The Future's Looking Blue

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

The Future's Looking Blue

Postby hive_king » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:40 pm

Looking at several trends, I am convinced that the future is looking Blue. Things are looking good for Senator Obama being our next president. Furthermore, we are at the beginning of a cycle of Democratic dominance in national politics that should last at least until 2040. I know, I know, the whole thing sounds presumptuous, right? But these things happen. It is common in American politics for a political party to hold a long period of dominance. And after considering a few crucial trends, I’m confident for my party.

Generations

Most of my post is based off of information by the historians Strauss and Howe, from their book Generations, but other authors
To start, we’re all members of a distinct generation of people, whose outlook on life has been shaped by shared experiences like Pearl Harbor, the Hippie Movement (and the wider Consciousness Revolution that followed), and the 9/11 attacks. Due to these shared experiences, and the dispositions and attitudes of our elders, certain trends among the generations emerge. More specifically, there is a cycle of 4 types of generations.The four types of generations are Idealistic, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive.

An Idealistic generation is one that young in life causes a social/spiritual revolution. These are the Baby Boomers of the hippie movement, and the people who started the religious Great Awakening, for instance. The Reactive generations are usually the “lost” generations, like Hemmingway’s Lost Generation, and Generation X. The Civic generations are the ones who are the young adults during a great physical threat. They usually help defeat a great physical crisis. The soldiers in WWII, the troops of the American Revolution, and the current youth generation (the Millennial Generation) are all Civic Generations. The Adaptive generations are the ones who grow up as the over-sheltered children during a large crisis. This is the Silent Generation of people who were children during WWII.

Now each generation has many unique characteristics, but I’m ignoring most of them since we’re focusing on politics alone.The Idealistic and the Civic generations are known as “dominant” generations. These generations, when they enter the political scene, often decisively tip the balance of power, and usually help cause realigning elections. The idealistic boomers have largely tipped power to the GOP, while the civic Greatest Generation was responsible for FDR’s landslides. I’m straying away examples further in the past, because I don’t think most of the people here know too much about McKinley’s victory over Bryan, and it saves me the trouble of explaining the civil war hiccup. But regardless, generations often have distinct voting patterns. Many of the Greatest Generations were democrats until they died, and the few still alive generally still are.

When the Millennials enter the electorate in large number, they’re going to tip the balance either one way or another. To do this, a candidate to help push them in the right (left?) direction greatly helps. That's not to say people won't change their leanings in time, but certain core underpinnings stay the same. And there are always outliers. These are just for broad trends in society; there will always be people who go against the grain. Obama, with his wild popularity among Millennials, might be such a candidate. His stance on many issues is most in line with Millennials. The general theme of his campaign resonates with many voters who are too young to really remember much of the 80’s and 90’s, big event speaking, and don’t remember the battles of the 60’s and 70’s at all. He definitely stands a chance of making the Millennials Democrats, especially after so many years of Bush. Most young voters agree with Obama on issues like the war, climate change, social security, and health care.Now keep in mind it isn’t set in stone.

A candidate from the Republicans could realign the Millennials too. The Republicans were dominant from 1860 to 1932 largely because McKinley realigned the electorate after Lincoln realigned the electorate. However, I don’t think McCain is that candidate. The only candidates in the field that I thought could have realigned the map were Giuliani and Paul. Of course, Paul would have had to break 10% in elections to realign the map, but the potential was there.Ok, there’s a quick and dirty rundown of generational theory. On to our next trend:

