Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Hey, the presidential election is once every 4 years, suck it up.

That's right! Put aside those responsibilities. We're in the stretch run!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

By the way, I did have a family come by my house on Sunday afternoon. I opened the door and immediately saw the Obama buttons. I thought about dragging it out like I was interested in their message just so they could get to less houses, but I was a nice guy and quickly told them that I was a McCain supporter and I probably would be a waste of their time. They laughed and moved on.

The unfortunate part was that I got back to my living room just in time to watch the Chiefs give up the game tying touchdown and lose in OT.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The unfortunate part was that I got back to my living room just in time to watch the Chiefs give up the game tying touchdown and lose in OT.

Obama was trying to save you from seeing your team lose, MBBF. It's still not too late to drink the Kool-Aid!

[flere-imsaho]

Here's something I've been thinking about as the talking heads have begun predicting an Obama victory, and possibly a "large" victory, where "large" probably means a few percentage points.

We know Obama's raised a ton of money. We know Obama's run a very tight, very efficient, very successful campaign. We know McCain's not run a very good campaign and has had troubles throughout.

The environment has favored Obama. The economy needs a lot of help. People want us out of Iraq. People are tired of Bush and the GOP.

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's something I've been thinking about as the talking heads have begun predicting an Obama victory, and possibly a "large" victory, where "large" probably means a few percentage points.

We know Obama's raised a ton of money. We know Obama's run a very tight, very efficient, very successful campaign. We know McCain's not run a very good campaign and has had troubles throughout.

The environment has favored Obama. The economy needs a lot of help. People want us out of Iraq. People are tired of Bush and the GOP.

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

America is a center-right country. Basically, I think that George Will--though an order of magnitude smarter than the average American--closely approximates where the average American falls on the political scale.

Pulling some numbers out of my ass, I think that in any given election, you have 45% of the people who will vote D no matter what, 45% of the people who will vote R no matter what, and of the remaining 10%, they are predisposed to go 65-35 to the GOP.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

America is a center-right country. Basically, I think that George Will--though an order of magnitude smarter than the average American--closely approximates where the average American falls on the political scale.

Pulling some numbers out of my ass, I think that in any given election, you have 45% of the people who will vote D no matter what, 45% of the people who will vote R no matter what, and of the remaining 10%, they are predisposed to go 65-35 to the GOP.

The 65-35 split is well off IMO. Since Reagan we've been a split or nearly split country. A few hundred votes in FL could make this an election for a fifth consecutive Dem term.

[Butter]

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Also, any editorials of note?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Not my list, but I found it on another board and assume that it is correct.

Google Docs - Closing times

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Usually, the courts decide that in Missouri every 4 years. I'm not even sure why they bother trying to make an official closing time.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Usually, the courts decide that in Missouri every 4 years. I'm not even sure why they bother trying to make an official closing time.

I'm sure there will be 50 news storys tomorrow about how times were extended because they ran out of ballots because of unprecedented turnout.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I'm sure there will be 50 news storys tomorrow about how times were extended because they ran out of ballots because of unprecedented turnout.

And well they should be. Unless of course you want to disenfranchise people.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You'll pardon the fact that I have two jobs, a 20 month old child, and a wife to deal with in my 'spare' time. I can't be here at all times.

I assume you did not see my question to you then.

I just want to clarify something from you. If the actual turnout at the polls matches the weighting used by pollsters, are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your criticisms?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

Clearly the conclusion is that Obama has a mandate from the American population.

[Fighter of Foo]

Get over and post in the predictions thread if you haven't already. No gambling, just bragging rights.

That definitely means you MBBF

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I assume you did not see my question to you then.

I just want to clarify something from you. If the actual turnout at the polls matches the weighting used by pollsters, are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your criticisms?

Why wouldn't I? My assertion is that the actual turnout will not match the voting weights being used by some of these polls. The logical assumption would be that if it turns out to be true, I was probably wrong. I realize that admitting that you're wrong is not a common thing in these kinds of threads, but I'll go out on a limb and do it if need be.

BTW.......great to see these big voter turnout numbers in Colorado. I don't buy into the whole 'turnout is good for the XXX party candidate'. I'd love to see more Americans take an interest in the elections. It's good for everyone IMO.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/DDefault.aspx?tid=547

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Really bad timing for this kind of thing to come out given the states that this news could affect.....

