Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Gary Floyd

Campaign 2008

Recommended Posts

For Jingus, I will repeat myself:

How do you actually get to a situation that reflects your ideal candidate, as Agent was venting for? 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. I'm not fond of things both McCain and Obama have done or currently support, but ultimately I've done a calculus of what matters to me most and picked my guy. If you insist on a candidate who holds only positions you agree with, you will never be voting in your whole life. And if you're cool with that, okay, but that seems like much more of a waste than "throwing [your] vote away."

Your vote has an impact regardless of whether or not your choice wins a state's electoral votes. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin Barrett, the former UW truther, won the Libertarian primary for my district's Congressional seat yesterday. Embarassing. I should've ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, California's always got it's proposition system to make voting worthwhile. You get no real say on the Presidency, but you get to try and stop the state from sending itself further into the hole.

 

1: Yes

2: No

3: No

4: What the fuck *NO*

5: Yes

6: Lean no, could go either way

7: No (looks nice, but a trojan horse, see below)

8: Aw hell no!

9: No

10: No (again, see below)

11: No

 

Please vote no on prop seven, the renewable energy thing. Yes, renewables are cool and I support them. But if we require by law that all of Cali's electric companies be 20% renewable in only TWO YEARS (and it's more like one realistically) we're going to bankrupt the utilities and be exactly where we were when Enron gouged them into poverty years ago.

 

10 is another green initiative, this time giving money to people who buy green cars. I think the price of gas is doing plenty to market Chevy Volt, so there's no reason for the state to write congratulatory checks to people who could afford to buy a cutting-edge car. I don't mind government subsidizing development of this kind of tech, but subsidizing the sales of it is too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

1. Yes

2. No

3. No, too expensive

4. No.

5. No

6. Yes

7. No, same reasons as mentioned above

8. Yes

9. Yes

10. No

11. No

12. Yeah, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8. Yes

Has the world ended since gay marriage started over there or something?

 

And you really want to undo the existing gay marraiges? Why would you wish that on anyone? You must really fucking hate gay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've got no problem with civil unions and equal benefits for homosexual partnerships, and this proposition does nothing to change that. That whole "marriage" word is what gets to me.

 

I knew someone was going to jump my shit though. I suppose that's what I get for daring to disagree with the TSM populace on an issue that isn't even that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got no problem with civil unions and equal benefits for homosexual partnerships, and this proposition does nothing to change that. That whole "marriage" word is what gets to me.

 

I knew someone was going to jump my shit though. I suppose that's what I get for daring to disagree with the TSM populace on an issue that isn't even that important.

 

Ending discrimination is important. And I suppose your life has been miserable since gays in California got their fair share of that "marraige" word, eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well, I was just curious.

 

I see no problems so long as churches are allowed to choose to not wed any couple they choose to, and they still have that right.

 

Amusingly, as a side effect, Prop 8 could wind up nullifying everyone's marriges if passed. It doesn't address the core of the court argument for marriage, which is that the state constitution requires gay and straight couples be treated the same, regardless of what that treatment is. So you could wind up with everyone having a "civil union".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I've got no problem with civil unions and equal benefits for homosexual partnerships, and this proposition does nothing to change that. That whole "marriage" word is what gets to me.

 

I knew someone was going to jump my shit though. I suppose that's what I get for daring to disagree with the TSM populace on an issue that isn't even that important.

 

Ending discrimination is important. And I suppose your life has been miserable since gays in California got their fair share of that "marraige" word, eh?

Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. A bill in which that is given without the word "marriage" is great, if there's a referendum for that, I'm on board. My life's fine whether people call it marriage or what, I just want to have my say and that can be that. I'm not going to fight against the result if it's against my personal wishes or religious beliefs. That isn't the way I go about things, I get my say, the majority says differently, that's all well and good with me. You can patronize me all you want, but I don't hate gay people. If the state decided to recognize heterosexual marriages as "civil unions" and still gave them and homosexual couples the same benefits, well, that's cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, just to remind you, all it does is add language that says "Marriage is between a man and a woman in the state of California."

 

It does nothing to address the Supreme Court interpretation of the state constitution that both types of couples should be treated equally. So the minute you define marriage as an unequal status, nobody is married anymore.