Demographics

While putting around the internet I came across this article. I know it's from a left-wing blog, and thus not everyone on this site will immediately not take it seriously, but its worth looking at. I've checked most of the statistics they've cited before, and the numbers look about right.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5667
I also encourage you to think about the role of the Democratic Party in the United State for a moment. Consider the following:* African-Americans support Democrats by about an 8-1 ratio. All 42 African-American members of the House and Senate are Democrats.* The LGBT community supports Democrats by about a 3-1 ratio. Both of the LGBT members of Congress are Democrats. * Non-Christians support Democrats by a 3-1 ratio. Both Buddhists and both Muslims in Congress are Democrats. Only three of the 43 Jewish members of the House and Senate are Republicans. . I'm also going to take a guess here and state that there are no publicly declared atheists Republicans in Congress.* Latinos support Democrats by more than a 2-1 ratio. Twenty-one of the twenty-five Latino members of Congress are Democrats.* More than 60% of Asian-American voters choose Democrats. All eight of the Asian-American members of Congress are Democrats.But wait, there's more! Union members, single women, and whites who self-identify their religion as either "none" or "other" than the main world denominations also vote for Democrats by more than 2-1 margins. (The "nones" are more than 3-1). Even the nerds vote for Democrats, as 58% of those with post-graduate degrees support Dems. (You can find sources for all of the voting statistics citing so far here, here, and here.)
Really, what it comes down to is that the Republican Party is increasingly the party of white Christian males, and the Democratic Party is the party of everyone else. This could have important and interesting ramifications in this country as it becomes more and more varied. Specifically, the demographic base of the Republican Party will become a smaller part of the electorate. And thanks to the know-nothing elements in the Republican Party, it is going to be hard for the GOP to expand much further into the one demographic they can really expand into: Latinos.

Conclusion
Now keep in mind that these trends are just that: trends. Things can change drastically over time. Who ever thought that the Republicans would be based in the south, and that California would be a Democratic stronghold? Who would have ever thought that blacks would be voting against the Party of Lincoln? But I don’t think that things will deviate from my predictions all that much.
Last edited by hive_king on Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
lyons24000
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:46 pm
Title: Darn Red Shells!
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby lyons24000 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:44 pm

Nick!

I've been wondering where you've been.
"This must be the end, then."-MorningLightMountain, Judas Unchained

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:46 pm

Nick!

I've been wondering where you've been.
If I don't disappear, I can't get responses like that, right?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:49 am

I think it's looking blue in the negative sense because I'm increasingly worried that Obama is going to lose the presidency. the media is absolutely reluctant to change their McCain narrative even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he's not who the media says he is (I think this is because mccain supplies his media entourage with an unlimited supply of free booze and throws the media exceptionally lavish bbq parties on a regular basis, but I'm petty like that). Combined with the media giving McCain a free pass is the other front the media seems to have found a John Kerry-esque narrative to use to attack Obama. and they're hammering him on all fronts.

It is going to be tough through November, it's going to be really tough. But this country will really go into the toilet if mccain wins so I really want to believe in the american people to make a choice I can stand behind. I'll certainly blame the media for their kiddy gloves treatment of McCain if he does win. it's as bad as their enthusiastic groveling over the 'guy you'd like to drink a beer with' image of Bush during his campaign.

the problem with the quote from your artticle is that none of those numbers give us any context as percentage of the voting population (meaning we have no idea how much any of those groups can impact the election) and second it fails to mention that republicans also tends to be the party of choice of christians, families, rural voters and the eldery (who are a lot less likely to vote for a black person even if they are FDR or JFK democrats) republican's aren't just the party of white males, as "fun" as it may be to denigrate them for that while praising democrats as the party of inclusion, diversity and tolerance. the funny thing about the family values crowd and this election. Obama is the candidate with a fine faithful marraige and a lovely stable family. McCain is the candidate that systematically cheated on his wife for two years and married his mistress within a month of his divorce being finalized. yeah. Family values.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

vendor
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: In Dicator

Postby vendor » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:02 pm

I'm losing faith in both parties. I don't feel like any politician (blue or red) is genuine. There used to be a distinct difference of what a blue politician would do versus a red. Like Bush with his No Child Left Behind. Now I know nobody wants to claim that as a democrat philosophy, but it increased the size of the Department of Education which in turn increases the size of the federal government, which is a democratic initiative. Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage act. Allowing states to choose to not recognize certain marriages as legal (same sex).

