthens the longer they are there. Forcing the party leadership to turnover so often will knock out a certain degree of that hyperpartisanship and antipathy that builds up.
Plus I think these guys just get in there and stay forever without always having a lot to show for it. I want new people to come in and have to constantly prove their worth to stay there rather than voting for the guy I've always voted for just because I've always voted for him.
quote:From AvidReader: I'm still curious how the youth vote will work out for Obama. Tradiationally, they're a group that just doesn't vote. They get something like a 3% turnout in normal circumstances? Obama could double their numbers and still not end up with much return on his investment.
The youth turnout rate is considerably higher. The 18-24 crowd gets a bad rap for being deadbeats, and comparatively to the other age groups they are, but it's not like NONE of them vote. The problem with youth voting statistics is that you can't really nail them down since they can dramatically shift in any given race. Some quick stats for 18-24 year old voting trends:
1994: 26% 2000: 36% 2002: 22% 2004: 47%
25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
Let's try it this way: In the 2002 midterm election, the under 25 crowd made up 5% of the total votes cast that year with a turnout rate of 19.4% for their age group. In the 2004 election they were 9% of the total votes cast, with a turnout rate of 46.7%. Estimates for this year suggest that the youth vote could come closer to representing their actual numbers in the population, which is in the low 20's as a percent of the total population. If their participation spikes to 60% of the total number eligible, and if they break in numbers for Obama that have been suggested so far, it could give him a national one or two point bump. That's how you win elections.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm probably stating the obvious to you, but part of the "how" in winning elections that way is leaving as little as possible to luck or faith.
The Obama organizational operation has been largely underreported. Not that there hasn't been anything written, just relatively little. If Obama wins with a big turnout of supporters, expect to see lots of stories on this after the election.
quote:In 2004, Democrats watched as any chance of defeating President Bush slipped away in a wave of Republican turnout that exceeded even the goal-beating numbers that their own side had produced.
Four years later, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign intends to avoid a repeat by building an organization modeled in part on what Karl Rove used to engineer Bush's victory: a heavy reliance on local volunteers to pitch to their own neighbors, micro-targeting techniques to identify persuadable independents and Republicans using consumer data, and a focus on exurban and rural areas.
But in scale and ambition, the Obama organization goes beyond even what Rove built. The campaign has used its record-breaking fundraising to open more than 700 offices in more than a dozen battleground states, pay several thousand organizers and manage tens of thousands more volunteers.
In many states, the Democratic candidate is hewing more closely to the Rove organizational model than is rival Sen. John McCain, whose emphasis on ground operations has been less intensive and clinical than that of his Republican predecessor.
It's a long article and one worth reading. Their efforts obviously haven't faced the real test yet, but if this machine does what it is supposed to do, the Obama victory could be greater than the poll projections.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buckley's treatment is indeed regretable. After reading alot about Wililam Buckley, (the father) I can't help but believe he would be taking a very similar position to his son. He would probably have a brilliant way of expressing those sentiments, but the sentiment would be there nonetheless.
It's unfortunate that we don't have more conservatives intelligently advocating the position. I wish I wasn't part of the problem
edited because obvious facts ought not to be ignored.
posted
Wow, Lyr. That's amazing. I was watching the news when I got the 3% number. That's some really bad journalism there.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's half of why I think this election is already over, and why I think Obama will win in a blowout landslide. Obama's organizational get out the vote efforts have been unprecedented, and in a 21st century that has seen groundgame taken to new heights for both of the last elections, that's really saying something. They're identifying who can be convinced, convincing them, and then making sure that they get them to the polls on election day. It's widespread, well funded and methodical.
