Campaign 2008

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I was watching a political show on our local channel last night discussing KY politics and all everyone did was pat each other on the back and think they were God's gift to the political system.

 

Was it on KET? If so, my girlfriend called in to that show.

 

Lieberman tries to make decisions based on the evidence and what works

 

The war in Iraq? WTF?

 

Supporting that goes against most evidence and it's not working.

[SuperJerk 0]

Edwards has a GREAT foundation for his campaign, poverty relief but we never saw much of that in the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

 

Too bad poor people don't vote.

I'm working with inner-city kids this summer (not the first time), and you'd be surprised by how many of them fundamentally believe that all people are either poor by choice or because they're lazy, and all you have to do to get ahead in life is get a job, and that jobs are plentiful. Although we're talking about teenagers who have no idea how much money it costs to live on, I don't see a great uprising of poor people uniting behind an issue of self-interest. I don't know what kind of cynical self-pity they've been force fed by their parents or community, but I had a difficult time demonstrating to them that there is a direct relationship between the voting patterns of a specific group and how much attention the government pays them. Given how much money the government spends on services for the elderly, and how high the voter participation rates for senior citizens are, I didn't think the connection would be difficult to make. However, the argument that "maybe if more young people voted the government would pay more attention to you" doesn't fly well with our current generation of young people, despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

I'm seriously irritated by the whole situation. People who claim that there's no one worth voting for usually cannot even tell you who some of the most recent candidates were. John Edwards's name came up in an article we were reading about minimum-wage laws, and none of them had any idea who he was. They know they hate George Bush, but they have no idea why. There's a complete disconnection with current events, but absolute certainty that the government is completely corrupt. The self-reinforcing cynicism of many of today's youth is absolutely staggering to me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Danville_Wrestling agreed with something I posted. Hell done froze over.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Yea, youth have no political compass in America today. This is why I hate "political debates" that my professors orchestrate in some of my college classes because people have opinions that are not grounded in any theory/facts and cannot explain themselves properly. Every problem we face today is Bush's fault although they cannot explain why. Then again, they probably did not vote in the last election since the people who always complain are those that don't vote.

 

In response to bigolsmitty above, yes I was talking about that KET show. It was about KY youth but I felt that the debate accomplished practically nothing. Also, I HATE Tom Buford, my state senator, with a passion and can't believe the GOP nominated him to face off with Ben Chandler two years ago and the guy looked like a bumbling fool going on ranks about nothing. Some sound bites: "People just are not having enough children' and "People like their pizza fast." WTF??!!

 

As far as Lieberman goes, I knew Iraq would get brought up but I am saying that he voted to depose an evil dictator. All evidence isn't in WMD's, although that IS the way this administration framed the debate over Iraq to its peril. However, I'll say it once and another million times: Lieberman will not lose the CT election either as a Democrat or independent because the GOP isn't going to mount a serious challenge there. I mean can you see the Bush/Cheney team going in there to campaign against Lieberman? I don't see it happening.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think the idea of the youth voting movement was finally killed off in the last presidential election, seeing how the percentage of eligible young voters who actually voted was the same as in 2000, despite Rolling Stone and MTV trying to get out the vote, etc. (In a _completely_ unpartisan vote drive...)

[Art Sandusky 0]

Is it so difficult to deal with the inherent liberalism of voting drives for those who argue against it? Seriously, it isn't just young voter registration drives, it's for all age groups. Those who aren't part of the electoral system are outside of the established political culture, which is creaking and groaning along with a fuel of old ideals and contributions and is close to broken in the minds of most Americans. It's fine if you support institutions that are already in place, but I'm curious if the philosophy behind voter registration programs is where you've got your beef.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In response to bigolsmitty above, yes I was talking about that KET show. It was about KY youth but I felt that the debate accomplished practically nothing. Also, I HATE Tom Buford, my state senator, with a passion and can't believe the GOP nominated him to face off with Ben Chandler two years ago and the guy looked like a bumbling fool going on ranks about nothing. Some sound bites: "People just are not having enough children' and "People like their pizza fast." WTF??!!

 

Do you live in Danville? I like that town. I used to date a girl who went to Boyle Co. High and I considered going to Centre for college.

 

As far as Lieberman goes, I knew Iraq would get brought up but I am saying that he voted to depose an evil dictator. All evidence isn't in WMD's, although that IS the way this administration framed the debate over Iraq to its peril. However, I'll say it once and another million times: Lieberman will not lose the CT election either as a Democrat or independent because the GOP isn't going to mount a serious challenge there. I mean can you see the Bush/Cheney team going in there to campaign against Lieberman? I don't see it happening.