When our great country was founded it saw many parties before the "dems" and "reps". True, the parties that have passed on had some similarities to blue and red, but not many of the same platforms. I think we (as a country) need a party to replace the GOP. I don't know with what though.
I think that the GOP has been put into a retirement home by Obama. We may choose to see it again, but do we really want to.

enough of my ramblings
...but paranoia is all I have!!

User avatar
Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Postby Jayelle » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:19 am

I'll gain some respect for the states if they elect Obama - for the sheer fact that they can look past the colour of his skin and the fact that his name is has both Obama and Hussain.


Honestly, I feel like either candidate is a positive change for America. Neither is Bush, neither is Cheney.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

User avatar
Yebra
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:48 am
Title: Shadow Zebra

Postby Yebra » Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:28 pm

The problem I see here is you're assuming that given the (I think overstated) scenario that Democrats develop a large tent of voters and Republicans stick with a small one, this will stay the way it is. History doesn't back up on this one. Parties change, in a two party system they'll tend towards equilibrium because a party that has no prospect of electoral success will shed people and policies until it can.

I think what you're doing is confusing democratic domination with the victory of progressive ideals. The two are linked but the latter demands the eventual failure of the former. Changes happen not when one side puts forward an idea that resonates, but when it moves beyond that to becoming a given for all sides and we move on.

At the end of the day eternal democratic domination is impossible and isn't really a good idea. Nothing is more horrific in politics than watching your party crack apart with age, corruption and scandal, leaving the field to those whose politics don't merit victory, but when guaranteed because of party rot (one reason why a two party system is a crappy crappy way to run things). What you want a Republican party that is less the-end-of-the-world scary when they eventually return to government and the riding tide of a progressive younger generation will do that to some degree. I think that's what you're talking about. I could be wrong though.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:33 pm

Not to mention that the approval ratings for our (blue) congress are at all-time lows right now. All-time lows. As in, never ever been lower. Don't you think a few of those congresspeople are looking to lose their seats next time around?

User avatar
Jebus
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
Title: Lord and Saviour
First Joined: 07 Nov 2001

Postby Jebus » Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:09 am

What do you mean "not to mention" Rahl? Yebra's point was actually relevant and interesting, yours was just a typical republican knee-jerk response. Pretty gay of you to add it on as if it had anything to do with his point.

Woop woop, go yebra.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:08 am

Oh Jeebsy weebsy, are your nipple clamps a bit rusty this morning? You should borrow your mom's; her's were nice and shiny when I saw them last night.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:31 pm

I haven't seen any stories about approval ratings for congress, but it wouldn't surprise me. they sure managed to accomplish a lot with their 2006 mandate.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
daPyr0x
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:28 pm
Title: Firebug
Location: Inside the blackhole that became of my heart
Contact:

Postby daPyr0x » Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:15 pm

American politics just amuse me.

As a Canadian, who never really paid much attention to them, I've been wholly amused by the whole situation since I moved down here. First you have 3 candidates, McCain, Obama, and Clinton. Neither one will serve up their whole presidency (McCain will die of old age, and the other two will be assassinated), but it's a big race nonetheless. After realizing that she can't win against a candidate like Obama (too bad she didn't run opposite Bush, prolly coulda gotten somewhere...) she finally secceded, and now it's down to two. So now you've got Obama and McCain.

McCain was quoted early in the race as saying "I don't know how to fix the economy," but now he's apparantly got this big 'plan.' I'm pretty sure this plan somehow involves destroying a certain country and stealing all their oil for free.

Obama, on the other hand, has this agenda that pushes the US more and more towards socialism; increase taxes so you can pay for more government funded programs and then everybody's happy.