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire--USNewswire/ -- Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation's coal industry.

"Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

"Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

"In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

"Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability."

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio's underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

SOURCE Ohio Coal Association

[Autumn]

It's sad to see what a game politics has become, on every side. These sort of stories always get 'discovered' seconds before the election. I know the stakes are high, but perhaps if we weren't all so damn sure that we knew the right outcome we wouldn't be willing to play games like this to ensure our victory.

[Tigercat]

Who votes based on the coal association? They were very anti-Kerry, saying he had "20 years of votes against coal." Kerry still did pretty well with coal families thanks to the unions.

[Autumn]

And I agree about the close nature of elections these days. It was just as surprising to me with the Bush elections, particularly the second one. An incumbent war president would normally hold every advantage, but it came so close. I think people are fairly settled in their camps and it takes a lot to shift anything.

[JPhillips]

Barack Obama prefers socialist, Muslim coal.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really bad timing for this kind of thing to come out given the states that this news could affect.....

Another instance of McCain missing the lay-up. Negative PR does work, but it takes time to work. If they wanted this to have any real effect, they should have released it a week ago instead of the day before the election...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Who votes based on the coal association? They were very anti-Kerry, saying he had "20 years of votes against coal." Kerry still did pretty well with coal families thanks to the unions.

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

[Fighter of Foo]

Obama's not winning WV anyway. I's confused.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

Again for months the coal associations/Republicans hammered Kerry as being anti-coal for decades. It didn't make a big impact with coal families or the coal states then. (Kerry did as well in the coal states as he was going to do with or without coal issues.)

Why would one believe that this would make any kind of noticeable impact, when as mentioned it won't have time to soak into the public's consciousness?

[Raiders Army]

I'm glad the next President gave back his illegal alien aunt's donations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm glad the next President gave back his illegal alien aunt's donations.

Tough situation there. His aunt may be deported thanks to the attention to his campaign. As Obama said, it's the law, but that doesn't mean he personally has to like the situation.

[larrymcg421]

If only McCain could get back all the money he sent to Khalidi, then he might be able to run some ads without having to siphon money from his GOTV operation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

I'll first qualify things by adding "a relatively few percentage points in the popular vote". In other words, in recent US politics an electoral landslide & a popular landslide are two different animals & the latter is an endangered specieis.

Only 5 of the last 10 elections have been won by a candidate getting even 50.1% of the popular vote, and in the past 60 years (15 elections) only 4 times has a candidate gotten reached 55% of the popular vote (Ike '56, LBJ '64, Nixon '72, Reagan '84).

I believe albionmoonlight made a good point earlier, that by nature the US tends to be center-right more than anything else ... so that's the tendency that anyone left of that mark has to overcome to win.

That he appears poised to do so says almost as much about McCain as anything I think. The number of people (outside of FOFC) that I've run across who are actually enthusiastic about voting for him? Zero. I mean damn, that's the same number I've met who were gung-ho about voting for McKinney. Surely I should have at least run into one even by accident.

But ultimately what it says is what I already knew: there's not much "United" about these States, and largely hasn't been for most of my lifetime.
I'd say at least 25% on each end hates the other end as much as they hate terrorists/oil executives/child molesters/Klansmen/whatever. That's about half the country that friggin' despises at least half the rest. "United" is not much more than a sad joke with fairly rare exception.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But ultimately what it says is what I already knew: there's not much "United" about these States, and largely hasn't been for most of my lifetime.

I'd say at least 25% on each end hates the other end as much as they hate terrorists/oil executives/child molesters/Klansmen/whatever. That's about half the country that friggin' despises at least half the rest. "United" is not much more than a sad joke with fairly rare exception.

I think that's a pretty heavy dose of 'debbie downer' if I've ever seen it. Missouri and Kansas fans 'hate' each other a few times a year, but we're able to peacefully co-exist and joke about our differences the rest of the year. I think the same can be said of the public in general in regards to politics. The rhetoric heats up pretty intensely during the election season, but we're able to get along just fine most of the year and we'd certainly be united in a situation of crisis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think the same can be said of the public in general in regards to politics.

