Campaign 2008

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So if you live in a swing state, you can still make a difference!

Colorado and Virginia are swing states this year. North Carolina might be but that sort of swings around.

 

Part of the reason the Dems held their convention in Denver was to basically flood the state in volunteers and get a ton of canvassers.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Michigan is pretty much a swing state too, as the last polls have Obama with a very slight lead, like only 2 points or something.

 

I'm voting absentee in Michigan btw

[Nightwing 0]

Honestly, I think the Democrats are going to get a higher turnout and THAT is the main factor that will win the election, and voter turnout/new voters are not really being accounted for in any of the polls that are coming out/changing daily. None of the talking heads seem to be talking about new voters and the Democrats seeming to be doing a better job getting new folks interested.

 

Uh, isn't that what "Likely voter" polls are supposed to take into account? And depending on "New Voters" never works; if that were true, we'd have President Kerry today. While new voters might actually come out this year since Obama actually has appeal and charisma and isn't a "Shit, we really need a candidate this year!" like Kerry was, it seems like every year someone is talking about "new voters" pushing them to victory, and it doesn't happen.

 

But didn't Obama already demonstrate the ability to bring new voters out in the primaries (where people vote in far lower percentages to begin with)? Not saying I necessarily agree with nocal, but yeah.

 

Hey, Clinton had something to do with that, too. Having the most competitive and watched primary (Between a black man and a woman, no less) of all-time does help all that. While I have no doubt that Obama has interested more people, I'm not sure that isn't being shown in the polls, or that it will give him some sort of out-of-nowhere victory. Youth vote, new voters... again, it's not something I'll buy as a "deal breaker" on election day until it actually manages to happen.

 

... I'm fully prepared to eat my words, though.

 

Not sure I agree with that, since you could easily have illegal immigrants swing an election and then nobody knows about it until it's too late.

 

On the other extreme, behold, the most brazen voter suppression tactic of all time.

 

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

 

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

 

State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.”

 

The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”

 

Wow, the Michigan Republican Party is a helluva lot stupider than I thought. It's not like they're doing it in Detroit or someplace where they might actually take away votes. Nope, they're doing it one of the counties where the Democrats will swing Republican. And it's not the rich, wealthy Republicans, it's the working class guys who are being foreclosed on. Jackasses.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wow, the Michigan Republican Party is a helluva lot stupider than I thought. It's not like they're doing it in Detroit or someplace where they might actually take away votes. Nope, they're doing it one of the counties where the Democrats will swing Republican. And it's not the rich, wealthy Republicans, it's the working class guys who are being foreclosed on. Jackasses.

Article claims it's a Detroit burb, and the suggestion is that a lot of the foreclosed are black.

 

You know the area well?

[SuperJerk 0]

The problem here, as is almost always the case, is the media's insistence on focusing on these big campaign meta-narratives instead of on things like, I don't know, actual facts. And so you get shit like, "McCain is trying to position himself as a maverick who fights against the big-shots in his own party" but then instead of looking into that claim and seeing if it's actually true or not (hint: it's not) they bring in a couple Campaign Strategists or whatever to debate whether this tactic is going to "work" or not.

 

Thank you.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Posting this here and elsewhere:

 

Remember when I said the charges of media bias and sexism would only go so far before the media stopped taking it so seriously and began ignoring it, and the pushing of the message bites them in the ass?

 

Yes, there may be one or two deranged Hillary dead-enders out there willing to believe Obama called Sarah Palin a pig. But I think there are many, many more "ordinary Americans" who've heard the expression several thousand times and have no idea what the fuss is about. --New Republic

 

McCain once campaigned on the idea that the war on terrorism is the “transcendent” issue of our time. Now, he’s stooping to cheap advertising that would be condemned as trivial and misleading in a state legislative race. Boy, do I miss the old John McCain and wonder what became of him. --WaPo

 

I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain--contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat--talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. --TIME

 

It seems to me we should have one rule. If Obama was calling Palin a pig, then McCain was calling Hillary Clinton one. If McCain wasn't, then Obama wasn't. --ABC

 

They tried their hand too far, and now the honeymoon is over. The next few days should be interesting.

[NoCalMike 0]

The thing is the media is building up this Charlie Gibson interview like it is going to "set the record straight" when in reality these types of pre-taped interviews are usually 90% fluff pieces.

