I think it's safe to say that the final nail has been driven into the Clinton campaign.
It's time to start talking about McCain vs. Obama.
Right now, the electoral vote looks like a tie: Electoral Vote Projection Page (http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2008.html)
It doesn't look like a tie at first glance, but the latest polls give McCain the advantage in Ohio (20 electoral votes) and Obama the edge in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), so that will change the electoral projection to a 269 to 269 tie.
Kind of a good point to start the general election thread, eh?
BobG
May24-08, 08:38 AM
I have to start with one knock on McCain: his stand on the GI Bill (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/campaign.wrap/index.html).
He's right from a strictly economic point of view. If you're fighting a decades long war on terror, it's counter productive to offer incentives that will result in military personnel getting out of the military to take advantage of them.
I don't think you can evaluate this issue strictly on an economic point of view. They deserve an expanded GI Bill whether they choose to stay in or not.
Astronuc
May24-08, 08:42 AM
Days to go to Nov 4: 164 days.
McCain vs Obama will be interesting, especially of Chuck Hagel is the VP candidate. I suppose we'll have to wait for the Democratic Convention.
Gokul43201
May24-08, 08:58 AM
This is the site I use for electoral vote projections: http://electoral-vote.com/
They are a little slow in updating the latest polls into their projection.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May24.html
They have McCain with a 30 point lead, but are currently calling OH and WI "barely GOP". Every polling aggregate I've seen so far has Obama with a tiny lead in both states (30 EVs), which would give him the 30 point lead. In any case, it is essentially meaningless to look into small differences this early in the process.
Astronuc
May24-08, 09:01 AM
Makes me wonder if in Sept or October, some pollsters are going to claim one or the other as the 'presumptive' president-elect, well before Nov. 4.
Gokul43201
May24-08, 09:18 AM
What do folks here think of Kathleen Sebelius for Veep?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
Some tidbits that I think are noteworthy (from the wiki):
Kathleen Sebelius (born May 15, 1948) is currently serving as the 44th Governor of Kansas. She is the second female governor of Kansas, the 2008 respondent to the State of the Union address, and chair-emerita of the Democratic Governors Association.
...
Sebelius was born and raised in a Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio.
...
Sebelius is the daughter of former Ohio governor John J. Gilligan, and thus they became the first father/daughter governor pair in the United States after her election. Her husband K. Gary Sebelius is a federal magistrate judge and the son of former U.S. Representative Keith Sebelius, a Republican. They have two sons. She also visits her childhood and current vacation home, located in Leland, Michigan, north of Traverse City, Michigan.
...
She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994 she left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning — the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts.
...
On March 21, 2006 she vetoed Senate Bill 418, a similar concealed-carry bill. On March 25, Sebelius's veto was overturned after the Kansas House of Representatives voted 91-33 to override it. This followed the Kansas Senate's 30-10 override vote, which occurred the day after her veto.
...
Sebelius did not support an April 2005 amendment to the Kansas Constitution that made same-sex marriage in the state unconstitutional. Sebelius said she supported the existing state law outlawing same-sex marriage, viewed it as sufficient,[14] and therefore opposed the constitutional amendment. The amendment passed with 70 percent voter approval.
...
On May 26, 2006 Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former Kansas state GOP Party Chair, switched his party affiliation to Democratic; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House during 1991–1992 and the Senate during 1993–1997. Parkinson was a popular and successful GOP Party Chair. He was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.
...
As of 2004 50 percent of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27 percent as registered Democrats.[17] Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election with 57.8 percent of the vote to Barnett's 40.5 percent.
...
In 2001 Sebelius was named as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year while she was serving as Kansas Insurance Commissioner.[28]
In November 2005 Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.
To summarize: She is a popular Democratic Governor in a red State (one that Obama can call a "home state"). She can call Kansas, Ohio and Michigan "home" (we've now learned the importance of being able to call key states your home). She has partered with Republicans (both her Lt. Govs were GOP members before the election). She is a highly successful Governor - a strong fiscal conservative and a moderate on social issues, but is not popular among gun owners. She has refused key lobbyist money during her campaigns. And she rocks! :biggrin:
Astronuc
May24-08, 09:29 AM
She sounds like a viable VP candidate.
I'd be interested in Obama's choices for SecState and SecDef, both important positions these days.
Gokul43201
May24-08, 09:34 AM
She sounds like a viable VP candidate.
I'd be interested in Obama's choices for SecState and SecDef, both important positions these days.With the way the entire Primary season has been moving forward I wonder how soon positions like these will be talked about by the campaings. I don't think it's common to actually announce cabinet positions in the Convention, is it? I do remember that Colin Powell gave the keynote speech in 2000, so that was already an informal announcement of sorts, I guess.
Obama will be well served to put his money where his mouth is and offer cabinet positions to Republicans, like Hagel, Lugar or Specter.
Gokul43201
May24-08, 09:55 AM
I don't think you can evaluate this issue strictly on an economic point of view. They deserve an expanded GI Bill whether they choose to stay in or not.Listen to the caller at 16:30 in last week's Talk of the Nation, on NPR. The Republicans have always been good at connecting with the masses on an emotional level. Are they losing that edge now?
What do folks here think of Kathleen Sebelius for Veep?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
Some tidbits that I think are noteworthy (from the wiki):
To summarize: She is a popular Democratic Governor in a red State (one that Obama can call a "home state"). She can call Kansas, Ohio and Michigan "home" (we've now learned the importance of being able to call key states your home). She has partered with Republicans (both her Lt. Govs were GOP members before the election). She is a highly successful Governor - a strong fiscal conservative and a moderate on social issues, but is not popular among gun owners. She has refused key lobbyist money during her campaigns. And she rocks! :biggrin:
I've always felt that Sebelius or Napolitano would make better "first female President" candidates than Clinton. Fair or not, Clinton is too close to matching the previous "first females" that actually just continued their husband's tenure.
