Election 2008

there is hope i hope

 

My paradigm - Election 08


Was the invasion of Iraq a stupid move? Yes. And the US is paying for it. There were obvious strategic gains to be made if everything had gone according to plan - a strong foothold in the Middle East, a more stable Middle East, a less threatened Israel, and an open door to Iraq's oil. But this is real life; nothing ever goes as planned. President Bush should have stopped at Afghanistan. History's lessons went unheeded. The aftermath of a war is often worse than the war itself. Rebuilding a country is a long and arduous path that often leads to failure, or at least much less than spectacular results. Iraq could have waited, we should have finished with one task before we stretched our resources to start another. This "War on Terror" is great propaganda, but if anyone believes that America went to war with Iraq to stomp out terrorism is naive. If you want to wipe out Islamic extremism, you have to have resources to pretty much declare war on the entire Middle East - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. As long as there are third world countries, and as long as the US is the sole global superpower, there will always be terrorism. We retaliated on Afghanistan and hurt the terrorists. Wonderful! We should have focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and defending our home. Was America safer after going into Afghanistan? Of course! No doubt about it. But those gains in safety were jeopardized when we declared war on Iraq, if not for the sheer amount of resources we have to pump into a second war. America gambled a bit too much, and it hurts. Who's at fault? i believe much of the blame falls on Bush. He underestimated guerilla warfare, and overestimated America's strength. We are not all powerful. Powerful yes, the most powerful nation yes, but we are not all powerful. We are not so much farther along than other countries that we are invincible. We can still be fought to a stalemate, we can still be beaten.

I like Bush. I don't like some of his decisions as President. Did I want him as our President in the last two elections? Of course. Why? Just look at the losers who ran against him. I'm a moderate when in comes to politics. I lean Republican, but I do not base my vote according to party affiliation.

OIF has definitely not helped our increasingly troubled economy these past few years. The drain of resources in sustaining OIF is not only hurting us now, but will hurt us for many years to come. We have to find a way for the Iraq issue to be put to rest. Falling into a depression, or even an extremely bad recession, will probably coincide with our fall from our monopoly of the reigns of power we hold over the world. Will we be the sole world superpower in the distant future? No. Is a multi polar world coming? Most likely. The world is always shifting, always changing. We can still be on top, we may just have to share it. But I hope we never hear the phrase "How the mighty have fallen," in reference to the USA. How will we close our chapter on Iraq? I don't know. That will be for the next President to decide. We started it, we have to finish it right - we can't end it haphazardly. In that, I would rather put my trust in McCain than in Obama.

This presidential election we are lucky enough not to have to choose between two evils (you can read two idiots if you'd like), although we are unlucky enough to have completely idiotic vice presidential candidates. I am excited that McCain is a candidate for the presidency. In fact I had hoped McCain would have beaten Bush to be the Republican candidate in the 2000 election.

Our world is becoming increasingly dangerous. Bush has managed to polarize the world, those with us and those against us (oh, and those that no one really gives a damn about right now, but no one really gives a damn about them so I don't really give a damn about them). I believe we need a president who is unwavering about our large defense demands. We need a president who is firm in his foreign policy. Trust me, after Bush, neither candidate will want to go to war unless it is deemed absolutely necessary and he absolutely has the public's approval (basically if we get attacked first and we know who hit us). But at the same time we cannot go soft. We cannot bend over backwards when it comes to foreign affairs and we cannot be timid. If either candidate will be soft on the world scene, it will be Obama. We need to finish up in Iraq. I believe McCain will be better able to do that. He may not get us out faster than Obama, but I would put more faith in McCain than in Obama to get us out right, or as close to right as possible. We need to cut down on government. I believe McCain will finally do it instead of just promising it (not necessariy due to McCain himself, but the times are finally ripe for it). Under Obama I can guarantee government will not be cut. As for the economy and the budget, McCain's plans are more appealing to me than Obama's (partly because McCain's plans would be more beneficial to me). Which one's is actually better? I have no idea, too many factors come into play. But I have never been a big fan of many of democrats' views on this issue. Obama is a very intelligent person. He's probably sharper than McCain is (not that McCain is dumb, as I've said neither of them are idiots, thank god). When it comes to one's character, McCain's got him beat, and I am a strong believer in electing someone with a strong character. But judging one's character is a personal matter that has little objectivity attached, thus I can't really bring that to bear in an argument for McCain. McCain's military background also makes him more attractive as a candidate in these troubled times. How can you not trust and look up to someone who volunteered to stay with his comrades as a POW? Coming from personal experience, military service usually does give you more confidence in yourself, develops your leadership skills, and makes you pay attention to detail.

Elections are really just guessing games. Who do you think is better fit to lead? In order to answer that question you almost have to try to fortell the future. In some cases one of them may be more fit, in other cases the other is more fit. For a time of relative peace and prosperity I may have voted for Obama the leftist Democrat. But for the times ahead I give my vote to McCain the moderate Republican.

 

Obama's top team believes he can win by a landslide

Link

Their optimism, which is said to be shared by the Democratic candidate himself, is based on information from private polling and on faith in the powerful political organisation he has built in the key swing states.

