Obama-Biden vs. McCain-Palin

Shannonb · Aug 30, 2008

I don't think women are going to vote for McCain just because his running mate has the same anatomical parts. Women are smarter than that. This lady is against every woman's issue out there. It would be ridiculous to vote for her/him from the majority of women's perspective.

Time Is The Ene · Aug 30, 2008

I'd take McCain and Daffy Duck over Obarama any day.

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

Time Is The Ene said:
I'd take McCain and Daffy Duck over Obarama any day.

This is the kind of post I was talking about avoiding...

Shannonb said:
I don't think women are going to vote for McCain just because his running mate has the same anatomical parts. Women are smarter than that. This lady is against every woman's issue out there. It would be ridiculous to vote for her/him from the majority of women's perspective.

I think you might be surprised....

the8thark · Aug 30, 2008

As an Aussie I don't care too much for US politics. But this time it's different. I've really become interested in it. And I've seen both sides speeches of recent. Obama's last one at this conference or whatever you call it. The one at that stadium. Sure he did a little slinging of McCain, but he did staid many things he would try to do if he was to become president. And I really liked that. As too often here in Australia it's "I'm better than him" and "he's no good also". Etc. So much slinging and by the end you still have no idea that their policies are. So a good move for Obama. He did say a lot about families and not enough about single people but that doesn't bother me. If he can do even 1/2 of what he said I'd be happy. It'd help their country.

The only catch is now he has to get the public to believe that he can make good on these promises. And better than the opposition. That's the hard part.

And about their VP choices. It seems, well to me that they both made choices directly aimed at their opposition. Obama picked an older man with experience just like McCain is. And McCain picked a woman I've never heard of till now with not so much experience in parliament. More real world experience like Obama has. To me it's like hey you can get all of me and a little of my opposition too. So the best of both worlds.

And really to to me the VP isn't supposed to be an expert at the job. Then he'd know too much and be a thorn in the side of the P. (PM sounds to much better then just P but oh well I digress). The P wants a VP will back him 100% no matter what, can rally up the troops (other politicians) to vote his way in parliament. And when the P is away on business, the P can be assured the VP won't do anything silly or revolutionary till the P gets back.

Sure the VP wants a lot of power. But for the above reasons the P is best picking someone he can control. A yes man/woman. And I think both P candidates did this and compensated for their opponents strengths too.

And sure you will get people who will vote for Obama cause he is not white. And others for McCain cause of his war history or Female VP choice. Those voters wont ever change who they will vote for. Voting for the wrong reasons but that's the game they're in. It's the undecideds and people who vote for the best person for the job that both P candidates need to strive for. They both know who these people are and need to target them.

And lastly to me the "I am so good for the country because I will do this for you all" works much better for me then "I am the best choice cause the other guy is an idiot". The first makes me think hey he might just be good. I'd vote for him. And the 2nd makes me think oh well he's just the better of the 2 idiots I guess. Here in Australia voting is compulsory. But if I was from the US and both parties played number 2 tactics I'd not vote. I would want someone to stand up. And be a leader. Then I'd vote for them.

Well that's an Aussie's ideas on the US P race now.

jah · Aug 30, 2008

mccain only met her once and for about 50seconds :Smirk:

reference this cnn article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
-he is not going to use her beyond the election
-panic decision making process or just dont care

she dosnt represent experience, what if mccain gets cancer/stroke/dementia

measuring corruption per population Alaska still comes out on top.

Kash · Aug 30, 2008

jah said:
measuring corruption per population Alaska still comes out on top.

Population of Alaska as of 2006 = 670,053
Population of NJ as of 2006 = 8,724,560

Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from

Aptmunich · Aug 30, 2008

I find it worrying that she's being investigated for unlawful dismissal of a member of government after all the politically motivated dept. of justice dismissals.

To be honest: I think it would do the republicans some good to lose this election. The abuse of power is basically undeniable at this point. Losing the election might force the GOP to re-examine some of their policies and focus more on their core beliefs and issues.

PapaNoHair · Aug 30, 2008

Very interesting, smart pic me thinks. Certainly better then Huck or Lieberman. I assume he was trying to draw in the women who supported Hillary and are upset at the election being "snatched" from her (i.e., the fact that she had a larger popular vote.)

Dysfunction · Aug 30, 2008

Kash said:
Population of Alaska as of 2006 = 670,053
Population of NJ as of 2006 = 8,724,560

Yep, I can totally see where you're coming from

Yer right, I suppose New Jersey has to be proud of something

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

PapaNoHair said:
Very interesting, smart pic me thinks. Certainly better then Huck or Lieberman. I assume he was trying to draw in the women who supported Hillary and are upset at the election being "snatched" from her (i.e., the fact that she had a larger popular vote.)

