NationStates Jolt Archive

I, for one, am tired of all the "hopeful" VP candidates for the Democrats (the Republicans are probably choosing Romney, so it doesn't warrant discussion). Barack Obama would take the nation by storm (more so) if he selected Al Gore as his running-mate. Think about it, Gore is a seasoned politician with a Nobel Prize, he carried New Mexico in 2000 (a feat that wasn't repeated by Kerry in 2004), invented the internet (ha), and won the popular vote. Another decent choice would be Wesley Clark...he ameliorates Obama's "novice" and "weak on enemies" reputation.

Why not Obama/Keira knightley?

Ill vote for her....

damn..forgot I don't have a vote anywhere :(

oooo maybe an obama/gore vs mccain/lieberman race!

no i dont think that gore is a good choice or that he is interested in being vp again.

I can understand Gore not wanting to take VP, but why wouldn't he be a good choice?

He'll be too busy ruling the moon.

And colonizing imagination land.

Gore is a bad choice, I think. He's too ambitious for such a minor role.

I believe that Tim Kaine would be the ideal choice. He appeals to voters that Obama struggles to reach, has backed Obama from the start and appears to want the role.

Edit: He also boosts the Dems in Virginia.

I can understand Gore not wanting to take VP, but why wouldn't he be a good choice?

His holier than thou attitude has really irritated a lot of people. And he continually insists that man-bear-pig is the threat we really have to watch out for, which just makes him seem crazy.

Gore won't be the VP. He has too much at stake in the Global Warming non-sense.



WATCH OUT!!!!!! Man-Bear-Pig is behind you!!!!!!!!

I can understand Gore not wanting to take VP, but why wouldn't he be a good choice?

He's perceived as too left-wing and too cozy with Hollywood. He's not likable enough. He's been in the sights of the Republican attack machine for too long, so now you have a reliable base of people who actively hate Gore for...having a big house, or speaking in complete sentences, or something.

I think he'd be a good VP, but he wouldn't help the ticket, so he wouldn't be a good choice. God, this is all so depressing to think about.

You make a good point.

Wesley Clark, on the other hand, would help Obama quite a bit. The guy was an accomplished General....

You make a good point.

Wesley Clark, on the other hand, would help Obama quite a bit. The guy was an accomplished General....

He does appeal to the right sort of voter, but his lack of political experience is a bit of a worry with Obama not having a whole lot either.

yeah i like gen. clark but hes not a great speaker

obama needs an attack dog right now.

True. Then again, it's never wise to select a VP that's more charismatic/gifted than the Presidential candidate.

True. Then again, it's never wise to select a VP that's more charismatic/gifted than the Presidential candidate.

I don't think Obama needs to worry about another politician outdoing him in the charisma stakes.

no but mccain does.

they were floating the idea yesterday that he could pick joe lieberman for his running mate.

2 boring old men.

great ticket.

no but mccain does.

they were floating the idea yesterday that he could pick joe lieberman for his running mate.

2 boring old men.

great ticket.

Picking Lieberman seems a silly idea. He's rather popular in his home state but a lot of that is due to pork and seniority. He's a conservative, but there are tons of those. I think a McCain/Lieberman ticket might have made more sense back in 2000, when both of them were (or seemed to be) more moderate and pragmatic, but now that McCain has decided that he wants to be just like Bush and Lieberman has decided that he wants to be Zell Miller, I don't see the appeal.

at my house we have the theory that if mccain was to pick lieberman he has decided to stick it to the republican party. hes not interested in the presidency; hes interested in revenge.

i dont think he'll go that way.

He should! My gosh, he'd lose so many votes that way...

Yeah, Lieberman is just a front for whoever McCain is actually choosing. I'd say it's probably going to be Romney...the guy's popular and well-versed in Economics (something McCain can't say).

Itd be a great move for Obama...but, i dont think Al Gore would agree too it...I think he might consider it beneath him at this point to return to the subordinate position...

Although, Wesley Clark could be a viable option, and i think itd be a great move, I was saying earlier in the year that he should run, He's the perfect counter for the Hawks in the GOP...

Yeah, Lieberman is just a front for whoever McCain is actually choosing. I'd say it's probably going to be Romney...the guy's popular and well-versed in Economics (something McCain can't say).
do you think that mccain did well enough with the religious right the other night that they wont feel betrayed by him choosing a mormon?

not that mormons arent part of the religious right but they are more often evangelical protestants who feel the competition with mormons acutely.

do you think that mccain did well enough with the religious right the other night that they wont feel betrayed by him choosing a mormon?

not that mormons arent part of the religious right but they are more often evangelical protestants who feel the competition with mormons acutely.

It may be a little OT...

But, I think we should switch the national religion to Mormonism...

Think about it...How much easier would Utah be to defend in comparison to Israel?

he'll be too busy ruling the moon.

i have ridden the mighty moon worm!!!

It may be a little OT...

But, I think we should switch the national religion to Mormonism...

Think about it...How much easier would Utah be to defend in comparison to Israel?
cant.

no coffee for mormons.

sigh. and it was such an excellent idea.

but what does that have to do with israel? israel supporting is not our religion now no matter how devoutly we do it.

do you think that mccain did well enough with the religious right the other night that they wont feel betrayed by him choosing a mormon?

not that mormons arent part of the religious right but they are more often evangelical protestants who feel the competition with mormons acutely.

