all i have to say is Barack N' Roll
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Election 2008, United States
- Thread starter Great Sage
- Start date
One of the earliest notations of game theory is a story by Socrates.
Socrates depicts soldiers standing at the front lines waiting the command to attack. If the soldier thinks the other force is too large he might think "Oh, we will lose anyway, me being there won't matter, and I don't want to risk dying." Or in the other scenario, the opposing force is small and the soldier feels that they will win anyway with or without his help, and he doesn't want to risk injury.
So what keeps this soldier there?
I mean if everyone on the battlefield thought that way there would be no wars correct? Which is much larger than a single man leaving.
I hope you see my point.
Socrates depicts soldiers standing at the front lines waiting the command to attack. If the soldier thinks the other force is too large he might think "Oh, we will lose anyway, me being there won't matter, and I don't want to risk dying." Or in the other scenario, the opposing force is small and the soldier feels that they will win anyway with or without his help, and he doesn't want to risk injury.
So what keeps this soldier there?
I mean if everyone on the battlefield thought that way there would be no wars correct? Which is much larger than a single man leaving.
I hope you see my point.
Don't bash the DLC, I am pretty sure it is the only thing that can save the Democrats from themselves.
Ted Stevens got indicted yesterday, Sarah Palin is in a mini-scandal of her own, Don Young is also under investigation for corruption, and Lisa Murkowski only got her seat through nepotism and kept it in an extremely pro-GOP environment. Does Alaska have any good Republicans anymore?
Quinnipiac has Obama leading in Florida (by 2), Ohio (by 2), and Pennsylvania (by 7). Rasmussen is going to release a lot of interesting data today, including details on the Senate races in Alaska and Kentucky, gubernatorial data for Montana, and presidential data for Texas, Montana, and Kentucky (the last is likely to be boring). Perhaps the most important part will be whether Obama retains his Montana lead.
Umm you dont know anyhting about republicans, What the heck is the AIDS comment? So you think all Republicans want AIDS victims to be guarantin?? Wow is that a narrow minded view. Look, republicans arent evil, we dont want to skrew people over . As a matter of fact Im all for helping people and Im a republican. Just because you dont agree with Republicans doesnt mean we are heartless people thank you very much.
I find it sad how ANYONE can vote Republican, as America drastically needs to move to the future in all fields. This comes into perspective of not voting republican as I will be of drafting age when the freak called McCain is in office and I would rather go to jail than fight overseas for oil in a elaborate and selfish gimmick to defend our gas prices ever since Bush hired terrorists to create a "Pearl Harbour like event" to get us into a war in Iraq/Iran for oil. VOTE DEMOCRAT/OTHER!
I believe his almost exact words were (since I am too tired to look it up at this moment), if it takes 100 years we will stay in Iraq til it is stable enough to independently function. No one will want to go by 2010. That leads me to believe this is true and the fact he has discussed it in two major press confrences early in the race.
His assumption is that violence will continue to decline to the point where a permanent presence is unimportant - like in South Korea. Obviously, this position is flawed for a couple reasons, but it's no reason to suspect a draft. And, even if he might consider it, Congress would kill it.
I have never heard such a thing. The only rumblings I've heard about the draft came from a New York Democrat who proposed it and got no support whatsoever from either side.
EDIT: Just to drive my point home.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/oct/20/20041020-092925-8406r/
Feel free to read the rest of that article to see why it's bull.
EDIT: Just to drive my point home.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/oct/20/20041020-092925-8406r/
Feel free to read the rest of that article to see why it's bull.
Aqua Beast is what we like to call "unqualified to vote due to minority status."
My only question to AquaBeast is this:
Are your parents racist because they didn't support Obama in the primary or are they sexist because they didn't support Clinton in the primary?
Don't get me started on that arrogant little shit Obama. I liked him more when he was an effeminate pansy. This new, completely self-aggrandizing internationalist Barack Obama is even worse. This asshole has the gaul to hold a campaign event in Germany to pander to a bunch of flipping Germans, and then blow off a previously scheduled trip to a military base full of Americans injured in Iraqi and Afghanistan just to go shopping in Berlin.
And this clown wants to be Commander-in-Chief. Great job there Barack, blow off voting Americans so 20,000 Germans can shout out "YES WE CAN!" to their new secular Messiah.
I guess everyone has to have their priorities, and Barack is all about putting his big-eared arrogant face in front of a camera for brainless hacks like Chriss Matthews to get thrills up their leg. The Big O? Barack is all about the Big "I."
Honestly, I'm praying that Hillary is chatting up superdelegates right now to put that presumptuous pitstain in his place. This guy makes Kerry and Clinton (Bill) look like f'ing saints when it comes to pride.
Thankfully, the shine has come off Mr. Shinola, and he's got a 1 point lead over all voters and is trailing among likelies.
