were you suckled on Thomas Hobbes or something? "State of Nature" and all?

Seems like a math problem from that point.

How many of hers do you lose that simply won't vote at all?
How many do hers you lose that vote for McCain?
How many unlikely voters do you gain by her presence on the ticket somewhere? And how many (if any) McCain voters come over to the combined ticket?

Get reasonable answers to those & the choice becomes pretty simple one way or the other.

Taking Clinton as VP isn't worth the baggage and contrary to what the media says, she doesn't want the job. She's been there and done that.

Obama will get half of her supporters and that's enough to win, so long as the kiddies vote. And yes, I know, that's a bet many have lost before..but in case people didn't realize it yet, Obama hasn't happened before either.

If Obama loses half of Clinton's supporters, he'll lose...and as far as Electoral votes, it'll be a landslide for McCain.

We shall see. Not gonna be a landslide.

Yeah, just some spot checking says half wouldn't leave Obama a pretty picture.

ABC news says Clinton will drop out Friday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...ory&id=4705151

It will be a close election.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

For me, personally, the past 8 years have been the best years of my life. I didn't like much of what happened in Washington DC (and the world) but then again, I rarely do.

That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard in my life. Your life has been the best so everyone elses life has to be the best or they're just partisan liars.

No disrespect but fuck you. I know several people who are worse off than 8 years ago. My best friend was laid off 8 months ago and had to take a job at half the paycheck. He's drowning in debt. The woman I'm seeing lost her little brother in the war. Again, fuck you.

Not as flamboyant as Axxon, but I agree. I had the hardest time after 9-11 and things are finally looking better for me going into 2009. I was a Clinton supporter until she decided to continuously take the low road against Obama. He hardly ever responded with the level rebuttals despite everything the Clintons did. That sits very well with me so its Obama for me in Nov.

Back in the late 60s and early 70s, I heard of several families of schoolmates that lost members to the Vietnam war (though no one in my family, that I can recall). Then the recession hit, the global markets changed and my dad lost his job of 20 years ago. In the next several years, there were constant bad news in the semiconductor field and we moved around a lot. For a lot of people, those were the best years. During the 1990s, it got so bad for my parents that they ended up foreclosing and declaring bankruptcy. A lot of people wished the prosperity of the 1990s were here again. My parents do not.

I really didn't mean to sound like it did since I was making two separate points. It is true that, for me personally (I did say that), these have been the best years - BUT it had nothing to do with who's president, no more than my parents can blame Clinton (or Nixon) for their troubles.

One of the reasons it had been the best is because I was able to give more than I have ever been able to before. I have come to learn to separate myself from the politics of the federal govt and do what I can locally and within my sphere of influence. I contribute sizeable amounts to local services that help families that are hurting and are in need. I've talked to some of them, give what I can to help, esp. material and financial needs, so I can make a small difference in their lives. I am not delusional to know that it will never happen to me, as I seen with my parents and others in my family. There were people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years ago and there will people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years from now and it is our responsibility to do what we can and not expect some governmental powers do do it for you.

You obviously have not had anyone close to you have to spend time in, become disabled, or die in Iraq. You probably do not have to spend much time or gas in your vehicle on your way to or from work. You probably have not tried to sell your house in the past year. And, I would guess that you have little to no interest in public education (and/or you make enough money to send your child to public school or live in a wealthy area that has a well-funded public school system).

I live 1/2 mile from one of the gates to Fort Carson. Many of the families of the 3rd Brigade live in my neighborhood. I believe this brigade has suffered more casualties than any other single brigade. I have seen and know of dozens of families that left the neighborhood because the father or mother was killed or mia.

No, I don't spend much time or gas in my vehicle. It was a conscious lifestyle choice to not do so, partly in eliminating many non-critical trips. I am also an advocate for public transportation and despite my libertarianism, support a 1% sales tax increase to fund a regional public transportation system.

I am not selling our house this year and fortunately, we did not have the real estate run-up that some other places have.