The other benefit is that Dems can't win in the West if they marginalize every western Democrat that actually does get elected. And they can't afford not to win the West since migration to the Sun Belt steals electoral votes from Dems traditional states, but also changes the demographics of the smaller Sun Belt states.
Gokul43201
May24-08, 01:30 PM
Numerically, I think the biggest thing to take away from current polling is seen in the bolded lines below:
Strong Dem (197)
Weak Dem (33)
Barely Dem (12)
Exactly tied (24)
Barely GOP (66)
Weak GOP (104)
Strong GOP (102)There are 170 EVs that the GOP will need to sink money into fighting. That compares with only 45 EVs on the Dem side. The GOP has their work cut out for them in terms of fund-raising. Their margin of error is tiny.
Astronuc
May24-08, 02:06 PM
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/ - Some of the issues:
Civil Rights
Disabilities
Economy
Education
Energy & Environment
Ethics
Faith (Separation of Church & State)
Family
Fiscal (Federal Budget (Deficits) and Supplemental Spending)
Foreign Policy
Healthcare
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq
Poverty
Rural
Service
Seniors & Social Security
Technology
Transportation
Urban Policy
Veterans
It would be interesting to pick each issue and compare the candidates on proposals and past record.
Also - http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
McCain Campaign: "In Senator Obama's world, lobbyists can raise money..." [McCain release, 5/21/08]
FACT: Obama's Campaign Does Not Allow Lobbyists To Bundle Donations. "Among some of the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, the plans for disclosure are still unformed even as the bundlers are being recruited. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will provide that information on his campaign Web site; he's also not taking checks, or bundles, from lobbyists." [Washington Post, 2/5/07]
Gokul43201
May24-08, 04:26 PM
A great interview with Joe Biden, on Iran and on the GI bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24791035#24793616
Astronuc
May25-08, 07:23 PM
It's time to start talking about McCain vs. Obama. Wait!
Barr Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nod (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080525/pl_cq_politics/politics2884125).
Will he take popular votes from McCain or Obama or both?
Former Rep. Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination at the party's convention in Denver Sunday afternoon. He defeated long-time party activist Mary Ruwart, 54 to 46 percent, on the sixth ballot.
Fourteen candidates ran for the nomination. Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel was defeated in the fourth round.
Ruwart, a scientist and consultant from Texas, is a frequent Libertarian candidate, and challenged Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2002. She campaigned earlier this year for Ron Paul.
"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech.
. . . .
Some of his earlier positions were at odds with the party. He was a opponent of the legalization of medical marijuana, a position he has since reversed. The Libertarian party's platform states that "all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs" should be repealed. And he was a strong opponent of legalized abortion. The party opposes any restrictions on reproductive rights.
But he was always a gun rights supporter, and called for the end to federal income tax and the IRS, all Libertarian principles.
. . . . Interesting. :rolleyes:
Poop-Loops
May25-08, 07:25 PM
Wait!
Barr Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nod (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080525/pl_cq_politics/politics2884125) Will he take popular votes from McCain or Obama or both?
What, all 5 of them?
Evo
May25-08, 09:53 PM
I wonder how many nimnalls will vote Libertarian? Yes, I said nimnals, because they know they have no chance in hell of winning but can possibly screw up an election if it is close.
Who is this going to hurt more, Democrats or Republicans? We all know that the nimnalls that voted for Nader put Bush in office.
After a quick glance, his stands on most issues sound sensible. I don't know what alternative he has proposed for the federal income tax, but that's the one issue that could be the biggie.
Barr could cut into McCain's bloc. How much, we'll have to wait and see.
Gokul43201
May26-08, 01:41 AM
My prediction of people that will not fill McCain's VP spot: Crist, Jindal and Romney.
I think we just saw a consolation prize weekend gathering in Sedona.
TR345
May26-08, 01:54 AM
It is funny, because the vice presidents may be pretty darn important this time around since Obama is likely to get assassinated, and McCain is likely to die of old age.
TR345
May26-08, 01:55 AM
Actually it isn't funny, for the record.
BobG
May26-08, 08:37 AM
I wonder how many nimnalls will vote Libertarian? Yes, I said nimnals, because they know they have no chance in hell of winning but can possibly screw up an election if it is close.
Who is this going to hurt more, Democrats or Republicans? We all know that the nimnalls that voted for Nader put Bush in office.
Defecting Libertarians definitely tipped the '92 election to Clinton even if Perot was technically a member of the Reform Party. Given Bush and Republican popularity, Barr will probably hurt McCain more than Obama. I'd almost say that whether he hurts Republicans more than a liberal third party candidate like Nader remains to be seen, but Nader's 2.7% in 2000 dropped to 0.38% in 2004 (still higher than the 0.32% for Libertarian Badnarik, but not higher than the combined Badnarik/Peroutka vote of 0.44%).
Libertarians sure think they'll play a pivotal role in this year's election: The Libertarian Voter (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9364). He and another Libertarian even did a study: The Libertarian Vote (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf).
The study identified Libertarians by their political views vs belonging to the Libertarian Party. It was also done by two Libertarians, so they would benefit from results showing the importance of the Libertarian vote. Regardless, they probably did play a key role in a small number of the close races that switched from Republican to Democrat in 2006.