Neither of them seem to understand that the American economy is in a really tough spot right now, and giving away free money to the people isn't what is needed. You can drill wherever you want to get oil and lessen gas prices, but is that really what the economy needs? f*** the people and what they think they need. Individuals are smart, mobs are not. The mob says lower gas prices, so is that what you're really going to do? For how long, exactly, do you think you're going to keep tapping on the oil reserves? Why don't you, instead, offer help to your corporate customers? Individuals will learn to live with $4.00 gas. What about every single product on your grocery store shelves that needs to go up in price because the trucking cost has increased? Don't waste what little you have on the people, they'll learn to survive with expensive gas. Instead, give gas tax breaks to the companies that help your economy survive. Help your produce costs stay affordable so people can continue to survive, and focus all that money you were going to waste on a better solution? Oil will run out; whether it's within your presidency or not. Figure out another solution than just passing the buck on to someone past you.

Or how about this 'war on iraq'? You've got one guy who quite clearly wants to stay in because he's a warlord (and has the background to show it); and another who wants out bad but has to 'plan' it purely because the people at large won't go for a straight pull out. What does 'winning' do for you, McCain? Does it make your penis larger? What benefit do you have once you've conquered the entire country? Oh yeah, more cheap oil. That's exactly what you need for the next 5 years till it runs out and someone else has to deal with the nation's increasing needs. Or, Obama; do you really think just saying "okay, we're done" is going to solve all of their problems? What solution are you going for? I can take a guess - save money to spend on your governmental programs instead. I'm not a fan of the war, far from it; but now that you're in there you have a chance to do some good. Do it.

Neither candidate has what the U.S. really needs. The country is heading into a recession, and it's dependance on oil (no, not foreign oil - oil as a whole) is only going to continue pushing it that way. This country needs to change. A lot. And nobody has the balls to say so.
Stop trying to be perfect. Focus on being you; perfect will come.
"If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy I could have won"
Image

User avatar
Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Postby Jayelle » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:03 pm

(McCain will die of old age, and the other two will be assassinated)
I'm sorry Cam, but this has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:13 pm

I don't know, that seems pretty accurate to me.

I assume everyone has seen the "Paris for President" ad? It's pretty funny, and she actually kind of has a point. YouTube Video.

ender1
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:22 am
Title: I know Photo-fu

Postby ender1 » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:49 pm

I assume everyone has seen the "Paris for President" ad? It's pretty funny, and she actually kind of has a point. YouTube Video.
Only if the oil situation could be solved so easily as she said. Of course, this is Paris we're talking about. (And not like she thought of that herself anyway)
Last edited by ender1 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:58 pm

the assumption/possibility of death in office is there but the reality is that it's only a worst case scenario prediction.

Since the US hasn't taken any iraqi oil for themselves, I don't think that's McCain's plan, he just wants to occupy for decades because he's a warlord and is still ashamed that the US pulled out of Vietnam instead of nuking them to win the war. It's so telling to me how often McCain refers to the HONOR of staying in Iraq.

Obama is far too much of a pragmatist to go for socialism. he has a lot of government programs he wants to run, but they are more New Deal type of economic programs than welfare state socialized handouts. If he gets his way in alternative energy investment that will create a lot of new jobs. McCain just wants to build forty new nuclear power plants which is always a terrible idea considering how close we've come to a China Syndrome with our existing plants, and how hard it is to get real oversight of all the safeguards in place when the plants are run by private for profit corporations whose adherance to the bottom line makes them almost guaranteed to cut corners on safety measures.

Obama's redistribution of wealth (100,000 in new taxes for those making over 600,000, 700,000 in new taxes for those making over 2.5 million, everyone else gets between a 2-5% tax breaks) could potentially cause a lot of harm. But it's also high enough to keep from affecting the majority of small business (most small business owners don't clear 100,000, much less 600,000), however it will take a substantial amount of liquidity out of the market as people scale back their investments. But that's not the end all be all. that's a dangerous way to strengthen the dollar for one. and it will result in more foreign investment in the US as domestic investors sit on their heels for a year. But it wouldn't matter if Obama made the horrific bush tax cuts permanent, the economy will still be down the first year of a democratic presidency, always happens because investors get petulant. Of course democratic presidency over the course of their entire time in office always improve the economy more than republican presidents do. bit of an little known fact, that.

