General Election 2008 Talkback (Please Read Rules Before Posting!)

[Wounded_Dragon]

Portraying an African-American as a monkey, with that face, and they didn't think there would be offense?

[GWOtaku]

Yeah, not too bright.

Well, Tim Russert is dead...the quality of media coverage just diminished by a lot.

[Wounded_Dragon]

Or crazy like a fox and the apology is just a tactic.

[J'onn J'onzz]

What a terrible tragedy that Tim is dead. I saw him just a few days ago on TV, speculating about who Obama's vice presidential running mate would be... and now he'll never know. I can't believe he's actually dead. The candidates have made statements on his death... and so has Ted Kennedy, whose survival has also been much worried about lately. God, this is such a shock, and such a tragedy... I can't believe he's actually dead.

[Lord Dalek]

Current projected numbers served three ways:

From RealClearPolitics (WITHOUT TOSSUPS) -

Obama: 272
McCain: 266

From Electoral-vote.org (AKA that site Zack likes) -

Obama: 304
McCain: 221
Ties: 13

From Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight -

Obama: 300.3
McCain: 237.7

Although the RCP average doesn't seem to show it, and its still way too early to consider this a trend, Obama appears to have more momentum now than he did three weeks ago.

[GWOtaku]

Here's a very interesting article about black Conservatives considering support for Obama.

Personally, if Obama wins I'll be happy insofar as it will mean victory and vindication for race relations in this country. Still, I am bothered by the willingness of some like Armstrong Williams to say "I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it." People, the idea is to vote for who you think the best leader for the country will be, not to vote for who you think will make you feel good. If the former is in Obama's favor then fine, I can respect that, but I'm worried too many voters will choose to not think and simply vote out of a desire for self-gratification.

[The Avatar]

Apparently Gore is to endorse Obama today, when it no longer matters in the slightest. He's just the latest in the Democrat hot shots coming out. What I've never gotten is why these people need time before they endorse someone?

[The Landstander]

I agree, I don't really care for preemptively making this a "historic" campaign. Hillary annoyed me in the same sense later in her campaign. I don't support "an African-American male" for president, I support Barack Obama for president; those who don't support Obama similarly aren't "against an African-American" for president. Identity politics applied at this level become pretty silly.

From Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight -

Obama: 300.3
McCain: 237.7

I like and have defended the site but I have some issues at how he's arrived at that conclusion. Due to some method changes he applied a perceived Obama bounce to several states, which resulted in him getting huge boosts without much polling data to show it. It's admittedly more complicated and nuanced than that (I'm not good enough on statistics to fully get it =P ) but logging in early in the days to see a 15ish Obama electoral lead and logging in later to see a blowout makes me think there might be some flaws in his methods. Hopefully I'm wrong. : )

[GWOtaku]

Ugh. Two stupid Obama volunteers helpfully demonstrate how to get fired from a Presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, the candidates spar over energy policy. McCain wants to drill for oil offshore; Obama disagrees. This quote really gets me:

"Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil.

"It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."

Well, the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea. But in contrast, wouldn't a ten year effort qualify as long term? And how is the argument that it will take ten years to get oil production from offshore drilling an argument at all? Doesn't that simply mean that we'd be in a somewhat better place today if we had started drilling for more oil, you know, ten years ago, when the same arguments were being made back then? To me, a sufficient response isn't doing nothing to address the supply issue and hoping a miracle fuel will manifest itself in the short term. And even if it did, it would take time mass produce that fuel and time to develop vehicles capable of taking advantage of it. In sum, we won't be collectively off of oil ten years from now, so it's about time we started addressing reality.

[Palin Dromos]

Well, the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea. But in contrast, wouldn't a ten year effort qualify as long term? And how is the argument that it will take ten years to get oil production from offshore drilling an argument at all? Doesn't that simply mean that we'd be in a somewhat better place today if we had started drilling for more oil, you know, ten years ago, when the same arguments were being made back then? To me, a sufficient response isn't doing nothing to address the supply issue and hoping a miracle fuel will manifest itself in the short term. And even if it did, it would take time mass produce that fuel and time to develop vehicles capable of taking advantage of it. In sum, we won't be collectively off of oil ten years from now, so its about time we started addressing reality.

What I hope Obama is eluding to when he strikes down the idea of coastal drilling and looking for oil in other untapped parts of the US is that while it might seem like a long term plan, what happens if we tap all those sources and then use them up? Where do we go to for our next oil fix? A real long term plan should look beyond that, look towards actual alternative energy sources. Energy that is either renewable, or at least doesn't make us as dependent upon foreign products.

Right now the US and other parts of the world are feeling the massive pressures of the cost of gas. In the grand scheme of things this pressure isn't going to really let up if we keep sticking to our heavy dependence on a finite commodity. Right now is the best time to start pushing through on new energy ideas and policies because now is when we are willing to take the risks on new innovations.