Granted, the religious right could have qualms about it, but McCain certainly can't pick someone like Huckabee (the guy wanted to change the constitution). When push comes to shove, I think McCain will get the religious right's vote regardless of whether or not his VP is a Mormon. More importantly, McCain is going to want to attract independent voters through his VP choice.

Granted, the religious right could have qualms about it, but McCain certainly can't pick someone like Huckabee (the guy wanted to change the constitution). When push comes to shove, I think McCain will get the religious right's vote regardless of whether or not his VP is a Mormon. More importantly, McCain is going to want to attract independent voters through his VP choice.
there are many sane republicans out there. im hoping he picks one of them on the off chance that he actually gets elected.

Gore has already been Veep -- twice -- and unfortunately got knocked off his Presidential run in 2000.

But my personal feeling is that by winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he's transcended politics. He belongs to every nation in the world now, not just the USA. Why settle for diamonds when you have the Philosopher's Stone?

Kathleen Sebelius will be Obama's Vice Presidential running mate, not Al Gore.

lol, that is my personal view, lol.

Having Gore would be a huge mistake. There's still too many idiots and dittoheads out there who are too eager to believe that Global Climate change isn't real simply because Gore says it is (in their enfeebled minds there are no scientists and hard science telling us that it's occurring, just Al Gore).
Add to that he's already a 'loser' in the Presidential race. From what I can work out of US politics, once you've lost you can never win again.
It would give huge amount of ammo to McCain group who can decry that all you'd be getting with Obama/Gore is Clinton/Gore all over again. And look how much the right hate Clinton.
And of course I doubt Gore would want to be VP for another 4 years. It's certainly a runner-up spot.

Having Gore would be a huge mistake. There's still too many idiots and dittoheads out there who are too eager to believe that Global Climate change isn't real simply because Gore says it is (in their enfeebled minds there are no scientists and hard science telling us that it's occurring, just Al Gore).
Add to that he's already a 'loser' in the Presidential race. From what I can work out of US politics, once you've lost you can never win again.
It would give huge amount of ammo to McCain group who can decry that all you'd be getting with Obama/Gore is Clinton/Gore all over again. And look how much the right hate Clinton.
And of course I doubt Gore would want to be VP for another 4 years. It's certainly a runner-up spot.

One, both candidates acknowledge the threat posed by global climate change (that's right, Obama AND McCain). Two, it IS possible to win once you've lost...just look at Nixon.

I can understand Gore not wanting to take VP, but why wouldn't he be a good choice?

Because Manbearpig is still on the loose and he has to defeat it.

He should tap Clark.

It may be a little OT...

But, I think we should switch the national religion to Mormonism...

Think about it...How much easier would Utah be to defend in comparison to Israel?

For an interesting twist why don't we just give the Palestinians a home land in Utah?

He'll be too busy ruling the moon.

From his Moon palace he can begin work on his next greatest invention.... The Galactic Internet. As soon as he solves the Moons warming problem.

For an interesting twist why don't we just give the Palestinians a home land in Utah?
nevada

surely area 51 is bigger than the west bank and the gaza strip.

yeah i like gen. clark but hes not a great speaker

obama needs an attack dog right now.

I supported Clark in 04. I do not think he would be a good choice at this time. The biggest quip against Obama is that he lacks experience. Clark would not help him in this regard. Clark also has a habit of going off script. This is a reason why I love him, but he is a liability politically in this way.

Yeah, Lieberman is just a front for whoever McCain is actually choosing. I'd say it's probably going to be Romney...the guy's popular and well-versed in Economics (something McCain can't say).

He apparently wasn't popular enough to win the primaries though. Everyone will just be able to pick apart the ads where Romney spent tons trying to slam McCain. They'll also bring up the debate where McCain smashed Romney on torture.

I, for one, am tired of all the "hopeful" VP candidates for the Democrats (the Republicans are probably choosing Romney, so it doesn't warrant discussion). Barack Obama would take the nation by storm (more so) if he selected Al Gore as his running-mate. Think about it, Gore is a seasoned politician with a Nobel Prize, he carried New Mexico in 2000 (a feat that wasn't repeated by Kerry in 2004), invented the internet (ha), and won the popular vote. Another decent choice would be Wesley Clark...he ameliorates Obama's "novice" and "weak on enemies" reputation.
Obama is going to lose because his ego and his fanatical followers don't want an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Too bad so sad.

Obama is going to lose because his ego and his fanatical followers don't want an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Too bad so sad.

That hag would siphon votes from him. There are lots of ways she'd be more useful, including but not limited to developing a bad disease that makes her a martyr for stem cell research and getting Obama some votes in swing states on that issue.

Yeah, Clinton supporters are nuts. There's a study that shows 20% of Hillary Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCane in a presidential election....probably just out of spite.

Yeah, Clinton supporters are nuts. There's a study that shows 20% of Hillary Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCane in a presidential election....probably just out of spite.

Now, now, we have to wonder how many of her supporters wouldn't vote Democrat either way but didn't want a n... I'm sorry, an African American president.

Obama is going to lose because his ego and his fanatical followers don't want an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Too bad so sad.