Not that I'm hot to trot for McCain either, but at this point all bigheaded Barry has to do is keep opening his ignorant yap. If the repeated historical and factual innacuracies don't kill him, the smug sense of entitlement that oozes from every word will.
Btw. How can anyone think Obama is a "great orator?" His speeches are longer, less eloquent, more generic versions of previous famous speeches. His writers suck. What was that quote? "I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions." Whatever it was, it was a throwaway sentence with no immediately discernable meaning.
Well, thats not entirely true, what he is actually saying is: "I'm an empty vessel that you project your beliefs onto. I am literally everything to everyone because I have no discernable substance of my own."
I would't sell Republican congressional victory short just yet Ancien Regime. Between the stonewalling on energy and the lowest approval ratings in congressional history, I don't think the Democrats are as safe as they wish they were. Then again, they rely on complete ignorance and a subservient media (currently drooling over Obama's every utterance) to get elected, so who knows. Honestly, if the NRSC and the NRCC just run Salazar: Dems won't realistically adress energy even if gas reaches $10 a gallon then they are set.
I like the way Deck Knight conflates the terms 'effeminate' and 'pansy', thus implying that to be feminine is a bad thing [by the use of the traditionally derogatory term 'pansy'].. And he says he's not a misogynist.
Lexite, I was referring to Huckabee - if you knew anything about Republicans it'd be quite obvious what my AIDS comment was about.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/08/huckabee-wanted-aids-quar_n_75924.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7270.html
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
Not to mention he supported the parole for a convicted rapist - who then went on to rape and kill another woman. What an absolutely delightful creature.
Lexite, I was referring to Huckabee - if you knew anything about Republicans it'd be quite obvious what my AIDS comment was about.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/08/huckabee-wanted-aids-quar_n_75924.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7270.html
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
Not to mention he supported the parole for a convicted rapist - who then went on to rape and kill another woman. What an absolutely delightful creature.
You are welcome, just be more informed lol
Deck, whoever they vote for does not affect me at all, and if I say vote against McCain, how does that mean my parents hate both Obama and Clinton. Personally I thought Clinton was a bitch, and would be too pigheaded to drop out even though she wouldn't win, and thats who my parents were voting for, I've been with Obama since the begining.
Essay time!
A lot of ink has been spilled (too much, really) about how Obama is weak and hasn't been able to "close the deal". Everything from his inexperience to his arrogance to his "most liberal senator" ranking has been probed for some damning issue that is preventing him from getting the landslide that everyone thinks he "should" get.
Truth is, Obama did close the deal, and he did get his landslide.
Problem is, the landslide came in a Rasmussen poll against George Bush and not the general election against John McCain.
So what accounts for this? I think Nate Silver had it partly right, in that it's a testament to McCain's strength and not particularly Obama's weaknesses. However, his prescription - more, tougher McBush pushes - shows that he doesn't fully "get" what's happening here. "McSame" has been the constant mantra of the DNC, Obama, and liberal blog commenters since April, and it's simply not working. The reason has to do with what happened to the Republican Party in 2006.
Let's take a step back to 1994. Voters voted in Bill Clinton over a highly unpopular incumbent. Clinton had won over voters by committing to a moderate agenda and a plan to fix the economy. Unfortunately, he had the misfortune to preside over the most liberal Congress ever (with the possible exception of the 1965-1967 Congress), which passed a huge tax hike in response to budget deficits and a desire to restore welfare spending after 12 years of Reaganomics. Voters were furious and endorsed Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, a conservative reform agenda.
By most standards, the combination of a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton's moderate agenda was a stunning success. Conservatism worked, and voters responded by passing the White House to George W. Bush, who claimed to be a moderate similar to Bill Clinton, but without the baggage.
Then a funny thing happened. George W. Bush completely changed the Republican party. He abandoned conservatism in favor of Karl Rove's "permanent majority", the idea that earmarks could be thrown at key voter blocs in swing districts to ensure a hold on power. This worked so well in 2004 that it was deemed a success and pretty much the entire Republican establishment bought into the idea. Except for one man - John McCain.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the Iraq War started to go south and center-right voters started to wonder what went wrong. After numerous corruption scandals in the Republican ranks, it became clear - the Republican party was no longer a party of reform, but a corrupt, incompetent mess reminiscent of the Republican party of the Gilded Age. Being that 2006 was a midterm election, and midterm elections are controlled by the party with enthusiasm, Republicans got hit with a double-whammy - an angry and dispirited base that stayed home, and an energized Democratic base of anti-war voters and Hispanics (the immigration issue backfired pretty spectacularly).