 

Palin needs to address the press and take un-edited questioning.

 

Whether you are a fan of hers or not, you must admit that ever since she has been announced as VP, she has been protected and very well hidden by the McCain campaign.

[At Home 0]

Who's a fan of her here? With the exception of 909, we're all on the same page.

[The Robfather 0]

Palin needs to address the press and take un-edited questioning.

 

Why does she need to 'address the press'?

 

People are free to run their campaigns anyway they want to. She's doing an interview. Now it has to be a full blown press conference. I don't remember Lieberman or Cheney doing those in 2000 or Edwards in 04.

 

There are four ways a reporter can do things: gotcha questions (pulled on Bush), tough but fair questions, out-of-bounds slime questions, or fluff. A press confrence would become gotcha attempt, no doubt about it.

 

I really think the national press overrates their importantance to the political process. I've managed to stay informed and I watch football on sundays, not those dull chit-chat shows. Hell, I knew what was going on five days ago when my lights were out due to Gustav and all I had was local radio.

[Art Sandusky 0]

EDIT: I had a gag post here, but a word on "gotcha questions":

 

This is another case of something accepted and pure being molested by the hand of the right wing machine. "Gotcha" means "oh shit I was talking out of my ass on every possible issue and you dared notice since it's your job to do this and inform people who might MAKE ME THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD and it would suck if that didn't happen so I'mma bitch about the media." Sit n' spin on that one.

[Nightwing 0]

Wow, the Michigan Republican Party is a helluva lot stupider than I thought. It's not like they're doing it in Detroit or someplace where they might actually take away votes. Nope, they're doing it one of the counties where the Democrats will swing Republican. And it's not the rich, wealthy Republicans, it's the working class guys who are being foreclosed on. Jackasses.

Article claims it's a Detroit burb, and the suggestion is that a lot of the foreclosed are black.

 

You know the area well?

 

Yeah, I live just over its border in St. Clair County (Where former Minority Whip David Bonior used to be from). It's a Detroit 'burb, and there are certainly a black population (Mount Clemens springs to mind), but (if wikipedia is to be believed, and it certainly would confirm my own experience) it's only 5.6% black (I'd wager it's around 89-90% White). Oakland County (Which is the fourth richest in the country and used to be the second) has 5 times the black population.

 

I don't understand this at all. Macomb County Voters are well-known enough to be known by the national media; these guys are the quintessential Reagan Democrats. Union men who have conservative values and likely members of the NRA. Right now they've been hard hit due to the Auto Companies getting nailed (Glad to know that both candidates are going to help that out after we've been fucking ignored by Bush for the last 8 years), so most of those foreclosures are going to be white. These guys are the guys who are going to swing Michigan for the Republicans if it is going to happen.

 

This might mean that they are not nearly as secure in this county as they once were. I can't see any reason why they would do this.

[NoCalMike 0]

Palin needs to address the press and take un-edited questioning.

 

Why does she need to 'address the press'?

 

People are free to run their campaigns anyway they want to. She's doing an interview. Now it has to be a full blown press conference. I don't remember Lieberman or Cheney doing those in 2000 or Edwards in 04.

 

There are four ways a reporter can do things: gotcha questions (pulled on Bush), tough but fair questions, out-of-bounds slime questions, or fluff. A press confrence would become gotcha attempt, no doubt about it.

 

I really think the national press overrates their importantance to the political process. I've managed to stay informed and I watch football on sundays, not those dull chit-chat shows. Hell, I knew what was going on five days ago when my lights were out due to Gustav and all I had was local radio.

 

Ok I didn't mean "address the press" moreso, take questions from the press. Thus far she has been repeating her jokes and one-liners on the campaign trail, which is fine for the red-meat speeches where you are preaching to the choir, but funny how she isn't getting the criticism of "Is she anything more then a good speech" and/or "She's just a celebrity/superstar with no substance" Instead the media is focusing on and leading it's coverage with sensationalistic topics that in the end, don't matter a worth a damn. Of course, why am I suprised?

[The Robfather 0]

Well, I would guess used car salesmen have higher approval ratings than the press right now, but maybe I'm mistaken. That's their perception, seems to be playing out a bit like 04 with Rathergate, media can't shake their own image and it hurts the Dems.

 

The way I look at it, there's going to be a debate. Biden should eat her for lunch. That's what I'm hearing.

