Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Buccaneer]

Swaggs, I understand but I envision a different scenario. You are correct in that this would be the scenario if Barr would get elected this year but that will not and cannot happen. I see the election of a third-party candidate coming from a fundamental shift in the voter's minds, unless there is a Lieberman/Lamont type situation. Such a shift would and should manifest itself in legislative bodies, particularly Congress, and it would be from Congress that a presidential candidate would emerge. For libertarianism, it is Congress that is the key, not the Executive. In today's Congressional elections, the unions, blacks, evangelical, military and corporate lobbyists have too much of a hold on the D and R parties to make a third-party president likely or feasible now; but perhaps sometime in the future, such special interests would fade and voters get quite fed-up. It's not going to happen top-down, but the otherway instead. Got to go now, I probably need to clarify later.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think a lot of the problem that the Democrats have is that they keep nominating these social elites. Look at Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama. They are/were all elites. The problem that each of them have is that they can be made to appear that they look down at the masses. This is not a good trait to have in a general election. Early on, it is not a problem, but the deeper you get into a campaign, the more of an impact it has.

The single successful Democrat Presidential candidate of the last 20 years was Bill Clinton. He was anything but an elite, and he won two terms.

It's bizarre to me that anyone would call Obama an "elite" -- a mixed-race child in a single-parent household, raising himself up in the American tradition to success through education and hard work; a family-man and community activist. Which kind of boils down to calling Obama uppity. It seems to me a stunning blindness on the part of folks who feel comfortable making such claims, while not leveling the same charges at McCain. Especially as McCain can't even remember how many houses he owns.

To me it's sad that people who want to support a Conservative philosophy -- which is perfectly legitimate, despite my own misgivings about its execution -- are continually misled into buying the negative propaganda while displaying a troubling unwillingness to address the same issues with their chosen candidate.

My own take? The "elite" issue is one raised by the same folks who are intimidated by/bitter towards folks they feel are smarter/'better' than them. Even though pretty much anyone running for president is exactly that (present Commander-in-Chiefs excluded). The "elite" charge is just a propaganda tool that Republicans use to reinforce with their base that Democrats are a 'different kind of person' than they are -- a technique they apply to pretty much every inter-personal (or cultural) issue that there is.

[BrianD]

This may be faulty perception on my part, but I always have more trouble with the Democratic Elite than the Republican Elite since it seems like the Democrats are more interested in taking my money to share for the "general good". If we are looking at more social programs, I'd want someone in charge who had a good understanding of the people being helped. Republican Elite bother me less because they usually give me more control of my life and finances. I don't really care if they can adequately try to speak for me since the generally don't try to.

Of course that could all be faulty perception or rationalization...

[molson]

Al Gore's $30,000 utility bill comes to mind.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This may be faulty perception on my part, but I always have more trouble with the Democratic Elite than the Republican Elite since it seems like the Democrats are more interested in taking my money to share for the "general good". If we are looking at more social programs, I'd want someone in charge who had a good understanding of the people being helped. Republican Elite bother me less because they usually give me more control of my life and finances. I don't really care if they can adequately try to speak for me since the generally don't try to.

Of course that could all be faulty perception or rationalization...

That's a legitimate way of approaching the philosophical differences, if one with which I disagree. I'd argue that Republicans offer the illusion of personal control, while establishing a framework that actually gives people less choice -- consider how much power corporate interests have in this country, or how pollution and climate change have affected the lives of countless Americans, or how by entrenching the richest 2% of our citizens while not providing for the other 98% who don't actually have the same kind of ability to be successful harms us through class struggles, poverty, and crime.

My take is that it's just illusory propaganda, not supported by the facts. Kind of like an employer at a salaried job who gives employees a $100 bonus in order to get them to put in extra time that makes up their actual cost and then some. It's focusing on the trees, and not the forest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

That's a legitimate way of approaching the philosophical differences, if one with which I disagree. I'd argue that Republicans offer the illusion of personal control, while establishing a framework that actually gives people less choice -- consider how much power corporate interests have in this country, or how pollution and climate change have affected the lives of countless Americans, or how by entrenching the richest 2% of our citizens while not providing for the other 98% who don't actually have the same kind of ability to be successful harms us through class struggles, poverty, and crime.