I have had a great interest in public education since my son started going to our neighborhood public school 6 years ago. We live in the poorest school district in the city (District 2) but I am very thankful for the wonderful teachers he had 4 of the 6 years. Plus I am also grateful for the Special Ed help that they had been giving him.

Yes, I am trying to talk my way out of this and while I regret what I implied, I still try to make the point that personal circumstances rarely have anything to do who is or is not president. The Iraq war may be an exception (but I still would argue that other presidents, of either party, may have made the same choice) but I also lived during the Vietnam War and that was bad too.

Not with Iraq.

I disagree, as we have discussed several times in the past 5 years. Going to war (whether in 2003 or later) would have been the easy choice, it's what happened after the brief 1-month war that makes the difference. Anyone administration would have done better and gotten out much, much sooner instead of enduring needless casualties since the fall of Baghdad.

I seriously doubt that Gore or McCain would have gone after Iraq.

Depending how much pressure UN, Congress and the media had put on WMD and the Resolutions. Hindsight does not count. But what about the next four years with either McCain or Obama where we will not see any significant reductions until 2012-2013? Will we still tolerate casualties in the meantime?

I've had a great 8 years. In fact, this year I'll earn 40% more than I did last year. Next year, I'll earn about 10% more than this year. I've gone to Iraq (note, I said IRAQ, not Kuwait, Qatar, etc.).

I can't complain.

During Vietnam, my little town lost a few guys and since it was a town of roughly 1000 that was felt. My sister lost a very good friend she'd dated once or twice and who'd hung out with me too a couple of times when somebody had to. Really great guy. She was pretty shook up by it and started protesting the war but not really enthusiastically.

I was too young for all that but I can remember sitting in my room, clutching my IG Joe and crying because I simply knew that this war wasn't ever going to end and one day, it'd be me that was going to die and my family would be mourning me. Didn't really stop me from playing war with Joe though ( this was pre kung foo grip in my house ).

I hear a lot of people blaming Nixon for Vietnam but even then I knew it was Kennedy and then Johnson. Nixon got us out of Vietnam and frankly, for that he has always had my utmost gratitude and his foreign policy successes have earned my utmost respect. I don't get how anyone can really doubt either of those two things even though of course, it wasn't as black and white as a paragraph here can convey, thems the facts.

Buc, how, if at all, do you reconcile libertarian views with government support for public transport?

McCain in a landslide. You heard it here first.

So, he's planning to go mountain climbing in the future?? Rough way to go out though. ;)

Hmmmm ... what worse, die in landslide or lose to obama

Well, Hillary can answer the second part and no one can answer the first one. I guess we could ask her if she'd rather have died in landslide but that's be anectdotal at best.

Just one of many reasons I'm thankful neither of them was in the White House during the past several years.

This is how it will go down

Popular Vote

McCain 56%
Obama 40%
Other 4%

And I'm neither Republican or Democrat. This is what my magic 8 ball has told me.

Amd I'm drunk. But still.

One question for those who identify as Republicans. How important is McCain's choice of VP to you? McCain if he wins is going to be the oldest person ever to start a presidential term. Does this worry you at all and will you consider his VP as important or is any VP better than the alternative?

Easy question: Lose to Obama is far worse.

You can have an extraordinary circumstance of bad luck & die in a landslide.
It takes a concerted string of fuck ups to lose to Obama.

Yep, Jon's not happy without a heaping helping of dead Americans.

Wonder who else likes heaping helpings of dead American's... oh yeah. ;)

img gonna need link to drunk thred thx

THEYREEE PEEEEEOPLEEEEEE

Be careful cooking up that 8 ball dude. :)

Given the current matchup he could pick virtually anyone - living, dead, fictional - and still be guaranteed my vote this November.

man i could ruse one right now. gonna snort one for hilarry since i have no liquor to poor on the curb

Which is why he's running against republicans. That factor is already built in for him.

I'd laugh my ass off if he picked Hillary then. :)

Have fun man. I kinda am envious right now. Might just have to tip a few myself.