Oh, I knew this would happen eventually in this thread. Obama is doing just fine. People start paying attention to politics after labor day when the summer is officially over. After Obama picks his VP it's time to start pounding McCain and Bush. August is always a bad month for the Democrats. Clinton as VP would not be the best choice. He should incorporate both Bill and Hillary into his campaign. They are valuable and know how to fight back. This is also true about Joe Biden, a man I would have supported for President. It's Biden or Tim Kaine, and I think it will be Biden.

Oh, I knew this would happen eventually in this thread. Obama is doing just fine. People start paying attention to politics after labor day when the summer is officially over. After Obama picks his VP it's time to start pounding McCain and Bush. August is always a bad month for the Democrats. Clinton as VP would not be the best choice. He should incorporate both Bill and Hillary into his campaign. They are valuable and know how to fight back. This is also true about Joe Biden, a man I would have supported for President. It's Biden or Tim Kaine, and I think it will be Biden.

She could be useful for once in her sorry existence by attacking McCain in Ohio and Florida, for instance. Her hubby, however, should have his vocal folds removed or a lobotomy to the part of the brain that controls language.

Yeah...

I was positively outraged when the DNC folded on that whole 'let Hillary supporters voice their support at the convention' debacle go through....thought I'd vent.

McCain won't be touched by her.

oooo maybe an obama/gore vs mccain/lieberman race!

no i dont think that gore is a good choice or that he is interested in being vp again.

If those are the two choices we end up with, I'm going to be sick.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2202.gif

Oh, I knew this would happen eventually in this thread. Obama is doing just fine. People start paying attention to politics after labor day when the summer is officially over. After Obama picks his VP it's time to start pounding McCain and Bush. August is always a bad month for the Democrats. Clinton as VP would not be the best choice. He should incorporate both Bill and Hillary into his campaign. They are valuable and know how to fight back. This is also true about Joe Biden, a man I would have supported for President. It's Biden or Tim Kaine, and I think it will be Biden.
biden is very charming.

hes kinda old and he has some baggage but he knows EVERYTHING and would indeed be ready to be president at any time.

and he wouldnt be adverse to ripping mccain a new asshole now and then.

If those are the two choices we end up with, I'm going to be sick.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/thumbnail/2202.gif
its too bizarre to bother thinking about.

biden is very charming.

hes kinda old and he has some baggage but he knows EVERYTHING and would indeed be ready to be president at any time.

and he wouldnt be adverse to ripping mccain a new asshole now and then.

Agreed. Biden has chutzpa...charisma...spunk...etc. He'll get crap for having plagiarized a speech years ago, though.

Agreed. Biden has chutzpa...charisma...spunk...etc. He'll get crap for having plagiarized a speech years ago, though.
yeah

i wonder how much weight that carries today.

yeah

i wonder how much weight that carries today.

You know who carries weight in this day and age? PHELPS! He can win anything, including elections.

You know who carries weight in this day and age? PHELPS! He can win anything, including elections.
damn its a shame that he's too young to be vp!

Now THAT'S a great American! Damn.

A VP that likes Hip Hop. There's a new one.

Gore is a bad choice, I think. He's too ambitious for such a minor role.

I believe that Tim Kaine would be the ideal choice. He appeals to voters that Obama struggles to reach, has backed Obama from the start and appears to want the role.

Edit: He also boosts the Dems in Virginia.

Virginia is one of the states that is counted by machines which can be tampered with unverifiably. Obama doesn't get those electoral votes unless he has an 8% margin in the (actual) votes, and that isn't going to happen.

Barry Obama should pick Mike Hunt as VP

I've been running extensive tests through my electo-meter and one name keeps popping up as Obama's perfect running mate.

Sylvester Stallone.

They'd win by a country mile and it's not as if any VP of Obama is going to do much anyway.

Obama/Stallone - it evens just sounds good.

Clinton would be the most disfunctional VP ever. As for Biden, he's a bit loud. If I was picking a running mate I'd be terrified he was going to say something stupid before the election.

Virginia is one of the states that is counted by machines which can be tampered with unverifiably. Obama doesn't get those electoral votes unless he has an 8% margin in the (actual) votes, and that isn't going to happen.

Bit early to be accusing the Republicans of massive electoral fraud isn't it? You got some evidence that voting machines can overturn an 8% margin?

Not Clark. He almost Started WW3 back in Kosovo.

Bit early to be accusing the Republicans of massive electoral fraud isn't it? You got some evidence that voting machines can overturn an 8% margin?
7.5% was the discrepancy between what the voters reported and what the machines reported in Ohio and Pennsylvania last time. In Pennsylvania it was not sufficient to take the state away from Kerry, so I take it to be the maximum amount of tampering that the Dieboldites (they call themselves something else now) think they can get away with.

7.5% was the discrepancy between what the voters reported and what the machines reported in Ohio and Pennsylvania last time. In Pennsylvania it was not sufficient to take the state away from Kerry, so I take it to be the maximum amount of tampering that the Dieboldites (they call themselves something else now) think they can get away with.

Electronic machines are unreliable, that is plain to see. But that is not the same as deliberately fraudulent or partisan - are you suggesting that everyone employed at Diebold is a Republican? Apparently they have switched allegiance to the Democrats this year, because it was in the Democratic primaries that Diebold machines were causing inaccuracies in favour of Hillary Clinton.