My take is that it's just illusory propaganda, not supported by the facts. Kind of like an employer at a salaried job who gives employees a $100 bonus in order to get them to put in extra time that makes up their actual cost and then some. It's focusing on the trees, and not the forest.

That's a fair opinion, but I wonder if liberals understand that economic conservatives just have a different philosphy than them - that they believe that "entrenching the richest 2%" (though I'd use different phrasing) actually HELPS the other 98%, and the country as a whole. The liberal propaganda always frames it as rich v. poor, corporation v. individual, and no real discussion or debate of economic policies ever takes place.

Different sides of the aisle always miss each other in these arguments. Both sides are guilty of this. Take Abortion for example. Pro-choice people say women have the right to choose. But pro-lifers aren't motivated by taking away a women's right, they want to protect unborn children. Pro-Life people say abortion is murder. But Pro-Choice people aren't looking to kill babies, they're just standing up for rights of women. Here's the real argument point - what's more important, this right to aborition on the whole, or this potential life of an unborn child. The discussion never reaches that point.

Same with economics - I want to hear liberals argue something more insightful than "Rich people are bad, we should tax them". I want to hear them argue why rich people spending and investing money is NOT ultimately better for the economy than having that money go to the government instead. Why is $1,000 to the government worth more than $1,000 invested in a company?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

......or how pollution and climate change have affected the lives of countless Americans, or how by entrenching the richest 2% of our citizens while not providing for the other 98% who don't actually have the same kind of ability to be successful harms us through class struggles, poverty, and crime.

So in other words, you're here to support the Democratic party line. First, I'd love to see the drastic effect that pollution and climate change have had on Americans.

Second, I get really tired of the demonization of wealth as though it's a bad thing. I went to school for 7 years and earned 3 degrees. My wife went to school for 12 years and earned her M.D. We both pulled out thousands of dollars in loans and worked our tail off to complete our educations. As a result, we are in the top 3% in wages amongst Americans. Anyone with the proper motivation and work could do exactly what my wife and I did. We donate a few thousand dollars to charities each year. Of course, the Democratic party line states that I'm the evil guy because I'm part of that elite that earns all that money and stashes it away to give to future generations. Worse yet, you can be sure that the same politicians that are demonizing wealth and the passing of that wealth are the same people who are in that top 2% and do everything in their power to protect that wealth, much like I do.

I have little sympathy for those kinds of party arguments. No myths, my ass.

[NoMyths]

Molson: Your error is in apparently assuming that all people on the various sides buy into that approach, which isn't accurate. Real discussion does take place, but not generally in a climate where people call each other by labels and don't take a look at the facts. I don't personally have a problem with a subclass enriching itself far beyond the majority -- we do need business owners to provide jobs, after all -- but I find the kind of class pandering that we see from Republican campaigns distasteful, as it often seems false and disrespectful to the very people who support them. What's the Matter with Kansas does a good job of considering this issue.

[molson]

It's also interesting to see that the "champion of the poor" Obama has a half-brother in Kenya that lives in a shack on less than $1/month.

Obama's half-brother to Vanity Fair: 'No one knows I exist' :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This may be faulty perception on my part, but I always have more trouble with the Democratic Elite than the Republican Elite since it seems like the Democrats are more interested in taking my money to share for the "general good". If we are looking at more social programs, I'd want someone in charge who had a good understanding of the people being helped. Republican Elite bother me less because they usually give me more control of my life and finances. I don't really care if they can adequately try to speak for me since the generally don't try to.

Of course that could all be faulty perception or rationalization...

I'm not sure how the Republican elite give you more control of your life. Seems to me they want to tell me exactly how to live my life, as long as it fits their narrowly defined view of what is acceptable and moral.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Molson: Your error is in apparently assuming that all people on the various sides buy into that approach, which isn't accurate. Real discussion does take place, but not generally in a climate where people call each other by labels and don't take a look at the facts. I don't personally have a problem with a subclass enriching itself far beyond the majority -- we do need business owners to provide jobs, after all -- but I find the kind of class pandering that we see from Republican campaigns distasteful, as it often seems false and disrespectful to the very people who support them. What's the Matter with Kansas does a good job of considering this issue.