Still, a socially conservative Libertarian such as Barr will pull some votes from McCain and, worse yet, he'll probably pull different votes than the Libertarians most likely to defect to Obama. He could be a factor in a Western state like Colorado, which should wind up being very close. (a socially conservative Libertarian seems like a misnomer, but Ron Paul has a lot of Libertarian appeal, as well).
Close races are the only time third party candidates can force the big two parties to listen to them. They'd be silly to pass up on that chance.
Gokul43201
May27-08, 09:50 AM
I wonder how many nimnalls will vote Libertarian? Yes, I said nimnals, because they know they have no chance in hell of winning but can possibly screw up an election if it is close.Evo, there have been many groups throughout history that started out as hopeless minorities without sufficient support to achieve anything. But it was their perseverance against the majority opinion that eventually won them their place in the mainstream. The suffragists, the abolitionists...all started out as hopeless minority movements.
A libertarian is a libertarian. They won't - and shouldn't really - see the election as being screwed up if either the Dem or the Rep loses.
Evo
May27-08, 10:09 AM
Evo, there have been many groups throughout history that started out as hopeless minorities without sufficient support to achieve anything. But it was their perseverance against the majority opinion that eventually won them their place in the mainstream. The suffragists, the abolitionists...all started out as hopeless minority movements.
A libertarian is a libertarian. They won't - and shouldn't really - see the election as being screwed up if either the Dem or the Rep loses.I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do it. I can see this possibly taking votes away from Obama. There will be a large group of Democrats that will be uncomfortable enough that they might go Libertarian when they wouldn't swing all the way to McCain. Just what I've picked up from different forums, people are saying they wouldn't vote for McCain but would vote for someone other than Obama if they had a decent alternative. Of course that doesn't mean Barr is a decent alternative.
Gokul43201
May27-08, 10:18 AM
Just what I've picked up from different forums, people are saying they wouldn't vote for McCain but would vote for someone other than Obama if they had a decent alternative. Of course that doesn't mean Barr is a decent alternative.Those folks would more likely stay home than go out and vote for Obama. Barr is very much like McCain (more accurately, like the former version of McCain), and not much like Obama.
I think it's more likely that conservatives that were reluctantly going to vote for McCain might see a good alternative in Barr.
chemisttree
May27-08, 02:49 PM
I wonder how many nimnalls will vote Libertarian? Yes, I said nimnals, because they know they have no chance in hell of winning but can possibly screw up an election if it is close.
Who is this going to hurt more, Democrats or Republicans? We all know that the nimnalls that voted for Nader put Bush in office.
Because someone has written that Nader's candidacy put Bush in office. It was a close election but Nader did not screw it up.
Gokul43201
May27-08, 03:56 PM
Bush would have lost if FL went to Gore instead of Bush. The margin in FL was less than 2000 votes. All of the other 5 candidates competing in FL won over 2000 votes, but Nader had the biggest haul with nearly 100,000 votes. His abstention would have made the biggest difference in FL.
It is theoretically possible that John Hagelin's 2300 votes could have made the difference too, and Hagelin also won zero electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
So it is possible to influence the outcome of the election without winning a single EV.
turbo-1
May27-08, 04:00 PM
Bush would have lost if FL went to Gore instead of Bush. The margin in FL was less than 2000 votes. All of the other 5 candidates competing in FL won over 2000 votes, but Nader had the biggest haul with nearly 100,000 votes. His abstention would have made the biggest difference in FL.
It is theoretically possible that John Hagelin's 2300 votes could have made the difference too, but Hagelin also won zero electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/Not only that, Pat Buchanan got WAY more than enough unexpected votes in liberal counties in Florida to turn the election to the Dems (due to confusion over the butterfly ballot). To Buchanan's credit, he pointed this out during the appeal and the aborted recount.
lisab
May27-08, 04:18 PM
Not only that, Pat Buchanan got WAY more than enough unexpected votes in liberal counties in Florida to turn the election to the Dems (due to confusion over the butterfly ballot). To Buchanan's credit, he pointed this out during the appeal and the aborted recount.
Yes, I was impressed at Buchanan's frankness on what he saw as his unearned votes.
He's another righty I don't see eye-to-eye with on many matters, but I do enjoy hearing his point of view. He doesn't heap derision or contempt on people who disagree with him.
BobG
May27-08, 04:54 PM
Not only that, Pat Buchanan got WAY more than enough unexpected votes in liberal counties in Florida to turn the election to the Dems (due to confusion over the butterfly ballot). To Buchanan's credit, he pointed this out during the appeal and the aborted recount.
Actually, just one - Palm Beach County. Buchanon got 0.29% of the vote through the entire state. In one of the most liberal counties, he got 0.79%. You'd expect him to get 1200 or less votes in Palm Beach County (400 to 500 would be realistic given that Palm Beach was pretty liberal). Instead, he got 3400.
The Palm Beach butterfly ballot, as seen by a short old person? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voterseyeview.jpg) Worse yet, I wonder how many Buchanon voters mistakenly voted for Bush? If 1% of Gore voters in Palm Beach voted for Buchanon (about 3,000 out of 270,000), then surely 4 or 5 voters mistakenly voted for Bush instead of Buchanon.
He's another righty I don't see eye-to-eye with on many matters, but I do enjoy hearing his point of view. He doesn't heap derision or contempt on people who disagree with him.Proof you don't need to agree with someone to find it entertaining to listen to them. He takes some outrageous points of view sometimes, which makes me wonder if he's just playing devil's advocate, but he usually has some thought behind what he says no matter how outrageous the idea seems.
Poop-Loops
May27-08, 04:59 PM
Bush voters? They can read?
