The government already is doing this here and there with the existing and disparate Medicare/Medicade/SCHIP/TRICARE programs. My hope is that those get scrapped and a single entity emerges. There is little to no coordination between these programs today. There is a lot of overlap and waste (imagine that) in these programs. A streamlining would do wonders.

I'd imagine that it would work much like the relationship people have with their insurance agencies today if universal health care becomes a reality. Instead of calling a BCBS employee about coverage, you'll be calling a US government employee. Medical practitioners would have a new place to send their claims.

At least that is what I observed in my exposures to UHC in Italy and the UK.

GrantDawg, I can see that. I also believe he will be on a short leash (or should be, depending how many people pay attention instead of being sheep), like in regards to Israel. There is a perception like we never had before - not with Carter, Reagan, Bushes or Clinton - but people are willing to believe what he said (esp. some of the bigger Jewish groups that are advocating his election). If he steps away from his "hard-line support" statements regarding Israel, esp. if he brings in some of the Carter protegees or Albright's), then some will turn against him sooner versus later.

People will be willing to accept more socialistic legislation (I'm a libertarian, so I'm allowed to use that word :) ) because, frankly, that's not much different that what have seen over the past 8-16 years (particularly recently with the govt give-aways-damn-the-deficits legislations). I have no allusions that it will be better, just different and that might be ok, generally.

One of the things I'll be curious about is the commander-in-chief role. I distinctly recall Clinton's loathing of the military and the intelligence community. We knew that going in and it showed up during his presidency in many ways (from cutbacks to using them as an ego-boosting tool to devastating many intelligence roles in the diplomatic community). I don't get that sense of loathing from Obama. But I also don't get a sense of confidence either, esp. knowing that he will have some close anti-militarists advisors. I would like to see something other than the extended, over-use that we've seen recently but not over-compensating to the other extreme. Who knows, he may get lucky on the natural events of change in geopolitics. Iran could lose its leader and a different one could bring changes. That's what history has shown us - constant changes in geopolitical affairs, predicted and unpredicted.

I don't know the minds of many really, really, really, ridiculously rich entrepreneurs, but this one doesn't seem to feel any of the proposed tax plans will stifle the drive of the great American entrepreneurial spirit:

But what does he know, maybe he just isn't rich enough yet to have bothered researching a better place to roll around in money.

ugh...fuck israel. i'm so fucking sick of hearing about it. since when did our foreign policy with regard to one bumpkiss-tiny lil country become a litmus-test for all politicians? Why should Israel have a special place, a guarentee that we will be supporting them no matter what, even if it's no longer in our interest from a realpolitik-standpoint?? :rant:

Or maybe he just knows he's got his sheltered well enough to avoid the worst of the blow. Or maybe he's just a f'n idiot after all.

dola - that wasn't a slam on you either Bucc - I know you're just stating an opinion - i'm just sick of Israel having some like...sacred-place in our foreign policy decisions

Welp, we disagree here DT

i'm so pissed off with the sacred-cow that is israel and the pro-israel lobby that i actually wouldn't mind if the Arabs took it over and booted all the Jewish-folk out.

that's cool Flasch.

And just let me state - I'm not anti-Jewish or anything. And I understand the connection that Jewish folk here in America have with Israel. I'm just sick of it being a litmus-test for politicians and having a sacred-status within our foreign policy decision-making such that it has ramifications far beyond US-Israel relations (it's a massive reason the Arab nations dislike us obviously). Relations with Israel ought to be no different than relations with any other country, that's all I'm saying.

edit: just wanted to make this clear, because i can see how some of my other posts could easily make me look bad.

Rant all you like, but if you don't can't see that they're one of the few nations worth the name in the region and one of even fewer worthy of our support then you're already past the point of redemption anyway & trying to explain it to you would be wasted anyway.

You want to talk about realpolitik? Then why not start with the reality that the US/any non-Muslim nation will never be allowed to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim dominated nation-states? The Israeli's seem to have figured that out a lot better than most.

Or maybe he's in league with the Muslims too???

Oh I agree with you there Jon. I'm a firm-believer in Huntington-style "Clash of Civilizations" / bloody-borders and all that.

I just don't think that our support ought to be blank-check and tie our hands with regards to other options. Or if that's truly what we believe, we ought to go in there and clear shit out along with Israel, take the whole fucking region over.

Yep. Leaving aside its religious or strategic importance, Israel is the good guys. The world needs more countries like Israel, not fewer.

If you want to get all outraged about our choice of allies, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be much better choices.

pretty tough to delineate the two. Im Jewish and I believe the Palestinians should have their own state, side by side, with Israel but your statements dont stop the pendulum halfway and you carry over to the side of, well, it's pretty ugly over there. It's not a litmus test for our Pres. in my view but I so believe that they are a very strategic ally for us in a great location for us.

yeah - i may have let my frustration get the better of me for a bit there.