If we decide to drill for more oil with the promise that it'll be here in ten years, we'll just string ourselves along for the next decade saying to ourselves, "It'll be okay once they start getting oil from those new coastal drills, we can squeeze through for a few more years like this 'cause relief is coming." If those sites do produce oil, great we'll have a few years of relative relief. Until those sites are pumped dry and we're right back to the whims of OPEC.

People don't want to have to change their habits, but they will if they are pressured to. Going off to drill for more oil is the simplest solution because it doesn't require people to do anything different. They can go about their lives without worry, until the next time oil supplies run low or are restricted. If we take advantage of the current climate of dissatisfaction with oil prices and use it to galvanize people towards committing to new energy policies we stand a chance of actually breaking our oil addiction.

I hope that made some sense.

(Also drilling could lead to environmental problems and the destruction of the wilderness. That's all I'll say about the tree-hugging aspect of all this cause it's a whole other cans of worms.)

In terms of alternate fuels.

Bio-fuels seem like a good idea, but we're now seeing that it's eating into food harvests and helping to drive up the costs of food.

Hydrogen power will require a whole new fueling infrastructure that will expensive and take a long time to implement

Hybrids and cars like the Chevy Volt are a good stop-gap measure that won't require new filling stations but will lessen overall demand and help reduce prices.

Fully electric cars would be great, but they'd have to be implemented in such a way as to not wreak havoc on the economy and employment.

In terms of quick solutions to the current gas gouging.
Oil rich countries like Saudia Arabia need to put more oil on the market, increased supply to meet demand will reduce prices. Whether they want to reduce prices is another matter entirely.

Additionally reduced violence in the middle-east could also help lower prices, as decreased danger could decrease export costs and increase work flow.

The economy, energy policy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; it's all interconnected. For better or worse.

[wonderfly]

I'm still amazed at Obama's solution to the energy prices: He's calling for a "windfall profit tax on oil companies". Okay, but how does that increase energy production for our country?!?

There are very simple rules to "supply and demand" ladies and gentlmen: There's an increased demand for energy in the world right now, and we're not producing enough to meet the demand.

There hasn't been new nuclear power plants built in this country in over 25 years. There hasn't been off shore oil drilling in 25 years. We've never even touched ANWAR.

Yes, go and seek out new ways to produce energy. But in the meantime, let's not let the American economy grind to a halt.

Besides energy, the "terrorism" issue seems to be the other hot issue between the candidates this week. From that article GWOtaku linked to:

The presidential candidates also traded fire over how to pursue the war on terrorism, with Mr. McCain's camp accusing Mr. Obama of "a perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10th mind-set" for praising the way the nation treated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a law-enforcement matter. Mr. Obama countered that Republicans' war on terrorism hasn't produced Osama bin Laden.

That seems to be Obama's big answer to terrorism now: arrest the terrorists and put them on trial, like we did with the '93 WTC bombers. Only one problem with that: those terrorists were captured on U.S. soil! Thus, they were arrested and faced trial in U.S. courts. How does this address the problem of what to do with terrorists captured overseas on the battlefield? Or are we not supposed to be overseas fighting terrorists? I know he doesn't want us in Iraq, even though there is a terrorist element among the insurgents. So is he suggesting we have to wait for terrorists to kill Americans on U.S. soil before we do anything about it?

[GWOtaku]

Contrary to an original 2007 promise to opt into public financing for the election if his opponent agreed to do the same, Obama will not do so. He cites his grassroots support and the need to fight the activities of nasty 527's. Obama's success was unexpected, but then again inconvenience is the true test of any promise.

Also, 527 groups are not simply an analogy for almighty GOP attack machines. Just this morning on CNN I saw a moveon.org ad with a mother asking McCain if he was counting on her baby to help keep Americans fighting in Iraq for 100 years. Obama doesn't just not denounce that, he makes it a talking point in his speeches.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I'm still amazed at Obama's solution to the energy prices: He's calling for a "windfall profit tax on oil companies". Okay, but how does that increase energy production for our country?!?
...

Yes, go and seek out new ways to produce energy. But in the meantime, let's not let the American economy grind to a halt.

Part of the problem is that oil companies are raking in an insane amount of money. They are making a profit off the supply and demand situation, and since we're in a capitalist society, it's all theirs. By raising taxes on the companies and their owners, more money is put back into the community at large -- "your tax dollars at work." So it benefits all of us that the cash cows are taxed.

It's because of greedy companies and the fact we are so very oil-addicted that the economy is hitting choppy waters. It's not just oil companies, I must say, but the banks and investing firms that went a little cookoo. Bear Stearns stands out in my mind.