 

The thing about Lieberman isn't that he didn't oppose the Iraq War, it's that he opposed the opposers. He totally crapped on anyone who disagreed with the war--and that's a huge chunk of his party and his state. Notice how there isn't any huge effort to vote out some of the other Democratic Senators who supported the war like Clinton or Cantwell or even conservative Ben Nelson.

 

Lieberman is a FOX News Democrat. Anyone who Sean Hannity calls a close personal friend deserves at least a nomination battle.

[Guest Felonies!]

Is it so difficult to deal with the inherent liberalism of voting drives for those who argue against it? Seriously, it isn't just young voter registration drives, it's for all age groups. Those who aren't part of the electoral system are outside of the established political culture, which is creaking and groaning along with a fuel of old ideals and contributions and is close to broken in the minds of most Americans. It's fine if you support institutions that are already in place, but I'm curious if the philosophy behind voter registration programs is where you've got your beef.

I think it's because when you're dealing with a network as large and powerful as MTV is, the way they practically market this as Good Guys vs. Bad Guys does more harm than good.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Is it so difficult to deal with the inherent liberalism of voting drives for those who argue against it? Seriously, it isn't just young voter registration drives, it's for all age groups. Those who aren't part of the electoral system are outside of the established political culture, which is creaking and groaning along with a fuel of old ideals and contributions and is close to broken in the minds of most Americans. It's fine if you support institutions that are already in place, but I'm curious if the philosophy behind voter registration programs is where you've got your beef.

 

No, it's not the philosophy I'm against. I think it's perfectly fine to tell people to "go out and vote," but when the institutions proclaiming it are at the same time running articles about how "Bush smokes marijuana while watching inmates get executed" (seriously, someone wrote something like that in Rolling Stone), I think it needs to be taken with a few shakers of salt.

[Slayer 0]

Justin Timberlake lyrics. Otherstuffslayerlikestosay.

Rock your body?

[Slayer 0]

KY politics

No punchline necessary

[SuperJerk 0]

I think it's because when you're dealing with a network as large and powerful as MTV is, the way they practically market this as Good Guys vs. Bad Guys does more harm than good.

The sarcasm to poignant observation ratio in this post is staggering.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Well, Rolling Stone never really was a credible political source. They are close to publishing conspiracy theories that say that Bush drinks the blood of liberals and is an evil alien at this point.

 

Plus, as a magazine, they suck really bad.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Do you live in Danville? I like that town. I used to date a girl who went to Boyle Co. High and I considered going to Centre for college.

 

Yea, I live in Danville. Don't go to Centre for college because it was too close but went there for the state's Governor's Scholars Program.

 

The thing about Lieberman isn't that he didn't oppose the Iraq War, it's that he opposed the opposers. He totally crapped on anyone who disagreed with the war--and that's a huge chunk of his party and his state. Notice how there isn't any huge effort to vote out some of the other Democratic Senators who supported the war like Clinton or Cantwell or even conservative Ben Nelson.

 

Lieberman is a FOX News Democrat. Anyone who Sean Hannity calls a close personal friend deserves at least a nomination battle.

 

I know I have defended Lieberman a lot on this board and I don't want to give the impression that he's my favorite politician or something. I'm just assessing his electoral chances and the implications for the Democratic Party. Is the DNC behind Lieberman in this primary? If not I have to believe that some of the party big whigs have to be hoping that he gets defeated in this campaign. I would argue that Clinton faces no challenge because of pressure within the DNC not to have anyone face her. Can't say too much of Washington politics other than Cantwell will face an EXTREMELY tough test in the general election since she lost tons of money in the dot com bust and will have to rely on getting money from special interests to win (she took the moral high ground on that in 2000). Unsure about Nelson also but he's got a pretty conservative constituency in Nebraska so a liberal challenge against him would probably fail.

 

I just have to wonder about fallout for the Democrats on this one. IF Lieberman loses the primary it could paint the Democrats as a party of the ultra-left and give fodder to the GOP over the Democrats being weak on security again because it would make Lieberman a martyr over Iraq. I know the GOP has SEVERELY damaged their security card in recent years and its been overplayed but it just seems the Dems might be shooting themselves in a foot here with this race.

 

Then again, I don't see the Democrats winning control of the Senate (probably the House though if current trends continue) because other than definitely unseating Santorum in Pennsylvania they still have to win key races in Ohio (vs. DeWine) and Maryland (vs. Michael Steele).

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't see the Democrats winning control of the Senate (probably the House though if current trends continue)

 

Our next Speaker of the House. Yay.

 

Not the first time this thought has occurred to me, but the first time I felt the need to point this out:

a Pelosi Speakership would probably kill any chances of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

[MrRant 0]

Edwards has a GREAT foundation for his campaign, poverty relief but we never saw much of that in the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

 

Too bad poor people don't vote.