 

But I'm also hearing the media need to ask her a ton of questions. I think the Dems want the media to destroy her on their behalf. Just the vibe I'm getting. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Art Sandusky 0]

Why exactly does the approval rating of the media matter? Does Roger Ailes now draft legislation that affects my everyday life? Don't answer that, those of you who live outside a bubble. It's their job to hold people accountable (what "gotcha" was before 1980 when massive head trauma spread across the land like wildfire), not to be liked. Voters like Robfather here don't want to hear facts, because they're unpleasant, and I don't mean in the "my head hurts!" kind of way. I mean that the truth bugs people and brings them down. People want good news and/or bad news that's badass. A quickly understood and packaged A or B. The average American doesn't have time to look into things or read into nuances. Shame it produced the current discourse.

[Guest]

Who's a fan of her here? With the exception of 909, we're all on the same page.

Marvin is too, but he can't post in here.

 

Oh shit I just lumped myself in with Marvin

[bob_barron 0]

Let the guy post in here.

 

I like Palin too.

[Guest]

It isn't up to me.

[bob_barron 0]

As I've said in other threads, banning a guy from specific folders is stupid. If he's such a pox on the board, ban him. If not, let him post. It's stupid. He's an idiot, but he shouldn't be barred from posting just because his opinions clash with others.

 

New Jersey seems to be somewhat close this year, the Republicans should give it a shot.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I really think the national press overrates their importantance to the political process.

But Palin's popularity is an effect of the press. The lack of information on her stimulated the press to talk about her incessantly. They've played her hockeymom/ebay/pitbull/bridge/mooseburger act on heavy rotation.

 

Really, it's the press' fault. It's not like when she was announced, that a ton of people said 'oh yeah, her! I like her!" They said, "who?"

 

It's their job to hold people accountable (what "gotcha" was before 1980 when massive head trauma spread across the land like wildfire)

If you think "gotcha" is journalism, you need classes in journalism.

 

"Gotcha" is the old routine most associated with Tim Russert, where you find 20 year old comments and throw them at someone's face and then just ask them to react. Real questioning is the kind of thing you don't see here very often, but it still happens from time to time like what Campbell Brown has been doing recently in that Tucker Bounds smackdown, or when Chris Matthews took that shill to task about "what did Chamberlain do?" and the guy couldn't answer, because he was using a talking point without knowing anything about what it meant.

 

Unfortunately, you only see fits and starts of journalism on the cable networks, the Sunday shows are a little bit better, and BBC is actually good about making people back up what they say but being foreign-based media their ability to get guests even for news they broadcast domestically is really limited (although they did get Bush last year.) Kind of like how you rarely see an exclusive interview on the NewsHour or in USA Today or on NPR, because their audience is somewhat more limited.

[The Robfather 0]

Voters like Robfather here don't want to hear facts, because they're unpleasant, and I don't mean in the "my head hurts!" kind of way

 

Umm, what?

 

I don't just don't agree with the stuff Obama stands for. I also think he's an empty suit who's been spending most of the campaign riding a wave. Now the Dems want to complain about identity politics, about personality politics. I don't feel their pain. Sorry.

 

But state isn't a Battleground State, so no worries.

 

As for the media, hey, they can do whatever they want. I just think everything they've thrown at Palin has backfired.

[SuperJerk 0]

Palin needs to address the press and take un-edited questioning.

 

Why does she need to 'address the press'?

 

People are free to run their campaigns anyway they want to. She's doing an interview. Now it has to be a full blown press conference. I don't remember Lieberman or Cheney doing those in 2000 or Edwards in 04.

 

So log as she gets tough questions, I don't care what the format is.

 

As far as candidates in the past...John Edwards had already ran for the top job at that point, so he'd given plenty of interviews already. Cheney has never been shy about interviews, either, and had already been giving interviews for years as Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, and House Minority Whip. Palin hasn't gone through any form of rigorous questioning by the national press, and there are lots of relevant questions about her record as governor that need answers.

[SuperJerk 0]

double post

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'm guessing that if someone called Sarah Palin an "empty skirt", they would be denounced as sexist by the same people who have been calling Obama an "empty suit" this whole election cycle.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't just don't agree with the stuff Obama stands for. I also think he's an empty suit who's been spending most of the campaign riding a wave.

What wave, precisely? Because I've been interested in this race since it was just exploratory committees, and having researched the top three candidates Obama and Edwards had much more thorough policy information available for reading than Hillary did.