Actually, in stony seriousness, I'd be one hell of a lot happier with a lot fewer of them than we've ended up with. But the fault I find there, which I do put at the President's feet to a significant extent, is the failure to properly prosecute the war. The only fault I find with the decision to go to war in the first place might rest with whether I'm ever convinced one way or the other that he knew beforehand that he would not attend to things there in a militarily efficient fashion. In other words, I might someday reach a point of deciding "better not at all than half-assed" but I'm not yet convinced that the eventual strategy was what was originally intended.

They're actually a reasonably well matched set. Neither one of them belong in the White House, but both would be better than the current alternative.

See, it's the aftermath that to me was inevitable which was why I was very against the war in the first place. Otherwise I'd have been apathetic to it. Can't get worked up with Greneda even though we didn't need to do it.

The aftermath was inevitable. Either that or simply leave then and all we'd have accomplished is create a huge power vacuum in a resource rich country with those not particularly aligned with us surrounding it.

The only way to remove the dictator properly is coup with the power structure already in place to fill the void. Had we done that I wouldn't have had such a negative view of the affair and I think how that turned out would have judged it's success or failure.

No surprise, but just for the record, we disagree.

And not remotely because I have even the slightest bit of confidence the Iraqis will be capable of governing themselves peacefully in the next hundred years.

Heh...interesting timing on this...day after Obama claims victory...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New..._chicago/8389/

Ok, give me one example in history that would show that you can simply dethrone a population the size of Iraq and then leave and things turn out great without them already having someone inside who is prepared to immediately step up to the plate.

{scratches head}

Did I say anything about leaving?

Ok, what was your plan. Maybe follow Russia's example in Afghanistan...oh wait.

Then what would be the plan? Nation build?

As usual, I completely disagree with JimG, which means I'm on the right track. :)

Some interesting statements in here of late.

People actually believe die hard democrats who were for Hillary are going to jump ship in any significant number? Some (the vocal minority) are angry right now, but in 5 months there is no chance that they are staying home or voting for McCain. No chance.

People actually believe or thought for a second that Clinton was going to endorse McCain or submarine Obama after the delegates were in? What planet are you living on, man?

People think that because Obama lost to Clinton in some of the important swing states there is no way he can win those in the general election? These people voted for democrats. Around 40 million in total. Clinton was one heckuva candidate and the front runner. She's tough to beat. I can't believe anyone thought he would just walk all over her in some of those states. But she's been beaten now. Obama's now the nominee. People now think that the 18 million who voted for Clinton are just not going to vote anymore in the general election or vote for McCain instead in any significant number? For most of those 18 million, Obama is their second choice.

This election is going to be a turnout election. The turnout for the democratic primaries was enormous. The democratic party is energized. McCain is boring and couldn't energize that pink bunny. For these reasons alone, Obama is going to win easy. Based on the electoral college, I am not saying it will be a landslide, but he will cruise to victory.

Wasn't Kerry supposed to cruise to victory? ;)

Based on the electoral college, I'm saying this is going to be a very close election. Obama will probably make it closer in a lot of traditional Republican states, but he won't be able to win them, and it'll come down, once again, to the swing states.

This is good news for Obama. Here's the email Hillary sent to supporters.

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?

5%

3% (0% in Berkeley)

I think it is possible, but not likely. I think it is more likely than Texas going blue.

I agree that these are the right questions; but there is no way to come up with "reasonable answers." No poll taken today, tomorrow, or even a week before the convention will give you reliable numbers on what voters will feel in the first week of November. Or the middle of October if you live in Oregon or any other jurisdiction that votes by mail.

Obama & Co. will have to take a guess at these variables, and I'm sure some polling will be involved. But, ultimately, it'll all be guesstimates and intuition.

I've been saying this for months now and I really do believe California is in play. There's a huge block of conservative/moderate voters in SD/Orange Counties. Add that Latinos will not be energized as before (more will stay home), plus the Asians will not vote for Obama. Both groups will not necessarily vote for McCain but will likely not vote at all. That's the difference than before.

