NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember whatever you may think of me and my vote, it is my democratic right to vote for McCain Palin, just as it is your right to vote for Obama.

I love it when people defiantly state things that no one has objected to...

I love it when people defiantly state things that no one has objected to...

Silly, we're all a bunch of Liberal leftists, which means we don't believe in democracy or freedom or anything like that.

I think admitting to voter fraud is now the stupidest thing anyone on this forum has done.

Yeah, what the fuck?

I love it when people defiantly state things that no one has objected to...

I'm actually more taken by the fact that his "democratic right to vote" apparently didn't faze him in casting what he says were two fraudulent ballots in the names of his dead dogs.

I love it when people defiantly state things that no one has objected to...

i wonder if it is just a confusion on their part between a right to do x and the goodness of doing x. it usually only comes up in certain very specific contexts, so it's hard to tell how generalizable the confusion is.

I'm actually more taken by the fact that his "democratic right to vote" apparently didn't faze him in casting what he says were two fraudulent ballots in the names of his dead dogs.

well, their sig does admit to being an out and proud crazy person...

I'm actually more taken by the fact that his "democratic right to vote" apparently didn't faze him in casting what he says were two fraudulent ballots in the names of his dead dogs.

Voter fraud is only bad if the Liberals do it.

i wonder if it is just a confusion on their part between a right to do x and the goodness of doing x. it usually only comes up in certain very specific contexts, so it's hard to tell how generalizable the confusion is.

It does seem related to the misconceptions like 'freedom of speech' is actually 'freedom from criticism'...

It's not a jinx if you're doing it that way, sorry.

I am just kidding and being silly. *sighs* I use to have so much fun teasing theater people on the Macbeth thing. Jinxes are pretty silly and stupid. But it's so much fun to rub into people.

It does seem related to the misconceptions like 'freedom of speech' is actually 'freedom from criticism'...

exactly

the most widely used form that i can think of is the popular teenager "don't tell me what to do - i have a right to do " (though this one usually [i]also involves not actually having a right to do that thing at all, but i think the deeper similarity remains)

Obama has already defied McCain's tactics and has already clinched 2 towns in North Hamshire comprehensively. Obama is the real deal and is the only person who can lift America's citizens and their prospects!

Thanks

I am just kidding and being silly. *sighs* I use to have so much fun teasing theater people on the Macbeth thing. Jinxes are pretty silly and stupid. But it's so much fun to rub into people.

You should try whistling, drives 'em nuts.

is the only person who can lift America's citizens and their prospects!

This I highly doubt. Theres probably someone better out there but its too much effort finding them.

Obama has already defied McCain's tactics and has already clinched 2 towns in North Hamshire comprehensively. Obama is the real deal and is the only person who can lift America's citizens and their prospects!

Thanks

Water carriers are strange ducks...

Obama has already defied McCain's tactics and has already clinched 2 towns in North Hamshire comprehensively. Obama is the real deal and is the only person who can lift America's citizens and their prospects!

Thanks

An early call based on 'villages'? Brilliant.

An early call based on 'villages'? Brilliant.

Tis a bit early to call,I agree. But with some benfit of the doubt, it was stated that one of these villages hasn't voted Democratic since 1968 and they normally lean Republican. So it's possible. But it's still too early to call.

Tis a bit early to call,I agree. But with some benfit of the doubt, it was stated that one of these villages hasn't voted Democratic since 1968 and they normally lean Republican. So it's possible. But it's still too early to call.

Granted, poster wasn't really calling it... But, bold statements nonetheless.

Granted, poster wasn't really calling it... But, bold statements nonetheless.

Well like any good Democrat who supports Obama. I am just saying a bit more restraint should be used in saying this looks like he's winning. After all it isn't over till states are called. But.... on the more optomistic side, damn it looks good. :)

Well like any good Democrat who supports Obama. I am just saying a bit more restraint should be used in saying this looks like he's winning. After all it isn't over till states are called. But.... on the more optomistic side, damn it looks good. :)

Well from an outsiders perspective, I fuckin' hope Obama does win. I couldn't stand McCain winning.. Mainly because he'll die of old age in office and Palin will become President... Scary much?

Ahem, I didn't vote. Yes, I'm serious. I tried to vote early twice, but it turns out that I had to change my address earlier than I thought because I misread the rules. Yeah, I suck like that.


I hope you like doing my taxes....:p

If IL goes red, I'll stab myself.

Psh. I wouldnt worry about it.

Ahem, I didn't vote. Yes, I'm serious. I tried to vote early twice, but it turns out that I had to change my address earlier than I thought because I misread the rules. Yeah, I suck like that.

If IL goes red, I'll stab myself.
Two, count 'em, two attempts to change my address (actually, now that I think about it, three-that's why I did it two more times) at the DMV failed and so now I get to sit one out. Unless there's a voter booklet lying around that I don't know about.

But I live in California, San Francisco even...the only thing I'm worried about is Prop 8-don't let me down rest of California, don't let me down...seriously, we can't let Utah buy our intolerance...

Well from an outsiders perspective, I fuckin' hope Obama does win. I couldn't stand McCain winning.. Mainly because he'll die of old age in office and Palin will become President... Scary much?


Very scary. It's humorous that she's a joke. But scary that she's this close to a leadership position. I believe that she was forced on McCain and as a ploy to skew Hillary and women voters. Which has worked for some. My own aunt voted for McCain because of Palin, because she was mad Hillary didn't get in.
But doesn't matter she lives in California, so more of a protest vote than anything.

Two, count 'em, two attempts to change my address (actually, now that I think about it, three-that's why I did it two more times) at the DMV failed and so now I get to sit one out. Unless there's a voter booklet lying around that I don't know about.

But I live in California, San Francisco even...the only thing I'm worried about is Prop 8-don't let me down rest of California, don't let me down...seriously, we can't let Utah buy our intolerance...

If prop 8 passes, Cali will go from one of the most liberal to one of the most conservative states in the union in many peoples eyes.


We'd be fucked.

Ahem, I didn't vote. Yes, I'm serious. I tried to vote early twice, but it turns out that I had to change my address earlier than I thought because I misread the rules. Yeah, I suck like that.

If IL goes red, I'll stab myself.

I'd shout, but there's a 3 to 1 chance I'm in the same boat, since my folks closed on our old house last month and I haven't had time to file change of addresses.

Still, Jersey's not going Red, so I still get to stab you if McCain gets Illinois.

Two, count 'em, two attempts to change my address (actually, now that I think about it, three-that's why I did it two more times) at the DMV failed and so now I get to sit one out. Unless there's a voter booklet lying around that I don't know about.

But I live in California, San Francisco even...the only thing I'm worried about is Prop 8-don't let me down rest of California, don't let me down...seriously, we can't let Utah buy our intolerance...

Ahem, I didn't vote. Yes, I'm serious. I tried to vote early twice, but it turns out that I had to change my address earlier than I thought because I misread the rules. Yeah, I suck like that.

If IL goes red, I'll stab myself.

remind me again why more states don't have same-day registration?

remind me again why more states don't have same-day registration?
There's a good parallel between the concept of requiring a waiting period before the exercise of a right, i.e. buying a gun, and requiring advance registration before exercising a non-right, i.e. voting for President. I think it all reduces to proving who you say you are and allowing time to make sure you're eligible.

Seems like only the incompetent can't figure out how to register properly.

There's a good parallel between the concept of requiring a waiting period before the exercise of a right, i.e. buying a gun, and requiring advance registration before exercising a non-right, i.e. voting for President. I think it all reduces to proving who you say you are and allowing time to make sure you're eligible.

Seems like only the incompetent can't figure out how to register properly.

Voting is a right. Anyone who understands the Constitution can tell you that.

Voting is a right. Anyone who understands the Constitution can tell you that.
There we are again, missing the subtleties. Voting for President is not a right.

There's a good parallel between the concept of requiring a waiting period before the exercise of a right, i.e. buying a gun, and requiring advance registration before exercising a non-right, i.e. voting for President. I think it all reduces to proving who you say you are and allowing time to make sure you're eligible.

Seems like only the incompetent can't figure out how to register properly.

Voting is a non-right....?


Holy shit.

If prop 8 passes, Cali will go from one of the most liberal to one of the most conservative states in the union in many peoples eyes.


We'd be fucked.


Actually on this issue, I go from being a lefty to a conservative. It's just how I am.

If prop 8 passes, Cali will go from one of the most liberal to one of the most conservative states in the union in many peoples eyes.


We'd be fucked.

Is that the gay marriage one?

Voting is a non-right....?


Holy shit.

Like I said -- but not just me, the USSC (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html) said it first, voting for President is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You can excrete holy shit all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. NSG had this discussion some time back. I'm amazed that you can't recall.

If prop 8 passes, Cali will go from one of the most liberal to one of the most conservative states in the union in many peoples eyes.


We'd be fucked.

We're a strange state sometimes-we legalized medical marijuana and banned gay marriage (the ban that was knocked down by our supreme court recently, making this stupid amendment 'necessary') on the same ballot.

Seems like only the incompetent can't figure out how to register properly.

Subtle.

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/8890/0/Funny_Obama_08_bumper_sticker.ashx
In Texas no less.

Subtle.

Yet we encourage them to vote... *sigh*

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/8890/0/Funny_Obama_08_bumper_sticker.ashx
In Texas no less.

Just proves that not everyone in Texas or in the South is crazy. My great aunt for example, who lives in Lousiana voted for Obama.

Just proves that not everyone in Texas or in the South is crazy. My great aunt for example, who lives in Lousiana voted for Obama.

*lives in GA*

*lives in GA*

Yeah, but read his post over again.

Just proves that not everyone in Texas or in the South is crazy. My great aunt for example, who lives in Lousiana voted for Obama.

We already know most Georgians are crazy based on the sample we have here on NSG. I'm looking at you, too, Myrmi and GnI. And Pirated Corsairs.

*lives in GA*

Yeah, but read his post over again.



We already know most Georgians are crazy based on the sample we have here on NSG. I'm looking at you, too, Myrmi and GnI.

Also, based on the fact that we choose to live in Georgia. *nod*

Also, based on the fact that we choose to live in Georgia. *nod*

Indeed. Also, fixed.

Yeah, but read his post over again.

We already know most Georgians are crazy based on the sample we have here on NSG. I'm looking at you, too, Myrmi and GnI. And Pirated Corsairs.

And I was pointing out that I'm not.

So there. =p

And I was pointing out that I'm not.

So there. =p

...if you say so...:D

Let's all join hands and pray:

Dear Wish granter,
We are grateful for the chance to vote for a new President of the USA. Really, REALLY grateful. Seriously, we needed this. If you were the one who made that possible, thanks.

Please, for the love of all that is good and true, let Barack Obama win the Presidency of the United States of America. If I die before I wake, I pray that I come back as a snake. Amentos.

Let's all join hands and pray:

Dear Wish granter,
We are grateful for the chance to vote for a new President of the USA. Really, REALLY grateful. Seriously, we needed this. If you were the one who made that possible, thanks.

Please, for the love of all that is good and true, let Barack Obama win the Presidency of the United States of America. If I die before I wake, I pray that I come back as a snake. Amentos.