Electronic machines are unreliable, that is plain to see. But that is not the same as deliberately fraudulent or partisan - are you suggesting that everyone employed at Diebold is a Republican?
It is not necessary for "everyone" at the company to be Republican, just the people in charge; the systems are designed to be hackable by a small number of people without the need for any large conspiracy. The chairman of Diebold was also the major fundraiser for Bush's Ohio campaign and promised "to do everything in his power" to deliver the state to Bush. The election-machine business has since been spun off as "Premiere Election Systems" and sold to a group of Venezuelan businessmen who are virulently anti-Chavez, more firmly right-wing than the Diebold people were.
Apparently they have switched allegiance to the Democrats this year, because it was in the Democratic primaries that Diebold machines were causing inaccuracies in favour of Hillary Clinton.
Republicans were all in favor of Hillary prolonging the fight with Obama as long as possible; Limbaugh for example was openly urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries to mess the Democrats up. Election-machine tinkering was only a slight part of this effort.

i still think he should have picked kussenich, gravel or edwards, for the same reason nixon picked agnew, so that anyone who would otherwise want him shot, would even less want what would replace him if they did.

i don't know if gore falls into that catigory or not. anyway, gore, along with the other three i mentioned, is fine with me and as good as any we're likely to get, from any side of any isle.

and i still think obama is a better chance to not stay bought then mccain, but i also still think more of what happens subsiquent to their election will be up to us then whichever of them it turns out to be.

It is not necessary for "everyone" at the company to be Republican, just the people in charge; the systems are designed to be hackable by a small number of people without the need for any large conspiracy. The chairman of Diebold was also the major fundraiser for Bush's Ohio campaign and promised "to do everything in his power" to deliver the state to Bush.

That would also require the complicity of almost all the engineers who designed the machines. Besides, the source code and manuals for the machines were accidentally published online allowing for technical review. Rather than indicating that the machines were hackable by a small number of people they found that the machines were wide open to hacking.

The election-machine business has since been spun off as "Premiere Election Systems" and sold to a group of Venezuelan businessmen who are virulently anti-Chavez, more firmly right-wing than the Diebold people were.

That's "Premier Election Solutions". Its a publicly traded company, which means it was sold publicly rather than directly to Venezuelan businessmen. In fact, I can't find any evidence showing that its owned by Venezuelans - can you show me your evidence?

Republicans were all in favor of Hillary prolonging the fight with Obama as long as possible; Limbaugh for example was openly urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries to mess the Democrats up. Election-machine tinkering was only a slight part of this effort.

The problems happened in New Hampshire. That was the second primary. I know that Obama came out on a high after winning Iowa but I think its a bit unfair to call that 'prolonging the fight'.

Republicans were all in favor of Hillary prolonging the fight with Obama as long as possible; Limbaugh for example was openly urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries to mess the Democrats up. Election-machine tinkering was only a slight part of this effort.
Also, GOP was more in favour of Hilary winning the nomination as they felt McCain had a better shot at defeating her than Obama.

As for the 8% difference towards Obama, I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Pre-election surveys are always fraught with problems and this time round there and especially now with Obama there. I read a great book recently, "Freakonomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics)". One chapter had a bit about how people will lie to pollsters to make themselves look good, especially less racist. An example given was the 1989 mayoral race between David Dinkins (a Black American) and Giuliani. Pre-election polls had Dinkins at 15% over Rudy yet he actually only won by just over 1%. Another example was KKK leader David Duke run for office in 1990. He didn't win but he did gain over 20% more votes than pre-election polls indicated.
People say they'll vote for the Black guy (or not for the racist) but that's just so the anonymous pollster will think better of them. (Who cares what a stranger thinks about them? Apparently nearly everyone)

So Obama leading by 15% might well be not enough. 10% might just be saying that to make themselves look good. Diebold can take care of the remaining 5%.

That would also require the complicity of almost all the engineers who designed the machines.
Most were only working on small parts of the system and were assuming that security and verifiability were being taken care of elsewhere. Disillusioned leakers from within Diebold are the main reason we know as much as we do.
Besides, the source code and manuals for the machines were accidentally published online allowing for technical review. Rather than indicating that the machines were hackable by a small number of people they found that the machines were wide open to hacking.
??? I am unsure what you are trying to say: "rather than find that it was easy to hack, they found it was very easy to hack"? Yes, to tamper with one of these machines, it only takes a single person; to tamper with a network of them requires very few people.

That's "Premier Election Solutions". Its a publicly traded company, which means it was sold publicly rather than directly to Venezuelan businessmen. In fact, I can't find any evidence showing that its owned by Venezuelans - can you show me your evidence?
My bad. It was Sequoia, Diebold's main competitor, which was bought out by Venezuelans (and some think those Venezuelans are fronts for Chavez, rather than anti-Chavez). Premier (formerly Diebold) is now run by a bunch of Texans.

The problems happened in New Hampshire. That was the second primary. I know that Obama came out on a high after winning Iowa but I think its a bit unfair to call that 'prolonging the fight'.
I hadn't heard of such problems in New Hampshire, but had heard of such concerns about the Ohio and Indiana results.

So Obama leading by 15% might well be not enough. 10% might just be saying that to make themselves look good. Diebold can take care of the remaining 5%.

on the other hand, if the corporatocracy forces another white male republican down our throats, well anyone ever beleive we have real elections in the united states again? (not that everyone does now. if everyone who doesn't vote were to vote third party, at least we'd KNOW if the votes were being counted, or if its all just a big shirade to keep the peasants from rioting in the streets)

As for the 8% difference towards Obama, I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Pre-election surveys are always fraught with problems...