Not all conservatives think that way, but many do, and liberals just completely ignore that. It's a little off-putting when liberals tell conservatives that it's all a rich v. poor thing, completely ignoring the possibility that people just might have different opinions about how to make the American economy work best. Or in other words, if you don't agree with the Democrats on something, you hate poor people and are only looking out for the rich.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So in other words, you're here to support the Democratic party line. First, I'd love to see the drastic effect that pollution and climate change have had on Americans.

Second, I get really tired of the demonization of wealth as though it's a bad thing. I went to school for 7 years and earned 3 degrees. My wife went to school for 12 years and earned her M.D. We both pulled out thousands of dollars in loans and worked our tail off to complete our educations. As a result, we are in the top 3% in wages amongst Americans. Anyone with the proper motivation and work could do exactly what my wife and I did. We donate a few thousand dollars to charities each year. Of course, the Democratic party line states that I'm the evil guy because I'm part of that elite that earns all that money and stashes it away to give to future generations. Worse yet, you can be sure that the same politicians that are demonizing wealth and the passing of that wealth are the same people who are in that top 2% and do everything in their power to protect that wealth, much like I do.

I have little sympathy for those kinds of party arguments. No myths, my ass.

I'm, uh, not a Democrat. As I've mentioned several times before.

You can find the evidence for the effect pollution and climate change have had on our fellow citizens easily via Google search. However, as it's clear that you don't believe either is a problem, I doubt my efforts to convince you otherwise would be useful.

I'm not personally interested in demonizing folks that have been successful -- that's one of the great things about our country; more than any other, an average citizen has the ability to make their lives professionally and financially successful. It's not accurate to say that anyone can do so, but certainly a greater percentage have the ability here than anywhere else.

It's unfortunate that your three degrees apparently didn't strengthen your close reading skills, but I'd encourage you to take a second look at what I was actually saying, rather than lumping me into the 'rich people are bad' category.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Not all liberals think that way, but many do, and conservatives just completely ignore that. It's a little off-putting when conservatives tell liberals that it's all a class warfare thing, completely ignoring the possibility that people just might have different opinions about how to make the American economy work best. Or in other words, if you don't agree with the Conservatives on something, you hate rich people and are only looking out for the poor.

Fixed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Mizzou, I agree with the vast majority of your point, save this one.

I don't feel that every person in this country has the same ability to rise to the level that you have. Many, or even perhaps most, do. But, assuming that not everyone has this same level of ability, what are the responsibilities of the rest of society to those left behind?

I agree. Most do, but not all. I do think that there's definitely a place for the government to step in and assist at some level. I do think that the government allow far too many to use government welfare as a crutch. I think that this is an area that needs significant improvement in regards to administration. Cracking down on those who use the system that truly don't need it would allow for a greater amount of funds for those who do need it.

I just don't like the constant demonization of wealth when there are many people who earned that wealth and didn't have it handed to them. I should state that there's significant risks in the path my wife and I took. We were $200K in debt at one point. If we failed at any point, we would have been screwed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Fixed.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. It's all good v. evil with people like you. You're 100% right all the time, and everyone that doesn't agree must have evil motives.

Did you even read my post? I'm arguing that people should try to address the actual substance of people's views, and not just label them with assumed motivations. It's just an obnoxious and unproductive way to make a point.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure how the Republican elite give you more control of your life. Seems to me they want to tell me exactly how to live my life, as long as it fits their narrowly defined view of what is acceptable and moral.

I'm going to qualify this again as being based on immediate perception and not terribly deep thought, but I can't think of a way in which they do impact my life. Clearly Republicans speak out about ethical and moral values (whether or not them follow them themselves), but that doesn't translate too much into real impact. The one place I can see where it might have an impact is on the topic of abortion, but that wouldn't impact me personally. I guess the other area that might affect my life is the fact that the Republicans seem to have forgotten their mantra of "less government". That probably results in some subtle changes in my life due to government money going stupid places.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

This is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. It's all good v. evil with people like you. You're 100% right all the time, and everyone that doesn't agree must have evil motives.