McSame's economic plan is just about the worst you can imagine (basically Same as Bush policy) which is decrease taxes (income/revenue) while vastly increasing expenditures. Woohoo, but he's so old I guess he doesn't care if he manages a trillion dollar a year budget deficit, because that's where he's leading us too.

Again, Obama is the pragmatist of the two, the one willing to compromise to get something done. and I think the possibility that government spending might be curtailed is greater under the democratic candidate than it is under the republican candidate, though I doubt either will reduce spending, I imagine the yearly budget deficit will be reduced under Obama but increased under McCain.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Postby Jayelle » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:07 am

the assumption/possibility of death in office is there but the reality is that it's only a worst case scenario prediction.
The assumption that McCain will die "of old age" before 80 is ridiculous. People live well past 80.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:04 pm

the assumption/possibility of death in office is there but the reality is that it's only a worst case scenario prediction.
The assumption that McCain will die "of old age" before 80 is ridiculous. People live well past 80.
and people die at fifty too. McCain will probably live past 80, but he has had the same sort of melanomas removed my grandfather had removed three or four years before he suddenly developed brain cancer and died within months. Unfortunately he didn't live til 80, but five months before he died you would have thought he'd make it to 90.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Jebus
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
Title: Lord and Saviour
First Joined: 07 Nov 2001

Postby Jebus » Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:22 pm

Oh Jeebsy weebsy, are your nipple clamps a bit rusty this morning? You should borrow your mom's; her's were nice and shiny when I saw them last night.
Zing, and the angry Republican makes a funny!

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

two amazing articles:

Postby locke » Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:58 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850477150231953.html
Voter Registration is the new battleground.
Ms. Mitchell warned about what she regards as a long pattern of abuses in registration by groups such as Acorn and their Democratic allies. "We're all for getting people involved in the process...and getting them to the polls," she said in an interview later. "What we're not for is registering fake people at fake addresses, and creating barriers to trying to identify voter fraud where it exists, which is everywhere. It's a growing problem, because of the professional vote-fraud denier industry."
«locke puts on stephen colbert hat»People who deny voter fraud is widespread are unamerican. my grandfather voted, but I bet the grandparents of all these "not-fradulent" newly registered voters didn't vote. America, ask yourself, can we really trust people to vote in our election when their grandparents didn't vote? We need laws on the books that will enforce that only good americans with good american heritage are allowed to vote, anything less than that opens up the floodgates for "voter fraud."«/hat»

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/h ... n-campaign
The Front-Runner's Fall
Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency. What follows is the inside account of how the campaign for the seemingly unstoppable Democratic nominee came into being, and then came apart.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:14 pm

according to john mccain, "in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h_ZbW2REcI

apparently he 'forgot' that the US is currently in a war where we invaded another nation on forged and manufactured evidence (poor Colin Powell, duped by criminals to use his reputation to sell the presentation of the fake evidence to the UN)

additionally, the VP field is rapidly narrowing for Obama, because we can probably eliminate those contenders who have been announced as speakers at the convention (the vp speaks on night three, bill clinton introduces him/her) Sebelius, Napolitano, Strickland, Rendell, Schweitzer, H.R. Clinton and Warner will have speeches, and its doubtful they'll be a repeat speaker.

that narrows the field to Wesley Clark (my choice for veep for anyone since 2004), Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine.

Both Kaine and Bayh have sort have said that they are not the choice.

There's also the outside and highly unlikely shot of Colin Powell being the veep choice.

The theme of the night the veep will be speaking is national security, that makes Clark, Bidena nd Richardson the most likely. Clark was a huge supporter of the Clintons, and Bill introducing him would make a lot of sense.