But if God lets Obama win it would show that all those other Gods like Hindu, Bhuddah, and Allah are bigger than him.

Amentos.

..the Freshmaker?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/9453_e1821a1334.jpg

Like I said -- but not just me, the USSC (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html) said it first, voting for President is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You can excrete holy shit all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. NSG had this discussion some time back. I'm amazed that you can't recall.

Rather than spend the rest of my day trying to find whatever phrase you think supports your claim, can you quote it?

But if God lets Obama win it would show that all those other Gods like Hindu, Bhuddah, and Allah are bigger than him.

The best part of that is only one of those is a god, and the name is really just an Arabic translation for..you know...god.

Like I said -- but not just me, the USSC (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html) said it first, voting for President is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You can excrete holy shit all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. NSG had this discussion some time back. I'm amazed that you can't recall.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.
You might want to actually read the decision.

Rather than spend the rest of my day trying to find whatever phrase you think supports your claim, can you quote it?

as much as my teeth clench and my hackles raise by saying it, he's right. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for president.

You might want to actually read the decision.

the decision proves his point. There is no constitutional right to vote. There is a constitutional right to not be discriminated against by the government based on your race, age, gender, etc. So if (and again if) a state decides to have a presidential election then and ONLY THEN can it not refuse your right to vote. It's sorta a give it to one, give it to all proposition.

They can't say "only whites can vote" or "only blacks" or "only women" or "only christians". If they create a legal power to vote, that right can't be denied on unconstitutionally discriminating grounds. But they don't HAVE to give it to anyone.

Now, I want to clarify, that the ability to cast a vote for president is not a federal constitutionally protected right, but that doesn't mean, as Myr said, that it's not a right PERIOD. Many state constitutions have requirements of voting rights as well, as does the state legislatures.

It's certainly a legal right, it's not a legal right protected under the federal constitution.

The best part of that is only one of those is a god, and the name is really just an Arabic translation for..you know...god.

My favorite is that they say "Hindu", when "Hindu" to my knowledge isnt even a figure in Hindu mythology.

But if God lets Obama win it would show that all those other Gods like Hindu, Bhuddah, and Allah are bigger than him.

Ack please no more My God is bigger than your God debates. Which will end up being nothing more than Apeish pounding on chests and grunting. :rolleyes:

come down to Apeish pounding on chests and grunting. :rolleyes:

You apperantly didnt get the joke I was referencing.

My favorite is that they say "Hindu", when "Hindu" to my knowledge isnt even a figure in Hindu mythology.

and them jews, praying to their god Jew.

I thought the Jew god was Dreidel

:D

You apperantly didnt get the joke I was referencing.

And I was joking as well. :p

My favorite is that they say "Hindu", when "Hindu" to my knowledge isnt even a figure in Hindu mythology.

IIRC, it's a blanket term for 'from the Indian culture'.
If you want to be more precise (and smug) you can always call it Sanatana Dharma [the eternal way of all things].

Actually on this issue, I go from being a lefty to a conservative. It's just how I am.

Whaaaaa!?!?!?!

You are new so I would like to find out more. Would you be so kind as to either explain here or start a thread about why?

Thanks in advance.

But if God lets Obama win it would show that all those other Gods like Hindu, Bhuddah, and Allah are bigger than him.



I never mentioned God. Wish granter is like God's/Dreidel's/Buddha's/Hindu's/Allah's secretary. Sometimes she wears a short-skirt and no panties.

Whaaaaa!?!?!?!

You are new so I would like to find out more. Would you be so kind as to either explain here or start a thread about why?

Thanks in advance.

Well mostly it's due to my religious convictions, which are pretty strong in the matter. I just don't believe in homosexual marriage. I do, however believe in giving the same rights that come with the whole marriage package such as insurance, and inhertance rights. But it mkes me cringe seeing ceremonies of marriage. I am more of a person who believes in civil unions and common law arrangements. The cermony thing gets on my nerves.

Well mostly it's due to my religious convictions, which are pretty strong in the matter. I just don't believe in homosexual marriage. I do, however believe in giving the same rights that come with the whole marriage package such as insurance, and inhertance rights. But it mkes me cringe seeing ceremonies of marriage. I am more of a person who believes in civil unions and common law arrangements. The cermony thing gets on my nerves.

Really? The ceremony? it's just words and motions and mumbo jumbo. Procedure and an excuse to dress up real nice and take some pictures. I'd never have guessed that this particular part of marriage was what set people off so much.

the decision proves his point. There is no constitutional right to vote. There is a constitutional right to not be discriminated against by the government based on your race, age, gender, etc. So if (and again if) a state decides to have a presidential election then and ONLY THEN can it not refuse your right to vote. It's sorta a give it to one, give it to all proposition.

They can't say "only whites can vote" or "only blacks" or "only women" or "only christians". If they create a legal power to vote, that right can't be denied on unconstitutionally discriminating grounds. But they don't HAVE to give it to anyone.

Now, I want to clarify, that the ability to cast a vote for president is not a federal constitutionally protected right, but that doesn't mean, as Myr said, that it's not a right PERIOD. Many state constitutions have requirements of voting rights as well, as does the state legislatures.

It's certainly a legal right, it's not a legal right protected under the federal constitution.

Welp I was wrong.

I never mentioned God. Wish granter is like God's/Dreidel's/Buddha's/Hindu's/Allah's secretary. Sometimes she wears a short-skirt and no panties.

"Wish granter" is an interesting way of saying wife, eh?

Well mostly it's due to my religious convictions, which are pretty strong in the matter. I just don't believe in homosexual marriage. I do, however believe in giving the same rights that come with the whole marriage package such as insurance, and inhertance rights. But it mkes me cringe seeing ceremonies of marriage. I am more of a person who believes in civil unions and common law arrangements. The cermony thing gets on my nerves.

The problem is, from a legal standpoint, the ceremony is worthless. I could have a wedding ceremony with whomever I want, until the marriage license is signed, I'm not married under the law.

More to point, even preventing legal gay marriage won't stop ceremonies. Anyone can have a wedding ceremony. Now, I understand it's your conviction and I respect that, but it seems to me that while seeing a gay wedding ceremony might bother you, it's certainly their right to have one.

Really? The ceremony? it's just words and motions and mumbo jumbo. Procedure and an excuse to dress up real nice and take some pictures. I'd never have guessed that this particular part of marriage was what set people off so much.

*sighs* Well for me, not sure if it's the same for other religious people. A cermony is made up of not just people saying words, it's more of a commitment between two people and God. Of course most of my belief comes with the fact that God vews homosexuality as a sin, so in my mind the cermony becomes a mockery of a religious observance. I hope no one takes any offense in what I am saying. It's just how I believe.

*sighs* Well for me, not sure if it's the same for other religious people. A cermony is made up of not just people saying words, it's more of a commitment between two people and God. Of course most of my belief comes with the fact that God vews homosexuality as a sin, so in my mind the cermony becomes a mockery of a religious observance. I hope no one takes any offense in what I am saying. It's just how I believe.

sure, fine, that's how you believe. But what about people who believe differently? Surely they have a right to a ceremony in accordance with THEIR beliefs, right?

*sighs* Well for me, not sure if it's the same for other religious people. A cermony is made up of not just people saying words, it's more of a commitment between two people and God. Of course most of my belief comes with the fact that God vews homosexuality as a sin, so in my mind the cermony becomes a mockery of a religious observance. I hope no one takes any offense in what I am saying. It's just how I believe.

Is a ceremony performed for a God other than your own also a mockery in your eyes ?

sure, fine, that's how you believe. But what about people who believe differently? Surely they have a right to a ceremony in accordance with THEIR beliefs, right?

I don't doubt what you're saying. It's just sort of trying to walk a fine line between my faith, beliefs, and trying not to be bigioted or self rightous in the rights and beliefs of others. I really can't answer the question without drawing from one extreme to the other. I guess I am caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. :(

I don't doubt what you're saying. It's just sort of trying to walk a fine line between my faith, beliefs, and trying not to be bigioted or self rightous in the rights and beliefs of others. I really can't answer the question without drawing from one extreme to the other. I guess I am caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. :(

I think a lot of people would appreciate your honesty in this matter. It is refreshing to see people attempting to find their faith in balance rather than letting it spill out like a tidal wave.

I don't doubt what you're saying. It's just sort of trying to walk a fine line between my faith, beliefs, and trying not to be bigioted or self rightous in the rights and beliefs of others. I really can't answer the question without drawing from one extreme to the other. I guess I am caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. :(

well, that's liberal societies for ya. The downside of having freedom is, so does everyone else, and they occasionally use that freedom to do things you strongly disagree with. Or, to put it in a far better way than I could, from a movie that's very relevant today:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Is a ceremony performed for a God other than your own also a mockery in your eyes ?

No. *sighs* I know others have beliefs distinct and diffrent from my own. That's the thing. And well.... I accept the fact that others choose to worship and believe diffrently. I am just stateing my own belief. I hadn't planned on people trying to make something else on it.

No. *sighs* I know others have beliefs distinct and diffrent from my own. That's the thing. And well.... I accept the fact that others choose to worship and believe diffrently. I am just stateing my own belief. I hadn't planned on people trying to make something else on it.

we're still 5 hours out from poll closings. We gotta talk about something other than the election, it's been a long few months.

well, that's liberal societies for ya. The downside of having freedom is, so does everyone else, and they occasionally use that freedom to do things you strongly disagree with. Or, to put it in a far better way than I could, from a movie that's very relevant today:


True enough. The thing about having civil rights and freedom is, you do one thing you offend one person or group of people. You do another you offend that group of people or someone else. It's a very dificult thing with freedom and civil rights. Blast it all for all those who have moderate viewpoints. :confused:

*sighs* Well for me, not sure if it's the same for other religious people. A cermony is made up of not just people saying words, it's more of a commitment between two people and God. Of course most of my belief comes with the fact that God vews homosexuality as a sin, so in my mind the cermony becomes a mockery of a religious observance. I hope no one takes any offense in what I am saying. It's just how I believe.

Look just let churches who wish to marry homesexuals do so, and those that wish to deny them let them turn homesexuals away. That way every ones religous views are respected and you join one that turns them away Because you believe it is a sin. There really is no threat to your religous beliefs by allowing churches that wish to marry gays to do so. Just dont partake in those churches because you dont share their views. That is what freedom of religon means.

Well mostly it's due to my religious convictions, which are pretty strong in the matter. I just don't believe in homosexual marriage. I do, however believe in giving the same rights that come with the whole marriage package such as insurance, and inhertance rights. But it mkes me cringe seeing ceremonies of marriage. I am more of a person who believes in civil unions and common law arrangements. The cermony thing gets on my nerves.

I appreciate the fact that you responded. When we look at the history of marriage we find that it was first a civil contract that was co-opted by religion. Marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity. Why should the Christian version of marriage then be forced into constitutional civil law?

"Wish granter" is an interesting way of saying wife, eh?

My wife certainly has granted many of my wishes. :hail:

*sighs* Well for me, not sure if it's the same for other religious people. A cermony is made up of not just people saying words, it's more of a commitment between two people and God. Of course most of my belief comes with the fact that God vews homosexuality as a sin, so in my mind the cermony becomes a mockery of a religious observance. I hope no one takes any offense in what I am saying. It's just how I believe.