Did you even read my post?

What the hell? I was just showing you how the exact opposite could be said about conservatives. You just stereotyped liberals in your post ("liberals completely ignore that"), but you're gonna tell me I'm making it "good vs. evil"? Get a fucking grip, man.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree. Most do, but not all. I do think that there's definitely a place for the government to step in and assist at some level. I do think that the government allow far too many to use government welfare as a crutch. I think that this is an area that needs significant improvement in regards to administration. Cracking down on those who use the system that truly don't need it would allow for a greater amount of funds for those who do need it. I just don't like the constant demonization of wealth when there are many people who earned that wealth and didn't have it handed to them.

I should state that there's significant risks in the path my wife and I took. We were $200K in debt at one point. If we failed at any point, we would have been screwed.

I'm probably already sounding like an idiot in this thread, so why not keep going... I would generally agree with MBBF here. I personally think that helping the less fortunate should be a private sector issue. Churches and charity groups do a lot of good in this area and I would like to see the Government back out of it some. It is good that the Government gets involved in emergencies and crazy situations, but I think we've got too many programs that allow people to survive on the programs and not be motivated to improve their own situation. Keeping this assistance in the private sector and letting people know that the assistance is temporary so they'd better start making their own improvement plans feels like the way to go for me.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm going to qualify this again as being based on immediate perception and not terribly deep thought, but I can't think of a way in which they do impact my life. Clearly Republicans speak out about ethical and moral values (whether or not them follow them themselves), but that doesn't translate too much into real impact. The one place I can see where it might have an impact is on the topic of abortion, but that wouldn't impact me personally. I guess the other area that might affect my life is the fact that the Republicans seem to have forgotten their mantra of "less government". That probably results in some subtle changes in my life due to government money going stupid places.

Those aren't the real issues in terms of everyday impact. Pollution and climate change, for example, are issues that have been exacerbated by Republican policies -- for all of the good that a booming corporate economy gives us, there are also a number of drawbacks. However, they're trickier issues to pin down (unlike abortion, say) because they require a certain level of education and involvement with the topic that most aren't willing or able to commit, and as such their actual impact isn't at the forefront of most people's minds.

Alternately, in terms of everyday impact, there are a whole lot of families worried about their loved ones overseas in Iraq because of Republican-driven policies. Not to mention the drain of war costs on our economy.

[BrianD]

I'm one of those folks that isn't sold on the idea of human causation for global warming, so I'm less worried about those Republican policies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What the hell? I was just showing you how the exact opposite could be said about conservatives. You just stereotyped liberals in your post ("liberals completely ignore that"), but you're gonna tell me I'm making it "good vs. evil"? Get a fucking grip, man.

There is a real difference between liberals and conservatives here, that's the nature of the different viewpoints, it's not a stereotype.

Liberals can say "conservatives want to screw poor people", and win elections, because a lot of people consider themselves poor.

Conservatives can't say "liberals want to screw the top 2%", because the top 2% aren't going to win an election.

Both ideas are wrong, and meaningless, and ingore the real economic philosophies behind different systems. Liberals prefer a direct, "Robin Hood" approach, and Conservatives prefer a more indirect, pure capitalist approach. It's two ideas, both aimed towards the goal of a strong economy as a whole. It's not a rich/poor issue, and the pandering to those groups as if it was is just annoying and dishonest. Liberals can frame the discussion as "the top 2% vs. everyone else", as we've seen in this thread, and that's just idiotic (though good political strategy, as long as the voters are morons). It benefits liberals for voters to be uneducated, because who would EVER vote against the 98%?

(I'm not saying that the liberal economic philosophy is necessarily "wrong" in any way, though the general liberal argument strategy seems to be to avoid the real discussion, and just stick to 98% v. 2%, poor people need money, rich people should be taxed, etc. Conservatives would do no better, and would over-simplify things in the same way when it benefits them - like terrorism).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm probably already sounding like an idiot in this thread, so why not keep going... I would generally agree with MBBF here. I personally think that helping the less fortunate should be a private sector issue. Churches and charity groups do a lot of good in this area and I would like to see the Government back out of it some. It is good that the Government gets involved in emergencies and crazy situations, but I think we've got too many programs that allow people to survive on the programs and not be motivated to improve their own situation. Keeping this assistance in the private sector and letting people know that the assistance is temporary so they'd better start making their own improvement plans feels like the way to go for me.