That seems to be Obama's big answer to terrorism now: arrest the terrorists and put them on trial, like we did with the '93 WTC bombers. Only one problem with that: those terrorists were captured on U.S. soil! Thus, they were arrested and faced trial in U.S. courts. How does this address the problem of what to do with terrorists captured overseas on the battlefield? Or are we not supposed to be overseas fighting terrorists? I know he doesn't want us in Iraq, even though there is a terrorist element among the insurgents. So is he suggesting we have to wait for terrorists to kill Americans on U.S. soil before we do anything about it?

Um, if you forgot, that already happened on September 11, 2001. We set out to get the guys that did it, who were chilling out in Afghanistan. Um. Yeah. We failed. We saw Iraq, went "oooh, shiny!" and forgot about the original war on terror. It became "the war on yet another guy with a mustache we don't like very much." None of the terrorists from the WTC attacks were from Iraq. They were predominantly from our buddies, the Saudis. So yeah, we aren't fighting the war on terrorists that are a threat to the US. They are a threat to Iraq, yes, but if we weren't goofing around in there, they probably wouldn't be as aggressive and we wouldn't have thousands of dead American and 100,000 dead civilians. In short, the original target of the war on terror has been raising goats and watching satellite TV, under very little if any threat from the US, since we wanted the glory and refused to let Coalition Forces just bag him and hand him over.

Basically, the US has tried to become "Team America: World Police" with Gitmo and other prisons, including the secret ones we're not supposed to know about. And it's not worked well.

[GWOtaku]

Part of the problem is that oil companies are raking in an insane amount of money. They are making a profit off the supply and demand situation, and since we're in a capitalist society, it's all theirs. By raising taxes on the companies and their owners, more money is put back into the community at large -- "your tax dollars at work." So it benefits all of us that the cash cows are taxed.

It's because of greedy companies and the fact we are so very oil-addicted that the economy is hitting choppy waters. It's not just oil companies, I must say, but the banks and investing firms that went a little cookoo. Bear Stearns stands out in my mind.

Obviously taxing the oil companies more would bring in more revenue, but it wouldn't specifically address the energy problem. Unless I've missed something Obama supports working on alternative fuel but so does McCain, and on top of that he supports offshore drilling and finally getting seriously back into nuclear power. His position seems much more comprehensive, since it recognizes that energy policy doesn't have to be a choice between developing new fuel and getting more fossil fuel.

Iraq's mismanagement aside, Al Qaeda does seem worse off today then where it used to be, though Bin Laden was & is the top prize. Part of that is because we've killed so many of them, and part of that could be due to some other developments that have been going on. I'd recommend Lawrence Wright's latest article in the New Yorker to anyone, it's long but has lots of interesting insight into the history and current state of that organization.

[Zach Logan]

Obama fans, rejoice...

OBAMA: 344
McCAIN: 194

Why?
Remember, this polling was done before the big offshore oil drilling announcements by both the Senator of Arizona and, subsequently, the President (which will hurt McCain in Florida, most likely). However, both Quinnipiac and ARG show Barack Obama ahead there by amounts at or just above the margin of error. He also is showing gains in Virginia and New Hampshire (the oddly red state in the middle of New England).

[GWOtaku]

Eh, ARG has been pretty inaccurate this year...

[MattThomasM2B]

Ugh. Two stupid Obama volunteers helpfully demonstrate how to get fired from a Presidential campaign.

It was a hopeless situation either way. Either they let them sit, and the republicans label Obama a sympathizer, or they don't let them sit, and label Obama is labeld and exclusionary racist.

[Lord Dalek]

Obama has since apologized to the two women who were excluded from that audience, so its a non issue.

[Lord Dalek]

Obama fans, rejoice...

OBAMA: 344
McCAIN: 194

Why?
Remember, this polling was done before the big offshore oil drilling announcements by both the Senator of Arizona and, subsequently, the President (which will hurt McCain in Florida, most likely). However, both Quinnipiac and ARG show Barack Obama ahead there by amounts at or just above the margin of error. He also is showing gains in Virginia and New Hampshire (the oddly red state in the middle of New England).

Its more than that, he's making gains in places he's not supposed to be making gains in like Georgia and Mississippi. Making all these states potential battle grounds/swing states is the best strategy I've ever seen because McCain clearly have the funds or the manpower to campaign in all of them.

[GWOtaku]

It was a hopeless situation either way. Either they let them sit, and the republicans label Obama a sympathizer, or they don't let them sit, and label Obama is labeled and exclusionary racist.

The groups that want to trump up the Muslim angle that barely 8% of the country believes will try to do so regardless. All they did was make the campaign look bad, albeit for just a day or two. Not to mention that as volunteers, they had no place passing judgment on what would or wouldn't be good PR. Don't know what became of those two, but they deserved to get thrown to the wolves.