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

[Wounded_Dragon]

Supply and demand does not factor in the human factor. Naked market forces don't exist and never should, unless you like saw dust in your meat and poison in your pet food.

[wonderfly]

This article...makes me shudder in disgust. At the biasness of the media, that is...

Man, they really do think everyone in the heartland is an idiot, don't they?

I do have to shake my head at the stupidity of some of the comments by people in the article, but they're making it out like everyone who's not voting for Obama is a misinformed redneck. And that's where I take exception to the story.

So when are we going to see an article on the people who are voting on Obama just because he's black, (thinking that's a real novelty) and not bothering to study what Obama stands for one bit? But that's not worth reporting about, is it?

[Delthayre]

Supply and demand does not factor in the human factor. Naked market forces don't exist and never should, unless you like saw dust in your meat and poison in your pet food.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the human factor, but in that example what you refer to is not a case of some insensitivity in supply and demand, but to a market failure. A market failure is not some dramatic even, such as the Great Depression, but a technical term referring to something that causes a market to no longer be competitive.

In the example you posit, the market failure in question is asymmetrical information , viz. the consumers have knowledge of that of the producers, in this case they do not know of the presence of deleterious contaminants in their meat and pet food. If we were to correct this by introducing some method of informing the public about the quality of those products and the presence or absence of dangerous substances, then they would not buy the contaminated goods, but rather those certified not to be contaminated, a supply whereof would emerge if it were not already present as producers would see the possibility for larger profit. In time the producers of contaminated goods would either cease to sell them or leave the market, thus pure goods become standard and producers will not try to sell contaminated ones for fear of losing their market share.

[Wounded_Dragon]

1. You're using outside forces to qualify supply and demand. I don't buy that producers would voluntarily admit to defective products. Other producers "outing" them might work or might not, I can see it working both ways. In addition, you're assuming people would catch the pattern. That will likely depend on how much the news medias cover it.

2. The American market forces right now are very short term thinking. Profits now and blast whatever it causes next year. That is what led to the whole SUV phase in the first place. Short term isn't very conducive to a "benevolent" market.

Yes, supply and demand describes the market, but it's never been just as simple as supply and demand. Speculation and perception are large parts as well, as the stock market demonstrates. Flow of information plays into the equation as well. Defined market too I suppose. Local driving was curtailed heavily for a week here, yet that drop in demand didn't affect local gas prices at all.

[Don_East]

This article...makes me shudder in disgust. At the biasness of the media, that is...

Man, they really do think everyone in the heartland is an idiot, don't they?

I do have to shake my head at the stupidity of some of the comments by people in the article, but they're making it out like everyone who's not voting for Obama is a misinformed redneck. And that's where I take exception to the story.

So when are we going to see an article on the people who are voting on Obama just because he's black, (thinking that's a real novelty) and not bothering to study what Obama stands for one bit? But that's not worth reporting about, is it?

I find it amusing the only people who claiming that there's racism is this campaign are these left-wing hacks that somehow get articles on the front page of major newspapers. Also, why do these people bring up the fact there's people voting for Obama because of his race.

[The Guitar Slayer]

This article...makes me shudder in disgust. At the biasness of the media, that is...

Man, they really do think everyone in the heartland is an idiot, don't they?

I do have to shake my head at the stupidity of some of the comments by people in the article, but they're making it out like everyone who's not voting for Obama is a misinformed redneck. And that's where I take exception to the story.

So when are we going to see an article on the people who are voting on Obama just because he's black, (thinking that's a real novelty) and not bothering to study what Obama stands for one bit? But that's not worth reporting about, is it?

I didn't consider anyone in that article stupid at all. I consider it the results of a conservative media outlet screwing "the truth" over.

What I saw there is a small, suburban community -- already conservative leaning, given the fact their mayor is a Republican -- who have basically been given information by rumors and fantastical stories. Oddly enough, they've missed the Wright boat and are still stuck on the story that Obama is Muslim or at least went a madrassa as a child, which was popularized a few months back by Fox News (who never wrote a repeal). CNN wrote the "Oh hai, guess what, nonsecular school, AND he's a Baptist" piece a few days later. And Fox loved to air that piece where the radio guy is yelling "Barack HUSSEIN Obama." And let's not forget those adorable monkey toys that were covertly backed by Romney's campaign.

None of these people are stupid. I don't consider people who vote for McCain stupid at all. My dad's a very intelligent guy, and he'd vote for McCain, if he were the type to vote; he's more of a "sit back and whine no matter what the result is" type guy. The problem is that a lot of these rumors are being kept well-fed by conservatives who are capitalizing on primal fears of the unknown (black and not possessing an All-American, Leave-It-To-Beaver life) and what we've been trained to hate since September 12, 2001. Remember, these people that are now working to discredit Obama worked to destroy McCain in 2001 with the black child rumor -- it's horrendous, but people believe that sort of lurid news blurb. Sorry, the more conservative audience bought into it then too.