I'll give you a perfect example. Last Christmas, I found a local home that housed single mothers who are in a difficult financial situation or suffered from spousal abuse. They had a Christmas program set up where the mother made a list of everything that she needed that would help her get back on her feet. Diapers, baby food, baby formula, clothes for baby, high chair, car seat, work clothes for mom, etc. As an optional item, she asked for a DVD and a couple of Sesame Street videos for her child as she didn't have anything like that.

This is all stuff that I'm able to provide for my child. This girl was working 50 hours a week as a nurse and just needed a boost. I spent quite a bit of money on the items she needed, but when you give those things to the person and you see the emotional impact that it has on them, you realize just how fulfilling charitable contributions can be, especially when done in the private sector. Giving suddenly becomes addictive. That organization didn't take a dime from my contribution. It all went right to where it was needed. That's how it should be.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

There is a real difference between liberals and conservatives here, that's the nature of the different viewpoints, it's not a stereotype.

Liberals can say "conservatives want to screw poor people", and win elections, because a lot of people consider themselves poor.

Except not all liberals say this, which is what you seem to be insinuating. You post that I "fixed" was willing to offer exceptions for conservaties - "not all conservatives think that way, but many do", but then implied that all liberals think alike.

Conservatives can't say "liberals want to screw the top 2%", because the top 2% aren't going to win an election.

What? Are you kidding? Many conservatives do say this, and it does help them win elections. Where do you think campaign contributions come from? I'm not sure you've been paying attention to elections for a long time if you don't think Republicans appeal to the top 2%.

[watravaler]

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll give you a perfect example. Last Christmas, I found a local home that housed single mothers who are in a difficult financial situation or suffered from spousal abuse. They had a Christmas program set up where the mother made a list of everything that she needed that would help her get back on her feet. Diapers, baby food, baby formula, clothes for baby, high chair, car seat, work clothes for mom, etc. As an optional item, she asked for a DVD and a couple of Sesame Street videos for her child as she didn't have anything like that.

This is all stuff that I'm able to provide for my child. This girl was working 50 hours a week as a nurse and just needed a boost. I spent quite a bit of money on the items she needed, but when you give those things to the person and you see the emotional impact that it has on them, you realize just how fulfilling charitable contributions can be, especially when done in the private sector. Giving suddenly becomes addictive. That organization didn't take a dime from my contribution. It all went right to where it was needed. That's how it should be.

My wife works in a partnership with Habitat for Humanity. Every time she goes on a trip to build home, she comes back very rejuvenated and ready to plan another trip so she can help more people. The people that get Habitat homes have to put in "sweat equity" on their home or on other Habitat homes so it isn't just a free hand-out. Charity done in this manner does tend to breed more charity.

The downside to all of this is that volunteers are temporary. People lose interest and many people don't have interest at all. Forcing everyone to pay (taxes) may result in more money, but it doesn't result in more caring. I can see where it is easier to have higher taxes and government programs so charity groups don't have to spend so much money just to raise awareness. I do think though that dropping government programs would result in more charitable giving. I'd love to see it tried, but I can't imagine any politician cutting a major welfare program.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

I'm going to quote this post for permanence because I believe you'll be swimming to China come November.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What? Are you kidding? Many conservatives do say this, and it does help them win elections. Where do you think campaign contributions come from? I'm not sure you've been paying attention to elections for a long time if you don't think Republicans appeal to the top 2%.

I've never seen a conservative TV ad that highlights the plight of the downtrotten top 2%. That group is going to vote conservative, and contribute lots of money anyway. I'm not saying conservatives don't "appeal" to that group, just that that can't be their mainstream message, whereas the opposite is pretty much the entire liberal mainstream message.