The other big reason is just enthusiasm. Most every Obama supporter I've spoken to is itching to vote for him. That's not to say there isn't McCain enthusiasm, I'm sure there is, but it's far bigger on the other side. Look at early voting. In the last two elections Bush took early voting I think by a 2:1 ratio. Right now Obama is ahead by a fair amount, I don't remember the numbers, but that's a big turnaround. Generally an extreme minority of early voters wish they could have changed their votes after the fact, so it's not like this is a big advantage to lock in votes (though it might be for some), it's really just telling in the enthusiasm that people have for getting their vote out there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did the last time the P and VP were voted independent of one another, one shot the other? Just sayin'.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Burr was Jefferson's VP and he shot Alexander Hamilton, who didn't hold a position in the government at the time of his death. The 12 amendment was passed that year or soon after (I can't remember) to make it so P and VP were elected separately and thus parties running P/VP tickets came into being. Only four elections took place under the original formula. Two of them resulted in Washington/Adams. The third resulted in Adams/Jefferson, which was really an awful pairing since Jefferson was a backstabbing jerk. The fourth resulted in Jefferson/Burr, and near the end of the term Burr shot and killed Hamilton.
But even so, look at most of the men involved. Adams, Washington, Jefferson; if any of them had died, there wouldn't have been a serious argument that whichever among them had to fill in wasn't up to the task. They had policy disagreements, but they were smart capable men, and in the case of Adams and Jefferson anyway, they both found that pre-presidential ideologies didn't mean the same thing once they got to the White House. Especially in Jefferson's case.
Still, my point isn't to get men and women of different parties into the White House, I'm not TRYING to rile the nation up. The idea really is to force the parties to put up good VP candidates for fear of a more qualified opposition being elected. This year; Biden would have been chosen, Palin wouldn't have been. I don't think Edwards would have been chosen, or Cheney either time. Gore is probably the last VP candidate who people would likely have willingly voted for if the matters were separated.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: The Obama organizational operation has been largely underreported. Not that there hasn't been anything written, just relatively little.
quote:Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
posted
I still think Obama loses by a healthy margin, with respect to the electoral college. He'll lose a few points because of race, but mostly, he'll lose because America is a conservative country, and Obama isn't changing their minds. Obama isn't making new democrats, real democrats. He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black. He is pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, pro-NCLB(his just wants to throw money at it), pro-FISA, mealy on guns, cutting taxes, pro-aggression, and silent on immigration. If he were white, he'd be Evan Byah.) And if Obama loses, I think it's going to be because when given a choice between a wishy/washy democrat and an ostensibly straight-talking republican, they are going take the real deal.
I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
quote: 25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
No joke! I'm 26 now, but when I've turned up to vote in my district in the past, I've easily been the youngest in the room. I get a look from those waiting to vote as if to say 'Oh my, what is this strange creature who's arrived?' and the volunteers usually ask me if I need help finding the office (as though I couldn't possibly be there to vote-the polling places are mostly at the elementary schools here). Both my husband and I vote on local issues as well as during midterm years.
It's pretty ridiculous, since both my husband and I try to stay politically aware as well as keep up with current events. We have family overseas, so we have to keep up with international events or we might miss something important (like the time that their American compound was attacked by terrorists, that was a little too exciting). We went so far as to throw a get-together to watch the debate with some of our friends this evening.
People may say that the youth of this generation is slovenly, but even slovenly people vote.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black.
That's hilarious. He's as left-wing as they come. The fact that he's trying to obscure that a bit during the presidential race is purely because he's a politician and wants to win.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black.
That's hilarious. He's as left-wing as they come. The fact that he's trying to obscure that a bit during the presidential race is purely because he's a politician and wants to win.
A statement that could only have been made by someone who really has no clue how far left the left wing goes. Its the sort of conclusion people make when they are far right wing but assume that they are nearly centrists so from their highly distorted perspective, the center looks so far left its off the screen.
Both Obama and McCain are to the right of any of Europe's conservative parties. They are both to the right of the Republican platforms of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Even many (although certainly not all) of the statements made by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley are to the left of Obama's platform.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a big fan of Christopher Buckley's novels. I am actually surprised that he stayed conservative for as long as he did. He does not come across as conservative in his books at all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think your problem with making a nationwide prediction is that you've listed all the reasons why YOU won't vote for him and have then projected those reasons onto the nation.