Either one of them, or Joe Lieberman would have almost certainly lost him the race. He could have made a more pragmatic and traditional pick like Fred Thompson but by picking her he showed his independent streak. She'll bring out the Republican base for him on election day. They may grumble a bit, but they will vote for him.

As for Hillary supporters and women in general, he's not going to pull any significant numbers away but they knew that. He is likely to pull those who were simply going to skip election day all-together however. If this race is anything near close, that may be enough to swing the balance, especially in the key battleground states.

What will be most telling here, both about the campaigns and her in particular will the VP debate(s). How she handles herself against Joe Biden will solidify her image in lots of peoples minds.

fleurya said:
A running mate picked for all the wrong reasons. It seems she was chosen only to get votes, not as someone who is best for the job. It's actually a comical choice after all of McCain's complaining about Obama not having enough experience. Now he wants to put this inexperienced person in the VP seat and a heartbeat away from the presidency

To be frank I'd rather have it this way than the other way around as the Dems have it. Being a "heartbeat" away is a much more comfortable margin than the inexperienced person actually being in charge.

Waterpolo820 · Aug 30, 2008

fearlessfreap24 said:
she is 30 years younger than McCain and that would appeal to the younger vote.

I don't know, I'm 18, and her being younger doesn't make her appeal to me at all. If it did appeal to younger voters, it would only be a very small margin of them. Because nearly every one in my high school that can vote, is voting for the Obama-Biden ticket. (we had class polls in our Gov. classes.) I don't think age has a lot to do in elections any more, especially after Bush. Younger voters know whats up, and they know that they can change it.

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

Waterpolo820 said:
I don't know, I'm 18, and her being younger doesn't make her appeal to me at all. If it did appeal to younger voters, it would only be a very small margin of them. Because nearly every one in my high school that can vote, is voting for the Obama-Biden ticket. (we had class polls in our Gov. classes.) I don't think age has a lot to do in elections any more, especially after Bush. Younger voters know whats up, and they know that they can change it.

What you don't realize is that you are not in the age group being targeted. Your age group is insufficiently large to swing the election and far to many of you are not registered to vote. Apathy is the problem. The target age group is really the 30ish to 50ish age group, those who have a career and a family and actually WILL go out and vote and many of whom are not particularly partisan when to comes to politics.

Reading online blogs and news site comments, I honestly think McCain made a wise choice that will resonate with the target audience. Just enough disaffected Hillary supporters (several of whom I know) who despised both Obama AND McCain will jump and enough independents may follow. If it works, he will have managed to do what no one else has done in Republican Politics, bridget the age, gender and generational gap all at once and moved the party into a new era.

Either way though, it's a big gamble.

PapaNoHair · Aug 30, 2008

baggss said:
This is the kind of post I was talking about avoiding...

I think you might be surprised....

Baggss I think (once again) you just might be right! There are some very very upset Hillary supporters out there. This "ploy" just might work.

Waterpolo820 · Aug 30, 2008

the8thark said:
As an Aussie I don't care too much for US politics. But this time it's different. I've really become interested in it. And I've seen both sides speeches of recent. Obama's last one at this conference or whatever you call it. The one at that stadium. Sure he did a little slinging of McCain, but he did staid many things he would try to do if he was to become president. And I really liked that. As too often here in Australia it's "I'm better than him" and "he's no good also". Etc. So much slinging and by the end you still have no idea that their policies are. So a good move for Obama. He did say a lot about families and not enough about single people but that doesn't bother me. If he can do even 1/2 of what he said I'd be happy. It'd help their country.

The only catch is now he has to get the public to believe that he can make good on these promises. And better than the opposition. That's the hard part.

And about their VP choices. It seems, well to me that they both made choices directly aimed at their opposition. Obama picked an older man with experience just like McCain is. And McCain picked a woman I've never heard of till now with not so much experience in parliament. More real world experience like Obama has. To me it's like hey you can get all of me and a little of my opposition too. So the best of both worlds.

And really to to me the VP isn't supposed to be an expert at the job. Then he'd know too much and be a thorn in the side of the P. (PM sounds to much better then just P but oh well I digress). The P wants a VP will back him 100% no matter what, can rally up the troops (other politicians) to vote his way in parliament. And when the P is away on business, the P can be assured the VP won't do anything silly or revolutionary till the P gets back.

Sure the VP wants a lot of power. But for the above reasons the P is best picking someone he can control. A yes man/woman. And I think both P candidates did this and compensated for their opponents strengths too.

And sure you will get people who will vote for Obama cause he is not white. And others for McCain cause of his war history or Female VP choice. Those voters wont ever change who they will vote for. Voting for the wrong reasons but that's the game they're in. It's the undecideds and people who vote for the best person for the job that both P candidates need to strive for. They both know who these people are and need to target them.