(I say "conservative" instead of Republican because I don't feel the Republican party is fiscally conservative anymore)

[molson]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

I definitely thought this until the last week or so. It's amazing that it's even this close. Obama losing would be the biggest failure in the history of the modern Democratic party. It would end his national political career, and would have to cause some kind of major shake-up/revolution within the party.

[larrymcg421]

Looks like the Zogby poll showing McCain with a 5 point lead looks to be a huge outlier at the moment. 5 separate polls have come out since then that all show Obama with a small lead.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

I definitely thought this until the last week or so. It's amazing that it's even this close. Obama losing would be the biggest failure in the history of the modern Democratic party. It would end his national political career, and would have to cause some kind of major shake-up/revolution within the party.

Out of curiosity, how much bigger a failure would this be than 2004?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Out of curiosity, how much bigger a failure would this be than 2004?

I think much bigger. Bush was unpopular in '04, and the Dems definitely blew it, but Bush is even more unpopular today. And then, I think there was this sentiment about maintaining consistent leadership in the middle of the "war on terror".

And John Kerry was just awful. If Obama can't get America excited about the Democratic party and what it stands for, it can't be done. Where does the Democratic party go from there?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

As much as the biased side of me wants you to be correct, it is really tough to say. If it was even Kerry/Gore vs McCain I would agree with you.

This is still a country that would vote for JFK over Nixon based primarily on the fact that JFK looked better on camera. This is still a country that will vote for the guy that who's background and appearance is most like their own.

After those who vote by party and by issues take their sides, It will come down to charisma vs more-like-us. I am not sure which I would bet on at this point.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by molson

And John Kerry was just awful. If Obama can't get America excited about the Democratic party and what it stands for, it can't be done. Where does the Democratic party go from there?

Dola, was Bush the perfect carrier for the conservative movement? Clinton for liberalism? Certainly not, winning a presidential election isn't about being the best carrier of the flag for either party. It is a series of popularity contests. The Democratic party was not significantly better off after their last 2 term president, and the same for the Republican party today. Actually, in terms of power held, both parties are worse off afterwards.

[Warhammer]

If the Democrat party moved themselves closer to the center, this thing would be all over. They could say they are pro-choice, but against partial birth abortion, they could favor a tiered energy policy (something I haven't heard from either side FWIW), they could favor a a thoughtful tax increase or look to make government more efficient, rather than raise taxes, etc.

What I find funny, is that the Democrats won Congress in 2006, but have not really done anything with that. Their approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why? If they really wanted to do things for the people of the country they could push all sorts of legislation and force Bush to have to sign or veto some of these things. I have not seen it done.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Regardless of what polls say, I think this presidential election has been "over" for quite some time. The newspapers may say one thing, but I'll eat my hat and swim to China if McCain pulls this election. This should be, and probably will be a landslide victory for Obama. The local elections will be interesting, however, at least in my state...

Michael Phelps, is that you?

I do agree with you that Obama should win this election. With that said, there's no way that this race should be a dead heat at this point, yet it is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If the Democrat party moved themselves closer to the center, this thing would be all over. They could say they are pro-choice, but against partial birth abortion, they could favor a tiered energy policy (something I haven't heard from either side FWIW), they could favor a a thoughtful tax increase or look to make government more efficient, rather than raise taxes, etc.

What I find funny, is that the Democrats won Congress in 2006, but have not really done anything with that. Their approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why? If they really wanted to do things for the people of the country they could push all sorts of legislation and force Bush to have to sign or veto some of these things. I have not seen it done.

What's the difference between a thoughtful tax increase and raising taxes?

As for Congress, while they haven't been terribly effective, the big problem is that the Dems are playing by agreed upon rules and allowing the Republicans to block bills in the Senate through threat of filibuster or often a single hold. (Coburn put holds on over 100 pieces of legislation) They've tried to play with a gentlemen's agreement while the Republicans play to win.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for Congress, while they haven't been terribly effective, the big problem is that the Dems are playing by agreed upon rules and allowing the Republicans to block bills in the Senate through threat of filibuster or often a single hold. (Coburn put holds on over 100 pieces of legislation) They've tried to play with a gentlemen's agreement while the Republicans play to win.