Obama is going to win like 10,000% of the Black vote, he'll win the youth vote which if projections hold even slightly will be the highest it's been in a generation. He'll women the women's vote, the educated vote, the union vote and a lot of other votes as well.
I think that comparatively among American politics, Americans do tend to swerve Conservative on SOCIAL issues, but A. Social issues are taking a back seat to economic issues, which the majority of Americans tend to automatically give to Democrats. B. America has been trending more liberal for the last decade, either as a natural progression or as a response to what they see as Conservatism gone awry. I also think you're overconfident about McCain's popularity, regardless of the party label he's wrapped himself in.
Lisa -
If even half of what he says is true (and I know that you don't believe in at least half of what he says) he's more centrist than most national level Democrats. I wish he were more traditionally liberal in a half dozen areas than he really is. If anything I hope you're right and he's the liberalliest liberal that ever was and sneaks in. I might get some of what I want. But I don't think you are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
You are wrong about everything, you have delivered statement after statement in this thread that make no sense and in earnest have no conceptual reasoning that I can attach to reality, and at least you are setting yourself up for an admission of sorts.
quote:He's as left-wing as they come.
Except for, of course, people who are actually far left.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I still think Obama loses by a healthy margin, with respect to the electoral college. He'll lose a few points because of race, but mostly, he'll lose because America is a conservative country, and Obama isn't changing their minds. Obama isn't making new democrats, real democrats. He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black. He is pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, pro-NCLB(his just wants to throw money at it), pro-FISA, mealy on guns, cutting taxes, pro-aggression, and silent on immigration. If he were white, he'd be Evan Byah.) And if Obama loses, I think it's going to be because when given a choice between a wishy/washy democrat and an ostensibly straight-talking republican, they are going take the real deal.
I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
And the current electorial predictions with him winning by a landslide 354 votes are.... what? Imaginary? Don't exist? I am going to have so much fun saying "I told you so!"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BelladonnaOrchid: Lyrhawn, you said:
quote: 25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
No joke! I'm 26 now, but when I've turned up to vote in my district in the past, I've easily been the youngest in the room. I get a look from those waiting to vote as if to say 'Oh my, what is this strange creature who's arrived?' and the volunteers usually ask me if I need help finding the office (as though I couldn't possibly be there to vote-the polling places are mostly at the elementary schools here). Both my husband and I vote on local issues as well as during midterm years.
It's pretty ridiculous, since both my husband and I try to stay politically aware as well as keep up with current events. We have family overseas, so we have to keep up with international events or we might miss something important (like the time that their American compound was attacked by terrorists, that was a little too exciting). We went so far as to throw a get-together to watch the debate with some of our friends this evening.
People may say that the youth of this generation is slovenly, but even slovenly people vote.
I've voted in every election since my husband and I settled in this area 5 years ago, when I was 26. Before that, I moved around so much that I only voted in the national races. For the past 5 years, nobody has batted an eye when my husband and I have shown up for presidential or even mid-term elections, but when we show up at local elections, it feels like we're the only ones not turning gray. I wish more young and even middle aged people would get involved in voting, including local issues. We dismiss their importance but I'm sorry -- sales tax goes up and up and up and I'm having my say about putting an end to that! In local races, I have much more of a say than in national races because there are fewer voices competing with mind and even fewer who actually go to vote.
Speaking of which, I just sent in an application for a mail-in ballot the other day. I usually like to go the polls and even take my kids with me (I'll convince them to vote in local races!) but during the presidential elections the line wraps around the elementary school and I do have a 5-month-old.
Anyone else voting early or by mail?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I pretty much have to. Making it to my own precinct is hard, since I'll be working at another one. It's at a university, so it ought to be pretty exciting.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been to a polling place. In Oregon, the default is vote by mail. I should be getting my ballot soon.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'll bet that if you wanted to, you certainly COULD find somebody who wanted Obama killed, even guys that are motivated enough motivated enough to attend McCain rallies.