Astronuc
May27-08, 05:06 PM
TN
Bush 1,056,480 51% 11EV
Gore 977,789 48% 0
Nader 19,694 1% 0
Buchanan 4,218 0% 0
MO
Bush 1,189,521 51% 11EV
Gore 1,110,826 47% 0
Nader 38,488 2% 0
AR
Bush 472,120 51% 6EV Clinton?
Gore 420,424 45% 0
OH
Bush 2,294,167 50% 21EV
Gore 2,117,741 46% 0
Nader 114,482 3% 0
Buchanan 25,980 1% 0
FL
Bush 2,909,176 49 % 25EV
Gore 2,907,451 49 % 0
Nader 96,837 2 % 0
Browne 18,856 0 % 0
Buchanan 17,356 0 % 0
Just a sample of states - Ref: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
Bush had won in 29 states, Gore 20 states.
The FL debacle/fiasco was not the fault of Nader or Buchanan.
Gore lost in TN, his home state. 11 EV! Gore didn't even get Arkansas, Clinton's home state, but then a lot of folks were probably upset with Clinton over Lewinski and Whitewater.
Both Gore and Kerry failed to make compelling cases why those in the middle should vote for them. It completely slipped past Gore during the Wakeforest debate in 2000 that Bush mentioned the consideration of using US troops to oust a dictator.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
Bush's statement "I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests," was prescient to say the least. It certainly appears he had one dictator in mind, as is consistent with the mention by Paul O'Neill that Iraq was the first item on the agenda during the first cabinet meeting in 2001. Gore should have jumped in and asked "What dictator do you have in mind?"
In Kerry's case, he blew off a number of red states, basically by-passing much of the middle of the country. That's not very presidential.
chemisttree
May28-08, 09:32 AM
TN
Bush 1,056,480 51% 11EV
Gore 977,789 48% 0
Nader 19,694 1% 0
Buchanan 4,218 0% 0
MO
Bush 1,189,521 51% 11EV
Gore 1,110,826 47% 0
Nader 38,488 2% 0
AR
Bush 472,120 51% 6EV Clinton?
Gore 420,424 45% 0
OH
Bush 2,294,167 50% 21EV
Gore 2,117,741 46% 0
Nader 114,482 3% 0
Buchanan 25,980 1% 0
FL
Bush 2,909,176 49 % 25EV
Gore 2,907,451 49 % 0
Nader 96,837 2 % 0
Browne 18,856 0 % 0
Buchanan 17,356 0 % 0
Just a sample of states - Ref: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/
Bush had won in 29 states, Gore 20 states.
The FL debacle/fiasco was not the fault of Nader or Buchanan.
Gore lost in TN, his home state. 11 EV! Gore didn't even get Arkansas, Clinton's home state, but then a lot of folks were probably upset with Clinton over Lewinski and Whitewater.
Both Gore and Kerry failed to make compelling cases why those in the middle should vote for them. It completely slipped past Gore during the Wakeforest debate in 2000 that Bush mentioned the consideration of using US troops to oust a dictator.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
Bush's statement "I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests," was prescient to say the least. It certainly appears he had one dictator in mind, as is consistent with the mention by Paul O'Neill that Iraq was the first item on the agenda during the first cabinet meeting in 2001. Gore should have jumped in and asked "What dictator do you have in mind?"
In Kerry's case, he blew off a number of red states, basically by-passing much of the middle of the country. That's not very presidential.
Hurrah! Finally I see some real analysis. Last night the Spurs lost a close one to the Lakers. San Antonio was behind by two points with only seconds to go and the ball was in the hands of San Antonio's best three point shooter. His desperate last minute shot missed but there was contact on the shot that, in any other game, would have resulted in a foul and a chance to tie the game and go into overtime. The foul was not called... it never is in that situation. So, did San Antonio lose the game because some partisian official didn't call a foul? Hardly! San Antonio lost because they were behind all game and struggling (on their home court!) and were forced to take a shot that has less than a 50% chance of being made. Still, there are some that think that the official was responsible for the loss.
There are a lot of reasons that Gore lost the election. Some of those reasons are listed in Astronuc's post but there are others. I'll add one that I feel was more important. America was pretty tired of partisian bickering in 2000. Bush had a real track record of working with both parties in Texas and his promised education bill probably pulled out his win in California. That kind of position is one usually reserved for Democrats but Bush claimed it as his own. Sure, Gore came out with his own 'rebuild crumbling schools' rhetoric but America remembered that he was in the office of Vice President for the previous 8 years and only now realized that there were problems. His own campaign was at odds with the "Education President" and the administration he served under.
One could easily argue that Clinton's DNA stains had much more of an effect than Ralph Nader.
G01
May28-08, 10:08 AM
OK This is going back to the whole possible vice president topic. If anyone watches Hardball at all, you'll know where this is coming from. What if Obama picked Ed Rendell, the govenor of PA, as his VP. Rendell is popular among dems in PA. There is no doubt in my mind Obama would then get PA by a landslide.(PA'ers will vote for the hometown VP)
What do you guys think? Along the same lines, what about the Ohio Govenor, Ted Strickland?
chemisttree
May28-08, 10:57 AM
What if Obama picked Ed Rendell, the govenor of PA, as his VP. Rendell is popular among dems in PA. There is no doubt in my mind Obama would then get PA by a landslide.(PA'ers will vote for the hometown VP)
That would be a good move on Obama's part. I see Rendell often on Fox supporting Obama. He comes across as pretty main stream. Do they still call him "Crazy Eddie" in PA?
turbo-1
May28-08, 11:00 AM
Obama will take PA anyway, without Rendell as VP, and with a winner-take all election, he doesn't need a landslide there. I would prefer that he choose Bill Richardson. Richardson is a popular governor who has proven that he can work across party lines, and he is a seasoned diplomat with real foreign policy credentials. I realize that he didn't land in Bosnia under sniper fire, but I think that his experience negotiating the release of captured servicemen, political prisoners, etc with some of the countries that Bush won't even speak to is quite refreshing. It won't hurt Obama with the Hispanic bloc, either. Since energy concerns are going to be with us for some time, having a former Secretary of Energy on the ticket would look awfully good.