So no, it's not a liberal media bashing McCain followers. It's the conservative outlets as well as the Republican national campaign wanting people to be afraid of Obama, capitalizing on the less-investigative people. The fear of a white man having a black baby -- well, it's a white woman who had a black baby this time around, but the end result will still be the same for some people. That alone will put them off. Muslims? Kill the towel heads, right? If people don't or can't look further, then they will believe the rumors -- nothing we can do about it. Lead a horse to water, can't make it drink. However, we can trace back to where the rumors came from and perhaps kill the carrier.

No, this is not an assassination threat on anyone. I made my one attempt by sending a big barrel of pretzels to the White House one year. Anyway, find who started the rumor and silence them or bring them up for public discussion -- they're discrediting their own side by making sure they vote for the "right candidate"...and looking like idiots at the same time. I'm sure Mr. McCain has enough credit to him to get votes without capitalizing on "Obama is Muslim" rumors.

[GWOtaku]

All I can say is, good luck finding anyone on McCain's campaign or any Republican of note pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim. I'm sorry, after the Wright controversy, anyone that believes Obama has Muslim roots is just not paying attention. Maybe not stupid, but definitely ignorant.

Poll data says that 10% of the country buys into this Muslim nonsense. Which is 10% too many, but it seems that 10% of responders to any poll seem capable of believing just about anything. So ultimately it doesn't surprise me, but it's definitely over-hyped. It's hardly some surging phenomenon that is spreading across the heartland of America like wildfire.

[wonderfly]

All I can say is, good luck finding anyone on McCain's campaign or any Republican of note pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim. I'm sorry, after the Wright controversy, anyone that believes Obama has Muslim roots is just not paying attention. Maybe not stupid, but definitely ignorant.

Poll data says that 10% of the country buys into this Muslim nonsense. Which is 10% too many, but it seems that 10% of responders to any poll seem capable of believing just about anything. So ultimately it doesn't surprise me, but it's definitely over-hyped. It's hardly some surging phenomenon that is spreading across the heartland of America like wildfire.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my thoughts...there's going to be misinformed voters on both sides, but that article is trying to paint an epidemic which just doesn't exist...

[The Guitar Slayer]

All I can say is, good luck finding anyone on McCain's campaign or any Republican of note pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim. I'm sorry, after the Wright controversy, anyone that believes Obama has Muslim roots is just not paying attention. Maybe not stupid, but definitely ignorant.

Poll data says that 10% of the country buys into this Muslim nonsense. Which is 10% too many, but it seems that 10% of responders to any poll seem capable of believing just about anything. So ultimately it doesn't surprise me, but it's definitely over-hyped. It's hardly some surging phenomenon that is spreading across the heartland of America like wildfire.

I'm just saying that the conservative sectors of the media as well as the leaders themselves aren't going out of their way to correct falsehoods about Obama. And they reinforce them every once in a while by replaying Radio Dude and the I Hate America Guy -- there's the Obama the conservative voter populace should know according to Fox News. They don't mind that their followers are viewed as ignorant or stupid -- victory at any cost.

[Zach Logan]

Let's get a little update:

http://electoral-vote.com/

OBAMA: 317
MCCAIN: 221

ToonZone Poll (for the kids):

OBAMA: 67.19%
MCCAIN: 21.88%

Recent national polls have shown the double digit lead Barack Obama has had over the last couple of weeks beginning to calm down. NBC/Newsweek and Gallup polls support this trend, so it seems the post-primary bounce has ended a little bit of Obama's momentum for the moment.

[GWOtaku]

As a companion, here is an interesting piece from Patrick Ruffini speculating on electoral math and what it means for McCain's campaign strategy. He seems think Ohio & Michigan will decide things.

[Punisher]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...1_200807031142

I really don't understand articles like this. Basically, it brings up a valid point-military experience alone shouldn't qualify one for office, but completely ignores another: the article paints it as though McCain has no political experience whatsoever and is simply running on his military record. This is of course, ignoring the fact that he was serving in the US House of Representatives while Obama was in college and has been active in politics since.

Though of course, our very first president was basically elected soley because of his distinguished military record, and that turned out to be a pretty good move, right? These kind of topics are the last thing that need to be discussed when there are so many other issues this presidential race.

[wonderfly]

Obama opens door to altering Iraq policy...

As months go on, I expect McCain and Obama's Iraq policies to look more and more alike. I still see one key difference though...

From the article:

He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office “and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively.”

Sounds promising, but how about ending it "victoriously"?

[The Landstander]

Sounds promising, but how about ending it "victoriously"?

That would require some kind of definition of victory.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Though of course, our very first president was basically elected soley because of his distinguished military record, and that turned out to be a pretty good move, right?

We elected Grant for similar reasons, and he had one of the most corrupt administrations in US history. It's not a universally good idea to elect someone with little political savvy -- Jimmy Carter, anyone? Obama has already shown he can play the game better than Carter -- he did have a lot of state-level involvement, not to mention grabbing the national stage at the DNC with the speech he's been stumping on.

And wonderfly, really. A war against a faceless enemy, and you want a victory? At the cost of another 8,000 American lives? At the cost of another 100,000 civilians? No, thank you. Better a live dog than a dead lion, for the sake of American and Iraqi families, thank you.