Clark just fucking smokes all of mccain's (which he accumulated due to nepotism not competence) credentials in terms of his military service. clark was valedictorian of his west point class, mccain was fifth from last. clark has been in four wars, mccain has been in one. they were both the same rank in vietnam, mccain took a desk jockey job in the navy after his release, Clark rose through the ranks to become supreme allied commander of nato forces during the kosovo war.

gee who sounds like the better military leader to you?

can't wait for the convention.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:18 am

Clark is pretty much the only choice for veep that would make my choice to vote for Obama entirely comfortable. Everyone else makes me feel a little squicky.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:21 pm

starts off blah blah blah then at about 2:30 it becomes great tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDewF41rJI

question, is this the first time that colmes actually has had a spine?

particularly hilarious to me was Hannity's bitching at the end about edwards' 28,000 sq ft mansion, but that he somehow managed to forget that John and Cindy McCain have SIX mansions scattered across the united states.

it is interesting how they begin by talking about a double standard for how sex scandals are treated re democrats and republicans and by the end hannity is pleading that a double standard is necessary in john mccain's case because he spent five and a half years in a POW camp and came back to discover that his trophy wife had been severely injued in a car accident. How could someone in john mccain's position still be expected to love someone when they're not as beautiful as they used to be before he went to war?
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:41 pm

fivethirtyeight is my new favoritist site. :)

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/ ... -like.html
But the convention bounce is also not something that can simply be ignored. If we looked at the polls from the weekend immediately following the Democratic convention, for instance, and did not adjust them in any way, that might give us an inflated idea about Barack Obama's chances of occupying the White House.

What I have done, then, is to boot up my database of national polls, which covers all elections since 1952. I looked at the average margin for all polls conducted within 150 days of the election; for instance, the average of all polls taken within 150 days of the election in 2000 had George W. Bush ahead by 2.0 points. Then, I looked at to what (if any) extent the candidate was overperforming that average in the 21 days commencing from the first date of his party's convention. For instance, if GWB polled 9 points ahead of Al Gore in a survey conducted one week from the start of the Republican convention, that would be considered evidence of a 7-point bounce -- his 9-point lead in that poll less his long-term, 2-point advantage.

(Mathematically, this is the function:

Ln(d)*20.1 - 31.8*Ln(d+4) + 43.4

...where 'd' is the number of days elapsed from the start of the convention (the first day of the convention is counted as '1' rather than '0'). Note that I weighted recent years somewhat more heavily in coming up with this equation. The function is defined as zero where it takes on a negative value).
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:58 pm

So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:29 am

Among the forum's lighter moments was Warren's challenge to "define rich."

Obama poked fun at Warren, whose book "The Purpose-Driven Life" was a bestseller. "Well, if you've got book sales of 25 million, you qualify," Obama joked before saying: "I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, you're in the top 3% or 4% of the country, and you're doing well."

McCain, whose wife's wealth has been estimated at more than $100 million, tried to dodge the question. But with a chuckle, he finally gave a figure: "I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... full.story
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:43 pm

$5million seems closer to my definition of 'rich.' Although, I won't disagree that $250,000 is 'doing well.' Either way, let's analyze how amazingly screwed up it is to have a religious figure moderating a debate between two political figures. Damn, that chafes.

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:45 pm

Wasn't a debate. It was a "forum"... he put McCain in a sound-proof room, asked Obama questions, then put Obama in a sound-proof room and asked McCain the same questions. All this guy did was call them both up and asked if they wanted to do this.

Besides, they're both religious men... so there is nothing wrong with it. You have to keep in mind that despite what the person says, no matter their religious beliefs, it WILL affect how they make decisions. With the majority of this country being religious, I think it only chafes the nonreligious. It's not like every question was laced with religion. I think the nonreligious needs to stop bitchin'. In fact, I think everyone bitches too much during election years. Damn I'll be glad when this year is over... :)

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:14 pm

Yeah but Rick Warren is more Billy Graham than James Dobson, so he's cool with me.

ETA the above was vague, I intended to express that Rick Warren hosting this wasn't a problem for me because he's not a douche like Dobson.
Last edited by locke on Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:33 am

Two quick comments, Wil, and neither will be the smackdown you so richly deserve for your lack of reasoning, principally because I'm in such a good Monday-morning mood.