{shrug} We disagree on what that "able to get along just fine most of the year" part means I guess.

All it takes to put folks back in the rivalry mode you mentioned is bringing the votes/voting issues/et al to the fore & bam, we're right back to it ... which says to me that it's not a matter of liking each other any more the rest of the time, it's just a combination of forgetfulness & denial that allows us to coexist more peacefully.

edit to add: The one distinction I didn't draw earlier (and now think I should have) is that we seem to be considerably less likely to lose hope of rehabilitating an internal political opponent than we are some of the other reviled categories I mentioned in my previous post. And that reluctance definitely factors in somewhere, although frankly I believe we're probably overly optimistic with that approach (myself included).

[Tigercat]

Just saw the full Obama quote on Coal, he says non-clean built power plants would be bankrupted because of penalties.

So basically, Obama is saying he is for the same exact thing the coal coalitions say they are for, "clean coal." I don't know what to say. Given the way the McCain campaign/McCain supporters have acted in this election, I am not surprised.

[Autumn]

It certainly seems to me that the space between the political camps has gotten not necessarily larger, but more vicious for sure. I think most of the time we get along anyway becuase we avoid those sort of subjects, or keep quiet if they happen to come up. But I would agree that there are parts of our own country who just can't stand other parts, and vice-versa, and seem incapable of responding to each other with anything more than kneejerk vitriol. It's sad. The chip on people's shoulders seems inordinately large.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Autumn

It certainly seems to me that the space between the political camps has gotten not necessarily larger, but more vicious for sure. I think most of the time we get along anyway becuase we avoid those sort of subjects, or keep quiet if they happen to come up. But I would agree that there are parts of our own country who just can't stand other parts, and vice-versa, and seem incapable of responding to each other with anything more than kneejerk vitriol. It's sad. The chip on people's shoulders seems inordinately large.

I really thought/hoped that this election would be the exception to that. If we had the McCain campaign that he ran in 2000, that would have been the case.

The good news is, Obama/Democrats have run a relatively clean, issue filled campaign. (The worst of it is the constant Bush mentions, but as personal and vicious as American politics has been lately that's actually a step up.) Also, the negative campaigning from either side just hasn't worked this cycle. Hopefully lessons will be learned from that... I am cautiously optimistic that an Obama Jindal race in 2012 could be all about issues and discussing differences in a fairly civil manner.

I just hope to God that we don't see Palin run for President. She embraces everything that is wrong about political campaigns.

[Autumn]

I'm not sure how much the presidential electoins have to do with this attitude though. Certainly something, but it's not clear to me that a change in election tactics will have much effect on how joe and jane schmoe talk to each other about politics. I don't really see political ads or debates, or pay attention to the negative stories, for example. But I hear the rancor in people in just ordinary political debates online. I'm sure the negative ads help feed that but I'm not sure it's much of a percentage of where it all comes from.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm not sure how much the presidential electoins have to do with this attitude though. Certainly something, but it's not clear to me that a change in election tactics will have much effect on how joe and jane schmoe talk to each other about politics. I don't really see political ads or debates, or pay attention to the negative stories, for example. But I hear the rancor in people in just ordinary political debates online. I'm sure the negative ads help feed that but I'm not sure it's much of a percentage of where it all comes from.

I think they can have a pretty big affect. I have noticed a lot of liberals that were previously very bitter and angry towards anything conservative mellow out a lot during this campaign. Likewise I have seen some conservatives break off from the Muslim and socialist rhetoric after McCain denounced it.

The modern American political supporter is just in it to win elections. Winning at all costs has given us the ugliness we have today. But at the same time, that is what can help get us out of it. When the candidate that the base has to support says "This is about issues first and foremost, let us agree or disagree civilly."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

The modern American political supporter is just in it to win elections.

I would suggest that you've mixed up the cart & the horse. The sense of urgency that goes with winning seems to stem from the disdain for the opponent, not the other way around.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I would suggest that you've mixed up the cart & the horse. The sense of urgency that goes with winning seems to stem from the disdain for the opponent, not the other way around.