G01
May28-08, 11:01 AM
That would be a good move on Obama's part. I see Rendell often on Fox supporting Obama. He comes across as pretty main stream. Do they still call him "Crazy Eddie" in PA?
Rendell previously endorsed Clinton, but I can't see that making him turn down a VP offer from Obama!
Havn't heard crazy Eddy in a while, but he's still a little crazy as far as I can tell!:biggrin;
G01
May28-08, 11:03 AM
Obama will take PA anyway, without Rendell as VP, and with a winner-take all election, he doesn't need a landslide there. I would prefer that he choose Bill Richardson. Richardson is a popular governor who has proven that he can work across party lines, and he is a seasoned diplomat with real foreign policy credentials. I realize that he didn't land in Bosnia under sniper fire, but I think that his experience negotiating the release of captured servicemen, political prisoners, etc with some of the countries that Bush won't even speak to is quite refreshing. It won't hurt Obama with the Hispanic bloc, either. Since energy concerns are going to be with us for some time, having a former Secretary of Energy on the ticket would look awfully good.
Yes, Richardson would be a grest choice as well.
Do you think he would help Obama significantly with Hispanics?
Gokul43201
May28-08, 11:10 AM
Rendell previously endorsed ClintonHe's much more than that. He's been one of the most visible pushers of the Clinton marathon of misinformation. At the same time, he also insists very strongly that if Obama were to somehow win the nomination, he (Rendell) would doubtless campaign his heart out in PA.
I'd love to see Kathleen Sebelius as the Veep. In addition to the intrinsic strengths she brings to the ticket, she will also bring in a lot of support from the Hillary demographic.
chemisttree
May28-08, 12:15 PM
Rendell previously endorsed Clinton, but I can't see that making him turn down a VP offer from Obama!
Havn't heard crazy Eddy in a while, but he's still a little crazy as far as I can tell!:biggrin;
Any idea why they call him Crazy Eddie? It can't be because he'll support Obama, can it?
What! He supports Clinton? Oh, that explains it....
Big Blue doesn't have anything positive to say. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/27/4440/20769/348/523425) Is Douchebag a small town in PA?
Astronuc
May29-08, 05:54 AM
Janet Napolitano addressed the Commonwealth Club on April 24, 2008. She is very is accomplished, and from what little I heard, she presented a thoughtful commentary on the immigration and illegal alien issue.
Real Audio required.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/audio/20080424napolitano-complete.ram
I'm not sure how long the link will be valid.
Some really surprising findings there. Looks like the real winning ticket for the Dems is Obama+Edwards. But look at what happens if Kathleen Sebelius is on the ticket: nearly a quarter of the women that would have voted for him (independent of who the VP choice was) are now unsure! And apparently Rendell (thankfully) and Hagel (sadly) are not good choices either.
Some really surprising findings there. Looks like the real winning ticket for the Dems is Obama+Edwards. But look at what happens if Kathleen Sebelius is on the ticket: nearly a quarter of the women that would have voted for him (independent of who the VP choice was) are now unsure! And apparently Rendell (thankfully) and Hagel (sadly) are not good choices either.
Pawlenty doesn't look like a good choice for Republicans either.
The ones getting the best results are the most well known: Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards. There's certainly an early advantage to picking a well known politician as your running mate. The other side of the coin is choosing a VP that the party would like to see become well known and doesn't come with any preconceived negatives. Pawlenty, Sebelius, and Hagel would be a lot more likely to increase in popularity than Romney or Edwards.
Astronuc
May31-08, 05:48 PM
As someone (Art) here at PF predicted, Obama has resigned from Trinity Church.
Obama resigns from controversial church (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html)
CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign confirmed Saturday that he has resigned from the Chicago church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created repeated political headaches for the Democratic frontrunner.
The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, for crying during the runup to the New Hampshire primary.
Previously, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ and Obama's minister for about 20 years, drew unwanted attention for the campaign when videos of his fiery sermons surfaced.
Gokul43201
Jun15-08, 06:38 PM
Obama's Father's Day speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M
I'd really like to get some opinions on this speech by some of the folks who believe Obama is too militant or racially divisive or too influenced by Wright.
PS: Posts that are not directly relevant to the actual electoral math of the General Election belong in this thread (not the similarly titled thread started by Evo).
tsooozavel
Jun16-08, 02:13 AM
Right now, they are just starting to set the tone of their campaign. This early, i really can't tell which i would side with, but i am leaning towards obama. Furthermore, the GOP base is not even warming up to mccain (of course, i could be wrong) and even though it's still early in the game, this just proves to show how we see our candidates to-date. i know i will get burned for this, but i think mccain is a warmonger. i get the impression that he doesn't care to what happens to our troops in the middle east and the other parts of the world. Can’t we just all get along? i think it is time for a purification; i think it is time for a change; i think it is time for obama time. Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches in http://pollclash.com , what do you think about what you hear?
Astronuc
Jun16-08, 07:53 AM
Obama, McCain Agree: They Disagree on Economy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91358156
by Scott Horsley
Morning Edition, June 11, 2008 · There's at least one thing Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain agree on.
