It's time for a New Election Thread

[explodo]

I'm all about balancing the budget and freeing slaves.

 

Wait, do we still have slaves?

This is why we all think the other side is crazy. Rather then actually answer my question (that wasn't directed at you anyway), you make a joke of it. There's a real issue there. In a number of ways there are two completely separate Republican parties. One that wants good things for everybody, and one that wants to convince stupid people that they will offer good things for everybody while creating a system that benefits very few. See Karl Rove for an example of the second type.

[John Smith]

i guess it depends on your definition of "fair" and your definition of "socialism". i rely on karl marx for my definition of socialism, who called for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" as one of the measures to "spread the wealth".

 

Taxes were @94% during the Eisenhower era.

 

I was thinking about this yesterday though:

 

Shouldn't Obama be destroying McCain? Doesn't the fact that it's even this close show how far off America is from the democratic party? That's kind of how I see. A combo of that and the republicans just being way better at running campaigns.

 

If the majority is currently polling for Obama, how does that show that America is so far off from the democratic party? Also never ever underestimate the power of racism in our country.

[quarter23cd]

I was thinking about this yesterday though:

 

Shouldn't Obama be destroying McCain? Doesn't the fact that it's even this close show how far off America is from the democratic party? That's kind of how I see. A combo of that and the republicans just being way better at running campaigns.

For simplicity's sake, I'll take the front-page poll at Yahoo.com that is today showing the projected Electoral vote at 344-167. Were you expecting a shutout?

 

There is a lot to be said for entrenched political stances. You can count on a roughly 40/40% split every time, with the rest fluctuating somewhere in between. "Should" Obama be winning by more? As far as I'm concerned, sure. Does the fact the GOP is only losing by less than 10 points show that the Democrats are out touch? You're going to have to show your math on that one because that logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me. FWIW, I do agree that the GOP plays the political "game" better than the Democrats do, but that's not necessarily a compliment.

[bobbob1313]

If the majority is currently polling for Obama, how does that show that America is so far off from the democratic party? Also never ever underestimate the power of racism in our country.

 

Because with how bad things have been under Bush, Obama should be running away with this. Just like Kerry should've run away with it in 04. It's either they suck at running campaigns, or people just flat out don't agree with them.

[Mrs. Peel]

i like the flat tax idea.

 

So if that's your idea of being non-socialist, isn't it fair to say that based on our taxes right now that we are already dipping into to socialist waters? I'll ask again, what is so different about Obama's tax plan besides the amounts of money involved from the tax plan we currently use?

[explodo]

And, bobbob, national polling numbers mean next to nothing in a general election unless the lead is absolutely massive.

[kwall]

Taxes were @94% during the Eisenhower era.

that's change you can believe in.

[jakobnicholas]

Bobby Jindal is now true conservatism? Same dude that attends exorcisms? And to be frank, Bush is exactly the same kind of conservatism that has dominated since Reagan: giant defense spending, little or no help for domestic programs (remember that ketchup as a vegetable thing?), trickle-down economics, etc. If conservatism was separated from the hoax that is compassionate conservatism, you are right (thirty years and Roe v. Wade still stands, the green movement has taken hold, gay marriage has yet to be "defeated," etc.). The next generation of conservatives, I'm confident, will be far more socially liberal. So which is true conservatism to you? The balanced budget and free slaves wing or the giant deficit and faux-moral crusading wing?

 

 

 

You followers of the Chosen One sure are a cocky bunch.

 

 

All I'm sayin', is that the next 2 years could potentially be the most left this country has ever been. That ain't gonna last long.

[kwall]

So if that's your idea of being non-socialist, isn't it fair to say that based on our taxes right now that we are already dipping into to socialist waters?

yes.

 

I'll ask again, what is so different about Obama's tax plan besides the amounts of money involved from the tax plan we currently use?

it dips us in a little further.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Because with how bad things have been under Bush, Obama should be running away with this. Just like Kerry should've run away with it in 04. It's either they suck at running campaigns, or people just flat out don't agree with them.

Polling after the 2004 campaign inidicated that the most salient issue was that voters did not want to change administrations in the middle of a war. Historically, that's been true as well. Not really sure that Kerry "should have" won by any margin.

 

We will find out how well each side's campaign is run on election day. Supposedly Obama's GOTV strategy is superior. I think it's very rare that you will see either side "running away" with any presidential election (in terms of polular vote) for many years. The country is very evenly split.

[kwall]

All I'm sayin', is that the next 2 years could potentially be the most left this country has ever been. That ain't gonna last long.

hopefully, at least it'll become socially acceptable to criticize him.