I'm not talking about pre-election surveys: I'm talking about the exit polls where you ask people who ALREADY voted. These are never off by more than a fraction of a percent, except in rigged elections. In unverifiable-machine territories from 2004, they varied from the reported totals by 7.5% maximum; that's why I say Obama needs an 8% margin (among the ACTUAL votes) to be guaranteed the electoral votes from stealable states like Virginia.

The vagaries of exit polling specifically in regard to the 2004 election have already been covered by academic research (http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf). They find that the use of voting machines offered no bias towards Bush in 2004.

??? I am unsure what you are trying to say: "rather than find that it was easy to hack, they found it was very easy to hack"? Yes, to tamper with one of these machines, it only takes a single person; to tamper with a network of them requires very few people.

The point is that if Diebold intended to create a backdoor for fraud they wouldn't have made a series of glaringly obvious ways for anyone of any affiliation to tamper with the results. Whats the point of creating ways to hack the machines that your opponents can use as well?

I hadn't heard of such problems in New Hampshire, but had heard of such concerns about the Ohio and Indiana results.

Discrepencies arose between hand counted votes which favoured Obama and electronic votes which favoured Clinton, summarised here (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/01/voting_technolo.html). If the problems with these machines are due to deliberate manipulation, why did the Republicans in New Hampshire want then Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton to win? Why would they even care at that stage?

The vagaries of exit polling specifically in regard to the 2004 election have already been covered by academic research (http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf). They find that the use of voting machines offered no bias towards Bush in 2004.

The studies that I have seen reach quite the opposite conclusion. A thorough book-length treatment is entitled "Was the Presidential Election in 2004 Stolen?" (I would give a fuller cite but it is back home in Michigan and I'm in California right now). It finds that the overall 2% shift nationwide is almost entirely explained by huge discrepancies (over 5%) concentrated in particular areas, namely the Diebold-counted territory.

The study you cite gives as examples of exit polls being wrong "the flubbed exit poll in Florida in 2000" and "the Virginia governor's race in 1989". I do not know anything about Virginia 1989, but the exit poll in Florida 2000 CORRECTLY indicated that more voters in that state wanted Gore than Bush: even Bush apologists concede that, arguing rather that it was proper for the reported results to differ from the intentions of the voters.

The point is that if Diebold intended to create a backdoor for fraud they wouldn't have made a series of glaringly obvious ways for anyone of any affiliation to tamper with the results. Whats the point of creating ways to hack the machines that your opponents can use as well?
They were not expecting this to leak.
They also seem to expect, so far justifiably, that even if it becomes known, nobody is really going to do anything about it.

Discrepencies arose between hand counted votes which favoured Obama and electronic votes which favoured Clinton, summarised here (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/01/voting_technolo.html).
??? Your source seems rather to indicate that there AREN'T significant discrepancies, rather that the differences between the regions with differing counting methods are entirely consistent with the demographic differences that also exist between those regions.
If the problems with these machines are due to deliberate manipulation, why did the Republicans in New Hampshire want then Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton to win? Why would they even care at that stage?
Assuming, hypothetically, that there was such a manipulation in New Hampshire (you have not convinced me that there is even a discrepancy to explain), the reason for Republicans to CARE who the Democrats nominate ought to be self-evident. Hillary was always the Republicans' favorite opponent for the fall.

The studies that I have seen reach quite the opposite conclusion. A thorough book-length treatment is entitled "Was the Presidential Election in 2004 Stolen?" (I would give a fuller cite but it is back home in Michigan and I'm in California right now). It finds that the overall 2% shift nationwide is almost entirely explained by huge discrepancies (over 5%) concentrated in particular areas, namely the Diebold-counted territory.

Then how do you explain the findings in the article I posted? You can see the data there for yourself - why is their no correlation? Why did Vermont, which hardly used machines, experience a big swing towards Bush? Why did Tennessee, which almost entirely used machines, expreience a big swing towards Kerry?

The study you cite gives as examples of exit polls being wrong "the flubbed exit poll in Florida in 2000" and "the Virginia governor's race in 1989". I do not know anything about Virginia 1989, but the exit poll in Florida 2000 CORRECTLY indicated that more voters in that state wanted Gore than Bush: even Bush apologists concede that, arguing rather that it was proper for the reported results to differ from the intentions of the voters.

You're kidding, right? Florida in 2000 is the worst example of exit polling in hsitory. VNS completely changed its mind twice - they declared Gore winner before polls had even closed, declared Bush winner after that then said that they didn't even know. If that's not flubbed exit polling then I don't know what is.

??? Your source seems rather to indicate that there AREN'T significant discrepancies, rather that the differences between the regions with differing counting methods are entirely consistent with the demographic differences that also exist between those regions.

So what you are saying is that just because counting method appears to favour one candidate it doesn't mean that it actually favours one candidate? I couldn't agree more. Now put that statement in the context of the 2004 elections.

The thought of a socialist who lived in the jungles of Indonesia being elected President of any civilized nation makes me want to puke! What an absolute fraud and a terrible trick is being pulled on the American people.

Obama's almost as far right as McCain and Bush. There's little difference between the American Democratic and Republican parties... Such little difference that it just plain irks me how people get so worked up about the whole thing. Socialist? Not even close, not by a longshot.