[GWOtaku]

That would require some kind of definition of victory.

I love comments like that. "Victory" is being able to get out without having the country completely implode after we do. I think it's possible for a theoretical President McCain to be getting us out by the end of his first term, which is a goal he brought up a few weeks ago in what was basically a "in 4 years, here's what I want to ideally accomplish" speech.

EDIT: Said speech is here: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/...fa16857f61.htm

Edit 2:

So yeah, Obama could end up getting very close to McCain's Iraq position, at least in terms of promises. Naturally, he claims he isn't changing, which is dubious at best. In the primaries he was promising the left he'd get out ASAP, and the results of the surge were about as clear then as they are now. That said, if the shift is sincere that is fine, more than fine. But in that case, acknowledge what everyone else does and say that it is a shift.

[wonderfly]

With the recent approving of the funding of the troops through 2009, it's no longer in the hands of President Bush and the current Congress. This is going to be decided by the next President, (and the next Congress).

Events on the ground are going to continue to shape things, and both Obama and McCain will have to change their stances to address the reality in Iraq. If things had taken a turn for the worse over the last few months, McCain would be the one forced to shift his position.

While I'm not saying that Obama is doing a 360 degree U-turn on Iraq, he is preparing himself to alter his policy as needed. I'll give Obama this: it would appear he's at least starting to concede that things aren't as bad in Iraq as some of his supporters paint it to be.

So that is what I mean by "McCain and Obama's Iraq policies are going to look more and more alike." And really, both are calling for an end to the war, but McCain says it'll be because of victory, whereas Obama, while he may not be calling it a defeat, he is saying there will be an end to the war because of eventual withdraw of our troops. Which has the same effect as defeat on the psyche of our nation and Iraq.

I can only hope that if Obama is elected, he does pay attention to the situation in Iraq, and prolong the troops stay if needed, (which is what that article seems to indicate). I would simply rather we leaving calling it a victory, instead of calling it a disaster.

[Punisher]

We elected Grant for similar reasons, and he had one of the most corrupt administrations in US history. It's not a universally good idea to elect someone with little political savvy -- Jimmy Carter, anyone? Obama has already shown he can play the game better than Carter -- he did have a lot of state-level involvement, not to mention grabbing the national stage at the DNC with the speech he's been stumping on.

True about Grant, although there is little evidence incriminating him of actually knowing about the corruption during his tenure, but if he truly didn't know about it he must've been pretty oblivious. Besides, it wasn't like Grant was a total failure-his administration did have many accomplishments.

But what I was trying to say is that the article I linked implied McCain has few credentials outside of being a decorated military hero, when that obviously isn't the case considering the numerous political positions he has held-the man has been more active in politics than Obama has and to suggest he is running merely on his service record is just spreading false information.

[wonderfly]

In follow up to last Thursday's comments by Obama, (about altering his planned withdraw from Iraq) we have this analysis article which does a pretty good job of dissecting Obama's votes and positions on Iraq, over the last few years.

I find this to be a fascinating story: Obama's taking heat from both the far left and the right. The question for me is: does this qualify as an official "flip flop" on Obama's part? Flip flop or not, I'm happy that he's saying he'll at least take the "reality on the ground" into account if he's President. I'll take whatever small comfort's I can get.

In fact, the article states that Obama has never been in favor of a complete withdraw of our military presence. The article also quotes him as saying the following:

And he said some U.S. troops might need to remain in Iraq in order to “send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.”

This is where I still scoff: If you want Iran and Syria to know that you intend to remain a key player in the region, then you don't dial down your presence, you increase it, like President Bush did with the Surge! Keeping a few anti-terrorist SWAT-style teams around, to say, "Hey, we're still here!!" will do nothing but get you laughed at by Iran and Syria.

And his words about keeping troops nearby elsewhere in the Middle East, (just not in Iraq), but ready to redeploy to Iraq if al Qaida reappears? That just reads like he's trying to have it both ways. His left wing supporters want complete withdraw from the Middle East, (so that we don't offend anyone over there). I'm not sure continuing to keep them stationed in Kuwait or in Bahrain will improve our supposed like, (or dislike) among militants in the Arab world.

And finally, I was struck by this one quote from the article:

The singular advantage Obama had over his rivals Clinton and John Edwards is that he hadn’t voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution. In fact some voters were convinced that he had voted against it, (an impossibility since he wasn’t a member of the Senate in 2002).

That's really where Obama's popularity came from, wasn't it? That he wasn't in the Senate to cast a vote? He wasn't around to make the tough call that Hillary and Edwards did, to either stand for or against it in Congress, yet he gets to make political points for simply not being around to cast a vote? That's a pretty big "free pass" his supporters are giving him, in my opinion...

[Aizen]

That's really where Obama's popularity came from, wasn't it? That he wasn't in the Senate to cast a vote? He wasn't around to make the tough call that Hillary and Edwards did, to either stand for or against it in Congress, yet he gets to make political points for simply not being around to cast a vote? That's a pretty big "free pass" his supporters are giving him, in my opinion...

Whoa, Obama may not have been able to vote, but he was still denouncing it. Obviously he would have been against it.