I'm working with inner-city kids this summer (not the first time), and you'd be surprised by how many of them fundamentally believe that all people are either poor by choice or because they're lazy, and all you have to do to get ahead in life is get a job, and that jobs are plentiful. Although we're talking about teenagers who have no idea how much money it costs to live on, I don't see a great uprising of poor people uniting behind an issue of self-interest. I don't know what kind of cynical self-pity they've been force fed by their parents or community, but I had a difficult time demonstrating to them that there is a direct relationship between the voting patterns of a specific group and how much attention the government pays them. Given how much money the government spends on services for the elderly, and how high the voter participation rates for senior citizens are, I didn't think the connection would be difficult to make. However, the argument that "maybe if more young people voted the government would pay more attention to you" doesn't fly well with our current generation of young people, despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

I'm seriously irritated by the whole situation. People who claim that there's no one worth voting for usually cannot even tell you who some of the most recent candidates were. John Edwards's name came up in an article we were reading about minimum-wage laws, and none of them had any idea who he was. They know they hate George Bush, but they have no idea why. There's a complete disconnection with current events, but absolute certainty that the government is completely corrupt. The self-reinforcing cynicism of many of today's youth is absolutely staggering to me.

 

Define "poor". Are we talking someone who is living on welfare, someone making minimum wage or what? An example is that the average median household income for WA state is ~$52,000 which is obtainable if you and a spouse make around $12.50 an hour or so.

 

Of course minimum wage around here is $7.50 so if they both work minimum wage you are looking at $31,200. If we are talking about "poor" being one person having to meet that average income then yes, there aren't a great amount of people making $25 an hour. Minus some manufacturing, Microsoftish jobs.

 

So again, what is poor? How are you defining it? Are we assuming two working parents and kids or what?

[SuperJerk 0]

Define "poor". Are we talking someone who is living on welfare, someone making minimum wage or what? An example is that the average median household income for WA state is ~$52,000 which is obtainable if you and a spouse make around $12.50 an hour or so.

 

Of course minimum wage around here is $7.50 so if they both work minimum wage you are looking at $31,200. If we are talking about "poor" being one person having to meet that average income then yes, there aren't a great amount of people making $25 an hour. Minus some manufacturing, Microsoftish jobs.

 

So again, what is poor? How are you defining it? Are we assuming two working parents and kids or what?

This is a good place to start.

 

The federal definition of poverty was created over 40 years ago and is based on taking what an average person spends on food and multiplying it by 3. This is a pretty ridicules indicator, given how relatively inexpensive food has become in the year 2006. For instance, in my family of 3, we spend about 7% of our income on food. The definition of poverty should vary from region to region, since the cost of living (rent/mortgage, utilities, and food) varies by region. Even by the federal standard, though, someone making minimum wage is still considered poor once you take payroll and sales taxes are into consideration. According to the government, 1 person earning $9,800 a year would be poor. That's more than someone making $5.15 an hour (the federally mandated minimum wage) makes in a year after taxes. However, I honestly do not see how someone can support themselves earning $9,800 a year, or support themselves and one child on $13,200.

[MrRant 0]

So basically someone who works part time(*1) or a single parent working full time with more than one kid(*2). It could qualify as laziness, put I won't say that it would be easy to raise a child with only that kindof money.

 

*1- Excluding REAL medical conditions etc.

*2 - And the state would pretty much pay for the kid.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm also trying to figure out how a person or couple earning minimum wage is supposed to afford child care.

[MrRant 0]

Well, for one they probably shouldn't have kids. But if they did they can pray to god you have parents that can help or a day care with a sliding scale in their neighborhood. Churchs and the like are sometimes free and depending on the state, they will help with some of the cost. Or you make the decision to work more or less opposite shifts so that the time that the child is in daycare or whatever is minimal.

[Guest Princess Leena]

I'm voting for:

 

1) Whatever gives Hillary the least chance of winning.

2) The cutest candidate.

 

Please post pics of all candidates. Thank you.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My point was that the marketing was temporary, but the registration was enough of a long-term investment to make it okay to forgive the hook used. These young'uns will hit the real world one day and become more reasoned and less easily influenced.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Do you live in Danville? I like that town. I used to date a girl who went to Boyle Co. High and I considered going to Centre for college.

 

Yea, I live in Danville. Don't go to Centre for college because it was too close but went there for the state's Governor's Scholars Program.

 

I went to NKU for GSP (2000).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Do you live in Danville? I like that town. I used to date a girl who went to Boyle Co. High and I considered going to Centre for college.

 

Yea, I live in Danville. Don't go to Centre for college because it was too close but went there for the state's Governor's Scholars Program.

 

The thing about Lieberman isn't that he didn't oppose the Iraq War, it's that he opposed the opposers. He totally crapped on anyone who disagreed with the war--and that's a huge chunk of his party and his state. Notice how there isn't any huge effort to vote out some of the other Democratic Senators who supported the war like Clinton or Cantwell or even conservative Ben Nelson.