Republicans and Democrats, by and large (though not completely), are right-wing. If you want a real left-wing American political party, look at the Greens.

The thought of a socialist who lived in the jungles of Indonesia being elected President of any civilized nation makes me want to puke! What an absolute fraud and a terrible trick is being pulled on the American people.
yeah we are so much better served by men like george bush who had never even set foot in europe before being elected president.

What do you call government controlled healthcare, government controlled schooling, government controlled housing, government sanctioned welfare? What do you call that?? NOT SOCIALIST? You're NUTS!
And who gets stuck paying for all that free CRAP you deadbeats are getting??? ME! A hard working stiff who has his taxes raised by you socialist jerks, while I go broke and you live high off the hog!

What do you call government controlled healthcare, government controlled schooling, government controlled housing, government sanctioned welfare? What do you call that?? NOT SOCIALIST? You're NUTS!
And who gets stuck paying for all that free CRAP you deadbeats are getting??? ME! A hard working stiff who has his taxes raised by you socialist jerks, while I go broke and you live high off the hog!

Watch your mouth. I had to skip two years of college so I could work and at least expect to survive week to week.

Don't push your luck here, kid.

The thought of a socialist who lived in the jungles of Indonesia being elected President of any civilized nation makes me want to puke! What an absolute fraud and a terrible trick is being pulled on the American people.

President Tarzan?

What do you call government controlled healthcare, government controlled schooling, government controlled housing, government sanctioned welfare? What do you call that?? NOT SOCIALIST? You're NUTS!
And who gets stuck paying for all that free CRAP you deadbeats are getting??? ME! A hard working stiff who has his taxes raised by you socialist jerks, while I go broke and you live high off the hog!

If its so much better living on welfare it sounds like you're the fool for not doing so.

Obama's almost as far right as McCain and Bush. There's little difference between the American Democratic and Republican parties... Such little difference that it just plain irks me how people get so worked up about the whole thing. Socialist? Not even close, not by a longshot.

Republicans and Democrats, by and large (though not completely), are right-wing. If you want a real left-wing American political party, look at the Greens.

Watch your mouth. I had to skip two years of college so I could work and at least expect to survive week to week.

Don't push your luck here, kid.

A college man.......whoa. Most college educated folks (such as myself - The Ohio State University, Class of 1981) know what socialism is. You don't. You need to make personal attacks on people to try to throw them off the point. Nice try. It didn't work!
This country truly deserves four years of this socialist heathen as president. I hope you can afford socialism. I can't!........KID

What do you call government controlled healthcare, government controlled schooling, government controlled housing, government sanctioned welfare? What do you call that??
A minimalistic welfare state.

Certainly not a collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Get thee a political dictionary, sir.

A minimalistic welfare state.

Certainly not a collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Get thee a political dictionary, sir.

I might recommend the same to you, sir.
Government subsidized and controlled healthcare is collective ownership (We the people.......'member?)....the same with gov't welfare payments.....totally owned and controlled by the US gov't. You don't call these goods and/or services???? WHAT???
Is that why the birth rate amongst welfare recipients is THREE TIMES higher than that of working stiffs, who don't depend on the sweat of others for their support?
I'm glad you're able to enlist the help of a dictionary when faced with a good discussion....might I suggest opening your eyes and your mind to being able to USE that information...and to SEE it for what it is.

What do you call government controlled healthcare, government controlled schooling, government controlled housing, government sanctioned welfare? What do you call that?? NOT SOCIALIST? You're NUTS!
And who gets stuck paying for all that free CRAP you deadbeats are getting??? ME! A hard working stiff who has his taxes raised by you socialist jerks, while I go broke and you live high off the hog!
so youre a radical libertarian?

so youre a radical libertarian?

Is obeying the constitution radical?

I might recommend the same to you, sir.
Government subsidized and controlled healthcare is collective ownership (We the people.......'member?)....the same with gov't welfare payments.....totally owned and controlled by the US gov't. You don't call these goods and/or services???? WHAT???

so about those highways and fire departments and armed forces...

Is that why the birth rate amongst welfare recipients is THREE TIMES higher than that of working stiffs, who don't depend on the sweat of others for their support?

at a guess, because you haven't controlled for parents' income level, education, and current income level.

Is obeying the constitution radical?
yes

...

Government subsidized and controlled healthcare is collective ownership (We the people.......'member?)....the same with gov't welfare payments.....totally owned and controlled by the US gov't. You don't call these goods and/or services???? WHAT???
The US, which is what we are discussing here, has only a minimal limited welfare state. No universal healthcare, limited educational welfare, and with many industries and services in the hands of private ownership. It simply cannot be described as 'socialist'.

Limited public services a socialist country does not make.

Is that why the birth rate amongst welfare recipients is THREE TIMES higher than that of working stiffs, who don't depend on the sweat of others for their support?
I didn't realise so many people delivered their own mail or taught there own children...

I'm glad you're able to enlist the help of a dictionary when faced with a good discussion....might I suggest opening your eyes and your mind to being able to USE that information...and to SEE it for what it is.
*looks*

Yup, a minimal welfare state, with little collective ownership.

Nae socialism 'ere.

Though Obama is not a socialist, even one of the concepts already mention (universal healthcare) is a socialistic measure. As most of the Democrat party in the US support universal healthcare/welfare/etc., I would consider many Democrat politicians and especially Obama to be socialist-leaning.

