OT: FOX News and the oil blowout

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]

I believe that John McCain may well have won the election if he had picked a more suitable VP candidate. People chose the “least objectionable” team (or simply declined to cast a vote), and hoped for the best.

[/quote]

Here are the facts:

2004 Elections:
62,040,610 Bush
59,028,444 Kerry

121,069,054 Total

2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain

129,391,711 Total

Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%

Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734

Growth in pop 10,292,330 3.505%

Seems to me like Obama was a big factor in voter turnout.

Source:
Population:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
There was no total for 2004 so my spreadsheet total numbers differ from the source totals… but you get the idea. Had I used the source totals, population growth would be slightly lower.

Voters:
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Elections%5B/quote%5D

Brian, I wasn’t trying to say that the 2008 race was in any way close. And looking over my post, I realize that I worded it awkwardly.

What I was trying to say is that the period prior to the election was tumultuous. There were many voters who remained undecided until late in the election period.

While Obama had a comfortable (8+ points in Gallup polls) margin over McCain for the month prior to the election, it was much closer in mid-August. McCain was within 1 or 2 points of Obama until just prior to the Palin nomination, and then pulled ahead until mid-September, when the initial shine started to wear off Ms. Palin. His poll numbers never recovered after that.

I can’t speak for California, but there were certainly doubts about Obama’s lack of experience being voiced by voters who were firmly liberal in their views. At this point in time, it is extremely difficult to speculate on “what could have happened”, but I believe that the race would have been much closer in the campaign’s last two months if McCain had chosen more prudently.

I liked the image that Obama presented, but I was concerned about his lack of experience at the national political level. I didn’t make a final decision until just prior to the election, even though I was certain that I could not vote for a McCain-Palin ticket. Given McCain’s age and health history, I believed that Palin’s chances of ascending to the Presidency were significant. I may have had concerns about Obama’s lack of experience, but I had none about his intelligence: he had it in obviously abundant supply. Palin had neither, and the prospect of hearing her say “I betcha” in response to the Chief Justice’s recitation of the Oath of Office was too much to me to handle.

My concerns about Obama remain: while he is a highly educated and intelligent man, I believe that his responses to some situations, and lack thereof in others, are the result of a lack of political maturity. It’s not improving over time, and it may be worsening. But he’s my President, and I support him as such.

[afx114]

For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.

[afx114]

For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.

[afx114]

For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.

[afx114]

For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.

[afx114]

For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=afx114]For a guy without a lot of political experience, he sure has had quite a bit of success in getting his agenda passed: stimulus plan, healthcare, and now DADT. That’s three fairly large agenda items pased in only 1.3 years of a four year term.

The jury is still out on many other elements of his stated agenda, but I don’t see how anyone can argue that Obama hasn’t been successful (in the strictly political sense) so far.

Experience McSchmearience.[/quote]

Yes, these agenda items have been passed. However, I would have a difficult time attributing their passage to the President’s political experience and skill. To wit:

Stimulus Bill (Feb 2009) was passed less than a month after the inauguration (i.e., still the “honeymoon” period). House vote: 246 (all Dems) to 183 (176 Repubs, and 7 Dems). Senate vote: 60 (58 Dems & 3 Repubs) to 38 (all Repubs).

Health Care Reform Bill (March 2009): House vote: 220 (all Dems) to 207 (Repub 174, Dems 33); Senate vote: 56 (54 Dems, 2 Ind) to 43 (40 Repubs, 3 Dems).

DADT (May 2010): House vote: 234 (229 Dems, 5 Repubs) to 194 (168 Repubs, 26 Dems).

These are largely straight-down-the-line party votes. While I find the Republican inactivity to be reprehensible (I’m really steamed over my tax dollars going to pay politicians to simply sit around and block votes, especially at such a critical time), I think that Obama and the Democrats could have used many situations to their advantage. There have been so many squandered and misspent opportunities.

I’m sorry. While I don’t agree with the Republican Party’s strategy and actions much of the time, and believe that much of what they’ve engaged in over the past several years has spread and intensified the polarization of our nation, I can’t remember them ever missing an opportunity to accrue political capital. And distasteful as that may seem to some purists, it’s absolutely essential to the achievement of a political party’s goals.

Based on the numbers I’ve included above, what’s going to happen to the President’s agenda when the Dems no longer have a majority?

[Author]

Posts