And lastly to me the "I am so good for the country because I will do this for you all" works much better for me then "I am the best choice cause the other guy is an idiot". The first makes me think hey he might just be good. I'd vote for him. And the 2nd makes me think oh well he's just the better of the 2 idiots I guess. Here in Australia voting is compulsory. But if I was from the US and both parties played number 2 tactics I'd not vote. I would want someone to stand up. And be a leader. Then I'd vote for them.

Well that's an Aussie's ideas on the US P race now.

Actually I was in Europe for a month and every one that I talked to was curious and following the U.S. Elections. And not surprisingly most wanted Obama to win. Now I was there before either candidate announced their V.P. pick, but I doubt that would have made a very big difference.

As a matter of fact I spotted this car while driving through Gross-Greau (sp?) Germany. I saw a couple more through out Germany too, but I couldn't snap off a picture. This one was right across where from a grocery store I went into. So I snapped a picture as we were leaving.
(Notice the Obama 08 sticker on the right hand side)

[/IMG]

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

Waterpolo820 said:
Actually I was in Europe for a month and every one that I talked to was curious and following the U.S. Elections. And not surprisingly most wanted Obama to win. Now I was there before either candidate announced their V.P. pick, but I doubt that would have made a very big difference.

That's not at all surprising. Many Europeans can not figure out why we Americans are as conservative a lot as we are, at least by European standards. Obama is to the left in American Politics (how far is open for debate) but is much more mainstream by European standards. Most of them can not figure out how in the world "W" got elected not only once, but twice.

louishen · Aug 30, 2008

Us Europeans do not vote in US elections

Over here in Europe there is overwealming support for Obama, partially because we would love to see a young mixed race American become president, but mainly because the Republican party under the neocons has been marked by war and a marked lack of co-operation on many issues the rest of the world has been trying to push.

Bush is deeply unpopular internationally, and Mc Cain is seen as just another Republican.

But this is a US election, and it is up to US citizens to decide, beside what the rest of the world would like to see. Whoever wins the election, I only hope that they restore the USA to the admiration it has traditionally inspired, it intervened and rescued democracy for Europe when dictatorship was taking over, guaranteed our security against communism and restored Europe after the war (Marshall Plan)

Yes, us Brits held out, but it was American might, and Russian lives that defeated fascism, so God bless America, I just hope that they will listen more to their friends than Bush's lot did.

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

louishen said:
I just hope that they will listen more to their friends than Bush's lot did.

I think that will happen no matter who wins.

Waterpolo820 · Aug 30, 2008

baggss said:
What you don't realize is that you are not in the age group being targeted. Your age group is insufficiently large to swing the election and far to many of you are not registered to vote. Apathy is the problem. The target age group is really the 30ish to 50ish age group, those who have a career and a family and actually WILL go out and vote and many of whom are not particularly partisan when to comes to politics.

Either way though, it's a big gamble.

No I realize that we aren't the group being targeted. And for my school at least we get a lot of incentives to register and to vote. I'm not sure about other schools, but at mine at least 90% of the eligible Seniors vote. And at a high school with over 3,500 students, that is a good amount of people.
I think you underestimate the people between 18-28ish. A lot of people in those age groups are well informed, well informed enough to make a well informed decision.(that sounded weird) Things like MTV's Rock the Vote campaign urge people in that age group to go out and vote. And especially this election I think there is going to be a higher young voter turn out.

cwa107 · Aug 30, 2008

Waterpolo820 said:
No I realize that we aren't the group being targeted. And for my school at least we get a lot of incentives to register and to vote. I'm not sure about other schools, but at mine at least 90% of the eligible Seniors vote. And at a high school with over 3,500 students, that is a good amount of people.
I think you underestimate the people between 18-28ish. A lot of people in those age groups are well informed, well informed enough to make a well informed decision.(that sounded weird) Things like MTV's Rock the Vote campaign urge people in that age group to go out and vote. And especially this election I think there is going to be a higher young voter turn out.

Not to put your comment down, because I sure hope it's true, but I think every generation says the same thing. It's just when push comes to shove, there's a tremendous sense of apathy until the actions of the government hit very close to home (like when there's a draft).

baggss · Aug 30, 2008

I don't underestimate that age group at all, but I do see that historically it has not significantly impacted an election. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all motivated young voters (especially Clinton) but their impact was minimal as opposed to other age groups. There is always a first though.

As for being well informed, I know enough 18 to 25 year olds to know that much of their information comes from the classroom and not from making decisions on their own or finding things out for themselves. I realize that that is a generalization, so it's not applicable across the board by any means.