Some ceremonies don't include God at all and others include a God that the participants believe accepts them for who they are and blesses their union in love. Not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way either.

I think a lot of people would appreciate your honesty in this matter. It is refreshing to see people attempting to find their faith in balance rather than letting it spill out like a tidal wave.

Agreed.



I think my main problem with banning gay marriage is that it enforces ones religious belief on people who either don't belong to that religion or who believe in a different version of that religion.

Arts been saying it best though.

No. *sighs* I know others have beliefs distinct and diffrent from my own. That's the thing. And well.... I accept the fact that others choose to worship and believe diffrently. I am just stateing my own belief. I hadn't planned on people trying to make something else on it.

The problem comes in when you choose (or would choose, if given the chance) to enforce that belief upon others.

You can believe that same-sex marriages are wrong or a mockery or whatever. But when you move to deny them equal protection under the law on that basis, that's another thing altogether.

True enough. The thing about having civil rights and freedom is, you do one thing you offend one person or group of people. You do another you offend that group of people or someone else. It's a very dificult thing with freedom and civil rights. Blast it all for all those who have moderate viewpoints

A lot of people are offended by the fact that civil rights are afforded to others. A lot of people are offended by what others do with those rights.

But it doesn't make the rights themselves any less important.

People exercise their right to free speech in order to say things so awful that I can't believe anyone would ever want to say them. I find the things they have to say incredibly offensive. But that is still their right, and I recognize it as such.

Well mostly it's due to my religious convictions, which are pretty strong in the matter. I just don't believe in homosexual marriage. I do, however believe in giving the same rights that come with the whole marriage package such as insurance, and inhertance rights. But it mkes me cringe seeing ceremonies of marriage. I am more of a person who believes in civil unions and common law arrangements. The cermony thing gets on my nerves.

So, you believe in separate but equal marriages. Does it also make you cringe when people of religions other than yours get married? What about atheists?

I don't doubt what you're saying. It's just sort of trying to walk a fine line between my faith, beliefs, and trying not to be bigioted or self rightous in the rights and beliefs of others.(

Problem is, you went and crossed it. This topic probably should have been split off into another thread. Perhaps "YAGDGMT" (Yet Another Gods Dammed Gay Marriage Thread").

Yet we encourage them to vote... *sigh*

Yes. The problem with democracy is that even 'the wrong people' get to vote. But, because I believe it's better than the alternatives, I manage to find a place in my heart to accomodate that people who I wouldn't let into my house... who I wouldn't trust to tie their own laces... the sort of people who couldn't get laid in a brothel with $100 shoved in their ass... I find a way to accomodate that they get equal representation.

We already know most Georgians are crazy based on the sample we have here on NSG. GnI.

While I would love to be considered representative, I'm not really a 'Georgian'. I just live there.

There's a good parallel between the concept of requiring a waiting period before the exercise of a right, i.e. buying a gun, and requiring advance registration before exercising a non-right, i.e. voting for President. I think it all reduces to proving who you say you are and allowing time to make sure you're eligible.

Seems like only the incompetent can't figure out how to register properly.

There we are again, missing the subtleties. Voting for President is not a right.

Like I said -- but not just me, the USSC (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscdecision1212.html) said it first, voting for President is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You can excrete holy shit all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. NSG had this discussion some time back. I'm amazed that you can't recall.

as much as my teeth clench and my hackles raise by saying it, he's right. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for president.

the decision proves his point. There is no constitutional right to vote. There is a constitutional right to not be discriminated against by the government based on your race, age, gender, etc. So if (and again if) a state decides to have a presidential election then and ONLY THEN can it not refuse your right to vote. It's sorta a give it to one, give it to all proposition.

They can't say "only whites can vote" or "only blacks" or "only women" or "only christians". If they create a legal power to vote, that right can't be denied on unconstitutionally discriminating grounds. But they don't HAVE to give it to anyone.

Now, I want to clarify, that the ability to cast a vote for president is not a federal constitutionally protected right, but that doesn't mean, as Myr said, that it's not a right PERIOD. Many state constitutions have requirements of voting rights as well, as does the state legislatures.

It's certainly a legal right, it's not a legal right protected under the federal constitution.

Let's not take the dubious holding of Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-949), 531 U.S. 98 (2000) too far.

First, as the majority opinion in Bush makes clear, a state does not have to rely on popular vote to select electors for the President of the United states, BUT once "the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental..." Id.

Second, Bush v. Gore was not decided in a vacuum. Although the vote for electors for the President is a special case, the general right to vote is considered an unenumerated right protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses. Here is relevant language from Reynolds v. Sims (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533), 377 U.S. 533, 554-555 (1964)(footnotes omitted):

Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=110&invol=651), 110 U.S. 651 , and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=238&invol=383), 238 U.S. 383 . In Mosley the Court stated that it is "as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a box." 238 U.S., at 386. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=238&invol=347), 238 U.S. 347 , Lane v. Wilson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=268), 307 U.S. 268 , nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=313&invol=299#315), 313 U.S. 299, 315 , nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing, Ex parte Siebold (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=100&invol=371), 100 U.S. 371 , United States v. Saylor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=322&invol=385), 322 U.S. 385 . As the Court stated in Classic, "Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted . . . ." 313 U.S., at 315 . Racially based gerrymandering, Gomillion v. Lightfoot (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=339), 364 U.S. 339 , and the conducting of white primaries, Nixon v. Herndon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=273&invol=536), 273 U.S. 536 , Nixon v. Condon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=286&invol=73), 286 U.S. 73 , Smith v. Allwright (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=321&invol=649), 321 U.S. 649 , Terry v. Adams (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=345&invol=461), 345 U.S. 461 , both of which result in denying to some citizens their right to vote, have been held to be constitutionally impermissible. And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.

... Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Almost a century ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=356), 118 U.S. 356 , the Court referred to "the political franchise of voting" as "a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights."


Thus, whether one accepts Bush v. Gore as correct or not, there is more to the issue. And, although one may technically claim there is no federal constittutional right to vote for electors for the President per se, as a practical matter state legislators have turned to popular vote to select electors and that makes voting in such elections a fundamental right.

Thus, whether one accepts Bush v. Gore as correct or not, there is more to the issue. And, although one may technically claim there is no federal constittutional right to vote for electors for the President per se, as a practical matter state legislators have turned to popular vote to select electors and that makes voting in such elections a fundamental right.

But that goes along largely with what I said. I have, under Massachusetts law, a legal right to vote for president. However, if Massachusetts were to, by whatever method allowable for such, to remove their voting process and decide their electoral votes by a flip of a coin, that would be legally permissible, and I would find no relief under the federal constitution if I should bring suit.

So sure, I have a legal right to vote, and that is most certainly a right, but a right not found in the federal constitution.

Stop fucking copying and pasting this in every thread chingey.

Are you gonna spam this on every thread?

Stop fucking copying and pasting this in every thread chingey.

To the ModMobile!

According to the BBC, Obama has already got 175 evs. If he wins Ohio, he's president.

I'm assuming he'll win Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon (which he should comfortably as he holds a doudle-digit lead in each), which would give him 77 evs. Ohio has 20, giving him a total of 272 evs.

Go Ohio!

It looks like he just won Ohio. However, it's too early to tell for sure.

It looks like he just won Ohio. However, it's too early to tell for sure.
I was just about to post that. Both BBC and Fox are calling it for him but CNN says just 15% of the vote has been counted. Obama is leading by nearly 200,000 votes though.


edit: if you want something amusing to pass your time, head to FOXnews and read the comments in their election special. McCain supporters are veering from outright denial (we shoudl wait til the west coast closes! McCain can still win!) to anger (It's all Acorns fault! It's all a evil liberal voter fraud!) to fear (I'm leaving before Obama destroys america!)
It's hilarious to read!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/wrap-polls-start-close-frenied-day-voting/comments/#comments

I was just about to post that. Both BBC and Fox are calling it for him but CNN says just 15% of the vote has been counted. Obama is leading by nearly 200,000 votes though.


edit: if you want something amusing to pass your time, head to FOXnews and read the comments in their election special. McCain supporters are veering from outright denial (we shoudl wait til the west coast closes! McCain can still win!) to anger (It's all Acorns fault! It's all a evil liberal voter fraud!) to fear (I'm leaving before Obama destroys america!)
It's hilarious to read!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/wrap-polls-start-close-frenied-day-voting/comments/#comments

I'm willing to pay more taxes if it helps them leave...

I'm willing to pay more taxes if it helps them leave...
I'd chip in to help you out, except for the fear they'd come down my way.

One fo the funnier comments was someone saying Obama is going to destroy Freedom of speech, and we can already see this by how he destroyed Joe the plummer (sic) career and even made FOX too scared to report the 'truth' about him.
you're going to have fun the next four years listening to these people.


Virginia's close. 80% of the vote in and Obama leading by just 13,000 votes. Same with North Carolina: 2/3 counted and he's ahead by just 33,000 votes. Still ahead in Ohio: 25% counted and he's ahead 160,000.
Looks like he'll take Florida as well - 62% of the votes in and Obama leads by 140,000.

I'd chip in to help you out, except for the fear they'd come down my way.

One fo the funnier comments was someone saying Obama is going to destroy Freedom of speech, and we can already see this by how he destroyed Joe the plummer (sic) career and even made FOX too scared to report the 'truth' about him.
you're going to have fun the next four years listening to these people.


Virginia's close. 80% of the vote in and Obama leading by just 13,000 votes. Same with North Carolina: 2/3 counted and he's ahead by just 33,000 votes. Still ahead in Ohio: 25% counted and he's ahead 160,000.
Looks like he'll take Florida as well - 62% of the votes in and Obama leads by 140,000.

My local environment won't change much (unless I move) because Georgia is McCain heartland in this election.

For a change, they'll just be whining about how MOST of America is godless and should be cut off into the sea, rather than the usual targetting of California, New York and Florida.

You know what I think is funny? The MSNBC widget on their website has Obama with the lead in Arizona. Granted, only 2% of precincts have reported, but this is McCain's home state. They should know him/like him the most.

You know what I think is funny? The MSNBC widget on their website has Obama with the lead in Arizona. Granted, only 2% of precincts have reported, but this is McCain's home state. They should know him/like him the most.

Apparently, polls Instead, they see him as a national figure

*shrug*

I think we can call Florida for Obama. according to CNN, with 80% of the votes in, he's leading by 180,000.
Also Virginia for Obama - lead of only 60,000 but 91% of the votes are in.
Indiana still a toss-up - 90% of the votes in and just 7000 between the two. McCain leading.
There's still the whole of the West Coast + New Mexico and Colorado: 90 evs between them and all very safe Blue states.
It's in the bag. Now all we need to see is how big a hammering McCain and GOP will receive.:tongue:

Aaaaaaaand it's official.

Barack Hussein Obama will be Number 44.

Now here's wishing him good luck and godspeed in cleaning up Dubya's shit.

Obama's got California, Washington, Oregon and Virginia. He's won it.

Obama.

Obama wins!

THAT'S gloating?

And there WAS a no-gloating rule?

Whatever. I'll edit it out then. Though it's almost worth it...

Well it looks like Obama is going to be president. I am impressed and awe struck about having the first African American President.