Hmm, looks like Jon is filled with as many solutions as the current POTUS. ;)

Nah, just couldn't decide whether to go into a detailed answer or stay in the one liner mode. And the indecision was followed by sleep, then work.

The answer is the same as it has always been (and it isn't like I haven't mentioned it before) -- Our mistake has been trying to turn combat troops into policemen, mediators, referees, social workers, and every other damned thing except what they're most trained to do. Want to try all that? Then send people who have that as their primary mission and let them do what they do. But untie the hands of the combat troops & let them do exactly what's necessary - kill every f'n thing in country that poses a threat until there isn't a viable threat remaining.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, in answer to the seemingly inevitable question: I don't have the slightest concern about the eventual enemy body count.

So...Michele Obama "Whitey" Rant Video...October Surprise or Hoax?

There aren't THAT many Hispanic or Asian voters. People talk these crowds up way too much. Obama steals a majority of whites under 40. The oldsters will vote for McCain, sure. But the only way McCain has a shot there to win it, is if somehow he can magically depress voter turnout.

I don't know why people are trying to apply old school rules to an election cycle that's simply not like the others. McCain is a good candidate for the GOP to be sure, but he's got a cash flow problem, an age problem and is running against a rock star.

I don't see how you flip a solid blue state with a guy who shares only one thing in common with Reagan. His age.

McCain may win, but if he flips California, it's because Obama is taped saying a slur of some kind against a huge swath of people. And best believe, the Clintons team were looking that tape and if it were out there, they would've found it. The GOP wanted Hillary and Hillary wanted Hillary.

Hoax

Michelle Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer who works for 'whitey' at the University of Chicago. I know you authoritarian statists who fashion yourselves as conservatives get off at the notion of an 'implosion' of this silliness level waiting this long to get out. No one would let it get to this point, only to out him now when it'd possible hurt lots of people down the line on the ticket.

I think it's downright hilarious that those drug-addicted wingnut talk show hosts have their heads exploding at the notion that a half-black guy with an African name could manage to lead an operation that turned the political game upside down, so they target his wife in the hopes that she has the weak genes, when really, she's clearly the stronger of the two.

If McCain gets duped into listening to the wackjob patrol going into the fall, he's going to be the one getting rolled on. It would be far more effective for those who don't want to vote for him, to find the multitude of policy reasons why he's a bad idea and convince the American public in a fair debate, rather than resorting to this false notion that he and his wife are going to somehow enter the White House and sign an executive order that makes 'reverse discrimination' the soup de jour in America.

Guess we'll find out. If there is video...and it's released during the campaign...Obama in BIG trouble.

In other news, water is still wet.

That was the GOP dogma early in the primary season. Recently, almost of the republican strategists have recognized that Clinton would have been a tougher obstacle in trying to put together an electoral college to get above 270.

Yep... in some respects, Hillary was the safer pick for the Dems to get 271. She just had to keep Kerry's states and turn Ohio. Obama is more of a high risk/high reward pick.

I don't think there's ever been a primary where the winner basically limped across the finish line while losing the majority of the later primaries (and getting obliterated in a few of them). Once Obama's nomination was a mathematical certainty, you would think that he would have gained some traction and increased his lead.

Yeah, who would have thought Romney would have won the final primary in Montana?

Well, with these videos already on YouTube...I can't say I'd be super surprised if this other tape surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogJv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkvvFJtLJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl...eature=related

Other than the fact that the GOP held a caucus and not a primary in Montana, and the fact that it happened on February 5, not June 3, that's an absolutely valid point. ;)

To answer the other question, I don't think California's going to swing red. The rural parts of the state are pretty solidly red, but the Bay Area and the city of Los Angeles are a) major population centers for the state b) pretty big college areas (which has been a stalwart of Obama's support thus far) and c) Democratic strongholds. McCain would have to either hit a home run on policy or have Obama get caught with a dead girl or a live boy to flip those areas red.

Having turnout be low enough that the rural areas might have enough impact to move the state to the Republican column is another matter, but that's where the issue of gay marriage could really be a wild card this time around. Traditionally, the issue has been a Republican carrot of sorts to inspire voter turnout, and I think that's probable again this year given the uproar over the recent California Supreme Court decision. On the other hand, that same decision could spur liberal turnout in its own support.