"When it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country," Obama told a crowd Monday in North Carolina.
McCain echoed that sentiment the next day in a speech to small-business owners in Washington, D.C. "On tax policy, health care reform, trade, government spending, a long list of other issues, we offer very different choices to the American people," McCain said.
The two presidential candidates are spelling out those economic choices this week.
At his North Carolina speech, Obama was introduced by a lifelong Republican who now finds herself looking for a change.
"We were lower middle-class," said Pamella Cash-Roper, a 54-year-old nurse. "Now we're not even lower middle-class, I'm as low as it can get. When the price of milk and the price of gas are almost the same, we need to start looking at something."
Obama wants to reverse President Bush's income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while giving a tax credit of up to $500 for low- and middle-income workers. The senator has proposed spending tens of billions of dollars on new roads, bridges and alternative energy projects. And perhaps his most ambitious initiative would help subsidize health care so nearly all Americans could afford it.
"We have tried it their way for eight long years. And it has failed. It is time to try something new," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said Monday.
"For eight long years, our president sacrificed investment in health care, in education, in energy and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs — trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative," Obama said.
. . . .
Here are the key economic advisors:
McCain: He is advised by a team of business people and academics, including Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an unpaid adviser and the former head of the Congressional Budget Office; Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard; Phil Gramm, a former Texas senator and economics professor at Texas A&M University; and Meg Whitman, the campaign finance co-chair and former CEO of eBay.
Obama: His chief economic adviser is Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist. Jason Furman is his economic policy director. Furman worked for former Democratic presidential candidate and Mass. Sen. John Kerry and also previously headed the "Hamilton Project" at the Brookings Institute, founded by Robert Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury.
On a personal side -
Echoes of Their Fathers: Obama and McCain
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91531137
by Robert Smith
Weekend Edition Sunday, June 15, 2008 · Adm. John McCain and Barack Obama — the fathers, not their sons running for the Oval Office — have been dead for decades. But each gave his own name to his son, along with the drive to become the next president.
Both Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain reference their fathers in the titles of their autobiographical books. And when the two talk about their fathers, you can hear the sense that each is finishing a journey that someone else began.
"I am the son and grandson of admirals," McCain has said. "My grandfather was an aviator; my father a submariner. They were my first heroes."
"I am the son of a black man," Obama has said. "My grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. ... His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa, could suddenly set his sights a little higher and suddenly believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance."
Both Barack Obama and John McCain went to their fathers' schools: Obama to Harvard, and McCain to the Naval Academy.
. . . .
Ivan Seeking
Jun20-08, 06:08 PM
WASHINGTON - Carly Fiorina is quickly becoming the new face of John McCain's campaign.
Once considered the most powerful businesswoman in the United States, Fiorina has evolved from the Republican presidential candidate's top economic adviser to a catch-all advocate and attack dog on a range of subjects from women's issues to the Iraq war.
It's a far cry from the corporate boardroom but the former Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) chief executive appears to be in her element and the Arizona senator clearly likes it that way.[continued]
http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/interviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208700518
:rofl: I think it's great! Now all of the Bushmen back in the Kalahari are going to be fuming! I have already tried to explain to them how their voting record is proof of their inability to choose a president. I have advised them to vote Obama. This will make my arguments even stronger. A republican vote is a vote for Carly!
Astronuc
Jul2-08, 06:43 PM
The other addiction (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/other-addiction-obama-mccain-dont/story.aspx?guid=93AEFEAB-49FE-470F-9848-A9BAF697D952)
What Obama and McCain don't tell you about deficits
by Darrell Delamaide
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The two presidential candidates spend a lot of time chastising us for our "addiction to oil," warning that our dependence on foreign oil threatens our energy security.
They are going to put us on the path to "energy independence" -- Barack Obama with alternative energies and John McCain with offshore drilling.
But there's another addiction that both candidates so far have ignored -- one that also poses a serious threat to our national security. In fact, the two presumptive nominees have not only failed to address the issue, they have flaunted their disdain for it.
The United States under the Bush administration has developed an addiction to foreign credit. The federal government's willingness to run up massive budget deficits -- an estimated $400 billion to $500 billion this year alone -- and to let China and other foreign countries finance those deficits have contributed to the deflation of the dollar and put this country at the mercy of these foreign governments.
The two presumptive nominees have not only failed to address the deficit issue, they have flaunted their disdain for it.
Ivan Seeking
Jul6-08, 04:30 PM
I could never stand Bob Barr, and I am sure that we disagree on many points, but today, hell has frozen over and pigs are flying: I find myself in stark agreement with his stated philosophy. He claims to be a true Libertarian convert.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5316945
Gokul43201
Jul6-08, 04:46 PM
Barr has changed a lot, since the late 90s - especially after noticing the incredible following that Ron Paul generated.:wink:
Ivan Seeking
Jul6-08, 05:01 PM
:wink:
Yes, I would never trust him. But a shift like this is consistent with the thinking of a true conservative, which Barr once fancied himself to be.
I esp liked his objection to the wire-tapping laws. When someone hits precisely the core issues that concern me, he gets my attention. I could believe that he is sincere.
Integral is going to love this one!From that article:
"All aspects of a CEO's compensation and severance should be transparent and a company should be accountable to its shareholders," she said.
"Obama might say let's have the government regulate CEO pay. That would not be John McCain's approach but John McCain isn't afraid to say some CEOs have been paid excessively."What a load of crap!
For the record, Ms. Fiorina:WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee to request that they hold a hearing on the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, a bill he sponsored that would give shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation and spur both increased transparency and public debate over pay packages. The legislation passed the House by a wide margin in April.