*dances*

Thank you great pumpkin wish granter in the sky!


Couldn't win because he is black huh?

MODEDIT: I saw what you did there.:tongue:

*dances*

Thank you great pumpkin wish granter in the sky!


Couldn't win because he is black huh? *gloats*

Wait, CAN we gloat or CAN'T we gloat? If we can, I so am. I had this stuck in my throat for seven years.

Considering it's Stickied at the top of the page I'm amazed people actually miss it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570516

Considering it's Stickied at the top of the page I'm amazed people actually miss it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570516

Well, I edited it out. If you want to edit my part out, please do.

Wait, CAN we gloat or CAN'T we gloat? If we can, I so am. I had this stuck in my throat for seven years.

I wasn't paying attention. I came here straight from my subscription list and didn't see the no gloating rule in General. Now you are gunna get me in trouble :p

I wasn't paying attention. I came here straight from my subscription list and didn't see the no gloating rule in General. Now you are gunna get me in trouble :p

I'm too happy to care.

Though I hope I ONLY get carded. >.>

Wow, the McCain supporters were pretty pissy and red-necked there for a while, booing when Obama was brought up during the concession speech.

On the other hand, McCain sounds like the dying monster at the end of a horror film. A little more dignified, a little more human.

Wow, the McCain supporters were pretty pissy and red-necked there for a while, booing when Obama was brought up during the concession speech.

On the other hand, McCain sounds like the dying monster at the end of a horror film. A little more dignified, a little more human.

I was half-expecting them to chant "she went to Hell" regarding Obama's grandmother.

I'm so glad to finally feel vindication. I've been waiting years for this. I feel hope for the future, but anxiety about what we'll be facing ahead. But at least I have hope, and I can thank Obama for that.

http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08453/election154.png

*sighs* Thank goodness....

No more Bush, No more Bush polices and no more 8 years of polices I don't agree with.

Wooooophieeeee. *cough* Okay I am done being a gloat about it.

I don't believe I've seen so many pages on one thread.. :shock:

McCain 2008!

I don't believe I've seen so many pages on one thread.. :shock:

McCain 2008!

are you aware that he just conceded?

http://xs233.xs.to/xs233/08453/election154.png

This is gigglelicious. Show me more.

Yeah so *apparently* some ballots in Rensselaer County had "Osama" instead of "Obama" on them due to a 'typographical error.'

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html

Yeah so *apparently* some ballots in Rensselaer County had "Osama" instead of "Obama" on them due to a 'typographical error.'

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html

Wonder what Real Americans™ will do now that America is going to become a "socialist caliphate"?

:D

Yeah so *apparently* some ballots in Rensselaer County had "Osama" instead of "Obama" on them due to a 'typographical error.'

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html

Let them have these little, insignificant victories. They will still be dragged kicking and screaming into tomorrow by the rest of the nation, hoping they'll grow up eventually and learn how to act like an adult. If they call him "Barack Osama", then snicker at them, and move on.

This is gigglelicious. Show me more.

No, don't. Being happy because your candidate won is not gloating, but making fun of someone else's unhappiness about it is.

Yeah so *apparently* some ballots in Rensselaer County had "Osama" instead of "Obama" on them due to a 'typographical error.'

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html

Unless this is a different instance I first broke this story here when it first came to light. Any incoherence in my posts tonight is due to having been up for 19 hours.

Unless this is a different instance I first broke this story here when it first came to light. Any incoherence in my posts tonight is due to having been up for 19 hours.

OK, duly noted..

I thought that might have been the case, but somehow I didn't feel like reading 4800 posts just to make sure. :)

Congrats to Barack Obama....may God guide his hand, and may the world be a better place as a result.

Congrats to Barack Obama....may God guide his hand, and may the world be a better place as a result.

Don't you mean Allah?

Don't you mean Allah?
Ummmm Obama believes in God, why would you ask that?

Ummmm Obama believes in God, why would you ask that?

Well you see, the right would have you believe he's a Communist Muslim Terrorist Arab.

Well you see, the right would have you believe he's a Communist Muslim Terrorist Arab.

I thought that was Ralph Nader.

Congrats to Barack Obama....may God guide his hand, and may the world be a better place as a result.

No no no no, we've had quite enough of a leader using 'god' to guide his hand, how 'bout we let reason and level headedness give it a whirl now?

Well you see, the right would have you believe he's a Communist Muslim Terrorist Arab.
Well, I understand that but it was rather foolish of Khadgar to ask me that question.

Well, I understand that but it was rather foolish of Khadgar to ask me that question.

I think it was a light-hearted joke. :tongue:

No no no no, we've had quite enough of a leader using 'god' to guide his hand, how 'bout we let reason and level headedness give it a whirl now?

^This.

Congrats to Barack Obama....may God guide his hand, and may the world be a better place as a result.

Ahem... isn't it Pancake Tuesday?

Come on, CH, people fought and argued with you about this for months and you said you wouldn't admit you were wrong until the results were in.

They're in. Be the big man we all know you can be and say it.

Ahem... isn't it Pancake Tuesday?

Come on, CH, people fought and argued with you about this for months and you said you wouldn't admit you were wrong until the results were in.

They're in. Be the big man we all know you can be and say it.

Is there any need? Did he not just congradualte Obama?

Anyway..Woo Obama.

Kind of hard to believe that USA might have a competent president in 3 months.

Is there any need? Did he not just congradualte Obama?

Anyway..Woo Obama.

Kind of hard to believe that USA might have a competent president in 3 months.

Yes, there is. I'm not poking him. I don't want the silly "you were wrong" stuff going any further than right here. The best way to settle something is just be straight about. He said he'd say he was wrong if Obama wins. Obama won. Time to settle the beast and move on to new topics and other news.

Ahem... isn't it Pancake Tuesday?

Come on, CH, people fought and argued with you about this for months and you said you wouldn't admit you were wrong until the results were in.

They're in. Be the big man we all know you can be and say it.

No fair, I controlled myself not to rub it in! YOU are the mature one and I am the petty, immature asshole, remember?

(Not that you ARE being one) :p

Ummmm Obama believes in God, why would you ask that?

I thought Allah, God and Yahweh were all the same deity, just different names....

I thought Allah, God and Yahweh were all the same deity, just different names....

Yep

Yep

Ahem... isn't it Pancake Tuesday?

Come on, CH, people fought and argued with you about this for months and you said you wouldn't admit you were wrong until the results were in.

They're in. Be the big man we all know you can be and say it.
Yeah and your ego wants you to gloat. :tongue:

I gave my best regards to Obama....take it in stride.

Yeah and your ego wants you to gloat. :tongue:

I gave my best regards to Obama....take it in stride.

He does have a lot of gloat in him -- especially for someone who didn't vote.

If the rest of the states break McCain, fivethirtyeight's predictor nailed it.

If the rest of the states break McCain, fivethirtyeight's predictor nailed it.

actually didn't they say he'd win Missouri and lose Indiana and North Carolina?

actually didn't they say he'd win Missouri and lose Indiana and North Carolina?

I was just looking at the electoral vote pie.

actually didn't they say he'd win Missouri and lose Indiana and North Carolina?

Nope.

This (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SRCJd0o9eII/AAAAAAAAAmY/am_lTNkl2xI/S1600-R/1105_bigmap.png) was the election map 538 has just prior to the election

This (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/3005239310_5e29f7219e_o.png) is the current map of called states on 538.

As you can see, Indiana was supposed to go red, but NC was going to go blue, and MO was a true toss-up.

He does have a lot of gloat in him -- especially for someone who didn't vote.

Yup. I didn't vote. And it was my fault. I mistakenly believed that I could move my address within two weeks of the election. I was wrong.

See, that's what people do when they make mistakes. They admit them and move on. If only that were everyone's way, huh?

The candidate I contributed to and campaigned for still won. The candidate my friends and family contributed to and campaigned for still won.

And, yeah, I'm happy about it.

Yeah and your ego wants you to gloat. :tongue:

I gave my best regards to Obama....take it in stride.

As you should. But you should also admit that Pancake Tuesday came and went and no pancakes fell against your prediction they would.

You threw the line out many a time that no amount of evidence counts and that only the final count would. Well, we're seeing the final count and it doesn't support any of the arguments you made. NC, VA, CO, NM, NV, IN all turned. MO still isn't called. MT was closer than most suspected. The map is completely altered. And Obama won by a landslide.

This is where you tip your hat (which you already graciously did) and say you were wrong.

Hillary would of won the states that mattered though!

so surveyusa did an obama-mccain head to head in october of 2006 (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/11/03/mccain-510-electoral-votes-obama-28-how-the-map-looked-exactly-2-years-ago/). this was mccain's starting point, two years ago:

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ecv-2006.png

things appear to have changed a bit since then

Hillary would of won the states that mattered though!

when will you damned liberals learn the 50 state strategy does not work! I mean, look at that map, he only won 27 states! 29 tops.

Congrats to the President-elect Mr. Obama.

Good thing he was smart enough to follow the entire West Wing script :p

Congrats to the President-elect Mr. Obama.

Good thing he was smart enough to follow the entire West Wing script :p

Sheen/Alda in 2012!

*gloats quietly about Obama/Biden win*
*The mods will never catch me now!*

*gloats quietly about Obama/Biden win*
*The mods will never catch me now!*


Oh Rly?

Oh Rly?

orly? I ardly know er.

so surveyusa did an obama-mccain head to head in october of 2006 (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/11/03/mccain-510-electoral-votes-obama-28-how-the-map-looked-exactly-2-years-ago/). this was mccain's starting point, two years ago:

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ecv-2006.png

things appear to have changed a bit since then

What kind of illiterate monkey created a map where McCain would carry Massachusetts and California?

Oh Rly?

*Haha! take that! quiet and invisible! Gloats more*

*Haha! take that! quiet and invisible! Gloats more*

O R'lyeh?

Yes, there is. I'm not poking him. I don't want the silly "you were wrong" stuff going any further than right here. The best way to settle something is just be straight about. He said he'd say he was wrong if Obama wins. Obama won. Time to settle the beast and move on to new topics and other news.

Fair enough.

What kind of illiterate monkey created a map where McCain would carry Massachusetts and California?

its the result of polling 30k people in 2006. presumably entirely a name recognition and otherness effect. there was a time when john mccain was a widely respected old man and nobody had heard of obama outside of the politics junkies and home staters. the carrying of dc tells me they did mention party affiliation too, unless we are positing that the people of dc are hyper-attuned to national politics.

the race was mccain's to lose.

interesting analysis from the new york times (via the great orange satan (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13157/1286/456/654502)). in this election:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map1.jpg
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map2.jpg

looks like somebody has a regional party again...

O R'lyeh?

hmmmmmmmmmm . . .. drat foiled!

interesting analysis from the new york times (via the great orange satan (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13157/1286/456/654502)). in this election:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map1.jpg
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map2.jpg

looks like somebody has a regional party again...

I think it's vastly premature to make that call.

Aight, so Obama's top honchos will be announced soon enough. You lot got any predictions?

I'm-a just gonna post this link (http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/11/all-the-preside.html) to what some bozo at the Times says.

Congrats to Barack Obama....may God guide his hand, and may the world be a better place as a result.