And I still doubt you'd find equal vitriol among the Democratic side, because they simply aren't worried enough to have to this emotional about their prospects of losing.
And it doesn't change the actual responses anybody in the McCain camp has made to actual questions actual people asked.
But it's out there, so I thought I'd toss it into the dialogue.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think your problem with making a nationwide prediction is that you've listed all the reasons why YOU won't vote for him and have then projected those reasons onto the nation.
I can also tell you why people will vote for him, he is bright and inoffensive. He is for good, against bad, and he thinks very hard about the stuff in between, without coming down on either side. For Pete's sake, he is a Democrat running on tax cuts. Tax Cuts! We have a reasonable tax burden and a huge deficit, and when we start buying those mortgages, nobody knows how far down that rabbit hole goes. The middle class don't need a tax cut. As long as we don't increase their taxes, they will continue to do fine. If they are paying taxes, that means that they at least have a job or are up and running. We need a loosely planned economy, but we need it in those terms and that's much more revolutionary than either candidate is willing to say. Obama's mass appeal comes from the fact that a vote for him is a vote for business as usual, and white liberals and suburban kids gets to feel progressive without giving up a thing or progressing anywhere. Obama's biggest Presidential asset isn't leadership, it's that maybe if he gets into office, he won't suck up all the air in the room, and a real leader from the legislative branch will screw up the courage and the insight to stand up and talk sense to the American people and government.
quote:Obama's mass appeal comes from the fact that a vote for him is a vote for business as usual
That would seem to run contrary to the very nature of his campaign and the expressed desires of his supporters, to say nothing of the fact that electing a black Democrat after eight years of the whitest guy in the world (who is a Republican) isn't anywhere near business as usual, unless you're taking a very, very wide angle lens view of what the business of government is.
Personally I don't have a problem with middle class tax cuts, I just think they need to be accompanied by about a trillion dollars in spending cuts. If we could get by on 2 trillion dollars 10 years ago, I don't see why we can't now. Time to tighten our belts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a discussion on Oregon Public Broadcasting today on two tax-related measures; the Republican representative said that cutting taxes is "always a good thing".
We've choosen to live across the state line in Vancouver, Washington in part because Portland's schools and libraries are woefully and increasingly underfunded. And we pay a high sales tax as a result, but we accept that.
I think the idea that tax cuts are virtuous in and of themselves in a vacuum is one of the most grotesquely self-destructive ideas to come to prominence in the last decade or so. Not to say that cutting taxes hasn't played in the past, but the particular angle of self-righteousness seems to be a relatively new strain, and it's kind of sickening.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Both Obama and McCain are to the right of any of Europe's conservative parties.
That depends on which dimensions of "conservativism" and "right" you're considering. Immigration, global trade, social issues, government centralization, etc. There are some issues where European liberals are significantly "right" of US conservatives.
quote: They are both to the right of the Republican platforms of the 50s, 60s and 70s.
That is patently false.
Check out this site (and linked pages) for a more realistic view of McCain and Obama's conservative/liberal score in a historic context. Compared with all the congresses since the 30s, Obama is significantly left of the mean Republican and at least slightly left of the mean Democrat.
ETA: This measures "liberal" by voting record, not by rhetoric or campaign promises. Even so, I think the idea that Obama is right of even the relatively centrist Republicans of the Nixon/Ford era is incorrect, considering his platform includes nationalization of health care, dramatic increased federal funding for non-military research, etc.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but Obams's public positions are still only a hair left of the nice Republicans' center, and well right of the nice Democrats'.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: considering his platform includes nationalization of health care,
Um, no it doesn't.
This is just one of the many examples of how America is much more conservative than Europe. Every other industrialized nation has Universal Health Care, every one except the US and yet in the US its considered leftist to even propose increasing the number of people insured.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Stray