To my knowledge, after searching the Library of Congress website, I see no evidence that McCain, has introduced, co-sponsored or voted on any bill relating to CEO compensation.
lisab
Jul6-08, 05:30 PM
I got something in the mail yesterday that I just can not believe. It's a request for money for McCain's campaign...no surprise there; but since I've sent Obama money and was one of his delegates, I hope they didn't pay too much for a mailing list that listed me as a possible McCain supporter :rolleyes: .
But what caught my eye: both on the envelope and across the top of the enclosed letter, in large, all-caps, bold letters:
EMERGENCY TELEGRAM
What percentage of people alive today has ever received a telegram?!? Do telegrams even exist anymore? Strikes me as pretty funny, coming from a candidate with an "age issue"!!
Ivan Seeking
Jul6-08, 05:37 PM
Strikes me as pretty funny, coming from a candidate with an "age issue"!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl: Did it include a supporting statement from Gretta Garbo?
turbo-1
Jul6-08, 05:47 PM
Are all of McCain's campaign advisers geriatric, too? Telegram, indeed.
Gokul43201
Jul6-08, 05:54 PM
The TELEGRAM was fabulous! I guess that tells us who their target audience is.
Yes, I would never trust him. But a shift like this is consistent with the thinking of a true conservative, which Barr once fancied himself to be.I'm not saying I don't trust him. I actually do believe he has changed a good bit. But I also think he's been borrowing some ideas from the Ron Paul primary to help shape his message.
Still, he is currently drawing only about half the votes Nationally that Nader is. But I don't think that really matters. I think his most noticeable electoral effect will be in GA, where according to the most recent poll, Obama was 5 points behind McCain. He may also play a role in MT, which has a strong tendency to go for the independents (and in '92, was 50% more into Perot than the rest of the country).
WarPhalange
Jul6-08, 11:49 PM
I got something in the mail yesterday that I just can not believe. It's a request for money for McCain's campaign...no surprise there; but since I've sent Obama money and was one of his delegates, I hope they didn't pay too much for a mailing list that listed me as a possible McCain supporter :rolleyes: .
But what caught my eye: both on the envelope and across the top of the enclosed letter, in large, all-caps, bold letters:
EMERGENCY TELEGRAM
What percentage of people alive today has ever received a telegram?!? Do telegrams even exist anymore? Strikes me as pretty funny, coming from a candidate with an "age issue"!!
Two things:
1) http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/
2) Bob Barr reminds me a lot of James Jameson from Spiderman.
http://i29.tinypic.com/5cly75.jpg
lisab
Jul7-08, 12:01 AM
Two things:
1) http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/
2) Bob Barr reminds me a lot of James Jameson from Spiderman.
http://i29.tinypic.com/5cly75.jpg
From the thingsyoungerthanMcCain website: wow...4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are older than McCain. If he wins, Roe v Wade is as good as gone...and all those conservative legislators will turn their creepy attention to my uterus, and every American woman's uterus.
'Scuse me, I gotta go give Obama some $$$.
WarPhalange
Jul7-08, 12:55 AM
my uterus, and every American woman's uterus.
Stop, you're getting me excited.
lisab
Jul7-08, 01:00 AM
Stop, you're getting me excited.
:rofl:
Astronuc
Jul8-08, 02:56 PM
Focus on Economy Poses Problems for Candidates
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/us/politics/07memo.html
By ADAM NAGOURNEY, NYTimes
WASHINGTON — Not since at least 1980, when the United States was reeling from the oil shocks, inflation and slow growth of the previous decade, has the economy been in worse shape heading into the heart of a presidential campaign. The crush of bad economic news — six consecutive months of job losses, rising rates of home foreclosures, gasoline prices seemingly headed toward $5 a gallon — is increasingly setting the contours of the race between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain.
Both candidates plan to spend this week focusing almost entirely on the economy. But both face political problems with the issue.
Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been shadowed by his statements earlier in the campaign that he is not expert in the subject of the economy and by the likelihood that voters will associate him with the economic policies of the Bush administration. He has embraced President Bush’s stands on central issues like tax cuts and trade policy.
Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, has had difficulty connecting with working-class voters, and his more ambitious responses to economic problems like expanding access to health insurance would be paid for in part by tax increases, always a risky proposition.
The two campaigns are retooling strategies and preparing for what aides said would be months of economic speeches, town-hall-style meetings on the economy and economic proposals, both new and repackaged — testimony to how the campaigns view the electoral environment. McCain wants to cut taxes, despite heavy deficits. Will he cut federal spending too! Obama wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
Meanwhile the Senate is considering rescinding the 10.6% reduction in Medicare reimbursements (which also affects Vets). This is on top of 5.5% reduction in 2007. Meanwhile many Vets are not getting the services they need.
OAQfirst
Jul8-08, 04:31 PM
Eh, quick question about campaigning. I hear Hillary owes about thirty million. Were she to make it to the White House, how would she have paid that off? Last I checked, a president's salary is around $400 grand. Do McCain and Obama also overspend or what?
Ivan Seeking
Jul13-08, 11:35 AM
:rofl: I think it's great! Now all of the Bushmen back in the Kalahari are going to be fuming! I have already tried to explain to them how their voting record is proof of their inability to choose a president. I have advised them to vote Obama. This will make my arguments even stronger. A republican vote is a vote for Carly!
Fiorina was on Meet the Press this morning. I can see why she is so hated: She has about three sides to her mouth.
Astronuc
Jul14-08, 10:46 PM
Interesting discussion about Obama.