Glad you can be graceful in seeing Obama win. I would like to point out that the 50 state strategy worked and Hillary wasn't needed for Obama to win. Clearly the predictions you made were wildly wrong and I was right. Like you said, only the election will prove you right or wrong. The verdict is in.

interesting analysis from the new york times (via the great orange satan (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13157/1286/456/654502)). in this election:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map1.jpg
http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map2.jpg

looks like somebody has a regional party again...
possibly so, but % are easy to misread. A 10% swing to the Democrats might not mean that much if previously there was, say, only 30% support for them in the county. It still means that said county is overwhemingly GOP.

I think what should be more worrying is this:
According to exit polls, Obama crushed McCain among women voters (56 percent to 43 percent); voters under 30 (66 percent to 32 percent); African-American voters (95 percent to 4 percent); Latino voters (66 percent to 32 percent); first-time voters (68 percent to 31 percent); and voters making less than $100,000 a year (55 percent to 43 percent).
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/election.president/index.html

especially the first-time voters (68 percent to 31 percent) and voters under 30 (66 percent to 32 percent) bit. If the Democrats can hold onto these new voters, GOP is going to have a very difficult time regaining the reins.
I can't help but notice "women voters (56 percent to 43 percent)". Guess they're not as dumb as McCain (and some on this board I might add) thought they were - they can spot the difference between two women, and don't just vote for the party with the vagina (or two in GOPs case: Palin and McCain ;)).

I think what should be more worrying is this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/election.president/index.html

especially the first-time voters (68 percent to 31 percent) and voters under 30 (66 percent to 32 percent) bit. If the Democrats can hold onto these new voters, GOP is going to have a very difficult time regaining the reins.
I can't help but notice "women voters (56 percent to 43 percent)". Guess they're not as dumb as McCain (and some on this board I might add) thought they were - they can spot the difference between two women, and don't just vote for the party with the vagina (or two in GOPs case: Palin and McCain ;)).

...

Y'all don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white

It gets me real pisseded off, it makes me wanna say
Fuck!

I said it before and I'll say it again; the Republicans are fucked. Watch for a new party in the next four years.

...



I said it before and I'll say it again; the Republicans are fucked. Watch for a new party in the next four years.
I'd say wait till something hits the party with a final crack. Either the extreme religious right will be tossed out and rally around their own third party--which WILL be influential--or the moderate Republicans will break off to form their own new major party, with the rump Republican party being the aforementioned influential third party.

Personally, I like the second result, but that's just because I want to see a new major party appear.

I'd say wait till something hits the party with a final crack. Either the extreme religious right will be tossed out and rally around their own third party--which WILL be influential--or the moderate Republicans will break off to form their own new major party, with the rump Republican party being the aforementioned influential third party.

Personally, I like the second result, but that's just because I want to see a new major party appear.

So you'll basically have one party for the religious right, one part for the centre right, and no parties who can come close to challenging the Democrats?

...



I said it before and I'll say it again; the Republicans are fucked. Watch for a new party in the next four years.

Hardly. They suffered worse at the hands of FDR and the New Deal Democrats. It wasn't until 1980 that the Republican party managed to regroup and it may be very much like that now. I can't imagine a scenario that will cause them to disappear.

Now, if they become the party of the FairTax, strong controls on illegal immigration, and a strong national defense, I think they can start a comeback by 2010.

Now, if they become the party of the FairTax, strong controls on illegal immigration, and a strong national defense, I think they can start a comeback by 2010.

... Wasn't that EXACTLY what the did this time?

So you'll basically have one party for the religious right, one party for the centre right, and no parties who can come close to challenging the Democrats?

To me, this is still what the Democrats are.

... Wasn't that EXACTLY what the did this time?
Certainly not the FairTax. Huckabee was the only one to pitch that -- and it did get him some traction.

Not illegal immigration, too many supported Bush on his guest worker and amnesty programs.

That leaves a strong national defense and that's probably not enough to carry the day.

So you'll basically have one party for the religious right, one part for the centre right, and no parties who can come close to challenging the Democrats?

No. The religious right is actually a small minority. They're just extremely vocal.

What I'm picturing is the rest of the Republicans leaving the party and forming a new one, while simultaneously being joined by a large number of Independents who would have joined the party had it not been for the religious right.

What ends up happening is that you still have two major parties, but you also have a rather influential minor party that can swing things.

No. The religious right is actually a small minority. They're just extremely vocal.

What I'm picturing is the rest of the Republicans leaving the party and forming a new one, while simultaneously being joined by a large number of Independents who would have joined the party had it not been for the religious right.

What ends up happening is that you still have two major parties, but you also have a rather influential minor party that can swing things.

So now you're going to end up EXACTLY like Australia: one big party, one medium party and one small party, with the medium and small parties running as a coalition in an attempt to beat the big party.

So now you're going to end up EXACTLY like Australia: one big party, one medium party and one small party, with the medium and small parties running as a coalition in an attempt to beat the big party.

No, it'd be two big parties and a small party, with the small party being extremely loud.

Think two parents and a spoiled brat of a kid.

To me, this is still what the Democrats are.

Not on the typical American scale.

Not on the typical American scale.

Yeh, I know. The Democrats are a party "to the left of" the Republicans. But on a basic Left-Right scale, they are not a Left party.

As for the split of the GOP into two others - I don't see them doing so because they don't have a wide enough national base for both. That would only undermine their nationwide appeal and vastly restrict any run for Presidential office. In general, third parties just don't seem to take to American politics for this reason.

Maybe what the Republicans need is Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/265790.php

Aight, so Obama's top honchos will be announced soon enough. You lot got any predictions?

I'm-a just gonna post this link (http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/11/all-the-preside.html) to what some bozo at the Times says.

I think Rahm Emanuel is a good pick for Chief of Staff. It indicates a centrist tact for Obama. And I think it's perfect the way it coincides with the setup in The West Wing, since Matt Santos was based on Obama.

I think he'll keep Gates on, at least at first.

I don't see Power getting anything too high, though. Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights, perhaps. Too dovish and idealistic for the NSC.

Susan Rice would make a good NSA.

For treasury secretary, I'd prefer Warren Buffet to Summers.

I think he should (and I think will) give a position to a Republican. I'd nominate Dick Lugar, who is a moderate and has a badass name. SecState, perhaps. Wes Clark would make a good SecDef, although I don't think he's eligible.

I suggest Richard Holbrooke for DNI, or SecState if that has to go to a Democrat.

So who won this election anyway? McCain 08!

So who won this election anyway? McCain 08!
Nah, man, Barr won.

Historic moment there. Hard to believe that after fighting Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and the Mullahs in Iran, a man with facial hair could be elected president. Makes me proud to be an American!

Aight, so Obama's top honchos will be announced soon enough. You lot got any predictions?

I'm-a just gonna post this link (http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/11/all-the-preside.html) to what some bozo at the Times says.

No idea really. Although I think Bill Richardson would make a good Sec of State. But that's just my idea.

Nah, man, Barr won.

Historic moment there. Hard to believe that after fighting Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and the Mullahs in Iran, a man with facial hair could be elected president. Makes me proud to be an American!

Truly a reason to celebrate!

I think Joe Lieberman would make a good ambassador to Djibouti.

Maybe what the Republicans need is Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/265790.php

They have Joe Arpaio. And Tom Tancredo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo). And Jim Oberweis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Oberweis). What they don't have, yet, is a strategy to sell the Kick-'Em-Out Party platform to enough swing voters and moderate Republicans to make a viable national campaign.

This one (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80246) is pretty funny.

No idea really. Although I think Bill Richardson would make a good Sec of State. But that's just my idea.

Last I heard (NPR this morning) was that John Kerry (D-MA) was on the SecState list, too.

This one (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80246) is pretty funny.

I was expecting some crazy editorial claims but nooooo.

You had to link to actual journalism :(

This one (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80246) is pretty funny.

Ooh, scare quotes around the word "progressive"! Thanks, WorldNetDaily, for always finding a way to make me laugh at you.

north carolina finally called for obama, leaving just missouri and ne-02 undecided, though leaning mccain (nebraska just barely and almost certainly going into automatic recount mode). which means that as of now, my prediction is an indiana off. damnit barack, being even awesomer than expected. fuckin' everything up.

north carolina finally called for obama, leaving just missouri and ne-02 undecided, though leaning mccain (nebraska just barely and almost certainly going into automatic recount mode). which means that as of now, my prediction is an indiana off. damnit barack, being even awesomer than expected. fuckin' everything up.

It's my prediction if Obama loses MO, and 11 above mine if he wins MO...

But did you get Omaha right? I called it for Obama, and Nate thinks that's where it will end up.

north carolina finally called for obama, leaving just missouri and ne-02 undecided, though leaning mccain (nebraska just barely and almost certainly going into automatic recount mode). which means that as of now, my prediction is an indiana off. damnit barack, being even awesomer than expected. fuckin' everything up.

At my house party, we had maps to color in, and it seems I might be just an indiana off as well.

Which means I'll get to gloat to all my roommates and friends about how I know more and am therefore a better person than they are.

The funny thing is, two of my roommates are political science grad students, and so were a large number of the people who attended the party. They got beaten by the history undergrad! :D

EDIT: And I have to take a Political Science class next year, and I'm going to try to be in one's section. If he tries to correct me on something during class, I can say "yeah, what do you know? You called Georgia for Obama!"

At my house party, we had maps to color in, and it seems I might be just an indiana off as well.

Which means I'll get to gloat to all my roommates and friends about how I know more and am therefore a better person than they are.

The funny thing is, two of my roommates are political science grad students, and so were a large number of the people who attended the party. They got beaten by the history undergrad! :D

Isn't there a saying that "history will decide the winners"?

Now, if they become the party of the FairTax, strong controls on illegal immigration, and a strong national defense, I think they can start a comeback by 2010.

Yes. There is an opening for a Neo Fascist party in the current climate.

Last I heard (NPR this morning) was that John Kerry (D-MA) was on the SecState list, too.

I hope it isn't Kerry. Not that I don't like Kerry. But he doesn't strike me as Sec of state material.

so rahm emanuel has officially accepted obama's offer to be wh chief of staff. which means that now we get a couple more seasons of the west wing. damn life imitating art imitating life...

This is something I hadn't considered (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-can-make-economic-mark/story.aspx?guid=%7B2D242DF0%2D2AFE%2D4167%2D8CFC%2DF35BE880315D%7D) ...
Obama is the first sitting senator to be elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960. He is in a position to influence, as well as vote on, any package Congress works up before Inauguration Day. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with Obama on Wednesday morning and indicated she was working closely with his team. "Our priorities have tracked the Obama campaign's priorities for a long time," she told reporters.

Obama's ability to make policy is of course limited until Jan. 20. But Obama can have psychological effect by making strong appointments for key economic posts or urging Congress to get moving on his priorities.


Interesting that he can might be able to introduce some things on the Legislative side, then get behind them and push from the Executive side. Assuming he can find the time, of course. He's a busy guy.

This is something I hadn't considered (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obama-can-make-economic-mark/story.aspx?guid=%7B2D242DF0%2D2AFE%2D4167%2D8CFC%2DF35BE880315D%7D) ...
Obama is the first sitting senator to be elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960. He is in a position to influence, as well as vote on, any package Congress works up before Inauguration Day. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with Obama on Wednesday morning and indicated she was working closely with his team. "Our priorities have tracked the Obama campaign's priorities for a long time," she told reporters.