Insiders say that Mr Obama's apparent calm through an unusually turbulent election season is because he believes that his strength among first time voters in several key states has been underestimated, both by the media and by the Republican Party.

Mr Obama has come under fire from within Democratic ranks over his message and his tactics. Critics say he has failed to connect with the blue-collar workers seen as crucial to winning the election, and too reluctant to make direct attacks on Mr McCain.

But his aides are convinced that he has a strong chance of winning no fewer than nine states won by George W.Bush in the closely contested 2000 election, including former Republican strongholds like North Carolina, Virginia and even Indiana, which have not voted Democrat for a generation.

David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, said last week that Obama had "a lot of opportunity" in states which Mr Bush won four years ago.

But in private briefings in Washington, a member of Mr Obama's inner circle of policy advisers went much further in spelling out why the campaign's working assumptions far exceed the expectations of independent observers.

"Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states," the campaign official told a friend. "We're much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all."

To win the presidency, Mr Obama must win 270 votes in the Electoral College, which awards votes to the winner of each state broadly in proportion to the size of the population.

Statewide surveys put the likely Electoral College result at a slender Obama win, 273-265. But his campaign staff believe they have a good chance of securing between 330 and 340 votes, and could win up to 364 votes, a landslide on the scale of Bill Clinton's wins.

The senior Obama advisor said that the Democratic nominee is confident of winning all the states held by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, a total of 252 votes.

But his team believes he can also bank victories in Iowa, where he first emerged as a force in the campaign in January, and New Mexico, where Mr Kerry only lost by 20,000 votes in 2004. Those states would leave him just six votes short of outright victory.

Taking Colorado, as Mr Obama's team are very confident of doing, would put him over the top. Even winning the smaller state of Nevada, with its five electoral votes, would be enough to guarantee a 269-269 tie with Mr McCain. If that happens, the US consititution would hand the decision over to the Democrat dominated US House of Representatives, which would presumably come down in Mr Obama's favour.

Most pollsters would regard those expectations as uncontroversial. But the Obama camp is also confident of winning Ohio and Virginia, which commentators believe are "toss up" states with the two candidates chances at 50/50.

Last week Mr Obama began investing heavily in advertising in Indiana, Florida and North Carolina, which many had supposed to be a waste of time and money.

A Washington official who has discussed the electoral mathematics with one of Mr Obama's senior advisers told The Sunday Telegraph that the campaign is spending money only in states which it believes can, and indeed ought to, be won.

"Obama has many more paths to the nomination than McCain," the source said. "They think they can defend the Kerry states. Iowa is gone. That's five votes. New Mexico is in the bag. Then Obama has four or five different ways of winning. He can go Nevada or Colorado, Virginia, any of those, even Indiana.

"McCain has got to run the board, the whole Bush table. He can probably lose New Mexico and Iowa. He can't afford to lose anything else."

The official added: "The poll numbers say Florida's back in play. McCain hasn't spent a single penny there and that's Obama's calculation, that he can capitalise on that. The Republicans can't lose Florida or they're done for."

Conventional wisdom among pollsters is that Mr Obama is at risk of losing both Michigan and Pennsylvania and possibly even Wisconsin, all large Kerry states whose loss would be a damaging blow.

But the Obama camp believes that Wisconsin in safe and that he has strengthened his position in Pennsylvania with a good ground operation. Michigan, home of the Reagan Democrats, is a concern because Mr Obama did not campaign there in the primaries and race relations are raw, but they are confident they can hang on to his slender lead in the polls.

Mainstream pollsters on both sides of the aisle last week called the election as a dead heat. Mark Mellman, who was John Kerry's polling guru, said the 2008 election is "increasingly resembling the real map of 2004" and Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign, added: "States that were reliably red are reliably red, and states that were reliably blue are reliably blue."

But Mr Obama's campaign team reject that analysis. Their confidence that good organisation will more than compensate for latent racism will be reassuring to some Democrats, who were concerned by a poll last weekend that found Mr Obama would be six points higher in the polls if he were white.

The scale of their ambition will trouble those Democratic sceptics who consider Mr Obama's aides to be complacent and inexperienced in national campaigns.

 

I spoke to my sister on the phone last night. My 23-year old nephew is a part of Obama's team in Virginia. Without going into detail, she said his operation there was pretty incredible and she can't believe the amount of people who are working each and every day for Obama's campaign. My nephew is putting in 12 hour days (this is the hardest he's worked in his life ). The result from this effort are TBD.

 

Very well written, and welcome, but it would be difficult to disagree with you more.

I like Bush. I don't like some of his decisions as President. Did I want him as our President in the last two elections? Of course. Why? Just look at the losers who ran against him. I'm a moderate when in comes to politics. I lean Republican, but I do not base my vote according to party affiliation.

Based simply on Bush's record, how can you make this statement with a straight face? You say you are a "moderate" who "leans Republican," but there is nothing moderate about Bush. Yet you like him. You think Gore and Kerry were "losers," well what does that mean? They lost an election. That makes them "losers?" Gore is a moderate. Kerry is more liberal than Gore, but not nearly as liberal as he was painted to be by the Bush/Rove campaign. And speaking of Bush's campaigns, how can you "like" Bush if you are a moderate after witnessing his two campaigns for President? Sorry, but you aren't making a great deal of sense to me in large chunks of your very well written post. (which was a pleasent surprise!)


