Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[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 Kerry121,069,054 Total
2008 Elections:
69,456,897 Obama
59,934,814 McCain129,391,711 Total
Growth in voters:
8,322,657 6.874%Populations estimates:
July 2004 293,655,404
July 2008 303,947,734Growth 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%5DBrian, 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.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.[/quote]
I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.
The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.
The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.
As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.[/quote]
I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.
The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.
The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.
As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.[/quote]
I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.
The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.
The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.
As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.[/quote]
I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.
The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.
The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.
As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Very thoughtful eaves and the quote: “They are still missing the boat on what really is pissing off Americans” applies to both parties. I think there is a very anti-incumbent sentiment now, not just anti Democrat or Republican. Both parties have seriously misread the tea leaves and are going to pay a price for their arrogance and for appearing to not care about what is worrying the average American- it is still the economy for most people.[/quote]
I agree that the anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time (at least in my lifetime) high, but I think the parties differ. I believe that the Dems are, overall, generally clueless about what’s going on aside from a very narrow financial-educational demographic. Whether this is the result of stupidity, or not giving a shit, I can’t say. I just have a vision of the DNC staff taking a daily siesta in their conference room, where they smoke a pound and a half of Maui Wowee, and watch “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” with director’s commentary in slow mo.
The Repubs, on the other hand, developed a taste for blood in the late 80s and have been after it ever since. Power trumps everything, and winning is essential to acquiring that. I don’t know that they truly are in touch with Americans (I vote “no”), but they have a gift on zeroing in on what issues will elicit the most visceral and vitriolic response from the voters, even if they are non-existent issues. I think that they have the skills to figure out what is pissing off Americans, but will exercise it only to the extent that it gets them publicity that will engender votes. But they are brilliant at leaving a great many people with the impression that they truly care, which makes it appear all the more cruel when their Senate and House votes prove otherwise.
The fallout from this rapidly increasing distrust is that it threatens to become a permanent condition, and Americans are looking to candidates that are diametric opposites from incumbents. There are more and more candidates like Sarah Palin appearing on ballots, as the average American is searching for someone they perceive as similar to themselves to trust. And there’s no talking them out of it.
As for the economy, you couldn’t be more accurate. None of them, including LaPalin, has the faintest idea of the insurmountable financial challenges being faced by millions of their middle-class constituents.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]
I agree.
That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.[/quote]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]
I agree.
That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.[/quote]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]
I agree.
That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.[/quote]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]
I agree.
That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.[/quote]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]In the purest sense of “employment”, there is an ostensibly even exchange of the employee’s labor/services for the employer’s money. In that situation, I believe that an employee of the government can openly criticize and protest the actions of that government, without the least hint of hypocrisy.[/quote]
I agree.
That’s why I don’t feel any qualms about criticizing the oil industry while using their products.[/quote]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.
Participant[quote=Djshakes]Eavesdropper: This a matter of the chicken and the egg. Has the government created an entitled dependent society or does the society truly need the government. I would like to think it falls in the middle.[/quote]
That’s a tough one, Dj. Like you, I would prefer the truth to lie somewhere in the middle. But I confess to leaning in the direction of the fault lying largely with the government. Not that I favor people readily accepting aid they don’t truly deserve, or opting to take the easier way out, but it is a normal human instinct (animal, too, come to think of it).
The current entitlement programs were largely created or had their benefits vastly expanded during a time of unprecedented sociological change that, I believe, provided a fertile breeding ground for exponential growth of the rolls, and an accompanying change in attitude by the citizenry. As for the government, almost every large entitlement program becomes a proverbial “third rail” once it passes into law. There are almost no candidates, of any party affiliation, that will dare to touch it during their tenure in office.
There have been some interesting studies dealing with self-reporting of disability as it relates to physical health over the past decade. Baby boomers, the first generation to be concerned with self-image and physical fitness, and fortunate beneficiaries of incredible biomedical advances, have been reporting significantly higher rates of conditions they term as disabling in their 50s than cohorts 30 years older. The epidemiology is not complete, but I’m looking forward to reading the literature when they come up with the reasons for the discrepancy.
I’m not a Boomer basher. Just a Boomer. Non-disabled variety, I’m grateful to say.
Participant[quote=Djshakes]Eavesdropper: This a matter of the chicken and the egg. Has the government created an entitled dependent society or does the society truly need the government. I would like to think it falls in the middle.[/quote]
That’s a tough one, Dj. Like you, I would prefer the truth to lie somewhere in the middle. But I confess to leaning in the direction of the fault lying largely with the government. Not that I favor people readily accepting aid they don’t truly deserve, or opting to take the easier way out, but it is a normal human instinct (animal, too, come to think of it).
The current entitlement programs were largely created or had their benefits vastly expanded during a time of unprecedented sociological change that, I believe, provided a fertile breeding ground for exponential growth of the rolls, and an accompanying change in attitude by the citizenry. As for the government, almost every large entitlement program becomes a proverbial “third rail” once it passes into law. There are almost no candidates, of any party affiliation, that will dare to touch it during their tenure in office.
There have been some interesting studies dealing with self-reporting of disability as it relates to physical health over the past decade. Baby boomers, the first generation to be concerned with self-image and physical fitness, and fortunate beneficiaries of incredible biomedical advances, have been reporting significantly higher rates of conditions they term as disabling in their 50s than cohorts 30 years older. The epidemiology is not complete, but I’m looking forward to reading the literature when they come up with the reasons for the discrepancy.
I’m not a Boomer basher. Just a Boomer. Non-disabled variety, I’m grateful to say.
Participant[quote=Djshakes]Eavesdropper: This a matter of the chicken and the egg. Has the government created an entitled dependent society or does the society truly need the government. I would like to think it falls in the middle.[/quote]
That’s a tough one, Dj. Like you, I would prefer the truth to lie somewhere in the middle. But I confess to leaning in the direction of the fault lying largely with the government. Not that I favor people readily accepting aid they don’t truly deserve, or opting to take the easier way out, but it is a normal human instinct (animal, too, come to think of it).
The current entitlement programs were largely created or had their benefits vastly expanded during a time of unprecedented sociological change that, I believe, provided a fertile breeding ground for exponential growth of the rolls, and an accompanying change in attitude by the citizenry. As for the government, almost every large entitlement program becomes a proverbial “third rail” once it passes into law. There are almost no candidates, of any party affiliation, that will dare to touch it during their tenure in office.
There have been some interesting studies dealing with self-reporting of disability as it relates to physical health over the past decade. Baby boomers, the first generation to be concerned with self-image and physical fitness, and fortunate beneficiaries of incredible biomedical advances, have been reporting significantly higher rates of conditions they term as disabling in their 50s than cohorts 30 years older. The epidemiology is not complete, but I’m looking forward to reading the literature when they come up with the reasons for the discrepancy.
I’m not a Boomer basher. Just a Boomer. Non-disabled variety, I’m grateful to say.
-
AuthorPosts