Obama's ability to make policy is of course limited until Jan. 20. But Obama can have psychological effect by making strong appointments for key economic posts or urging Congress to get moving on his priorities.


Interesting that he can might be able to introduce some things on the Legislative side, then get behind them and push from the Executive side. Assuming he can find the time, of course. He's a busy guy.

He made the world in less than a week, and that was while being a single-parent-dad to his own self. He'll find time.

transition website is live:
http://www.change.gov/

But did you get Omaha right? I called it for Obama, and Nate thinks that's where it will end up.

I called Omaha. I think I was just off by IN. I even called MT close. And I called it 3 weeks ago. I also called the popular vote. Take that, bitches.

north carolina finally called for obama, leaving just missouri and ne-02 undecided, though leaning mccain (nebraska just barely and almost certainly going into automatic recount mode). which means that as of now, my prediction is an indiana off. damnit barack, being even awesomer than expected. fuckin' everything up.

If Obama gets MO but loses Omaha, then my prediction of 375 electoral votes for him is true!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24615230-23109,00.html

The Italian PM said that Obama had a nice tan? I'm surprised this hasn't got more coverage.

When will they call Missouri? And North Carolina?

When will they call Missouri? And North Carolina?

I believe most organizations have called North Carolina, and put it in the Obama column.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics

As for Missouri, I'm not certain but I believe the vote is close enough that a recount is going to be triggered, so it might be a while there.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24615230-23109,00.html

The Italian PM said that Obama had a nice tan? I'm surprised this hasn't got more coverage.

Meh, it's Berlusconi. He says crap like that all the time. He said he used his playboy skills on the Finnish PM.

transition website is live:
http://www.change.gov/

What the fuck? "Office of the President-Elect"? Really?

Jesus, even the .gov domain. Was this even necessary?

I hope it isn't Kerry. Not that I don't like Kerry. But he doesn't strike me as Sec of state material.

Well, the soldier angle plus Senate experience qualifies him on paper, but I am inclined to agree with you.

What the fuck? "Office of the President-Elect"? Really?

Jesus, even the .gov domain. Was this even necessary?

Open government. What better way than online?

What the fuck? "Office of the President-Elect"? Really?

Jesus, even the .gov domain. Was this even necessary?

You have a problem with the transition team having a website?

You have a problem with the transition team having a website?Yeah .... consider Palin's disdain for state business on state email.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/552784.html

It didn't take long for the knives to come out against Palin:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=6196407&page=1

They were already sharpening them up a couple of days before the election. I read one article (can't remember which one sorry) that had a senior McCain aide saying they were already preparing to come out against Palin if they lost the election (this was at the weekend), and that some of the dirt on her and the friction between her and McCain would make for good reading.

Palin certainly showed her true colours with the clothes story:
A Republican donor who agreed to foot a majority of the expenses was stunned when he received the bill, Newsweek reported. Both the Times and Newsweek report that the budget for the clothing was expected to be between $20,000 and $25,000. Instead, the amount reported by the Republican National Committee was $150,000.

That wasn't the whole tab, however, according to Newsweek. The magazine claims that Palin leaned on some low-level staffers to put thousands of dollars of additional purchases on their credit cards. The national committee and McCain became aware of the extra expenditures, including clothes for husband Todd Palin, when the staffers sought reimbursement, Newsweek reported.
true colours as in a low class opportunist with delusions of grandeur.
A McCain aide said it even better: "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."

It didn't take long for the knives to come out against Palin:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=6196407&page=1

They were already sharpening them up a couple of days before the election. I read one article (can't remember which one sorry) that had a senior McCain aide saying they were already preparing to come out against Palin if they lost the election (this was at the weekend), and that some of the dirt on her and the friction between her and McCain would make for good reading.

Palin certainly showed her true colours with the clothes story:

true colours as in a low class opportunist with delusions of grandeur.
A McCain aide said it even better: "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast."

I prefer the "Africa is a country", or "Who's in NAFTA?" bits. :rolleyes:

So the 2008 election is over, the US have a new president and politics is not interesting any more.

Really?

I come across these:
Fox: Sarah Palin didnt know Africa was a Continent (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=oZfM5LluYqw)
Fox's O'Reilly: Sarah Palin unaware Africa was a continent (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=p3dkiWncf2k)
And this is FOX, by Jove!


Do you think that Palin will be the Republican party's scapegoat for the lost election?
Is McCain responsoble in some way?
Will Palin survive as a political figurehead and be able to be the 2012 Republican candidate?
If she was so wonderful as the Republican party painted her to be why are they throwing her under the bus? Why didn't they force her to resign the candidacy?


Last but not least question:
Does this tell us something about the state of US political culture?

Do you think that Palin will be the Republican party's scapegoat for the lost election?
No. Palin represented the sort of person that the Republicans were relying on. To Scapegoat her is to blame the Republican electorate. As entirely appropriate as that would be (my opinion), it would be the end of the Republican Party.

Is McCain responsoble in some way?
I think his responsibility begins and ends with his campaign's decision to stick to the Republican base. Where he lost was in his drive for the hardline evangelical vote, which lost him the independents. I might, conceivably, have quite liked him if he'd been the sort of guy he was at his nomination acceptance and his congratulatory speech to Obama the whole way through, but the fact remains that he chose to placate the Right, and in doing so, he lost his chance to win.

Will Palin survive as a political figurehead and be able to be the 2012 Republican candidate?
God, I hope not. If the country in 4 years would still nominate Palin as a presidential candidate then the Change won't have happened.

If she was so wonderful as the Republican party painted her to be why are they throwing her under the bus? Why didn't they force her to resign the candidacy?
Because they can't afford to admit that she's the sort of person that both
a) The republican party base want in office, and
b) Is absolutely the last person that should ever be allowed in office.

Does this tell us something about the state of US political culture?
I think you could infer my opinion on that one.

1. She could be, I blame her lack of experience(and knowledge)
2.Yes, he picked her instead of somone like Mitt Romney
3. In Alaska maybe, No way she will be president
4. The Republicans like her at first, they thought her folksy attitude was great, and they thought it would get them some Hillary supporter votes. That backfired and her loosing the election made them angry at her.
5. US Political culture is brutal and untammed. It will always be. USA!

I think they chose Palin because they knew from the start that they were going to lose, and they wanted someone to blame it on. Palin's career is dead now. She'll never make it out of Alaska again.

There was a recent Newseek poll of Republicans asking who they wanted to run in 2012. Palin was third, behind Romney and Huckabee. There's no way she'll win a primary contest.

McCain picked Palin because he doesn't understand the difference between a strategy and a tactic (which he presumed to lecture Obama about in the first debate). It was a good tactical move because it won a news cycle and rallied the base. But it was a poor strategic move because it ultimately hurt the ticket. McCain's entire campaign was a series of tactical moves with no coherent strategy.

No. Palin represented the sort of person that the Republicans were relying on. To Scapegoat her is to blame the Republican electorate. As entirely appropriate as that would be (my opinion), it would be the end of the Republican Party.

They've been scapegoating here since before election day.

They've been scapegoating here since before election day.

What is it with Republicans and blaming people? Ask them why did they lose and very few will even consider it was to do with bad policies... All it is is a tirade of excuses and accusations.

Given the importance of the economy to voters and the backlash against the republicans that this caused, I don't think that any choice of vice president would have changed the result.

Do you think that Palin will be the Republican party's scapegoat for the lost election?
To be honest, I don't know. The Republican Party is really in turmoil now and has no real leader. They've been in chaos since getting the crap kicked out of them in congressional elections of 2006. Their few years of unchecked power have actually wrecked their party's long term chances, as energizing the base only works when everybody's more scared shitless of a bogeyman than the fact that they have no way to pay the mortgage. This is how it often seems to work, the Republicans hold power, and then screw up the economy and lose power. It's also been you know, seven years since 9/11. Just saying it in response to every question doesn't work anymore. So whether Palin becomes the scapegoat really depends on who ends up in charge of the Republican Party, and it's going to be a bit of a power struggle now. It might get ugly. This infighting, of course, has helped the Democrats and will continue to help them.
Is McCain responsoble in some way?
Yes, for letting the RNC take over his campaign. With their Rovian tactics, they basically negated what people had always liked about McCain, which was his middle of the road, honorable approach. Sure, picking a "pit bull with lipstick" (her own words) helped energize the base and so did the negative ads, but while the base is needed, they are not the ones who actually decide the elections. You need the independents. Especially this election. Usually the Democratic base is not nearly as energized, reliable and consistent as the Republican base. A lot of them usually stay home. This election they didn't, and it's fairly common knowledge that they're actually substantially bigger. When the Democratic base shows up, the Republicans have to get the independent vote, or they have no chance. And not even the whole Democratic base showed up this year, just significantly more than usually do. Against such a charismatic, energizing candidate like Obama, alienating the middle was suicide for McCain.
Will Palin survive as a political figurehead and be able to be the 2012 Republican candidate?
Well, she certainly wants to be. If the other Republican leaders want to win elections again, they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. Yeah, she gets out the base... but she terrifies the middle. If Obama doesn't seriously fuck up this term (and for the country's sake, we better hope he doesn't, no matter our political stance, because things are much too bad right now for us to afford them getting worse), he will wipe the floor with her caribou barbie ass. Like I said though, there is no clear leader in the Republican Party right now. There's going to be quite a struggle for the steering wheel. Some will want to purge the moderates (Palin's bloc surely will), others will want to move the party more to the center. It will be interesting to see what happens.
If she was so wonderful as the Republican party painted her to be why are they throwing her under the bus? Why didn't they force her to resign the candidacy?
Asking her to resign during the campaign would have made them all look like idiots when there was still a chance, however slim, that they could still win. It would make their candidate look foolish, and so his chances for winning would have dropped to zero. You'll notice they did try to limit her TV time very strictly after she screwed up her interviews so badly. They were hoping that despite their massive mistake, they might still win.

Why are they throwing her under the bus now? Because, to put it bluntly, they fucked up. Big time. And they know they did and they look like idiots anyway now. They picked out a candidate they knew almost nothing about who just sounded like she could grab some votes and give them a slim victory. Her folksiness and conservatism did well at energizing the base, but her other function, drawing some of the more conservative Hillary voters, was a massive failure. This was largely due to the fact that they did not know how vindictive and mean-spirited she really is (and therefore hard to control), as well as discovering to their dismay that she's also either batshit insane or a complete moron, or both. Some of the more powerful figures in the Republican Party desperately want to get rid of her and keep her from doing any more damage to their party than she already has. Naturally, she's fighting back, because she wants control of the party, and others want to control the party through her. She's dumb, but not quite too dumb to take advantage of political opportunities offered by her charisma, which she does have a little bit of with the conservative base of the party. This is extremely problematic to the more moderate leaders who realize that just getting the base isn't always going to win them elections.


