The Official American Election 2008 Thread

[Yamikarasu]

Most voters probably won't hear about the death of Obama's grandmother in time for the election, so it probably won't have much of an effect tomorrow.

And for those who don't think Obama has explained what exactly "change" means, here is this video, which I saw on TV just today and I thought was great. This is as specific as any politician will ever get.

Come on, you can't honestly say that it wasn't a huge blunder to not know who the prime minister of Canada is? Remember that she cited Canada as an example of "her foreign policy experience."

 

[HK]

On the spot? Probably not, Biden is a toss up on possibly knowing or not. Obama I wouldn't believe would due to his lack of international experience.

Experience is not the same thing as knowledge. (Also, knowing the current name of Canada's Prime Minister is a debatable stance here, but I cannot reconcile with either believing that Quebec is not a province.)

I just find it a bit alarming that the VP candidate, the one who has been held up as having sufficient experience and knowledge of Russia and Canada, does not know rudimentary facts about the latter. Palin popped the balloon that she and other Republicans have been inflating for her.

Well A: We will see tomorrow if the Bradley effect is real or not.

Do you believe that if Obama loses tomorrow, it is proof enough that there is some credence to the Bradley Effect?

B: I could just see some Independents who right now could lean either way, could lean toward Obama because they feel bad for him. God knows there are worse ways for people to decide who they want to vote for.

Such as voting based on party affiliation, race and military career? The majority of people -- perhaps most people -- vote for candidates with shallow reasoning to begin with. No real surprises there, obviously.

Thank god for you HellKorn, because McCain dislikers on these forums need an intelligent person to argue for the rest of them who know why they hate McCain but don't know any really points to argue on.

Well, for some people, to say that I hate McCain is to imply that I love Obama. (which is a dumb logical assumption, but it's to be expected.) I don't hold much confidence in either candidate, but have far less in a McCain administration than an Obama one, and not only because of policies.

How a ticket carries itself during the campaign is, in my opinion, reflective of how an administration would be carried out. McCain's pick of Palin is problematic to begin with, but the visceral tone, logical fallacies and double-standards that the campaign employs and their supporters, well, support are frightening. The pandering to their base without any vision to extend beyond that, let alone make others actually trust them on such views, is just disappointing. There's an astonishing disconnect between Palin herself and the McCain campaign, and the apparent lack of clarity and competent surrounding staff of the VP just blows my mind.

Regardless of all that, I'm not really so much as concerned with the Presidental race at the moment -- I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but Obama seems the more likely of the two -- compared to what's happening with the Senate. That has, sadly, been given very little attention compared to the tiring and redundant exposure of the Democrat and Republican Presidential candidates.

Should the Democrats do gain "control" of Congress, in a sense, after this election, then it will be... interesting to see what comes of it. I'm not optimistic, though I'd like to be proven wrong. Pelosi doesn't bring much faith, to say the least, but I am curious to see not only who Obama chooses to surround himself with, but also whether or not he goes forward and succeeds with even half of what he's proposed.

If there is either a lack of commitment or actions that swing too far to the left, isn't too good for a lot of Americans. Both parties will have essentially failed us. The only solace in that situation would be a potential better candidate from either party. (Hey, how about an Old Skool Republican? The kind that existed up until the past few decades in American history?)

 

[GrizzlyB]

And for those who don't think Obama has explained what exactly "change" means, here is this video, which I saw on TV just today and I thought was great. This is as specific as any politician will ever get.

That's hardly specific. Specific on what he wants to accomplish, yes, but very much less so on the how, outside of the budget cuts everyone would love to hear about (war funds, wealthy tax breaks, etc.).

Also, I find it sort of amusing how he says he's going to eliminate the tax cuts on the upperclass, while also talking about creating more jobs in America (except the part about ending breaks for companies sending jobs overseas). Kind of ass-backwards if you ask me.

 

[Mr. Mudkip]

I hate this about politics: Everything.
And this: How Republicans complain Obama is "inexperienced", but Sarah Palin is "a fresh vibrant young person who's ready to pick up the torch and lead."

 

[GhostAnime]

Biden would have, and he would have probably talked the guy's ear off to the point they would have begged for him to hang up. Obama might have before his trip to Europe.

S: I must say Governor Palin, I love the documentary they made on your life. You know, Hustler's Nailin' Palin?
P: Ohh, good, thank you! Yes.
S: That was really edgy.
P: (Giggle) Well, good

Exactly, we could go try hunting by helicopter like you did. I never did that. Like we say in French, on pourrait tuer des bebe phoques, aussi. (We could kill all the baby seals).
P: Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together, as we're getting work done. We can kill two birds with one stone that way.
S: I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun!
Palin: (Giggle)
S: I'd really love to go, so long as we don't bring Vice President Cheney.
P: Noooo, I'll be a careful shot, yes.

she was either playing along or...

 

[Ethan]

So an Alaskan governor on a Presidential ticker not knowing the name of Canada's Prime Minister and that Quebec doesn't have a Prime Minister is somehow still qualified?

Now, maybe I just heard the video wrong, or missed some parts, or am misinformed, but how did this video reveal any misconception or lack of knowledge on Palin's part?

Both sides have made some really dumb mistakes throughout this campaign, but I'm McCain's pick of Palin is starting to look like the biggest "gaffe" of them all. Not that he would be guaranteed otherwise -- public perception of the two parties are going to lean towards the Democrats after the past eight years and the current economic situation, correct or not -- but I'm not seeing how she helped his chances.

I will be honest and admit that Palin was not the best choice, but she was still a good choice. McCain was sinking in the polls so he needed someone new and charismatic that could breath life into his campaign. He could have chose another experienced conservative white guy, but what would that have given him? His campaign would have just slowly fizzled out. Palin also solidified his Republican base because many conservatives were disinfranchised with him. Your far far right don't really give a damn if you're a maverick, they want someone far far right. Palin fit that bill as she was a social conservative. She helped the ticket in that respect.

We need to realize that the public is fickle.

In tough times the people always show a trend of leaning towards the opposite side of the spectrum. The depression was under Hoover who was a staunch conservative, they elected FDR a democrat. Inflation was skyrocketing under Jimmy carter, the people elected Reagan. (the only blue state left in the union was Minnesota.) and now things aren't looking good under Bush. It seems as though we're going to elect Barack Obama. The message I'm trying to get through is that we need to see past the fact that we are in hard economic times, and approach each candidate with fierce scrutiny and not always look towards the opposite end as a means of salvation.

And that blunder would be on the President of France.

So she wouldn't share any public scrutiny?

 

[Nny]

Quebec does have a Prime minister. Just that the comedian purposely said the wrong person and she didn't know.

FNS: I, I was wondering because you are also next to him, one of my good friends, also, the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Richard Z. Sirois (a famous Quebec radio host) have you met him recently? Did he come to one of your rallies?

SP: Uh, haven’t seen him at one of the rallies, but it’s been great working with the Canadian officials in my role as governor; we have a great cooperative effort there as we work on all of our resource development projects. You know I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally and your beautiful wife, oh my goodness, you’ve added a lot of energy to your country, even, with that beautiful family of yours.

Although I do not understand what she meant in the 2nd bold part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Z._Sirois

Palin doesn't even know the leader of Canada.

-FNS: Some people said in the last days, and I thought that was mean, that you weren’t experienced enough in foreign relations, and you know, that’s completely false, that’s the thing I said to my great friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stef Carse [Stephen Harper is the PM].

-SP: Well, he’s doing fine, too, and yeah when you come into a position underestimated, it gives you the opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stef_Carse

No Ghostanime. "Governor Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy and other celebrities, in being targeted by these pranksters." by the campaign.

She thought the prankster was an actual World Leader (somehow!) and other ridiculous people were very important people.

Obama couldn't have fallen for this. Nicolas Sarkozy even calls Obama his own friend since their encounter in 2006

 

[HK]

Now, maybe I just heard the video wrong, or missed some parts, or am misinformed, but how did this video reveal any misconception or lack of knowledge on Palin's part?

Johnny Hallyday is not the French President's advisor, but a French musician. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, not Stef Carse, a comedian. Quebec is a province of Canada and has Jean Charest as its Premier*, not Richard Z. Sirois, a comedian.

Palin, one who has said her experience and knowledge comes from close proximity to and supposed high involvement with Russia and Canada, is clueless on basic information. I find that to be distressing.

(There's also some bizarre aesthetics, such as the seriously exaggerated French accent, missing the reference to a porn video of her "look-a-like," and the remarks about hunting and Joe the Plumber.)

*See my point to Nny.

McCain was sinking in the polls so he needed someone new and charismatic that could breath life into his campaign. He could have chose another experienced conservative white guy, but what would that have given him? His campaign would have just slowly fizzled out. Palin also solidified his Republican base because many conservatives were disinfranchised with him. Your far far right don't really give a damn if you're a maverick, they want someone far far right. Palin fit that bill as she was a social conservative. She helped the ticket in that respect.

Yet energizing the base does not mean you do not alienate others.

In the short term, Palin obviously brought a surge for McCain; however, in the long term, coupled with the current economic situation, Palin has not really helped extend that support beyond it.

Inflation was skyrocketing under Jimmy carter, the people elected Reagan. (the only blue state left in the union was Minnesota.)

That was during the 1984 election, not 1980. (Also, on a pedantic note, DC voted for Mondale.)

The message I'm trying to get through is that we need to see past the fact that we are in hard economic times, and approach each candidate with fierce scrutiny and not always look towards the opposite end as a means of salvation.

I agree, but I don't think that what few unaffiliated voters there are pull for Obama because he's Democrat; rather, they are impressed by how Obama has carried himself throughout the current economic crisis, McCain's actions and words has failed to move them, or both.

So she wouldn't share any public scrutiny?

If Sarkozky were to say such ludicrous statements in recorded conversation, then his *** would be the one on fire.

Had this been real and Palin merely played along to Sarkozky's ignorance (which, uh, doesn't make much logical sense given the two, but this is a hypothetical situation), none of the replies to the aforementioned aesthetics would necessarily bring her down. She's already been parodied for those traits, so this would be just another predictable notch in the media's belt.

Quebec does have a Prime minister. Just that the comedian purposely said the wrong person and she didn't know.

"Premier Ministre" is what Charest's (not Sirois) title is in French, but it's just "Premier" in English. See Quebec's official English site.

 

[The_Panda]

The difference is that the taxes that are being taken from the rich don't directly land in the pockets of the poor. There's a difference between taxing to fund government projects and as opposed to taxing so you can give the people beneath a headstart. Yes I understand what you mean by saying that all tax plans are socialist in nature to a degree, but you have to compare and contrast. It's literally a case of who's more socialist than who. You can't accuse McCain of being overly hypocritical for supporting the bailout plan, when it's a single case. When your friend burn down a house, does he turn and critisize you for lighting a match? I wouldn't think so. If you admit that there is already a welfare system I'd bank that you would assume one is enough.

And is Obama directly giving it into the pockets of the poor anyway? I don't think that's what he meant by "spread the wealth around" at all. What his tax plan is about is shifting the tax burden off "the bottom 95%" (if that is what it will end up doing). And the "more socialist than who" argument is also fallacious, because you have to look at where you are starting from. If you compare Reagan's tax plans with say Hong Kong taxes, then it's a case of Reagan being far more socialist! But the reality is that neither of them are anywhere near socialism, with Reagan being very supportive laissez faire but Hong Kong Friedman's "model" economic state. If Obama were anywhere near socialism then he'd nationalise industry and start mass redistributive programmes (may I note that Obama is to the right of most Democrats and some Republicans on economic freedom anyway). The fact is that apart from the redistribution that naturally happens due to taxes Obama's plan is hardly socialist at all; admittedly it is "more socialist" than McCain's but when both are nowhere socialism at all the accusation is null and void.

Oh and as for the bailout plan, I don't think it's just "a single case" as you make it out: it may be one act but it is pretty much the most significant piece of economic reform in a long time and its impacts on the economy would be far more than just one tax plan. Basically it's a full fronted admission that it is right for government to nationalise industry in "hard times", something that has far many more socialist elements than any tax plan the United States has ever seen: basically it is a full blown unofficial remodeling of the entire financial system. If Obama's tax plan is comparable to burning a house in the amount of socialism it has in it then surely the bailout plan is an Indonesian wildfire.

 

[Nny]

"Premier Ministre" is what Charest's (not Sirois) title is in French, but it's just "Premier" in English. See Quebec's official English site.

Ah alright, took me a little bit to understand haha.


Say guys how do you see the map going? This is mine.
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire scare me, I don't know how they'll go. Nevada I think may go to Obama, not sure.

 

[BigLutz]

Experience is not the same thing as knowledge. (Also, knowing the current name of Canada's Prime Minister is a debatable stance here, but I cannot reconcile with either believing that Quebec is not a province.)

I just find it a bit alarming that the VP candidate, the one who has been held up as having sufficient experience and knowledge of Russia and Canada, does not know rudimentary facts about the latter. Palin popped the balloon that she and other Republicans have been inflating for her.

Except that only operates under the completely false belief that a State Governor would have contact with a Head of State for another country. In other words, Palin's meetings with anyone from either Russia or Canada would have been a mid level official to which what ever specialty that meeting was about. There is no doubt that she had meetings with Canada about the Oil Pipeline, but meeting and knowing the Heads of State of Russia and Canada is well to paraphrase Obama: A bit above her pay grade.

Do you believe that if Obama loses tomorrow, it is proof enough that there is some credence to the Bradley Effect?

If Obama loses a state by say 5 in which he was polling +3 or +4, I would say it would be because people were lying to pollsters. If that is because of the Bradley effect that is a possibility.

Obama couldn't have fallen for this. Nicolas Sarkozy even calls Obama his own friend since their encounter in 2006

Although that doesn't mean Obama couldn't have fallen for a Prank Call from what he believed as another World Leader.

S: I must say Governor Palin, I love the documentary they made on your life. You know, Hustler's Nailin' Palin?
P: Ohh, good, thank you! Yes.

That pretty much confirms she was just playing along. After that line anyone would just smile and play along in hopes that if it is Sarkozy that he hasn't gone absolutely crazy. I mean what do you expect her to say? "You crazy French Prick! How dare you say that! SCREW YOU!"

Pennsylvania and New Hampshire scare me, I don't know how they'll go. Nevada I think may go to Obama, not sure.

Virginia should scare you as well, its raining there this morning, and typically Democrats vote early, Republicans vote late.

Also just a reminder before any idiot posts Exit Polls. They always heavily skew Democrat, I believe by as much as 20% more Democrats said they would talk to Exit Pollsters. Also the PUMAs are running a operation of lying to Exit Pollsters.

 

[LatiLover98]

Ah, OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA. He's gonna take all the dang swing states, of course. And you're right, liberals and the media (excuse me,

THAT LIBERAL BIASED SON OF A FEMALE DOG MEDIA THAT DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT MCCAIN AND SPEAKS EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT OBAMA WHILE LEAVING APOCALYPTIC BIDEN ALONE AND TRASHES PALIN ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING)

really tilt the polls in Obama's favor. I live in New York (or Liberal York) and I can't vote yet (2012 goin' red), so all I can do is sit and watch people vote for an inexperienced man who wants to steal our money and give it away to illegals. Plus, he wants more taxes in a time of crisis while McCain will cut into the deficit until the economy is back. We don't hear about that, we hear of EVERY BAD THING MCCAIN AND PAILIN DO instead.

So, can you tell me Obama's views? Oh wait, no. He's too vague.
Can you tell me McCain's views? Sure you can. Everything negative.

My point is gorgeously illustrated by HellKorn (*coughLIBERALcough*). Alaska's a HUGE state; I think it would be more important as GOVERNOR to worry about Alaska itself than put foreign affairs up front. Right? Since you probably still don't understand this, here's an equation:

(Palin + Alaska) + Canada = Prosperity

(Palin + Canada) + Alaska = Unemployment, weak business, etc.

See it now?

 

[ironknight42]

"So, can you tell me Obama's views? Oh wait, no. He's too vague.
Can you tell me McCain's views? Sure you can. Everything negative."
Both of the canidates have been respectably vague in different areas
"Virginia should scare you as well, its raining there this morning, and typically Democrats vote early, Republicans vote late."
Why are you people so afraid of swing states also BigLutz are you implying that rain scares Democrats away from polling places

Well it's election day so well see what happans the day of reckoning has come

 

[HK]

Except that only operates under the completely false belief that a State Governor would have contact with a Head of State for another country. In other words, Palin's meetings with anyone from either Russia or Canada would have been a mid level official to which what ever specialty that meeting was about. There is no doubt that she had meetings with Canada about the Oil Pipeline, but meeting and knowing the Heads of State of Russia and Canada is well to paraphrase Obama: A bit above her pay grade.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Just because she does not deal with a person of such an important position does not mean she should not know who they are.

To that end, I can't see how anyone can argue that a person who is aiming for an executive office can allowed to be ignorant of the most basic knowledge of a neighboring country.

If Obama loses a state by say 5 in which he was polling +3 or +4, I would say it would be because people were lying to pollsters. If that is because of the Bradley effect that is a possibility.

Polling overall or just specific polls? If it's the latter, then there's no real ground for the claim. If it's the former, then there are still other factors to take into account (hell, you mention Virginia later in your post) before it can easily be brushed off as the Bradley Effect.

That pretty much confirms she was just playing along. After that line anyone would just smile and play along in hopes that if it is Sarkozy that he hasn't gone absolutely crazy. I mean what do you expect her to say? "You crazy French Prick! How dare you say that! SCREW YOU!"

That she didn't want to take a chance or that she didn't believe it was Sarkozky? If're you claiming the second one, that doesn't explain the end of the call, nor other miscellaneous comments by her. (And that's not even considering her staff allowing such a call to begin with, or any of them thinking how this will be perceived by the public.)

My point is gorgeously illustrated by HellKorn (*coughLIBERALcough*).

No, you're coming across as a misinformed stereotype here ("LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY, I TELL YOU! OBAMA IS STEALING OUR MONEY AND TURK ERRR JERBS!") and fitting my earlier statement to a T:

Well, for some people, to say that I hate McCain is to imply that I love Obama. (which is a dumb logical assumption, but it's to be expected.)

The only way in which I'm overwhelmingly Liberal (in the American use of the word) is socially.

Alaska's a HUGE state; I think it would be more important as GOVERNOR to worry about Alaska itself than put foreign affairs up front. Right?

Alaska is 48th in geographic area. Are you going to tell me that Wyoming and Michigan are on equal standing just because of the total area?

Also, Palin and her supporters are the ones holding up her foreign experience and knowledge, not us "Biased Liberal Sons-of-*****es."

Furthermore, if you're running for executive office (as I mention above), I expect you told hold the most basic of knowledge. Even if she was ignorant prior to being picked as the Republican VP candidate, I would've hoped that she lose that over the past few months.

Finally, I'm confused on how McCain has been far more specific and lucid on Obama with both domestic and foreign policy issues.

(Palin + Alaska) + Canada

(Palin + Canada) + Alaska

That's the same expression.

(2 + 3) + 4
(2 + 4) + 3

Both result in "9."

 

[randomspot555]

Ah, OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA. He's gonna take all the dang swing states, of course. And you're right, liberals and the media (excuse me,

THAT LIBERAL BIASED SON OF A FEMALE DOG MEDIA THAT DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT MCCAIN AND SPEAKS EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT OBAMA WHILE LEAVING APOCALYPTIC BIDEN ALONE AND TRASHES PALIN ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING)

Yeah, that liberal media. Like Karl Rove and Joe Scarborough, part of the Liberal Media Elite.

Wait...so the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is crazy talk, but this Liberal Media is logical?

I saw Rove's election map prediction on O'Reilly the other night. Heavily favored Obama on the electoral vote. I've heard him since say that McCain can win, but he'll have to do either a lot better in battle ground states, or hope that the new voters just don't show up (which has happened before, and isn't too far out to believe).

Joe Scarborough is calling the election for Obama too. Scarborough thinks this is an opportunity for the Republicans to lick their wounds, and, when they run for Congress in 2010, actually run and then govern as small government conservatives, rather than big government Republicans.

See, the thing about this media bias that people like you don't get. Predicting something based off of information is not a bias. It's analyzing, and basing an opinion off of information. And as far as cable news, these networks exist to give opinons, and more so, to be loud and angry and yell at each other. If there's any bias there, it's a capitalist bias. Not liberal, not conservative. The New York Times is a liberal paper. The people who read it (well, the people of New York) are mostly liberals. The Wall Street Journal is a conservative paper, because it's reader's are conservatives. Local papers play to the political beliefs that the community collectively favors. But this isn't because they're in bed with Democrat, or Green, or Republican party officials, it's because they're capitalist and want to make a buck. And if you just piss off the people you're trying to sell too, well, you won't be making money.

really tilt the polls in Obama's favor. I live in New York (or Liberal York) and I can't vote yet (2012 goin' red), so all I can do is sit and watch people vote for an inexperienced man who wants to steal our money and give it away to illegals. Plus, he wants more taxes in a time of crisis while McCain will cut into the deficit until the economy is back. We don't hear about that, we hear of EVERY BAD THING MCCAIN AND PAILIN DO instead.

You're delusional if you think New York will go red in 2012. The Republican party will have to completely overhaul their campaign strategy. And considering that they're not even guaranteed wins in what have been previously solid red states, I can't see them going into solidly blue states hoping for a close race.

Does Obama's tax plan need to be hashed out? Yes. And I hope Republicans keep some seats in Congress to put up a fight. But where is this balance budget and McCain thing you're hearing? As long as we're fighting two wars (and that his spending freeze exception list has grown longer and longer), it isn't going to happen. It won't happen under Obama either (indeed, he's delusional that small cuts here and there will add up), but I don't believe he's made it so central to his finances as McCain has.

As for why McCain and Palin's faults are so well broadcast. Well, Obama was pretty much all heard about in the primaries. Any dirty on him was available during the primaries too. But Palin is completely new to the national stage. And considering her hesitance to speak out against people like Ted Stevens until absolutely told to, well, it doesn't lend too much to her self-described maverick status.

The theory is to run to the right in the primaries, and center in the election. But McCain, by choosing Palin, went to the right during the election. W. Bush got lucky that he catered to the right and got re-elected in 2004. But because McCain hasn't made any real effort to reach out to the middle (along with the blame by association on Bush and the Republican party as a whole), it doesn't look good for him.

(Palin + Alaska) + Canada = Prosperity

(Palin + Canada) + Alaska = Unemployment, weak business, etc.

See it now?

(1+2)+3=6
(1+3)+2=6.

No, I don't.

 

[Nukada]

Obama stated that energy prices will skyrocket if he is elected, and that he will bankrupt coal prices.

Last I checked, Obama's 'plan' states that anyone who makes more than $95,000 per year gets higher taxes, and that the taxes of everyone under that don't get any tax breaks.

This guy is a total idiot. He thinks that giving lazy bums a $500 check rather than a job where they can earn living makes sense. Don't drink the kool-aid. Don't believe the guy who cannot make up his mind. Listening to a racist pastor for 20 years is a problem. Voting that it is legal to kill babies that survived abortion is completely immoral, as they were born, and full American citizens.

IF you haven't voted yet, there is only one choice. McCain.

And for those of you who think that Clinton was a great president because of the 'surplus', the only reason we had a surplus was the conservative-republican congress. Bush had the same surplus until people elected the liberals to congress. You cannot blame Bush, but rather your senators and specifically, your representatives.
www.hannity.com

 

[legendary master Jose]

well i better go buy a gun before January 20th and hold on to it.

I just love how Obama's tax plan will supposedly decrease unemployment. not to mention the fact that we still dont know who's gonna get a tax cut >250k? >200k?
>150k? whos it gonna be?

 

[randomspot555]

And for those of you who think that Clinton was a great president because of the 'surplus', the only reason we had a surplus was the conservative-republican congress. Bush had the same surplus until people elected the liberals to congress. You cannot blame Bush, but rather your senators and specifically, your representatives.
www.hannity.com

This is false. The surplus went away well before the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006. There is no way to spin it. For six years, the Republican party controlled the Executive and Legislative.

The surplus was going to dissapear no matter what, and the Republicans can't be blamed for the recession that was sped up after 9/11. However, they can be blamed by continuing to cut taxes while increasing spending, especially in the case of the war. Instead of even attempting to pay for the war, we just keep borrowing money and fit it outside of the federal annual budget, and pretend it doesn't exist. Because, well, they were the party in control. I just don't see how someone can look at years 1-6, where the Republicans had control of Congress and POTUS, and then blame everything on the minority party.

It's strange. For the party of Teddy Roosevelt, this post doesn't seem to go with "The Buck Stops Here!". It's more like "Find someone else to blame!"

EDIT: I'd respond to the rest of the hugely misleading post, but academic work takes precedence over the Internet.

 

[Kyogre35]

Yeah, that liberal media. Like Karl Rove and Joe Scarborough, part of the Liberal Media Elite.

No like Keith Olberman and NBC news in general.

Wait...so the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is crazy talk, but this Liberal Media is logical?

Um no. If you actually listen to the talk show hosts they don't call Obama (Except Savage...oh god I hate Savage) a Terroist. They have called Palin many worst things and the stories have been horrible.

I saw Rove's election map prediction on O'Reilly the other night. Heavily favored Obama on the electoral vote. I've heard him since say that McCain can win, but he'll have to do either a lot better in battle ground states, or hope that the new voters just don't show up (which has happened before, and isn't too far out to believe).

I think it's very tough for McCain...but almost all the state polls are close so...we can't tell right now. And you watch O'Reilly? I thank you for watching him. And the young voters will show a little more than usual but I don't think a lot.

Joe Scarborough is calling the election for Obama too. Scarborough thinks this is an opportunity for the Republicans to lick their wounds, and, when they run for Congress in 2010, actually run and then govern as small government conservatives, rather than big government Republicans.

It's definatly not a year for Republicans...which makes not sense to me (But that's a completly different issue)...so it is a year to just regroup for 2010,

See, the thing about this media bias that people like you don't get. Predicting something based off of information is not a bias. It's analyzing, and basing an opinion off of information. And as far as cable news, these networks exist to give opinons, and more so, to be loud and angry and yell at each other. If there's any bias there, it's a capitalist bias. Not liberal, not conservative. The New York Times is a liberal paper. The people who read it (well, the people of New York) are mostly liberals. The Wall Street Journal is a conservative paper, because it's reader's are conservatives. Local papers play to the political beliefs that the community collectively favors. But this isn't because they're in bed with Democrat, or Green, or Republican party officials, it's because they're capitalist and want to make a buck. And if you just piss off the people you're trying to sell too, well, you won't be making money.

But this is one thing I disagree with..I think their ideology comes before money...it's a close second...but it IMO does. Why would NBC still be so biased if their losing veiwers and losing Millions. Why would the New York Times, San Fran Chronicle, Kansas City Star, etc, still be biased when their losing subscritpions, cutting people off, and losing money. It's because their ideology comes before money. It's the only logical explanation.

 

[randomspot555]

No like Keith Olberman and NBC news in general.

The point I was making is that there is no bias. It's a capitalist bias.

Olbermann is shown as an alternative to O'Reilly. In fact, from a business standpoint, it makes sense. Why would MSNBC host someone similar to O'Reilly? Viewers could just go watch O'Reilly's show on FNC instead. You put someone different in that time slot, and see what happens. This happens on network television too. Why watch the House MD ripoff when you could just watch House?

[Um no. If you actually listen to the talk show hosts they don't call Obama (Except Savage...oh god I hate Savage) a Terroist. They have called Palin many worst things and the stories have been horrible.

Cable news analysts say crazy sh*t. News at 11.

As in, this isn't news. They all say crazy stuff. About everyone. This isn't indicative of a bias.

I think it's very tough for McCain...but almost all the state polls are close so...we can't tell right now. And you watch O'Reilly? I thank you for watching him. And the young voters will show a little more than usual but I don't think a lot.

Has nothing to do with my post at all. My point was when CONSERVATIVES are making predictions saying Obama wins, they're using information that's available to them. They aren't reading anything into it, wishing for something that isn't there.

It's definatly not a year for Republicans...which makes not sense to me (But that's a completly different issue)...so it is a year to just regroup for 2010,

It makes a lot of sense. Repubs have had control of DC for 6 of 8 years, and still have the Executive and a good chunk of seats in Congress for the last two. The vast majority of everything of the last 8 years happened on Republican watch. Therefore, they get blamed.

You don't have to agree with it for it to make sense.

But this is one thing I disagree with..I think their ideology comes before money...it's a close second...but it IMO does. Why would NBC still be so biased if their losing veiwers and losing Millions. Why would the New York Times, San Fran Chronicle, Kansas City Star, etc, still be biased when their losing subscritpions, cutting people off, and losing money. It's because their ideology comes before money. It's the only logical explanation.

MSNBC? I don't know, but at best, the prime time news shows are fluctuating. One night, FNC wins. The next, MSNBC does.

NBC however is doing pretty well in ratings. The Office, Earl, 30 Rock, SNL with election updates.

As for newspapers, it's because journalism is an industry in change. It isn't anything about the paper's politics. It's how does a print media operate in an increasing digital world, and in a world that doesn't read and doesn't have time. You name whatever liberal paper you want, and I can name a conservative publication that is also losing readers.