I think people have similar concerns about an Obama presidency. Can he deliver everything he promises in the face of the realities of Washington? Or will we hear "he hasn't been effective, but its not really his fault"?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

I think people have similar concerns about an Obama presidency. Can he deliver everything he promises in the face of the realities of Washington? Or will we hear "he hasn't been effective, but its not really his fault"?

The persuasive power of the presidency is significantly greater than a U.S. senator. Ask Bush and his personal army in Iraq that is now rumored to be leaving in June '09. I don't believe in coincidence.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Michael Phelps, is that you?

I do agree with you that Obama should win this election. With that said, there's no way that this race should be a dead heat at this point, yet it is.

I do wonder how much of his Obama's lost of ground is due to:
a) His shifting of positions (moderating)? Are people really seeing just another politician? He seems to be shifting his views on Iraq, taxes, and such.
b) Are Americans looking for actual goals, plans, and action, instead of just charm?
c) His "rock star" campaign even thought he still is a inexperience senator from Illinois? I think that is one of two things that hurt Kerry in 2004 (Hollywood).
d) Are Americans always looking for an actual candidate with real plans, other than just what the candidate is (McCain is Bush III) and offer really no changes? (What killed Kerry in 2004)
5) The little stories (his minister, his Muslim background, ect.).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I think much bigger. Bush was unpopular in '04, and the Dems definitely blew it, but Bush is even more unpopular today. And then, I think there was this sentiment about maintaining consistent leadership in the middle of the "war on terror".

Plus I find little evidence that there's a strong pro-McCain element to the likely GOP voters that did still exist for Bush four years ago. Smaller than it was halfway through his first term but existent nonetheless.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

The persuasive power of the presidency is significantly greater than a U.S. senator. Ask Bush and his personal army in Iraq that is now rumored to be leaving in June '09. I don't believe in coincidence.

True, but it's still America. Obama's platform is essentially, "I'll make the country better through change". If everyone thought he could actually do that, everyone would vote for him.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but it's still America. Obama's platform is essentially, "I'll make the country better through change". If everyone thought he could actually do that, everyone would vote for him.

I think is part of the problem, I'm seeing, is what exactly is change. He really isn't getting that part out or has any real plans to follow that, and I wonder if voters are seeing through this (and in connection to my post above).

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for Congress, while they haven't been terribly effective, the big problem is that the Dems are playing by agreed upon rules and allowing the Republicans to block bills in the Senate through threat of filibuster or often a single hold. (Coburn put holds on over 100 pieces of legislation) They've tried to play with a gentlemen's agreement while the Republicans play to win.

Democrats are nothing more than enablers of Republican policy. This is why there's very little substantial differences between the two parties.

Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush because self-identified Democrats disapprove of both of them. Usually, supporters of the party in charge approve of the job their office holders are doing (i.e. Bush and the 30%ers). In this case it's not true, hence the historically low rating.

Congress has been very effective (and almost always is) in doing what it wants to do and serving its own interests. Unfortunately the interests of the Federal government and those of ordinary citizens are almost never the same.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but it's still America. Obama's platform is essentially, "I'll make the country better through change". If everyone thought he could actually do that, everyone would vote for him.

In both this and a large portion of your economic argument you're leaving out the reality that people don't agree on what's better. Many of the arguments against Obama are policy based arguments. If you don't agree with his vision of economic policy or healthcare policy or Iraq policy, or whatever, you won't vote for him, but that has nothing to do with a perceived empty rhetoric.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's the difference between a thoughtful tax increase and raising taxes?

As for Congress, while they haven't been terribly effective, the big problem is that the Dems are playing by agreed upon rules and allowing the Republicans to block bills in the Senate through threat of filibuster or often a single hold. (Coburn put holds on over 100 pieces of legislation) They've tried to play with a gentlemen's agreement while the Republicans play to win.