I wouldn't HONESTLY want to see Israel gone - but I also don't think we should necessarily back them to-the-hilt without giving it a second thought. Just gets my dander up frankly.

Apologies if it came off as freaky.

It's not just the downfall of the United States. The human race could be in the autumn of its years. Regardless of one's religious persuasion or lack of religious persuasion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc.), there are a confluence of global events that suggest the end of our existence could be drawing near. December 21, 2012 doesn't sound so far-fetched to me anymore.

Dead People Voting Throughout Florida - News Story - WFTV Orlando

We're going to be seeing stories like these all over the place from every battleground state in the next week, aren't we?

Wow. End of days shit. This thread has it all.

Interesting. The general consensus seems to be that a 2 term presidency for either Obama or McCain would be very difficult to pull off. Why do you predict that Obama will be a 2 term president?

Actually I think whoever gets in will be in perfect position to be a two termer. The situation cannot possibly be worse in 4 years than it is now. The incumbent is almost certainly going to be able to claim progress.

The question I have is the people that are who high on Obama, what exactly are you expecting? Is he going to have to be extremely careful so he doesn't lose those undecided voters (the moderates/independents) going into the 2010 (making decisions that could impact the congressional races) and 2012 elections? What exactly are the rabid Obama supporters expecting? I mean, once he's elected, the "he's not Bush" thing is out the window. It seems like Obama has a much higher bar to clear than McCain would. Am I wrong on this?

Wow, tell that to the Palestinians.

I sympathise with Israel on a number of issues, but they have a ton of blood on their hands, just like everybody else - especially in that region.

That's not unreasonable. The US economy was not exactly out of the woods in the back half of Reagan's 1st term, but it had improved markedly from previous years. Enough to get Reagan elected in a landslide...

The rabid Obama supporters are very likely Obama '12 supporters no matter what happens anyway. I do believe there will be a subset of voters who have been taken in by the fact that he is a charismatic speaker who will end up being virtually impossible to please, and the republican nominee in 2012 will have a very easy time pointing that out. Its possible that subset of voters ends up being very large. It is purely anecdotal of course but I know normally skeptical, logical people who seem to have elevated Obama to godlike, untouchable status at this point, and the potential for backlash does seem high once it is realized that he's just another politician, either to become jaded and simply not vote in 2012, or for some of the more moderates who are just pissed off about the last 8 years to turn to the right.

I think that McCain doesn't go two terms regardless, and Obama could but it will depend on whether things get much worse before they get better. If in 4 years, we're still another 3 or 4 years away from a real turn around then I could see someone else having a chance (although I have no idea who). The downfall talk is crazy, either candidate will have an uphill battle but both have nowhere to go but up eventually if they're given the time. Bush has done a ton of the dirty work to make it easy for someone to sweep in and take credit for an eventual turn around.

Hagan's response to Dole's "Godless" ad:

:D These people take losing an election HARD. I hated seeing Bush elected (and hated seeing him re-elected even more), but I didn't think it would CAUSE THE WORLD TO END!!1! :eek: Talk about scaremongerers! Is that comet coming back to take people away before the Rapture?

Wow, nice ad by Hagan there btu I dont know if carries the same 'shock' wight as the Dole ad did.

Always nice to kick off your day reading about how the next Presidential election is one in a series of events signifying the apocalypse.

To me it's just like the John McCain "Obama is not an Arab, he's a good man" incident. Why does she have to go on the air and say she is a Christian who taught Sunday school? Why not ask what the godless shit has to do with being a good representative? I guess we aren't as far as a people as we think we are.

Maybe they are on to something... :D

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...167675aa4.html

It appears that the Obama message is finally reaching the public masses in a real and understandable way as this video demonstrates..........

On Canceling The Informed Vote (Wizbang)

Ah, yes, taking the quotes of a single person and attributing them to all of the supporters of a candidate. It appears that McCain's message also reached "the public masses in a real and understandable way"

Hey, it's America. If your political opponent accuses you of being a child molester, you defend yourself and say it isn't true. If they stoop even lower and suggest you might be an atheist, you have to fight back, plain and simple.

Ummm, we've been making fun of the extremes of either party in this entire thread. It's OK to drop your partisanship and have fun with the stupidity of others.

Try the other side of the bed tomorrow.

Why not? In terms of the US this is an awful assumption.

I agree to some extent. I think his point should have clarified that peaceful co-existance with a Muslim-dominated country who provides safe harbor/support to terrorists is an impossibility. We could definitely have peace with a non-terrorist Muslim nation.

I look at it as her vote cancels a white supremacist's. Net zero.