Obama And The Chicago Establishment
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92470268
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 14, 2008 · Though presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign has been extensively covered by the media, little has been said about his roots in Chicago politics. Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, explores Obama's tenure as a local politician for Chicago's South Side in the magazine's latest issue.
Making It
How Chicago shaped Obama.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza
by Ryan Lizza
Ivan Seeking
Jul25-08, 03:41 AM
Obama dazzled a crowd of 200,000 in Germany today.
His comments were cheered by a huge crowd, some wearing Obama badges, t-shirts with the campaign slogan "Yes We Can" and carrying American flags. A reggae band played and people gulped down beer under clear skies in a summertime party atmosphere.
The loudest applause came when Obama talked about the environment, multilateralism and human rights, but his audience fell silent when he raised Afghanistan.
"Relations between Germany and the United States will improve under Obama," said Dennis Buchner, 31. "But he has high expectations of Germans increasing their military engagement in Afghanistan. That will certainly spark debate in Germany."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/pl_nm/usa_obama_germany_dc
Meanwhile, McCain had bratwurst at Schmidt's Sausage Haus.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD924GPNO0
Gokul43201
Jul25-08, 08:41 AM
You didn't hear Rush ranting about Obama going "beyond the pale" putting down America on foreign soil, did you?
PS: Oh, and meanwhile McCain has defined the surge to be something of a state of consciousness.
turbo-1
Jul25-08, 09:18 AM
PS: Oh, and meanwhile McCain has defined the surge to be something of a state of consciousness.McCain's surge is slippery. It started whenever he says that it did and it's responsible for every incremental improvement in Iraq. The reduction in violence had nothing to do the successful expulsion of Christians from Iraq, nor the consolidation and ethnic cleansing of Sunni and Shiite areas, nor al Sadr's militia's unilateral stand-down. Nope, it was that magical McCain surge. I would hate to see someone with that poor grasp of foreign affairs in the WH. It's bad enough that he's in the Senate, and on the campaign trail spouting this tripe. News-readers posing as "journalists" seem to have given McCain a "get foot out of mouth for free" card, though and never give him any serious flack about his irrational statements.
WarPhalange
Jul25-08, 10:15 AM
I love how McCain keeps saying the media is out to get him, too.
Gokul43201
Jul25-08, 02:44 PM
That's lame - McCain just shouldn't go there.
McCain, more than anyone else in politics in the US, has had the media on his side, and deservedly so. McCain gives the press virtually unfettered access to him - which I applaud - and in return, gets to command a soft corner among them. On the other hand, Obama is much more stingy with access to the press - which I think is just such a terrible idea, and it's not something I'm a fan of.
Ivan Seeking
Jul25-08, 03:23 PM
You didn't hear Rush ranting about Obama going "beyond the pale" putting down America on foreign soil, did you?
Yes, one should never admit that America has made mistakes. :rolleyes:
It seems that Obama can do more to engage our allies, and to begin to repair the damage done by Bush, by simply showing up, than McCain could accomplish through an entire career of cold-war diplomacy. And how dare Obama pull a crowd of that size when he's not even the President, yet! The nerve of that guy.
One German commentator noted that McCain seems like something from another century.
Ivan Seeking
Jul25-08, 08:03 PM
...News-readers posing as "journalists" seem to have given McCain a "get foot out of mouth for free" card, though and never give him any serious flack about his irrational statements.
I was quite struck by McCain's $300 million prize idea for an electric-car battery. A battery like he describes is already the holy grail of battery technology, as it has been since the 70s. Any company that can produce such a battery would own the electric car market since, by definition, it would make electric cars practical. There is already plenty of incentive. The challenges in making such a battery are fundamental - physical and economic - not psychological.
In fact, this apparent perception that real problems are only "psychological" seems to be emerging as a pattern in McCain's thinking; not to mention the thinking of his former chief economist.
mathwonk
Jul25-08, 09:06 PM
this sounds like what is called "magical thinking" in psychology, typical of people out of touch with reality.
Astronuc
Jul25-08, 09:36 PM
One German commentator noted that McCain seems like something from another century. He is! The last one. :biggrin:
But McCain is pulling up in the polls in states like CO and MI.
McCain missed a trip to go to an oil rig in the Gulf. Why he needs to fly out to see an oil rig, I have no idea. It's a photo op like Dukakis in an Abrams tank. :rolleyes:
Interesting contrast!
Obama Addresses U.S. Image Abroad - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92905080
McCain Focuses On Issues At Home - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92905083
Gokul43201
Jul29-08, 03:34 AM
I love how McCain keeps saying the media is out to get him, too.Yet another BS claim from the McCain slime machine: LOS ANGELES, July 27 (UPI) -- U.S. broadcast networks had more negative coverage of Barack Obama than John McCain during the first weeks of the general election campaign, a study indicated.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University in Virginia, which has studied network news since the 1980s, analyzed content on ABC, CBS and NBC news shows and found that when reporters and anchors expressed opinions they were significantly more negative toward Obama and more positive toward McCain, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.
The researchers found that most statements by anchors and reporters were neutral, but when opinions were expressed 28 percent of statements about Obama were positive while 72 percent were negative. The study indicated opinions about McCain were 43 percent positive and 57 percent negative.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/27/Study_Media_rougher_on_Obama/UPI-43191217211564/
Liberal media indeed! The McCain free ride continues...
WarPhalange
Jul29-08, 10:34 AM
I'm waiting for him to say "The 'Media' isn't just network television, radio, and newspapers, it's an attitude, an ideal. When a random person on the street says 'I don't like John McCain', he is part of the vast media conspiracy."
Definitions are just no match for John McCain!
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/
What happened was they didn't publish his piece because he never defined "victory".