[bjorn_skurj]

Because with how bad things have been under Bush, Obama should be running away with this. Just like Kerry should've run away with it in 04. It's either they suck at running campaigns, or people just flat out don't agree with them.

Considering Dems lead the GOP in enrollment and are projected to make big gains in Congress, I would say it's the former more than the latter, but the Dems have not since Clinton up until now found a candidate with enough charisma.

[Party @ the Moontower]

hopefully, at least it'll become socially acceptable to criticize him.

 

This is something I have thought about. You are already considered a racist by a racist if your not voting O as they may assume it's based mainly on race. I know it's true in some cases, but same goes for the other side. Many will vote Obama purely for the "historic" aspect of it, his color.

 

But, I'm concerned just voicing disaproval of his actions as president will lead you to trouble. It's only normal to question any president, but will this one be off limits?

[John Smith]

How about a use tax, I

[bjorn_skurj]

hopefully, at least it'll become socially acceptable to criticize him.

OMG, can you imagine the explosion in conservative talk radio?

[embiggen]

How about a use tax, I

[bobbob1313]

Like I said in my post, never under estimate the power of racism in America. It's why McCain & co are running their caimpaign against the terrorist loving not real american now, rather than on the merits of their issues.

 

Didn't we go over the race thing a few days ago?

[embiggen]

OMG, can you imagine the explosion in conservative talk radio?

 

 

Rush Limpballs would be in heaven!

[Elixir Sue]

Because with how bad things have been under Bush, Obama should be running away with this. Just like Kerry should've run away with it in 04. It's either they suck at running campaigns, or people just flat out don't agree with them.

As Q23 said, the electoral college projection is pretty staggering...I'm not sure what you would consider "running away with this". Also (and I know your whole deal is to go against the grain), your comments are really a slap in the face with regards to the way Obama's campaign has been run. It's been remarkable in a lot of different ways - its grassroots organization, its success at raising money, etc. Considering Obama first made a name for himself on the national stage about 4 years ago, the fact that he was able to beat Hillary Clinton and have such a successful campaign for the presidency is pretty impressive.

[jenbobblehead]

a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.

See, I was going to say "poop" but yours works too.

[bobbob1313]

As Q23 said, the electoral college projection is pretty staggering...I'm not sure what you would consider "running away with this". Also (and I know your whole deal is to go against the grain), your comments are really a slap in the face with regards to the way Obama's campaign has been run. It's been remarkable in a lot of different ways - its grassroots organization, its success at raising money, etc. Considering the fact that Obama first made a name for himself on the national stage about 4 years ago, the fact that he was able to beat Hillary Clinton and have such a successful campaign for the presidency is pretty impressive.

 

So if he's running this unbelievably amazing, unprecedented campaign, then the logical answer is that Americans just don't agree with the democratic platform, isn't it?

 

At least, not enough for their candidate to get a big majority on a national scale. I think everyone agrees that the Bush presidency has been terrible, and yet they can't get more than a 5% polling lead nationally? Sure, they'll win the electoral college, but I'm talking more on a national scale.

 

And how is criticism a "slap in the face?"

[Edie]

You followers of the Chosen One sure are a cocky bunch.

 

 

All I'm sayin', is that the next 2 years could potentially be the most left this country has ever been. That ain't gonna last long.

 

Don't be an ass.

 

And the current $9,000,000,000,000 deficit (with a projected $1,000,000,000,000 additional scheduled to be added it this year) won't allow for much allowance to play with as far as creating the "leftist" society you seem to fear.

[JUDE]

Use taxes increase taxes on people who HAVE to spend all their money to live. Use taxes and flat taxes are promoted by people who know that these ideas will push the tax burden further down the social ladder. the WSJ wrote fovorably about these in late 2002 and was in favor of increasign the burden down the ladder rather than up the ladder. Bad idea, unless you are near the top of the ladder.

 

And the current system works so much better.

 

Wait, don't you make you living working to reduce the effective tax rate of you clients?

 

 

so, then they can afford a higher income tax.

 

Affording to pay and actually correcting the tax code to induce these 'fat-cats' to pay a larger share are two completely different things.

[fatheadfred]

But I still think Jon Stewart is the Webster's definition of a smug, arrogant dickhead.

 

It's a good thing you don't work for Webster's because that would be a synonym not a definition. However, neither apply anyway.

[Sir Stewart]

So if he's running this unbelievably amazing, unprecedented campaign, then the logical answer is that Americans just don't agree with the democratic platform, isn't it?

 

You forgot to write "real Americans."