Exactly. :D

Because to do what you suggest in that situation would be completely and politically tone deaf.

Well, a couple things:

1) I agree that it shouldn't matter, but she's running in North Carolina, so let's be realistic. An open athiest isn't gonna win in North Carolina. It just won't happen.

2) For the context of the ad, it does matter that she's a Christian. The ad is bad enough for attacking someone for being an athiest. It's worse to do that when the person isn't even an athiest. It's especially bad when you try to make it seem like that person actually said, "There is no God!"

Didn't you watch the video? They're expecting him to put gas in their car and pay their mortgage.

Additionally, the Bush administration could at least place blame on the Democrats if something didn't get done. The Democrats would have control of the legislative and executive branch if Obama wins the election. There's no safety net at that point. Any blame tossed towards the Republicans is going to fall on deaf ear.

Like the Republicans blaming Democrats for legislative failures during the 2001-2007 time frame?

Yeah, it's like saying the US can't be friends with Turkey, Kuwait, Egypt, etc., a bunch of countries we've work very closely with in the past.

Exactly my point. They got tossed on their ass in favor of the Democrats. People gave the Bush adminstration and the Republican Congress a term to get their stuff in gear. After it became obvious that they weren't doing anything, the tide quickly shifted and resulted in a passing of power in 2006. Obama and the Democrats would get a similar 3-4 year window from the public to make their mark. If they look like the Republican Congress did in 2005, they'll get the same boot.

Well, I think she's got it part wrong. I'm pretty sure McCain is the one who wants to buy everyone's bad mortgages.

I hope people have been paying attention to how that bailout/rescue bill has already shown signs of being a waste of time. I also hope that no further stimulus/rescue/bailout bills are forthcoming as a result of that failure.

In related news, I'll likely hold my breath until I die, which would please the partisan masses to no end.

I prefer to think of it as canceling out Joe the plumber. If this woman was a McCain supporter she'd be the central focus of his campaign and by Tuesday she'd be finalizing her record contract.

Pot in every chicken.

(High. Pot. Get it?)

LOL! Going out in South Harlem and attributing McCain's policies to Obama and the people on the street who are voting for Obama don't even notice:

YouTube - Harlem voters

Unfortunately, you'll probably pass out before death occurs, and then resume breathing comfortably. ;)

Eventually ... assuming we were to ever regain something resembling the willpower to do so on a national level. Alas, I won't hold my breath for that.

Imperialism FTW!

That is some interesting math. 2006 - 2000 = 3 or 4

And eventually wake up to find another stimulus bill has passed. What a nightmare!

I'll use a plastic bag to ensure success.

Fuzzy math, baby! Embrace it!

The trend back towards the democrats began after 3-4 years. They just didn't get enough seats to push them over the top until the 2006 election. I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention in 2004. The Republicans were already losing face at that point with their baseless claims that the Democrats were responsible for them not getting stuff done.

I'd imagine that you'd be happier offing yourself by blowing up an Xbox 360 manufacturing facility on your way out. :D It's the romantic in me.

Anyone claiming their candidate in this election can provide everything they claim they can provide while balancing the budget is practicing fuzzy math.

Why waste my life blowing something up that will be a spectacular paperweight after 6-12 months of use?

I'll be here all week. Try the veal special.....it's fabulous.

Mine is doing fine after several years of use.

WHAT??? YOU DON'T GET THE COMEDIC GENIUS THAT WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY SO BEEN BLESSED WITH??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

Mine is still working fine as well.

(flashes karma camera to Kodos's Xbox 360)

And for the record, I'll hear no complaints about me bringing this topic into the thread. Blame Kodos.

(karma camera #2 begins operation)

(looks like someone has already used the karma camera on Sony this generation)

(and the McCain campaign)

At least we're back on topic now.

Thank goodness. For a while there, I thought we'd have to get our own thread.

2008 Early Voting

Website reporting early voting statistics through now. Democrats pulling way higher early vote numbers in the West compared to their registration %'s vs. the GOP.

2004 election results

President- Republican
Senate- +4 Republican
House- +3 Republican

That's fine, but has little basis in reality. Many of the races fall the way they do based on local issues. The Republicans gained a seat here or there, but there was no question that the public was turning against the Republicans at that point in time. The fact that a candidate as weak as Kerry had a shot at winning portrayed that more than anything else could.

That you could say that about the actual election results is priceless.

Take this with a grain of salt as this is anonymous in nature. A Clinton campaign worker is painting a much different picture of the election possibilities in regards to who will win the key states and the polling information being presented. She sounds jilted, but we'll see how it pans out........