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

[lighthousekeeper]

McCain's "spread the wealth" attack seems somewhat risky - it has a chance to backfire if and when people realize that they make less than $250,000 and therefore are on the side that benefits from spreading the wealth.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

which Im sure youre as equally upset about as the threat of the Troopergate report becoming an "October Surprise."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Maybe not at the beginning of the campaign, but by now I think many dislike him almost as much as Bush.

I was polled by Gallup and they asked me to rate the candidates on a -5 to +5 scale. I gave McCain a -3, when it would have been a +1 or +2 a year ago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Relatively fair enough, especially since your question highlights what I should have said instead of what I said.

Consider the original "stem from the disdain for the opponent" amended to read "disdain for the opponent's supporters". It's more accurate to what I meant (although I don't always make the distinction even to myself apparently) and now it answers your question too.

I don't know if D's this time around hold McCain in such low regard as in recent years but I don't believe they hold non-Obama voters in any higher regard than they held non-Kerry or non-Gore voters.

[Alan T]

Living in Massachusetts, I still have not seen a McCain advertisement yet on tv. I finally started seeing random Obama ads in between the random Sununu/whoever he is running against in New Hampshire ad spam. So my exposure to this entire presidential cycle has been primarily from those few ads and what I read on the boards.

For the most part, I haven't seen much difference between how the Democrats or the Republicans have spoken on this election in regards to negative or positive ads and campaign spins. The New Hampshire race with Sununu is actually kind of hilarious.. both sides evidentally have the same advertisement agency as every single commercial is a contest to see how many sound bites they can find of the other candidate "supporting" Bush. The only Obama ads I have seen on tv here have done pretty much the same thing in regards to McCain.

I don't think I would call any of that "negative advertisement" to the extent of it being worse than things we have seen in the past, but I don't really see many Obama ads that really talk much about what he is trying to acomplish. Everything this election advertisement wise here has been all about trying to distance yourself from Bush while tying the other candidate to Bush.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Not a Democrat, but I have extreme disdain for the McCain & the Republican party and their enablers, the Democratic party.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, holding loathsome, minority opinions and going around inflicting them on everyone but yourself, or initially opposing those views before inevitably capitulating in the most coward-like fashion.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Not a Democrat, but I have extreme disdain for the McCain & the Republican party and their enablers, the Democratic party.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, holding loathsome, minority opinions and going around inflicting them on everyone but yourself, or initially opposing those views before inevitably capitulating in the most coward-like fashion.

So since you have disdain for both sides, it cancels out?

Ah, if only we had the time, patience, and wisdom required to have a direct democracy. There are days I wish we had a parliamentary system, it would be more likely to give people real choices at least.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Well, I'm an independent, and I have nothing but respect for the things John McCain has done in the past. It's his VP Pick that I can't friggin stand.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't really see many Obama ads that really talk much about what he is trying to acomplish. Everything this election advertisement wise here has been all about trying to distance yourself from Bush while tying the other candidate to Bush.

There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

[SirFozzie]

There are reports out that Obama's gravely ill grandmother has passed away. God bless, Toot.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

So since you have disdain for both sides, it cancels out?

Ah, if only we had the time, patience, and wisdom required to have a direct democracy. There are days I wish we had a parliamentary system, it would be more likely to give people real choices at least.

Direct democracy? Wow, I'm ready to go the other route. Let's start with repealing the 17th amendment.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Radii

There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

Yeah, I would believe that the RNC probably has just as many negative ads as the Democrats do. We just don't get many of them up here airtime wise. I just reject the spin that people have that one side is being less negative than the other. From my independent perspective both sides were completely willing to do whatever they needed ad-wise to try to win, but because of an early lead the Democrats have had less of a need to , or felt less of a need to. If the tables were reversed, I would fully expect much nastier ads than the current ones that we see.

I wish we got some of the ads for Obama that you have in NC though, they must feel no need to try to "sell" Obama to anyone in Massachusetts since this state is so heavily liberal, so everything is oriented around trying to remind us why McCain is bad rather than why Obama is good.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Radii

There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

What's fun is the Senate race, where Hagan and Dole are trading attacks constantly. It's a never ending flood from those two. And it's now got the RNC running "you don't want the liberal Dems to get to 60 senators so they can push through anything they want, do you?" ads.

[Logan]

Pumpy must hate Obama now.