 

Granted, that won't happen overnight, but the progressive groups are certain to push the issue as hard as they can to make the voters eat their crow, and the conservative groups will try to fight back but simply don't have precedent on their side. I think this whole thing will become an angry wedge issue again if 8 passes, but if it fails it won't be perfect for EVERYONE but 1/7th of the country's population will see that you can have legal gay marriage without being smited by God or everyone's children doing blow and barebacking each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Debates could be a fucking disaster. "I'll answer that, but let me get back to the Senator's last point..." *eats up the rest of his time*

 

Look at Obama's issues page or for more information view his '"Blueprint for Change" document. Look at McCain's issues page. Find the issues you find most important and vote the way that reflects them.

 

Vote for issues, not personalities. Please oh jesus don't vote for the best sound bites.

 

I'd be a bit more optimistic than the last two debates. Those were horrid. And I won't vote for a soundbite (God help me, if I hear someone tell me about how Obama admitted that he was a Muslim or McCain stated that he knows nothing about the economy (Or the $5 Million Middle Class), I'll scream), but I do like to see the candidates be able to directly challenge each other a bit.

 

Plus, debate time is late enough where I'll feel comfortable sticking to a candidate to vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingus, stop being dumb.

That's just impossible.

 

Also, who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not new voters that are the problem. In fact, people who registered recently are probably interested in voting. And this race has shown about 90% of registered voters are following this. "Likely voters" is people who voted in 2004, which is pretty shit sad because it leaves out a lot of people. Kerry lit few asses on fire, and Bush and McCain pander to different groups.

 

The problem has been YOUNG voters. People in 18-25 register and then kind of get lost in the Xbox while polling day comes and goes. Now, a few things can fix that. For instance, same day registration and early voting here in Nevada. However, the youth vote has always been that mythical unicorn that people hope to see but never shows up, at least it HAS been until Obama appeared and was like "oh yeah, I have one of those in my backyard."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hate when people say that their vote doesn't matter. It's a democratic process, and of course your vote matters. By definition it matters. Voting is such an important opportunity to actually make your voice heard; I really do pity the people that just scoff at it. The electoral college won't override the wishes of a constituency other than in completely ridiculous, and I mean ridiculous, situations.

 

Fucking VOTE, people!

 

Well said.

 

Because, as previously explained, my vote has zero chance to make any change whatsoever. My state WILL give its electoral votes to McCain. There is NOTHING I can do which would have the slightest effect on the outcome in any way. Hence, the feeling of being disenfranchised.

 

It is very true, but it all depends on your state. (Electoral votes in parenthesis)

 

Democratic

California (55)

Connecticut (7)

Delaware (3)

Hawaii (4)

Illinois (21)

Iowa (7)

Maine (4)

Maryland (10)

Massachusetts (12)

Michigan (17)

Minnesota (10)

New Jersey (15)

New Hampshire (4)

New York (31)

Oregon (7)

Pennslyvania (21)

Rhode Island (4)

Vermont (3)

Washington (11)

Wisconsin (10)

 

Republican

Alabama (9)

Alaska (3)

Arizona (10)

Arkansas (6)

Colorado (9)

Georgia (15)

Idaho (4)

Indiana (11)

Kansas (6)

Kentucky (8)

Louisiana (9)

Mississippi (6)

Montana (3)

Nebraska (5)

North Carolina (15)

North Dakota (3)

Oklahoma (7)

South Carolina (8)

South Dakota (3)

Tennessee (11)

Texas (34)

Viriginia (13)

Wyoming (3)

Utah (5)

 

Swing States

Florida (27)

Missouri (11)

Nevada (5)

New Mexico (5)

Ohio (20)

West Virginia (5)

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, Obama made a dumb remark. It was just stupid after Palin made her lipstick remark at the GOP-Con.

 

Did he mean to refer to Palin? Eh, I think at the very least, they were trying to co-opt Palin's lipstick line and turn it into a negative. He didn't even come up with the line. He's just repeating lines that his political advisers are feeding him. Listen to him stumble just to spit it out. He really isn't much of a speaker.

 

So, now he's falling into the trap of identity politics. Its been pulled on the GOP many times in the past, so I got no issues with it. It takes him off his game. If you are explaining, you are losing.

 

Dems should have went with Hillary. Yeah, her negatives are high, but at least she's viewed as a bitch that gets things done. The One is just an empty suit.

 

Maybe Biden will come down with a 'health issue' and have to step down? hmmm hmmm hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×