RedState: What you were never intended to know in this election

So you believe that public support was behind the Republicans in 2004? I couldn't disagree more and I'm surprised that a liberal partisan would make that claim. There are other factors in voting turnout outside of the actual races. Moral and economic issues at the state level can be just as much of a deciding factor. There were several moral issues on the ballot that assisted the Republicans in the 2004 election. Bush was already being bashed repeatedly for his decisions and the Republican Congress wasn't doing much better.

Similarly, I think that the Democrats were the benefactors of a perfect storm in 2006. The popularity of the Republicans was low, but there were several races that fell their way thanks to localized issues in addition to the dissatisfaction with Republican leadership. It goes both ways.

You mean that wasn't another one of your "jokes"?

Cannibal party supporter?

I think JPhillips was dead serious.

This analysis seems to completely debunk any point you were trying to make:

The Election of 2004

a portion of the article:

Was it Mike Tyson?

Colorado and New Mexico look like they're definitely going Obama's way based on polls of early voters. In both states more than half as many people that voted in 2004 have voted early. With either Iowa or Virginia (where he has big leads in polls) and the states Kerry won that puts Obama over 270 electoral votes.

That article reads like a bunch of talking points were handed out by the McCain campaign.

And once again, you totally missed the point I made. If the moral issues that were on the 2004 ballots in several states that drove Republican turnout were not in place, that status quo would not have held. The Republican Party drove turnout by putting issues on the ballots in key states that would help their candidates' chances. The Democrats would have pulled seats in that election had the Republicans not done that.

1. Dekalb: 158,925
2. Fulton: 142,193

That says all you need to know about who early voting may be favoring in GA. These counties are dems (McKinney anyone).

Honestly, I thought it was even more strongly worded than that. This person will look like a genius or a goat on November 5th.

Using early voter numbers to predict overall turnout in this election could be a pretty iffy move. I think that the deeply partisan Obama supporters are extremely motivated in this election to the point where they want to vote NOW. I don't think McCain voters are nearly as motivated to vote, but they'll still come out and cast their ballot on election day. It's just not a good idea to make conclusions based on a sample that is likely not a cross-section of the overall electorate that will eventually turn out.

and this portion of the article debunks that assertion:


If there were local issues that drove Republican turnout, then how did Democrats pick up seats at the local level?

It seems that there was little to no backlash in the 2004 Federal elections agains the Republicans, but at the local level it seems that there was a change towards the Democrats. So this pretty much refutes both the points you were trying to make. Unless you were trying to say that people were sending a message by re-electing their Republican congressmen, and giving them a warning by electing Democrats at the local level. That is a very tenuous link to make, and goes against your original assertions.

I made no overall conclusions except what the data show. My statement was this could indicative of who early voting is favoring, not necessarily that it will predict election day. :cool:

This is a state that voted for a governor because of a flag, that voted for a do-nothing scumbag like Saxby, and thinks the solution to a drought is to hold a prayer on the capital steps for rain. I think an Obama victory here is highly unlikely.

But the fact that Georgia is even remotely in play right now speaks volumes about how well this election is looking for Obama.

Fear-mongering FTW!

By the way, I think you're right. I would really hate to be a multi-millionaire right now and have to pay higher taxes. I think I'll go work at McDonald's instead.

I think this post needs more love.


:thumbsup:

Fixed.

Yeah, these polls are undersampling black voters so you can't put too much weight into them.

Dude.

In 2004, Bush took Georgia 58% to Kerry's 41%.

Today, the polling average says McCain 51%, Obama 47%. That's a big-ass difference. Georgia shouldn't even be a question for McCain, but by all accounts it's pretty tight.

(I know, I know)... All the polls have fucked up party distribution numbers. We've heard you say that once or a thousand times before.

Don't forget that he also said THE ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS have no basis in reality.

Well they didn't in 2000.

Today's State Polls:


Here's my summation from a few days ago, interspersed with the changes:


I still don't think Arizona is really in play. Neither do I think Louisiana is in play.


I think this conclusion still holds, despite tightening in CO & PA. Of course, if McCain's internal polling was showing a tightening in PA a few days ago, it would greatly explain why he's targeting it, especially when you consider...


Still the case. McCain clearly needs to flip a Kerry state, and I'd say it now looks like PA is the obvious candidate, based on this one poll.


No change here. McCain's looking better in Indiana, but Obama's looking better in North Carolina & Ohio. As an aside, based on the local news (I'm in Chicago), I expect a clusterfuck of epic proportions regarding the voting in NW Indiana.


We are still the same here. The latest NC & OH numbers have to worry McCain a lot, but the big X-factor here would be if he flips PA.

I don't think Obama will win Arizona, but he should visit there. It would be great press for him and bad press for McCain.

I declare the weightings are off on the results that are good for McCain and the weightings are accurate on the results that are good for Obama.

Additional "State of the Race" reflections from fivethirtyeight.com, which I think (IMHO) agree with my conclusions: