McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Ironhawk]

Originally Posted by Designz

Obama is such a good and intelligent motivational speaker. I'd be willing to take a 10k tax raise on my salary so he can do his change magic. I have that much trust in him, and it's probably blind trust at this point So it's either 1, Obama is the best deceiving bastard ever, or 2, Obama is actually sincere and will try his best to make this country better, and I don't think it's 1. Note: I don't even care if he doesn't succeed in his policies. Am I a retard or what?

Being a good speaker is a good quality to have, but I would rather have a mute president who acts rather than an articulate president who doesn't deliver. I'm definitely not really worried about a president trying their best either. This should be inherent. I'm worried about how good that "best" is. "Doing your best" is just an excuse if you suck.

I'm worried about two things with all this shit-talking about change:

1. Change for the worse
2. Apathy after being elected, ie; promises for votes.

I'm not really convinced by either side as of yet.

[Vandyn]

Originally Posted by Designz

I guess this is turning into something of an evolution vs. creationism debate, except Obama represents creationism, where his supporters have to take a leap of faith dependent on his charisma and ability to organize, and McCain represents evolution, a "proven" candidate with documents to back him up.

Like the evolution vs. creationism debate, I don't think anyone is winning here

My faith in Obama is built from the all times I've heard him speak and interviewed. I've never seen him being sly or deceitful. Sure, he may have "flip-flopped" or whatever, but heck, if you have cameras recording you 24/7, you'd flip-flop more than a fish out of water. I know a good and dependable person when I see and hear one, and not only does Obama have these characteristics, he also is intelligent, resourceful, energetic, and CAN TAKE A JOKE.

Obama is such a good and intelligent motivational speaker. I'd be willing to take a 10k tax raise on my salary so he can do his change magic. I have that much trust in him, and it's probably blind trust at this point So it's either 1, Obama is the best deceiving bastard ever, or 2, Obama is actually sincere and will try his best to make this country better, and I don't think it's 1. Note: I don't even care if he doesn't succeed in his policies. Am I a retard or what?

You are not retarded, but you are basically saying you are voting for him because he gives a good speech and is a great orator, which to me shouldn't be the only reason to give him the most powerful job in the world. You should vote for him because you believe in his policies and you think it will help the country to have him elected.

Is this really the case with some of Obama's supporters? Especially the young voters? Because he gives a great speech and can rally a stadium full of 80000 people? Tell me this aint true.

[Lleauaric~EW]

Originally Posted by chaos

The polls don't reflect that though. I'm not sure exactly how they do polling, for instance how they calculate likely voters.

I am.

Every one has a different methodology. Some are complete shit and are no better than a random number generator.

Here is the deep secret that they arent talking about though. They KNOW that Obama is under polling by about 4 to 8%. I live near one of the major polling organizations and know some people who work there.

What was told to me was that the major story after the election is going to be growing uselessness of the polls. You didnt see it as much in the Dem Primary because it was all Dem votes, but it will be crystal clear in November.

See... they only call LAND LINES for polling. A major change that they can't make up for, ESPECIALLY with the youth and black vote, is the fact that so many Americans have dropped their landlines and go totally with Cell Phones. The general estimate is that Obama is under polling by about 8% aggregate.

Also remember, the polls we see are pretty much shit. The REAL polls are the ones the candidates pay millions of dollars for. They don't rely on phone call based polling but take their random sampling in a more sophisticated manner. Direct targeting demographics and working the numbers out expotentially from a solid data pool.

See. Before the Palin pick McCains numbers in the polls showed Obama and he neck and neck. Yet he still took a massive gamble. The reason is that while the shit polls showed a tie, and his aides admit this, his internals showed he was getting crushed.

BTW. The daily Polls are complete horseshit generated to give something to the 24 hours news networks. They are basically random number generators. Look for polls with longer cycles and larger samples. SUSA is a pretty good one. PPP, Gallup daily tracking, and Zogby are pretty much known to be dogshit.

[Vandyn]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Someone took the time to make a list of what Obama did from college onward: US General Election - 2008, part 2 - Ars Technica



He's the candidate who hasn't accomplished anything and is a leap of faith?

I think the point is yes, he has accomplished alot, but what has he done that lends itself to making the things he wants to do come true? This is why everyone always brings up voting records. This is also the reason the word experience comes up. I think when some people refer to experience it means what is your experience in government as far as voting record, bills you sponsored, etc. Experience is a issue for Obama because he hasn't been in Senate long enough to have a detailed record. It's this record that gets compared to what he says he wants to do.

I also think Palin has as much if not less than Obama on the issue of experience.

[emoo]

Originally Posted by Mymn

Yeah they're just people too right? They just happen to be sad, we should really just leave em be!

You're a complete fuckwit. Tho you've got some way to go before you catch up to IRB, keep trying. Please tell me, when McCain win in November, that you're going to be buying a ticket to Canada too and escaping America, the most dangerous and violent nation on earth.

You come off as a simple idiot.
Add some substance to back up your aggression. Troll harder.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Vandyn

I think when some people refer to experience it means what is your experience in government as far as voting record, bills you sponsored, etc.

I think it's generally an odd argument. Nobody looks at the actual content of the bills in a voting record or the debate surrounding it. The best example still is the bill to let the president take military action in Iraq. Clinton talked at length that this should not be seen as support for unilateral action and instead be used only as part of an international coalition and to exert pressure on Iraq. In the primary, nobody cared: she voted for the war, she supported it! (In fact, she predicted spot-on what would happen if an invasion happened without broad international support.)

If there were a bill banning abortion and providing funds for the troops, anyone voting against it would be branded as not supporting the troops. Then you have to go and explain why you voted against it, going off-message. Plus, anytime you defend yourself, you look weak and the next charge is just around the corner.


I don't think Obama can get everything done that he campaigns on. Neither can McCain. But I am confident that Obama will have people on board who disagree with him, as he said, and he's certainly capable of debating issues with them. Picking Biden as VP seems to confirm this. Can the same be said about McCain? Palin certainly doesn't come across as the person who will debate foreign policy with him. I'm not even sure if McCain himself can go into policy on a deeper level, he's certainly never done it on TV.

I get that politics is all about repetition, but it's refreshing to see Obama taking a few more words to go into something. As a constitutional lawyer, he should know how to make a good argument. I don't think it's politically advantageous (easier to pull out of context or brand as indecisive) but at least he's treating listeners with some dignity and not like they're 5 year old. (which, granted, may be how a candidate should talk to voters.)

[Heavens_Myst]

Originally Posted by Soriak

But I am confident that Obama will have people on board who disagree with him, as he said, and he's certainly capable of debating issues with them. Picking Biden as VP seems to confirm this.

Wha?

On the US Senate "liberometer" Biden is number 3 behind Obama and Kennedy. How is that finding someone who disagrees with you?

[chaos]

I believe he is refering to the criticism that Biden payed on Obama during the primary season.

[Tolanin]

Being able to forgive people who criticize you during an election but are otherwise almost identical to you in terms of ideology is completely different from being able to work with people who are truly different from you in what they believe.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

Wha?

On the US Senate "liberometer" Biden is number 3 behind Obama and Kennedy. How is that finding someone who disagrees with you?

He's actually the most liberal Senator by this report: NATIONAL JOURNAL: 2007 Vote Ratings (03/07/2008)

(edit: whoops, you were talking about Biden. Yeah, he's third)

As for McCain: (from that site)

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories.

However, the rating is entirely meaningless. Ron Paul rated as a centrist in the House - can the more conservative Republicans brand him as a liberal? He's a libertarian, how exactly does he end up on the left? The site only explains a few criteria, for example voting to withdraw from Iraq or set timetables = liberal. Including a path for citizenship is apparently also a "liberal" policy, making Bush quite the liberal, so anyone voting in favor of it got a big "liberal" boost.