So, now, 2008. I am almost certain, especially with Ted Stevens added to the pile and stories of corruption in the Justice Department, that voters will still be angry with the Republican party and crush them in Congressional and local races. But John McCain continues to do well, because, for voters, he still stands for the ideals of the 1994 Republican Revolution, not the corrupt "permanent majority". On the two issues that Republicans have been crushed on - abuse of earmarks and the mishandling of the Iraq War - McCain is squeaky-clean. This is why "McSame" doesn't work - because McCain is different from Bush in the two areas that really matter.
Truth is, Obama may still win anyway; the enthusiasm gap alone is probably enough to make McCain's route impossible. But don't expect a blowout - unless the Democrats can provide a real alternative to true conservatism and provide real policy alternatives instead of just trying to smear it with Bush's name.
A lot of ink has been spilled (too much, really) about how Obama is weak and hasn't been able to "close the deal". Everything from his inexperience to his arrogance to his "most liberal senator" ranking has been probed for some damning issue that is preventing him from getting the landslide that everyone thinks he "should" get.
Truth is, Obama did close the deal, and he did get his landslide.
Problem is, the landslide came in a Rasmussen poll against George Bush and not the general election against John McCain.
So what accounts for this? I think Nate Silver had it partly right, in that it's a testament to McCain's strength and not particularly Obama's weaknesses. However, his prescription - more, tougher McBush pushes - shows that he doesn't fully "get" what's happening here. "McSame" has been the constant mantra of the DNC, Obama, and liberal blog commenters since April, and it's simply not working. The reason has to do with what happened to the Republican Party in 2006.
Let's take a step back to 1994. Voters voted in Bill Clinton over a highly unpopular incumbent. Clinton had won over voters by committing to a moderate agenda and a plan to fix the economy. Unfortunately, he had the misfortune to preside over the most liberal Congress ever (with the possible exception of the 1965-1967 Congress), which passed a huge tax hike in response to budget deficits and a desire to restore welfare spending after 12 years of Reaganomics. Voters were furious and endorsed Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, a conservative reform agenda.
By most standards, the combination of a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton's moderate agenda was a stunning success. Conservatism worked, and voters responded by passing the White House to George W. Bush, who claimed to be a moderate similar to Bill Clinton, but without the baggage.
Then a funny thing happened. George W. Bush completely changed the Republican party. He abandoned conservatism in favor of Karl Rove's "permanent majority", the idea that earmarks could be thrown at key voter blocs in swing districts to ensure a hold on power. This worked so well in 2004 that it was deemed a success and pretty much the entire Republican establishment bought into the idea. Except for one man - John McCain.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the Iraq War started to go south and center-right voters started to wonder what went wrong. After numerous corruption scandals in the Republican ranks, it became clear - the Republican party was no longer a party of reform, but a corrupt, incompetent mess reminiscent of the Republican party of the Gilded Age. Being that 2006 was a midterm election, and midterm elections are controlled by the party with enthusiasm, Republicans got hit with a double-whammy - an angry and dispirited base that stayed home, and an energized Democratic base of anti-war voters and Hispanics (the immigration issue backfired pretty spectacularly).
So, now, 2008. I am almost certain, especially with Ted Stevens added to the pile and stories of corruption in the Justice Department, that voters will still be angry with the Republican party and crush them in Congressional and local races. But John McCain continues to do well, because, for voters, he still stands for the ideals of the 1994 Republican Revolution, not the corrupt "permanent majority". On the two issues that Republicans have been crushed on - abuse of earmarks and the mishandling of the Iraq War - McCain is squeaky-clean. This is why "McSame" doesn't work - because McCain is different from Bush in the two areas that really matter.
Truth is, Obama may still win anyway; the enthusiasm gap alone is probably enough to make McCain's route impossible. But don't expect a blowout - unless the Democrats can provide a real alternative to true conservatism and provide real policy alternatives instead of just trying to smear it with Bush's name.
My vote would go to Ron Paul but it does not matter the media did the goverments bidding and didint cover him at all so, no one knows about him. Watch this interesting lil clip about Obama and his flip flopping and Mccain is a mad man ill quote him quick "stay in iraq for 100 years" that says enough. Im done with the political process anyways its far too corrupt and beyond repair at this point this country is boned..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM
Notice that McCain favors some sort of amnesty as well (btw I tenatively favor open borders)
The Europe trip seems to be hurting Obama a bit, mainly because Americans really are not interested in becoming more like Europe politically, and it really highlighted:
1: how far-left he is (Obama would be fairly centrist in Europe, but European "centrist" = far-left American)
2: how internationalist he is (historically, Americans are temperamentally exceptionalist and isolationist)
You know what, fuck you, I don't need anyone telling me how to vote. I personally don't understand how anyone can vote Democrat, but I don't go around saying that.
Anyway, its becoming more evident that Obama is watching his poll numbers slide so he is flip flopping on some issues to try and save his fall in the polls. His reversal on drilling was solely becaues McCain began to take leads in some polls, and now Obama is slightly ahead again. Obama is saying anything he can to get elected.