1) Not everyone who prefers their state with an order of church on the side is nonreligious, so shut the hell up.

2) The establishment of a majority by The People does not constitute Truth or Rightness. So shut the hell up.

You know what, I was just kidding about that good mood thing.

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4451
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:16 am

I <3 Ollie.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:36 pm

Too bad, I enjoy being "smacked down". I mean, I better by now... nobody ever posts in agreement and all replies to my posts are almost always negative. You group of people are just too close nit: even if one of you makes the most ignorant, stupid, idiotic reply possible, you'll still post in agreement or support for that person. So, that tells me one of two things: I'm always wrong OR I need to find a group of people that agree with me.

Wait... wait does that mean there are people that can believe differently than you do? Does that mean, one theory on the correctness of truth, is that truth is often times the consensus? Oh, I think it is!

As for church and state, I happen to agree. They do need to remain separate. The point I was trying to get across is that, this was not an official, state-sanctioned debate. It was like an interview. The guy just happened to be a religious figure, and they just happened to be in a church. It could have just as easily of been Jay Leno on his talk-show set. Even if you are religious, you're just as annoying as the non-religious (and I'm more annoying than everyone combined) -- getting all "chafed" over the fact that religion played a very insignificant role in a very insignificant "forum". Something more "chafed" to get "chafed" about is being "chafed". Damn I hate being chafed! :roll:

In case it's not blatantly obvious, this post is lined with sarcasm. In case it's not been blatantly obvious, every post I've made for the last year, besides the ones lined with emoness, have been this way. I never make a serious post, so everyone should only reply in a half-serious tone.

WHY SO SERIOUS?

User avatar
Yebra
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:48 am
Title: Shadow Zebra

Postby Yebra » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:37 pm

In case it's not blatantly obvious, this post is lined with sarcasm. In case it's not been blatantly obvious, every post I've made for the last year, besides the ones lined with emoness, have been this way. I never make a serious post, so everyone should only reply in a half-serious tone.
Oh man are we allowed to do that? GUYS ALL THOSE TIMES I WAS WRONG? SARCASM K? I'm soo throwing that after every post from now on.

I mean, I was going to go on a rant about how truth is not a democracy and that you can't change facts or the rules of logic by getting enough people to agree otherwise (as bested mocked by Colbert's wikiality), but then I saw it may or may not be sarcasm and, damn, you got me! Now I can't question anything!
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.

User avatar
Oliver Dale
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Contact:

Postby Oliver Dale » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:53 pm

Too bad, I enjoy being "smacked down". I mean, I better by now... nobody ever posts in agreement and all replies to my posts are almost always negative. You group of people are just too close nit: even if one of you makes the most ignorant, stupid, idiotic reply possible, you'll still post in agreement or support for that person. So, that tells me one of two things: I'm always wrong OR I need to find a group of people that agree with me.
Wil, dear, where is this coming from? I don't know if you've noticed, but I don't really dip into most threads, and I'm not entirely sure I know what you're talking about. I disagreed with you because you were wrong (note: in my most HUMBLE opinion...). I will always disagree with you when you are wrong, unless I am more lazy than self-righteous, in which case I will mumble quietly, shake my head, and play another game of spider solitare.

User avatar
locke
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 3046
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby locke » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:06 am

the future's looking red today, and on the day that McCain goes up he says this in a town hall:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions [...] My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can't even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't reenact the draft I don't think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

JOHN MCCAIN: Ma'am let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI
(clip is an unbroken shot of McCain, so there's not editing shenanigans goin on)

Hope all our pweb boys and their parents like the prospect of being drafted to invade Iran. Hope all our pweb girls like the idea of all the draft age men/boys they of them being up for the draft.

woohoo! america! f*** yeah! we make war on yous evils doers! (we's know you's evil cuz you's is not born againd!)
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 24 guests