You have a court that has mandated that civil unions be performed, which kind of turns the issue from one of affirmative negation (if that makes sense) to an issue where the negation is attempting to remove a recently-established right.

All of which is to say, if civil union supporters turn out en masse to defeat that ballot measure, I can't see how that level of turnout would be anything but harmful to John McCain's hopes of taking the state.

Heh, I knew something like that was the case but I waited a whole day because I thought it'd be mildly amusing to say.


My point is you have to try all that or you'd get chaos. No one but you is willing to destroy entire countries ( if even possible in any country without prompting ww3 which again, no one but you would want ) to get minimal gain.

You have to either abandon the country which is crappy or end the world which is equally crappy. No offense Jon, honestly, but you have presented a less workable plan than W did.

You said, which sounds possibly doable, that you bring in cops ( from where who the fuck knows ) to do cop jobs and you kill anyone who opposes them. Again, point out one scenario in history where this has ultimately worked and I'll consider it but you're talking fantasy here not anything realistic IMHO.

I believe your position simply encourages fence sitters and eventually ex allies to try and kill you. I don't see where it could possibly work. I really don't. Again, show a precident and I'd have to consider it.

To do what? Counter all of the overwhelmingly successful alternatives that have worked so beautifully in the region?

LOL. You must have been 3/4 of the way to China with that digging. Not that I really like Obama, but nothing she says in the 1st and 3rd videos is groundbreaking, earth-shattering, and would get anyone in trouble. She is basically saying some fairly normal view points that I would think a majority of people would agree with. I can't tell anything about the 2nd video because it was stupid and annoying, I couldn't get more than a minute in to it.

some websites to use going forward.

www.electoral-vote.com

www.fivethirtyeight.com

www.270towin.com

McCain will never get close enough in CA to make it worth the price to play. He'll make some trips there; but only to raise money, not to spend it.

Absolutely. McCain's going to be best vs. Obama when they're both "unscripted". Assuming he keeps a lid on his temper, of course.


I woke up every day for twelve months and checked to see if any soldier had been killed in Ramadi overnight, and I blame all of that specifically on Bush.


OK, so I've read 4 pages of this thread so far, and most of your posts have been the hand grenades of right-wing talk radio tossed into the thread at random. It's going to be a long, long election season if you keep this up.

There is no one else on this board who does this on as regular a basis. Even Cam, who arguably is a right-wing radio host ( ;) @ Cam ) doesn't do this.

It would be the equivalent of me randomly posting vitriolic conspiracy theories from dailykos.com.

So please, either exercise some constraint, or add some more content.

You actually proved my point. I said that the effort was doomed from the start remember? You can't use the fact that one effort failed to push another failure. You'd have to show that the effort you suggest could work or my point still holds.

Another random prediction: Bob Barr will have no effect on this election. After Nader, voters know that third parties can be spoilers. In any state where it is close enough to matter, libertarian leaning Republicans will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and will pull the level for McCain.

Did Bush hold a military draft that I don't know about? There are inherited risk with being in the military, and one of them is that you have a very realistic possibility of seeing combat (especially more than anyone else). It sucks, it's crappy for the families involved but it's a choice for the person directly involved.

This, on top of the fact that Bush wasn't the only one supporting the war. He gets alot of the blame, deservedly so but it wasn't done solely on his decision alone.

Umm flere ... it's going to be a long election season around here even if he never posts another thing.

He pretty much is now. ;)

[edit to add]

Well, him and Jon anyway.

I'm not sure that is an argument that I wasn't affected personally by a decision made by George Bush.


It was manifestly the decision of him and his Administration. For one, it's now very clear that they cherry-picked evidence and in some cases lied to make the case for war. For two, the President occupies a bully pulpit that gives him exceptional leverage in getting his aims fulfilled (especially following an event such as 9/11).