Easy, rather than repealing the entire tax cut, which they have said they want to do several times, you could repeal say half of the tax cut (that said, raising taxes while the economy is in questionable shape is not good sense anyway). Plus, let's not forget about how many judges the Dems are holding up in Congress. That is a travesty, and I can't see how anyone can say the Democrats are playing by a gentlemen's agreement. Hell, look at how they acted in Congress from 2002-2006 when they were a minority party.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you don't agree with his vision of economic policy or healthcare policy or Iraq policy, or whatever, you won't vote for him, but that has nothing to do with a perceived empty rhetoric.

Actually, most people that I know that are having second thoughts about Obama are having them for exactly this reason. They listen to him, and it is just rhetoric. What he needs to do is give a speech, talk about what he wants, and how he is going to do it. I have yet to hear that from him. I've heard what he wants to do, but have yet to hear a game plan of how he hopes to implement it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, most people that I know that are having second thoughts about Obama are having them for exactly this reason. They listen to him, and it is just rhetoric. What he needs to do is give a speech, talk about what he wants, and how he is going to do it. I have yet to hear that from him. I've heard what he wants to do, but have yet to hear a game plan of how he hopes to implement it.

I think Chevy Chase summed it up well when he was guest-hosting SNLWeekend Update last year:

"On Tuesday, candidate Barack Obama proposed setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. A novel idea. He also hopes to save the polar ice caps, the whales, to make love, not war, and to buy the world a coke."

Obama will give a speech about health care, and he'll say that "we have to make health care more affordable to Americans". No shit, who doesn't want that? I guess I can infer that the answer is "more taxes", when we already spend far more than any other country, per GDP, on healthcare (about 15%) for a system that most agree doesn't work. Does anyone really think Obama can fix the health care system during his term?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Actually, most people that I know that are having second thoughts about Obama are having them for exactly this reason. They listen to him, and it is just rhetoric. What he needs to do is give a speech, talk about what he wants, and how he is going to do it. I have yet to hear that from him. I've heard what he wants to do, but have yet to hear a game plan of how he hopes to implement it.

You're arguing a different point that I'm not going to get into. I'm trying to point out that "better" is a genuine point of disagreement. Neither Obama or McCain can bridge all gaps because at heart people have differing interests and beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the candidates or voters are necessarily being dishonest.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Easy, rather than repealing the entire tax cut, which they have said they want to do several times, you could repeal say half of the tax cut (that said, raising taxes while the economy is in questionable shape is not good sense anyway). Plus, let's not forget about how many judges the Dems are holding up in Congress. That is a travesty, and I can't see how anyone can say the Democrats are playing by a gentlemen's agreement. Hell, look at how they acted in Congress from 2002-2006 when they were a minority party.

You didn't just bring up judges. Compare the record from 2001-2008 with the Clinton years. Far more judges are being confirmed than when the situation was reversed. I'd argue the same thing as to holds and filibusters. The numbers aren't even close between this Congress and the previous one. AS far as I know the Dems also haven't ordered the Capitol Police on the Republicans yet, either.

Part of the judge issue, as well as the overall fixation on what happens to the Dems if they lose the White House speaks to our continuing fascination with an almost monarchical executive. I simply don't have a problem with Congress acting within the scope of the Constitution to limit the power of the executive. If the government is split the executive shouldn't get all of his nominees confirmed without a genuine effort to work with the opposition.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

I think Chevy Chase summed it up well when he was guest-hosting SNLWeekend Update last year:

"On Tuesday, candidate Barack Obama proposed setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. A novel idea. He also hopes to save the polar ice caps, the whales, to make love, not war, and to buy the world a coke."

Obama will give a speech about health care, and he'll say that "we have to make health care more affordable to Americans". No shit, who doesn't want that? I guess I can infer that the answer is "more taxes", when we already spend far more than any other country, per GDP, on healthcare (about 15%) for a system that most agree doesn't work. Does anyone really think Obama can fix the health care system during his term?

Isn't this what killed Kerry in 2004? His empty rhetoric and the I'm not Bush strategy? I think Americans, on average, are really good at reading through the BS and look for substance.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Isn't this what killed Kerry in 2004? His empty rhetoric and the I'm not Bush strategy? I think Americans, on average, are really good at reading through the BS and look for substance.

Clearly. Look at how much substance we've gotten as a country over the last seven years.