 

And, although I give Edwards credit for pushing the other candidates to having a spine on populist issues, I'm kind of glad he's not the nominee right now.

[The Robfather 0]

I'm guessing that if someone called Sarah Palin an "empty skirt", they would be denounced as sexist by the same people who have been calling Obama an "empty suit" this whole election cycle.

 

People have been saying Palin isn't qualified since the morning she was picked, but if you want to compare the bottom of the GOP ticket to the top of the Dem ticket, I say keep it up.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm guessing that if someone called Sarah Palin an "empty skirt", they would be denounced as sexist by the same people who have been calling Obama an "empty suit" this whole election cycle.

 

People have been saying Palin isn't qualified since the morning she was picked, but if you want to compare the bottom of the GOP ticket to the top of the Dem ticket, I say keep it up.

The term doesn't mean lack of qualifications, it means lack of substance. You're essentially saying someone has no ideas of their own.

[SuperJerk 0]

Should children of candidates be off limits even if they make campaign appearances and do awful interviews? Cuz...damn, what a moron.

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's like, some kind of famous war hero or somethin'?

[Jingus 0]

Go vote for the one closest to what you want. If one of them gets 3% more of the vote in Texas than the party's last nominee, that's a shift towards several things you believe are in your self-interest. Maybe a few more cycles like that will get your views closer to the party mainstream.

Firstly, my weird mix of views aren't anywhere near any party's mainstream. Secondly: yeah, in theory Texas could stop being Republican in the near future. In theory the Large Hadron Collider could destroy the entire universe. I estimate their probabilities as being somewhat equitable. Texas has been more and more Republican with every passing year; for well over a decade, the pendelum has never even stopped speeding up, let alone stopped swinging in the Red's direction. With every presidential election, an overwhelming amount of more people come out and vote elephant and treat their opposition like a hurricane treats a Nawlins levy.

 

Shit, go vote for someone third-party if you really, truly dislike both of the major choices. Maybe you can help that party get on the ballot next time out.

That would be damn near the only reason I'd consider valid to go vote here, and even that has a pretty remote chance of ever actually happening.

 

It really does make me grit my teeth when people pass up voting because they feel that it is inconsequential.

Why? No matter how people say it, voting isn't a "duty" or a "right". No law says that you have to do it. You can lose the ability to vote. And the argument of "if you don't vote, don't complain" is laughable. That's pretty much the same thing as "if you don't love America, then geeeyit out!". What about the various pissed-off Republicans who now really wish they hadn't voted for Bush? Considering they actively helped create the situation, should they have a right to complain?

 

Jingus, do you vote on referendums?

There's no handy-dandy wiki list like that one for TX. Google doesn't turn up anything in the first fifty hits either. The local news tends to skip local politics, too. As far as I can tell, there aren't any referendums or ballot initiatives coming up at all.

 

Also, Texas politics are pretty bad at conning the voters, even worse than is standard most places. The last big referendum was about a proposed new tollway, which is a very unpopular idea since Dallas is getting to be almost like Jersey with the ludicrous overreliance on toll roads. Most people didn't want another one. So guess what the lawmakers did? They twisted the wording around so that a "yes" vote meant no and a "no" vote meant yes. The new tollway was approved. By a relatively close margin, since some people had figured out what was going on, but not enough. Oh, and the local politicians behind the tollway? They're not expected to lose their reelections this years. Welcome to hell, kids.

 

I don't think New York has any propositions like California, but I like our local assemblywoman so I want to vote for her.

Out of 32 representatives, a grand total of 4 of the elections aren't considered to be a lock for the incumbents. One of the Senators is up in a mildly competitive race, but A.his opponent is a "Democrat" who is running on a strong anti-immigration platform, and B.Texas hasn't elected any Dems whatsoever to any statewide offices in fourteen years anyway. As for smaller stuff like the mayor and such, our town is so small and our area is so heavily controlled by corporate concerns anyway that I don't think that a change of the particular butts in the seats would make any difference.

 

Jingus, stop being dumb.

That's just impossible.

Because personal insults are so classy, especially the Shakespearean heights of wit which you utilized in order to burn me there. Oh, I am slain. Maybe you can come up with some jokes about my mama being so fat while you're at it.

[Ted the Poster 0]

Let the guy post in here.

 

I like Palin too.

Why.