Last but not least question:
Does this tell us something about the state of US political culture?
In the actual senate and house chambers, it's much more polite than say, British politics, but that is just the custom of those two rooms. Everywhere else, it's just as dirty, underhanded and mean as any other nation's political machinations. And that is especially true when a party has an internal power vacuum and has just witnessed the complete failure of the tactics it relied on completely for the last eight years. They'll be back, of course. It's unlikely that this will completely ruin them. 1932 should have ruined them, after all, but they're still here.

No. Palin represented the sort of person that the Republicans were relying on. To Scapegoat her is to blame the Republican electorate. As entirely appropriate as that would be (my opinion), it would be the end of the Republican Party.

Then why are they (the McCain campaign and the RNC) attacking her so much?
I'm not playing dumb here. I cannot actually understand the reason behind these attacks. Especially after McCain's concession speech where he assumed responsibility (as should have done IMO) for loosing.

I think his responsibility begins and ends with his campaign's decision to stick to the Republican base. Where he lost was in his drive for the hardline evangelical vote, which lost him the independents. I might, conceivably, have quite liked him if he'd been the sort of guy he was at his nomination acceptance and his congratulatory speech to Obama the whole way through, but the fact remains that he chose to placate the Right, and in doing so, he lost his chance to win.

I meant responsile for the scapegoating since it mostly comes from his staff.

God, I hope not. If the country in 4 years would still nominate Palin as a presidential candidate then the Change won't have happened.

Well, I think that 4 years will not be enough for changing HER electoral base. Remember it took 8 years of Bush...

Because they can't afford to admit that she's the sort of person that both
a) The republican party base want in office, and
b) Is absolutely the last person that should ever be allowed in office.

Ahem... Shouldn't party policy be dictated by the will of the base? Maybe that the real problem is in what part of the US population the RNC is trying to appeal to.

I think you could infer my opinion on that one.

I'd like to hear it expressed though. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

What is it with Republicans and blaming people? Ask them why did they lose and very few will even consider it was to do with bad policies... All it is is a tirade of excuses and accusations.

Because if they admit that their policies were shitty, where does that leave them as a party? It's very difficult to admit that one's ideology is wrong.

But yes, I'd say that the biggest thing that hurt them was actually something that occurred a couple years ago... they had basically unchecked political power. During that time they enacted a lot of stuff that turned out rather badly.

They don't want to confront that, though. Easier to blame a single person rather than the policies of the last 8 years, especially the few in the middle when they controlled the entire government.

So the 2008 election is over, the US have a new president and politics is not interesting any more.

Really?

I come across these:
Fox: Sarah Palin didnt know Africa was a Continent (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=oZfM5LluYqw)
Fox's O'Reilly: Sarah Palin unaware Africa was a continent (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=p3dkiWncf2k)
And this is FOX, by Jove!


Do you think that Palin will be the Republican party's scapegoat for the lost election?
Is McCain responsoble in some way?
Will Palin survive as a political figurehead and be able to be the 2012 Republican candidate?
If she was so wonderful as the Republican party painted her to be why are they throwing her under the bus? Why didn't they force her to resign the candidacy?


Last but not least question:
Does this tell us something about the state of US political culture?
This (the clips) sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from career campaign staffers that want to be employed in another campaign. That is, blame the candidates for a poor campaign...

Personally, I think the makeup of the staff is way to similar to the Dole-Kemp campaign and we know how well they did. None of these staffers should ever get another job running a Republican campaign.

Then why are they (the McCain campaign and the RNC) attacking her so much?
I'm not playing dumb here. I cannot actually understand the reason behind these attacks. Especially after McCain's concession speech where he assumed responsibility (as should have done IMO) for loosing.
If you had to work in a stressful environment under an abusive, incompetent, and imbecilic boss, you might be inclined to complain anonymously about that person.

I meant responsile for the scapegoating since it mostly comes from his staff.It's his fault only insofar as he's failed to exercise sufficient control over his staff. Attacking Palin does not personally do him any good, he's surely not directly ordering it. Unless he's just pissed off.

Ahem... Shouldn't party policy be dictated by the will of the base? Maybe that the real problem is in what part of the US population the RNC is trying to appeal to.The "base" that Palin appealed to is the evangelical Christian right, which is not the entire Republican party. If the Republicans were reduced to that base, they would never win an election again. They rely on the support of other groups--"fiscal conservatives," foreign policy hawks, etc.

If you had to work in a stressful environment under an abusive, incompetent, and imbecilic boss, you might be inclined to complain anonymously about that person.

It's his fault only insofar as he's failed to exercise sufficient control over his staff. Attacking Palin does not personally do him any good, he's surely not directly ordering it. Unless he's just pissed off.

The "base" that Palin appealed to is the evangelical Christian right, which is not the entire Republican party. If the Republicans were reduced to that base, they would never win an election again. They rely on the support of other groups--"fiscal conservatives," foreign policy hawks, etc.

And independents. Before, they had a pretty good share of the independents, and the Democratic base was inconsistent enough for the Republicans to win just by motivating their own base. It didn't work this time, because a lot more of the Democratic base showed up, and they are larger. The independents, the middle ground, were also alienated by all the negative campaigning. A sort of perfect storm, really.

Yep, Palin helped with the base, but hurt with everyone else, including other types of self-identified Republicans. That's why there were so many high-profile defections.

What the fuck? "Office of the President-Elect"? Really?

Jesus, even the .gov domain. Was this even necessary?

yes.

Asking her to resign during the campaign would have made them all look like idiots when there was still a chance, however slim, that they could still win. It would make their candidate look foolish, and so his chances for winning would have dropped to zero. You'll notice they did try to limit her TV time very strictly after she screwed up her interviews so badly. They were hoping that despite their massive mistake, they might still win.

I'm not talking about kicking her out. She could have resigned and made look the McCain campaign responsible.

You know, something like: "Having campaigned for 1 month I have come to understand that i cannot tend the needs of my sons and doughters at this time. Therefore I resign since they are my and my husband's first and foremost responsibility."
You see? Responsibility, family values... By Jove, she could have also put God's will in it without looking funny. Or a country first attitude.

Then run in 2012 (after taking a couple geography classes).

I'm not talking about kicking her out. She could have resigned and made look the McCain campaign responsible.

You know, something like: "Having campaigned for 1 month I have come to understand that i cannot tend the needs of my sons and doughters at this time. Therefore I resign since they are my and my husband's first and foremost responsibility."
You see? Responsibility, family values... By Jove, she could have also put God's will in it without looking funny. Or a country first attitude.

Then run in 2012 (after taking a couple geography classes).

Oh, everyone would have known that she had been pressured to. It would have been fucking obvious. And they all would have looked like complete buffoons. Of course, they look stupid anyway, but there was still a small chance they could win.

As for her running in 2012... unless Obama's term is a disaster, which I hope for the nation's sake it won't be, the Republicans shouldn't run her in 2012 if they want to win. She'll energize the base, of course. But I think the middle will still be scared shitless of her being president. And even then, she or one of her supporters would have to emerge triumphant in the power struggle that's about to take place in the Republican Party for her to get nominated in 2012.

I'm not talking about kicking her out. She could have resigned and made look the McCain campaign responsible.

You know, something like: "Having campaigned for 1 month I have come to understand that i cannot tend the needs of my sons and doughters at this time. Therefore I resign since they are my and my husband's first and foremost responsibility."
You see? Responsibility, family values... By Jove, she could have also put God's will in it without looking funny. Or a country first attitude.

Then run in 2012 (after taking a couple geography classes).

What makes you think she would've agreed to that? She's power-hungry.

And I don't think taking her off the ticket would have helped the campaign at all. She would have already have done her damage, by making McCain look irresponsible and impulsive--an impression that would only be compounded by taking her off. And it would have completely demoralized the base, no matter who they replaced her with.

What makes you think she would've agreed to that? She's power-hungry.

And I don't think taking her off the ticket would have helped the campaign at all. She would have already have done her damage, by making McCain look irresponsible and impulsive--an impression that would only be compounded by taking her off. And it would have completely demoralized the base, no matter who they replaced her with.

Exactly. And yes, I don't think the Republicans had any idea how difficult to work with she'd be when they picked her.

What makes you think she would've agreed to that? She's power-hungry.

And I don't think taking her off the ticket would have helped the campaign at all. She would have already have done her damage, by making McCain look irresponsible and impulsive--an impression that would only be compounded by taking her off. And it would have completely demoralized the base, no matter who they replaced her with.

Shotgun?

Oh, everyone would have known that she had been pressured to. It would have been fucking obvious. And they all would have looked like complete buffoons. Of course, they look stupid anyway, but there was still a small chance they could win.

IMO her base would have believed it and be energized by this.
We are talking about the people that booed McCain when he defended Obama.
And the moderate might have understood that McCain had realized he made a blunder and chose to fix it in the most elegant way possible.
Am I being too much European?

As for her running in 2012... unless Obama's term is a disaster, which I hope for the nation's sake it won't be, the Republicans shouldn't run her in 2012 if they want to win. She'll energize the base, of course. But I think the middle will still be scared shitless of her being president. And even then, she or one of her supporters would have to emerge triumphant in the power struggle that's about to take place in the Republican Party for her to get nominated in 2012.

Let me turn this around a little. Do you think that anyone in the Republican party has a chance against Obama in 2012 unless he really fucks up his term?

IMO her base would have believed it and be energized by this.
We are talking about the people that booed McCain when he defended Obama.
And the moderate might have understood that McCain had realized he made a blunder and chose to fix it in the most elegant way possible.
Am I being too much European?In America you must never admit you were wrong, and you must never, ever change your mind. That is called "flip-flopping," and it is the absolute worst thing anyone can do.

Let me turn this around a little. Do you think that anyone in the Republican party has a chance against Obama in 2012 unless he really fucks up his term?
I think it depends on the state of the economy in four years.

IMO her base would have believed it and be energized by this.
We are talking about the people that booed McCain when he defended Obama.
And the moderate might have understood that McCain had realized he made a blunder and chose to fix it in the most elegant way possible.
Am I being too much European?
The base was already energized. The problem is the independents were already alienated, and the Democratic base actually showed up to some degree this time.
And yeah... in the US, "I'm resigning to spend more time with my family" is a politics euphemism for "I fucked up really bad and am basically quitting to avoid getting fired more obviously." That's why nobody would buy it.


Let me turn this around a little. Do you think that anyone in the Republican party has a chance against Obama in 2012 unless he really fucks up his term?
We don't know. Few people nationally had really heard of a man named William Jefferson Clinton in 1988, when the Democratic Party really was not doing well. Four years later he was elected president. I predict that unless Obama really fucks up, which will just be plain bad for the country, the republicans will have a tough time against him. Of course, a lot can happen in those four years.

Open government. What better way than online?

I thought it was awesome. It even has the job requirements and stuff, if you want to apply for (or respond to, I guess) positions in the administration.

I heard a bunch of pundits on tv last night (gods, they're like those last few drunks you can't clear out after the party ends), talking about next steps for the Republicans, and they floated three ideas for possible future RNC candidates. I thought, man, what a choice of public images for the party, so I figured I'd ask NSG what each of these people might say about the RNC:

FACE OF THE RNC FOR 2012:

1) Sarah Palin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2) Mitt Romney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

3) Bobby Jindal (current governor of Louisiana)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK EACH OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD SEND TO THE NATION/WORLD ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

My take:

1) Sarah Palin = The RNC digs in its heels and appeals only to its "base." It opts to become a rightwing opposition party, abandoning any national strategy. It becomes the party of social conservativism, of divisive politics, of religion in government.