Maybe you want a percentage. Fine, 85% of my blame for having to wake up every morning worrying about my brother lies with George Bush.

Maybe I am not fully understanding what you are referring to, but invading Iraq actually was the sole decision of our Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush. Congress may have authorized the use of force, but the decision to use it was his and his alone.

To Bush's credit (I guess) he certainly does not deny that the decision was his. Nor does he deny that he has made the grander strategic decisions that have been made since the invasion. That is his job.

Except that there are quite a few Libertarians that are adamently against the war (RP crowd). They may see Obama as an accaptable alternative for at least 4 years if he will withdraw the troops for them and reinstates Habeus Corpeus and dismantles the domestic spying and then they can go back to pulling for the republicans next time when the party maybe starts finding it way again.

Are you the pot or the kettle? F*ck off.

Frankly, I don't really have a horse in this race. If I vote, it will be for McCain...but it would definitely be a lesser of two evils vote...

Maybe not so much against the war but against the stupid way it was conceived and prosecuted - leading to the exhorbant wasteful costs in nation-building.

Everyone glibly throws this out but no one has any suggestions on how to create a huge power void behind a dictatorship and not nation build without simply creating chaos. I kinda think that's important and I'm glad that even though W was stupid enough to start the war, I'm glad he wasn't stupid enough to abandon the Iraqi's after that.

I know what you are saying but history has generally shown otherwise. The difference between Iraq and other occupied territories was perhaps due to the culture? I mean, the Confederacy, Western Europe (throughout the centuries), Japan? took a lot of the initiative to rebuild and to relatively quickly acheive self-governing. I have not done any comparison to the Marshal Plan vs Post-Iraq funding, nor looked at captital outlay in early times but it does seem that the nearly $1t spent have not gained us that much benefits. I don't think the coalition destroyed the country that much but probably they did not have that great of an infrastructure and political strength to re-build from.

W was stupid enough be manipulated by Rummy and this guy, who sounded eerily prophetic with his use of the words "U.S. occupation of Iraq" and "quagmire" in this 1994 interview:

"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Unbelievable.

It seems that the civil war is obviously different since we were essentially the same country. Europe is the same as Iraq now. I"m not sure what you mean about Western Europe. They were our allies already and had governments ready to take over. Japan maybe but it took 7 years of us being there and rebuilding and Japan did have political infrastructure intact that began strengthening really quickly after the war. They'd also already had experienced with a form of democracy so there was nowhere near the chaos that deposing a dictator would cause. Totally different scenario IMHO.

I'm specifically talking about a situation where a long standing dictatorship in a country the size of Iraq accomplished with minimal occupation. I'm not even asking for a situation where the surrounding countries and the culture was rabidly against the occupier but of course, we had that too.

I may be wrong but I really don't recall anything close to this scenario working before. Vietnam is the most recent example of us trying to force our will on an unreceptive country and we all saw how well that worked.

I agree with you and with the quote.

You stay classy, SFL Cat.


An analog that's often batted around is Yugoslavia, which disintegrated in the power vacuum left behind after 1992. It took quite a while and a lot of effort to bring that back to relative piece (and this was achieved through sectarian segregation). There are probably some similarities there.

Of course, we should all remember that the Bush Admin believed Ahmed Chalabi when he told them there was a structure of Iraqi "dissidents" ready to step into the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. Later analysis has shown that no one should have believed Chalabi, who's basically a crook, but there you go.

And to bring this back on topic, McCain's top advisor, Charlie Black, has a lobbying firm that did a lot of lobbying on behalf of Ahmed Chalabi.

Small world, eh?

Yes, but I wouldn't want to paint it.

SFL: Don't know if you've seen the Whitey video just posted on YouTube. Honestly, it isn't nearly as bad as it's been portrayed.

Michelle Obama is someone I would make relations with.

You shall be shot.

Yeah...I saw that one.

I've got my Bible open and am still decoding it. :)

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Nevermind, though....Obama will still take California easily.

WTF?? This latino just loves to be stereotyped. Shame I voted for Obama. Maybe I should haven consulted with you first.