I don't have enough time to break down every bit of your post and point out the numerous things I disagree with, and why, but that isn't my style here, anyway. Again, I find it difficult for a self-described moderate to be so dismissive of Obama and the Democrats, and so sure that McCain and the Republicans are going to do a better job in the areas you mentioned.

How do you feel about social issues, besides how they affect your pocket book? What kind of judges to you want appointed to lifetime jobs on the federal bench and the Supreme Court? How do you feel about reproductive rights? The right of a woman to have control of her own body? The decline of personal freedoms in this country under Bush and the GOP? A whole host of issues. If you like McCain so much and are a moderate, how do you compute his choice of Sarah Palin as his VP? Do you know anything about her?

At any rate, glad you are here.

 

Good time to start pushing the inevitability meme. (Note to Hillary: you don't do this 20 months before election day.)

The more this takes hold, the more people start thinking of Obama as the next president, the more of a winner he becomes, the more they are willing to vote for him... and the more desperate and depressed it makes the McCain folks, thus making it more likely they will continue to make unforced errors.

 

totally agree. its going to be a nice 4 years (hopefully 8) i hope this country gets back on track.

 

No time for Dem complacency though. Nov. 4 is really just the prelude. It will take a lot of work to initiate the changes needed over the screams and protests of the current Republican leadership and the people they truly represent.

 

As polarized as America is over issues such as God, Guns, and Gays, there won't be any landslide victory for either side.

 

Thanks.

I like Bush on a personal level. I do not agree with him on many issues. At the time of the elections of 2000 and 2004, yes I wanted him as president. Knowing how badly he has bungled his second term, I would probably change my vote if I could go back, but hindsight is 20/20. I could not support Gore, and while I could definitely see myself backing Kerry in the 2004 election, I had my reasons to choose Bush. In my opinion, the last two elections were choices between the lesser of two evils. I did not see any of them as fit to lead the nation, but we weren't given much of a choice.
As for McCain, he is more of a moderate than any candidate I've seen in years. This will be evident if he becomes President. He is definitely more moderate than Obama. I believe both candidates made terrible VP choices. I like who they are trying to paint Palin to be, but I believe both VP candidates are... idiots. Neither is up to the job.
As for the judge issue, again there are times I agree with conservative judges, there are times I agree more with some of the liberal judges. You can't win on every issue. I will be satisfied as long as McCain appoints someone with values that are similar to his own.
I wish I had more time to write some more, but I am pressed for time.

 

In the popular vote? Probably not. But the electoral college allows somebody who wins narrowly in terms of total votes to win in a landslide in terms of electoral votes.

fivethirtyeight.com forecasts a 325-213 electoral win for Obama but only 51-48 win in the popular vote.

 

So am I, but thanks for the reply.

 

You forgot to add if the election were held today. The fivethirtyeight projections are snapshots and do NOT predict future results. A lot can change before November 4th.

 

Yesir, I was about to post the same thing. The polls had Kerry up by like 3 or 4 points this time 4 years ago. States like OH, FLA, VA, etc change every time Obama or McCain has a loose stool.

 

I think McCain has blown it with the financial stuff. It is more and more looking like he couldn't get the House to vote for it.

Now we'll get Obama in, the dems will have complete control for a while, the cycle of BS will continue until fed up with Dems everybody will vote in Republicans...then they'll have their time again until everybody is fed up with them, and so on and so forth.

Its probably the fact that the federal govermnent is the worst organization for running anything in the world no matter who is in charge that causes these cycles.

 

I'm really not sure where this perception comes from. Here are all the polls taken between Sept. 20-30 (this time four years ago).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Newsweek (1013 RV)
9/30 - 10/2
Kerry +2

SHU Poll Inst. (1003 LV)
9/27 - 10/2
Bush +5

Battleground (1000 LV)
9/27 - 9/30
Bush +7

LA Times (1100 LV)
9/25 - 9/28
Bush +6

CNN/USAT/Gallup (758 LV)
9/24 - 9/26
Bush +8

IBD/TIPP (649 LV)
9/22 - 9/27
TIE

ABC News/WP (810 LV)
9/23 - 9/26
Bush +6

Pew Research (948 RV)
9/22 - 9/26
Bush +8

Time (877 LV)
9/21 - 9/23
Bush +6

FOX News (1000 LV)
9/21 - 9/22
Bush +4

Battleground (1000 LV)
9/20 - 9/23
Bush +5

Marist (630 LV)
9/20 - 9/22
Bush +6

CBS News (931 LV)
9/20 - 9/22
Bush +9

AP/Ipsos (931 LV)
9/20 - 9/22
Bush +7

If you want to take it to October, you can. In 2004, there were 50 polls taken in October. Kerry led in 5 of them. Yeah, anything can change, and it'll be a close race -- but Obama is substantially ahead of Kerry's position at this point four years ago and it's not even close.

 

Florida...

and others...