Though Obama is not a socialist, even one of the concepts already mention (universal healthcare) is a socialistic measure. As most of the Democrat party in the US support universal healthcare/welfare/etc., I would consider many Democrat politicians and especially Obama to be socialist-leaning.

your understanding of 'socialism' is wrong.

in any case, universal healthcare is ridiculously popular here. like constitutional amendment popular. has been for years.

The thought of a socialist who lived in the jungles of Indonesia being elected President of any civilized nation makes me want to puke! What an absolute fraud and a terrible trick is being pulled on the American people.

The thought of a psychotic old pedophile who went to Vietnam to find 5-year olds of both genders to rape, got arrested while trying to burn them to death with napalm so he could feed on their flesh, and turned into a crack-whore in prison, then went on to become Cindy's pimp so he could buy underage sexual slaves to rape and kill, after violating his wife by throwing acid on her face, like McCain, makes me puke.

If you want to fling mud, do it RIGHT.

Obama/Gore would be an awful combination. Al Bore even being near him would cancel out the charisma advantage over McCain in one single move.

oooo maybe an obama/gore vs mccain/lieberman race!

no i dont think that gore is a good choice or that he is interested in being vp again.

nah, obama/biden and mccain/lieberman.

that works.

The thought of a socialist who lived in the jungles of Indonesia being elected President of any civilized nation makes me want to puke! What an absolute fraud and a terrible trick is being pulled on the American people.
Quite right. Much better to have a person who didn't step foot out of the US until he was past 50. Because the last thing we need is someone making foreign policy who might actually know something about foreign affairs.

Then how do you explain the findings in the article I posted? You can see the data there for yourself - why is their no correlation?
You were expecting me to conduct an in-depth analysis of a study I had never seen before at 2 in the morning? I will need to return to Michigan (not until next Tuesday at earliest) so I can compare your study with the results in my book, which apparently had access to a different and fuller data-set, and found an exceedingly strong correlation.
Florida in 2000 is the worst example of exit polling in hsitory. VNS completely changed its mind twice - they declared Gore winner before polls had even closed, declared Bush winner after that then said that they didn't even know.
The call for Gore was the exit poll; the call for Bush was based on the reported totals. Both calls were correct: more actual voters preferred Gore; but more votes were reported for Bush.
So what you are saying is that just because counting method appears to favour one candidate it doesn't mean that it actually favours one candidate? I couldn't agree more. Now put that statement in the context of the 2004 elections.
In New Hampshire, the differences from one region to another were consistent with the stated preferences of the voters. In 2004, it is discrepancies between the stated preferences of the voters and the reported totals which are at issue.

You were expecting me to conduct an in-depth analysis of a study I had never seen before at 2 in the morning? I will need to return to Michigan (not until next Tuesday at earliest) so I can compare your study with the results in my book, which apparently had access to a different and fuller data-set, and found an exceedingly strong correlation.

I don't expect you to do anything. Compare it whenever the hell you feel like it.

The call for Gore was the exit poll; the call for Bush was based on the reported totals. Both calls were correct: more actual voters preferred Gore; but more votes were reported for Bush.

The call for Gore was based on exit polls that weren't complete. The call for Bush was based on vote counts that weren't complete. I'd say that both calls were fuck ups.

In New Hampshire, the differences from one region to another were consistent with the stated preferences of the voters. In 2004, it is discrepancies between the stated preferences of the voters and the reported totals which are at issue.

Obama had an exit poll lead of between 7 and 8 points. Clinton won by 2. I'd say thats a pretty big discrepancy.

Gore would be almost as bad a choice for VP as Hillary Clinton. Obama absolutely cannot afford to have someone that polarizing on the ticket.

Gore would be almost as bad a choice for VP as Hillary Clinton. Obama absolutely cannot afford to have someone that polarizing on the ticket.

Always thought Gore was too damn boring to be polarizing.

Always thought Gore was too damn boring to be polarizing.

Not since he started his campaign of climate change awareness.

Gore would be almost as bad a choice for VP as Hillary Clinton. Obama absolutely cannot afford to have someone that polarizing on the ticket.

Let's look at it this way...Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election by at least 500,000 votes...

I don't expect you to do anything. Compare it whenever the hell you feel like it.
Not if you don't really have any interest.


The call for Gore was based on exit polls that weren't complete. The call for Bush was based on vote counts that weren't complete. I'd say that both calls were fuck ups.
All statistics are based on partial samples. When results based on samples are correct about the whole population (the exit poll was correct about the total population of actual voters; and the projection for Bush was correct about the total population of votes as they would be reported), that is not a "fuckup", that is good work.


Obama had an exit poll lead of between 7 and 8 points. Clinton won by 2. I'd say thats a pretty big discrepancy.
There was no exit poll conducted in the New Hampshire primary, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Let's look at it this way...Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election by at least 500,000 votes...

Unfortunately, since then he's become one of the Right's favorite whipping posts.

Obama's almost as far right as McCain and Bush. There's little difference between the American Democratic and Republican parties... Such little difference that it just plain irks me how people get so worked up about the whole thing. Socialist? Not even close, not by a longshot.

Republicans and Democrats, by and large (though not completely), are right-wing. If you want a real left-wing American political party, look at the Greens.
You forgot Nader!!