Let's look at the reasoning of some votes. Obama voted against banning partial birth abortions and gets 100% from NARAL as a pro-choice voter. Yet, he says it's ok for states to restrict the practice. Evidently his issue is not with the principle of banning late term abortions, but with the particular bill (I think it contains no exception for cases where the mother's life is at stake?) and/or the fact that it's not an issue for the federal government.

Another bill meant to cap the interest rate at 30%. Is someone who voted against it liberal or conservative? Obama voted against it because he says 30% is too high, others voted against it because they don't want to cap interest at all. No liberal/conservative rating is going to take into account these fundamentally opposing views.

Barack Obama on the Issues

[chaos]

Shunned by Democrats, at ease with his beliefs - 09/06/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

^ that's something no one has really been talking about. What happens to Lieberman if, as expected, the Dems pick up seats in November? They haven't gone so far as to kick him out of the caucus, not yet anyway, but they took his chairmanship away. From what I understand he only won his seat after he lost the Democratic primary due to Republican support, overwhelming Republican support in fact. I'm sure he won't go so far as to join the Republican party, but I think that if the Dems pick up seats like they expect, you may see Lieberman give up any semblance of supporting the Dems and move towards the Republicans in a way that lets him stay independant.

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by chaos

Shunned by Democrats, at ease with his beliefs - 09/06/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

^ that's something no one has really been talking about. What happens to Lieberman if, as expected, the Dems pick up seats in November? They haven't gone so far as to kick him out of the caucus, not yet anyway, but they took his chairmanship away. From what I understand he only won his seat after he lost the Democratic primary due to Republican support, overwhelming Republican support in fact. I'm sure he won't go so far as to join the Republican party, but I think that if the Dems pick up seats like they expect, you may see Lieberman give up any semblance of supporting the Dems and move towards the Republicans in a way that lets him stay independant.

Doesn't he still pretty much vote with the democrats on most issues other than supporting the surge?

I don't see him leaving or fucking the democrats to much unless its the DNC that goes looking for that fight.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Ironhawk

Being a good speaker is a good quality to have, but I would rather have a mute president who acts rather than an articulate president who doesn't deliver. I'm definitely not really worried about a president trying their best either. This should be inherent. I'm worried about how good that "best" is. "Doing your best" is just an excuse if you suck.

I'm worried about two things with all this shit-talking about change:

1. Change for the worse
2. Apathy after being elected, ie; promises for votes.

I'm not really convinced by either side as of yet.

Wow. A true undecided. There are only 21% of you left. Be sure to let us know when way you lean after the debates.

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by tad10

It sucks to be an Obama supporter right now with the icy finger of lose reaching toward your candidate.

You can demonize Palin all you want but If McCain/Palin win in November it won't be Palin that will win the election (though she'll have helped) it will be because Obama's liberal politics aren't in sync with the majority of Americans.

This.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Vandyn

I think the point is yes, he has accomplished alot, but what has he done that lends itself to making the things he wants to do come true? This is why everyone always brings up voting records. This is also the reason the word experience comes up. I think when some people refer to experience it means what is your experience in government as far as voting record, bills you sponsored, etc. Experience is a issue for Obama because he hasn't been in Senate long enough to have a detailed record. It's this record that gets compared to what he says he wants to do.

I also think Palin has as much if not less than Obama on the issue of experience.

This is a bullshit argument and I'm tired of hearing it. Since when does casting x number of ballets or sponsoring x number of bills qualify someone as a good presidential candidate? How many is enough to qualify you? 5? 50? 500? Is there some magic number that automatically says this person is now a good leader? That is who we are voting for, isn't it? A leader?

Obama's character, intelligence, education, leadership qualities, as well as many other attributes make him an outstanding candidate to represent our country to the watchful eyes of the world.

Experience != Quality

McCain has been at this for years, and now at the ripe age of 72 he's going to present some fresh ideas and create change? Excuse me while I lololol! Is he trying to insinuate that he's been holding back all this time and now that he's running for president, he's going to unlock his vault of goodies? Please, you must be smarter than that.

You must realize by now that the only reason this topic of "change" is even in his campaign vocab is to try and counter Obama, who btw, really does represent change.

McCain had his chance.

All he represents now is more of the same.