2) Mitt Romney = The RNC returns to its roots as the party of big money interests and the "rich white guy." It remains far to the right of the Dems on social issues, but seeks to reestablish its national appeal as the party of the "free market" economy and corporate special interests, emphasizing economic, tax and foreign policy issues over domestic social issues.

3) Bobby Jindal = The RNC makes a concerted effort to go after the Obama groundswell of support by floating what is effectively a Republican Obama. It signals greater flexibility on the part of the RNC to adjust their agenda to follow the electorate, less emphasis on divisive social issues and, possibly, and abandonment of the rightwing "base" in favor of trying to build a new, more centrist "base."

Bobby Jindal = The RNC makes a concerted effort to go after the Obama groundswell of support by floating what is effectively a Republican Obama. It signals greater flexibility on the part of the RNC to adjust their agenda to follow the electorate, less emphasis on divisive social issues and, possibly, and abandonment of the rightwing "base" in favor of trying to build a new, more centrist "base."

Read the link you posted. Jindal is an ultra-right wing social conservative. The only thing he has in common with Obama is being not white.

Read the link you posted. Jindal is an ultra-right wing social conservative. The only thing he has in common with Obama is being not white.
Excuse me, but I do already know that.

Did I say he was like Obama? Or did I say he would be, effectively, a Republican Obama?

I said the second thing, and what I meant by that was he is a guy who is not an established face the way Romney is, but who has a political track record once you take a good look at him; who is solidly within his philosophical camp (solid progressive stances from Obama / solid rightwing stances from Jindal); who is popular among those who know him or voted for him in the past; who has a history of making popular statements that have a positive effect on the electorate; who has a reputation for putting duty to public service ahead of party (not making any claims as to how accurate that reputation is); plus he's not as pale as Romney.

Good enough for you to consider what he might say about the RNC now, if he were to be tapped for a national office?

Excuse me, but I do already know that
....

You said this:
It signals greater flexibility on the part of the RNC to adjust their agenda to follow the electorate, less emphasis on divisive social issues and, possibly, and abandonment of the rightwing "base" in favor of trying to build a new, more centrist "base."

I took that to mean you thought picking Jindal would signal greater flexibility on the part of the RNC to adjust their agenda to follow the electorate, less emphasis on divisive social issues and, possibly, and abandonment of the rightwing "base" in favor of trying to build a new, more centrist "base."

I don't see how picking a right-wing social conservative would indicate a more centrist tact. It would be a move to the right.

You said this:

I took that to mean you thought picking Jindal would signal greater flexibility on the part of the RNC to adjust their agenda to follow the electorate, less emphasis on divisive social issues and, possibly, and abandonment of the rightwing "base" in favor of trying to build a new, more centrist "base."

I don't see how picking a right-wing social conservative would indicate a more centrist tact. It would be a move to the right.
How was picking Caribou Barbie supposed to appeal to female voters?

More to the point, how was picking John McCain supposed to appeal to centrist voters?

Bobby Jindal's reputation is that he is more about getting work done than stroking the party's ideological zone. Now, making no claims about whether that reputation is accurate or not, that can be used to present a Jindal candidacy as having a broader appeal than, say, a Palin candidacy. There is no way Palin could ever be presented as even remotely likely to set aside ideology for the sake of the public need, but a Jindal could be used that way. At least, that is my take on him based on everything I have heard about him from political pundits/experts and based on his public image (so far) in Louisiana.

Now that's MY opinion.

Do YOU have an opinion about what the three names floated by some random pundit might say about the RNC, or are you just interested in busting my chops over some little nitpick?

More to the point, how was picking John McCain supposed to appeal to centrist voters?Because McCain has broken with his party on multiple occasions, on issues like climate change, torture, immigration. That's why the "base" was so distrustful of him. What lost him centrist voters was moving hard to the right during the primary and even farther right in the general. He reversed many of his positions.

Now that's MY opinion.

Do YOU have an opinion about what the three names floated by some random pundit might say about the RNC, or are you just interested in busting my chops over some little nitpick?
Okay, I didn't understand you. Thanks for clarifying that. I'd point out that Palin was spun similarly, but it didn't work. Jindal's more qualified than Palin, but he's just as far to the right. He's also too young.

Palin: I think her career is dead. She will not be able to win a primary contest. The Obama campaign mainly ignored her, but if she's running for the top of the ticket against other Republicans, they will show no mercy. A few interviews destroyed her credibility in this campaign; imagine what a gazillion primary debates will do.

Romney: He seems to be the front runner for 2012. He appeals to economic conservatives, and has enough credibility with social conservatives that he won't have to bend over backwards to appease them (like McCain felt he had to).

I'd also add Huckabee: His biggest criticisms in the 2008 primary was being a rightist evangelical Christian, and having a thin understanding of national and international issues. Now he doesn't seem so bad compared to Palin, plus he lacks Palin's aggressively divisive personality.

Because McCain has broken with his party on multiple occasions, on issues like climate change, torture, immigration. That's why the "base" was so distrustful of him. What lost him centrist voters was moving hard to the right during the primary and even farther right in the general. He reversed many of his positions.


Okay, I didn't understand you. Thanks for clarifying that. I'd point out that Palin was spun similarly, but it didn't work. Jindal's more qualified than Palin, but he's just as far to the right.

Palin: I think her career is dead. She will not be able to win a primary contest.

Romney: He seems to be the front runner for 2012. He appeals to economic conservatives, and has enough credibility with social conservatives that he won't have to bend over backwards to appease them (like McCain felt he had to).

Huckabee: His biggest criticisms in the 2008 primary was being a rightist evangelical Christian, and having a thin understanding of national and international issues. Now he doesn't seem so bad compared to Palin, plus he lacks Palin's aggressively personality.
Thank you.

Huckabee was not on the list I took from the tv comment. The reason the Palin/Romney/Jindal list interested me was because of the three very distinct public images each person could be used to create. For example, for obvious reasons, Jindal might appeal to a different kind of rightwinger than Palin might have. And neither of them could create the image that Romney creates, and vice versa. Do you see what I mean?

Huckabee could potentially fill the public image niche of almost any of them, so to me he does not offer the contrast that interested me.

I'm not talking about who would make a viable Republican candidate, but rather what kind of party image the RNC may be trying to develop for itself in the wake of the 2008 disaster, based on these names being floated now.

So the question really was, if any of these three people were to become the face of the RNC, what would that say about the RNC and what kind of a party it is and what kind of image it's trying to project.

So, as I tried to say in my post:

Sarah Palin = go with the base and fuck everyone else; they're the party of Jesus.

Mitt Romney = fall back on the reliable, steady Rich White Man (tm); they're the party of Halliburton, etc.

Bobby Jindal = try to get into the post-Obama game by repackaging the base to look more appealing; they're the party with something for everyone; see? he even has an ethnic background.

EDIT: Also, I don't think we should be so quick to write off Palin. I have a horrible feeling we have not heard the last from her -- unless she gets a reality show. That might keep her out of politics, so let's hope for that.

I heard a bunch of pundits on tv last night (gods, they're like those last few drunks you can't clear out after the party ends), talking about next steps for the Republicans...
What the GOP needs is a strong brand identification. They're a product and people need to know what they stand for. If you ask 10 Republicans, you'll get 10 different opinions on what the GOP stands for. If you ask 10 Independents, you'll probably get 1 answer -- "We don't know".

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons, but it was promoted so strongly and effectively, that even mistakes by a senior spokesmen didn't materially affect the message.

The GOP needs to develop a similar tactic and come out strong on issues that matter to MOST people.

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons,

Troll.

Troll.

You expected something different?

What the GOP needs is a strong brand identification. They're a product and people need to know what they stand for. If you ask 10 Republicans, you'll get 10 different opinions on what the GOP stands for. If you ask 10 Independents, you'll probably get 1 answer -- "We don't know".

The Democrats had a simple message for simpletons, but it was promoted so strongly and effectively, that even mistakes by a senior spokesmen didn't materially affect the message.

The GOP needs to develop a similar tactic and come out strong on issues that matter to MOST people.
"Country First" wasn't simple enough? "Drill, Baby, Drill" wasn't simple? Or maybe they were too simple even for the simpletons. :rolleyes:

But you're right on two points:

1) The Republicans were all over the map because apparently even they have no idea who they are or what they stand for; and

2) If they could find a way to matter to most people that would probably help them.

EDIT: And finding their "brand" is kind of what my question was about. If these names are being bandied about, what does that say about the brand options they are considering? What kind of brand do we think they are most likely to go for?

"Country First" wasn't simple enough? "Drill, Baby, Drill" wasn't simple? Or maybe they were too simple even for the simpletons. :rolleyes:

But you're right on two points:

1) The Republicans were all over the map because apparently even they have no idea who they are or what they stand for; and

2) If they could find a way to matter to most people that would probably help them.

That's what they get for shutting out the conservative intellectuals. They're intellectually bankrupt.

This article from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12260881) makes a good analogy:
Nixon’s great contribution to Republican politics was to master the politics of cultural resentment. Before him, populism belonged as much to the left as the right. William Jennings Bryan railed against the eastern elites who wanted to crucify common folk on a “cross of gold”. Franklin Roosevelt dismissed Republicans as “economic royalists”. Nixon’s genius was to discover that the politics of culture could trump the politics of economics—and that populism could become a tool of the right.
The bigger question is whether the politics of resentment will be enough on its own to win an election. Rick Perlstein, the author of “Nixonland”, points out that, from Nixon’s time onwards, “culture” has always been just one part of the Republican trifecta, which also includes economic management and foreign policy. Richard Nixon and George Bush senior offered mastery of foreign policy. Ronald Reagan offered a revolutionary mixture of free-markets at home and assertiveness abroad. But this year the Republicans are left with nothing but a culture war to sell to the voters—Richard Nixon with the redeeming features left out.

I'd also point out that by embracing the neocons, they've rejected realism in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy was highly Wilsonian--making the world "safe for democracy." Didn't work so well after WWI either.

The Republican Party needs to find a completely new direction. The culture war is starting to lose its appeal. They need new ideas. It's just a matter of how long they take to figure that out. It's wholly possible they'll delude themselves into running even farther to the right in four years.

That's what they get for shutting out the conservative intellectuals. They're intellectually bankrupt.

This article from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12260881) makes a good analogy:



I'd also point out that by embracing the neocons, they've rejected realism in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy was highly Wilsonian--making the world "safe for democracy." Didn't work so well after WWI either.

The Republican Party needs to find a completely new direction. The culture war is starting to lose its appeal. They need new ideas. It's just a matter of how long they take to figure that out. It's wholly possible they'll delude themselves into running even farther to the right in four years.

They only need to find a new direction if they really want to contend the next election... maybe the one after it.

If they stick with a rough version of what they are now, they'll be in contention again in 2016 or 2020, and they'll hold office for at least a term or two once they get it. American politics is swings and roundabouts - it's only a matter of time before people get sick of what they've got, even if Obama manages to fix every problem in the sphere of the US, and bring world peace and freedom from hunger.