Obama is going to loose the election no matter who he picks as VP

Why?
words

She could be useful for once in her sorry existence by attacking McCain in Ohio and Florida, for instance. Her hubby, however, should have his vocal folds removed or a lobotomy to the part of the brain that controls language.

Dude, you need a Xanex. I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I believe she would be better in another role in the campaign. She's also play a role in the new administration, hopefully at a cabinet level. Perhaps Education would be her best fit. I also do not hate Bill Clinton. I actually like him even more after 8 years of GWB.

Agreed. Biden has chutzpa...charisma...spunk...etc. He'll get crap for having plagiarized a speech years ago, though.

Yeah, but McCain has been caught plagiarizing speeches, or parts of them, in the past month. I think Joe can take that heat.

Not Clark. He almost Started WW3 back in Kosovo.

*shakes head in a mix of pity and astonishment"

Not if you don't really have any interest.

You do what you want to do.

There was no exit poll conducted in the New Hampshire primary, so I do not know what you are referring to.

Sorry, what? So when MSNBC discussed the exit polls (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22577623#22577623) what were they talking about?

Is obeying the constitution radical?

I'll take preamble for 500 Alex.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's nothing in the constitution that states that there be no social welfare given. While I agree in principal with you that far too much of my tax money goes to support those who do not want to work, I disagree that their should be none. Socialism is practiced in places like the former USSR and come current South American countries. The American system is far too capitalistic to ever be called socialist.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

Is obeying the constitution radical?

I'd also like to state that the originators made the document amendable for a reason. It's not like the bible...doh!

You do what you want to do.

I would want a reasoned exchange of information and ideas, if that is possible. Obviously, you have heard and read things that I haven't, and vice versa. I will certainly look into why the study you cite varies from the ones I have read: my book does discuss other studies, and probably has something to say about this one. But whether I want to post here about what I find depends on whether you are interested in anything other than venting vituperation and playing gotcha games.

Sorry, what? So when MSNBC discussed the exit polls (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22577623#22577623) what were they talking about?
My bad, then: should have said *I had not heard of* any exit polls from New Hampshire. As I told you to begin with, I had not heard anything whatsoever about discrepancies in that primary and had at first taken you to be talking about discrepancies in Ohio and Indiana.
All I had about New Hampshire until now was the source you gave earlier, which made no mention of exit polls, and found the differences in Clinton/Obama percentages between the two different kinds of region eminently consistent with the demographic differences and the differences of stated preferences among those demographic groups.
The Chris Matthews does NOT say that exit polls showed a 7-8% Obama win; he was discussing both earlier polls, and exit polls, and it was the polls conducted earlier which showed the wide Obama margin (and as one of his pundits kept pointing out, that polling stopped way too early, given how volatile such things can be). He did say the exit polls also showed an Obama win, but did not say by how much, so we do not know if the discrepancy was even outside the statistical margin of error; he added that he knew of at least one precinct where the discrepancy between exit poll and reported result seemed gross: I would like more information, if you have some, about whether the discrepancies were all concentrated in particular parts of the state, and what the counting method was there.

Yeah, but McCain has been caught plagiarizing speeches, or parts of them, in the past month. I think Joe can take that heat.
he has?

i missed it, what were the circumstances?

Dude, you need a Xanex. I do not hate Hillary Clinton.

I do. I took a lot of crap from her supporters, crap SHE incited them to pull.

I have no problem with Hillary Clinton per se...I don't care for her supporters, though.

I have no problem with Hillary Clinton per se...I don't care for her supporters, though.

Her supporters did what she oriented them to do. Which is why I hate her.

Her supporters did what she oriented them to do. Which is why I hate her.

Perhaps. Hill-dog has some issues.

I do. I took a lot of crap from her supporters, crap SHE incited them to pull.
Methinks you have forgotten that there is a history here at NSG, and that history tells us a different story:

16-02-2007

Strategically speaking, the Democrats should either use a Hillary-Obama ticket or not have either on either position. Hillary-Obama might work because those that dislike one might like the other enough to vote. Neither would work because they're polarizing figures isolated. His last name is an issue because, unfortunately, the public is dumb, and Fox News would "by mistake" develop a habit of typoing Obama as Osama when showing his name.

02-07-2007:

I think the far left will realize that she beats the hell out of any Republican.
26-08-2007

You're right!

OBAMA '08!

4- The reason I don't support Hillary is due to strategic reasons only.

Obama fares better in the elections.

19-10-2007

Correction: Any DEMOCRAT is better than Clinton. I'll take VG censorship over wanton murder or theocratic dystopia any day.
It is obvious that you go from zero to hatred rather quickly and certainly before you can blame it on her supporters?

Snip.

So, you're actually calling me on the fact that I realized Obama polled better? Furthermore, ask yourself this: Would I hate her had she not pulled that victimization stunt, resulting in her supporters, you and Shalrirochia, acting like you did, and costing me a nation?

Methinks you have forgotten that there is a history here at NSG, and that history tells us a different story:

16-02-2007

02-07-2007:

26-08-2007

19-10-2007


It is obvious that you go from zero to hatred rather quickly and certainly before you can blame it on her supporters?

8 months is 'rather quickly'?

8 months is 'rather quickly'?

I suppose, geologically...

And thanks.

8 months is 'rather quickly'?
02/07/2007 to 19/10/2007 is only 3 1/2 months.

CanuckHeaven, Heikoku, cut it out, now. Sheesh, guys, get over it!