 

Lieberman is a FOX News Democrat. Anyone who Sean Hannity calls a close personal friend deserves at least a nomination battle.

 

I just have to wonder about fallout for the Democrats on this one. IF Lieberman loses the primary it could paint the Democrats as a party of the ultra-left and give fodder to the GOP over the Democrats being weak on security again because it would make Lieberman a martyr over Iraq.

 

Bolding by me.

 

I don't get this. By any measure, Iraq has not "increased" American national security. A huge portion of the country disapproves of the President's handling of Iraq (which Lieberman has unwaveringly supported) and a majority of the country views the decision to go to war in Iraq as a mistake. I cannot fathom how supporting the Bush line on Iraq could possibly be construed as being "strong on defense."

 

Then again, I don't see the Democrats winning control of the Senate (probably the House though if current trends continue) because other than definitely unseating Santorum in Pennsylvania they still have to win key races in Ohio (vs. DeWine) and Maryland (vs. Michael Steele).

 

Also:

 

Montana (vs. Burns)

Missouri (vs. Talent)

Tennessee (Frist's seat that Harold Ford, Jr. is running for)

Maybe Kyl's seat in Arizona

Maybe George Allen's seat in Virginia

*edit* also Chafee's seat in Rhode Island

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Also:

 

Montana (vs. Burns)

Missouri (vs. Talent)

Tennessee (Frist's seat that Harold Ford, Jr. is running for)

Maybe Kyl's seat in Arizona

Maybe George Allen's seat in Virginia

*edit* also Chafee's seat in Rhode Island

 

Well to win control of the Senate the Democrats have to win five seats while retaining all of theirs. If the GOP defeats Cantwell in Washington (which is a realistic possibility) or Steele beats the Democratic challenger in Maryland to replace Democrat Paul Sarbanes then it will probably prevent a switching of control.

 

Interestingly enough, Jim Jefford (I-VT) will probably be replaced by another independent, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent "democratic socialist" and represents VT in the House right now. Democrats are supporting him in this race.

 

Back to your list, though. I see Burns losing due to the Abramoff scandals and so the Democrats pick up the seat in MT.

 

Talent will have a very tough race in MO versus popular state auditor Claire McCaskill but I think he will pull that one out due to the size of his contacts in the area. However, he's only up 47-46% right now.

 

TN's race is a dead heat and Harold Ford Jr. is in a dead heat with all of his GOP challengers but I just can't forsee TN voting Democrat although its not foreign to them (they were the home of Gore).

 

I see little reason by AZ would ditch Kyl. He's got a solid lead in the latest polls.

 

Allen's race will be VERY close and probably damage any chance he has at a 2008 presidential campaign but in the end he's got the money and will get the necessary RNC support to beat back Webb.

 

I could care less about the Rhode Island seat since Chafee is one the most liberal GOP members and I think that seats a goner anyway.

 

Therefore, when adding up a DEFINITE gain in Pennsylvania and two gains in Montana and Rhode Island the Dems need to pull off an upset in TN and win a close race in Missouri. Not necessarily impossible but the DNC will have to pour money to save Cantwell in WA as her poll numbers have dropped for the fifth time in six months vs. Mike McGavick and might have to do the same against Steele in Maryland. The Democrats will definitely GAIN seats in the Senate but I would predict a 51-48-1 margin based on how things currently are with the GOP retaining control.

 

What is killing the GOP this year is a list of really crappy candidates in races versus incumbents especially in Michigan and Florida (especially here where Bill Nelson has to vanquish Katherine Harris in a race that wasn't even close to start with).

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I actually got an offer from McCaskill's campaign, and the internal polling they showed me was much different than the 47-46 number you gave me. I'll leave it at that.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well I'm sure people have different polling numbers on both sides and the news media have theirs. Polls are simply polls and don't ever convey precisely what the real margin of the vote will be since of course turnout decides elections.

 

In fact, after all the back and forth we've had on this board I would not be surprised if the Democrats win lots of House seats and maybe retake the Senate as they pound the GOP and retain all of their seats. After all, this time the GOP doesn't have a gay marriage amendment to get people to turn out and they also lack a key issue to rush their supporters to the polls. Democrats on the other hand are using several state votes to launch minimum wage increases which appeal to their base, unions in particular, and could help them in tight races across the country.

 

But hell it's only mid-July and there is lots of time for both parties to keep screwing up and making it harder for them to win.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, for one they probably shouldn't have kids.

 

Thank you or reminding to vote against any politician I hear pushing for more abstinence-only programs.

[MrRant 0]

Has nothing to do with abstinence only (which I don't agree with), but common sense.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

He was just bringing up the common sense economics of it. Minimum wage isn't designed to support a whole family, or even necessarily one person.