Evilbore's Presidential Election Thread --Its the Final COUNTDOWN Ba da ba baaaa

[Phoenix Dark]

I agree, which is why I've stopped worrying about Ohio/Florida. Florida strikes me as a more likely win than Ohio at this point; NEVER TRUST OHIO :wolverine

[MrAngryFace]

Yeah, Florida has a MUCH better chance, Ohio is just too close to call, but most estimates assume the worst and give it to McCain

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Ohio: America's Taint

[Phoenix Dark]

needs to go into an Obama ad. Totally undercuts the socialist attacks
[youtube=425,350]X2JPbQOHEkY[/youtube]

Michigan State

[Phoenix Dark]

whoops 

Five days after Rep. Michele Bachmann went on a McCarthy-esque rant suggesting Barack Obama was unpatriotic and urging the major newspapers of the country to investigate anti-American sentiment in Congress, the national Republican political parties are running for cover.

Two sources aware of ad buys in Minnesota say that the National Republican Congressional Committee is pulling its media purchases from Bachmann's race. If true, it is a remarkable fall for a congresswoman who, until recently, seemed relatively safe in her predominantly conservative district. The race had become closer in recent days -- the NRCC had transferred funds from Rep. Erik Paulsen (MN-03) to Bachmann a little over a week ago.

In the days following her appearance on Hardball, however, Bachmann has watched as her challenger, El Tinklenberg raised more than a million dollars off her incendiary remarks. That surge in fundraising put Bachmann's re-election in a far less certain position. Bachmann tried to stem the bleeding by telling the press she was sorry for her remarks. But with the national party now apparently pulling the plug, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/gop-pulling-its-ads-from_n_136941.html

I'll be watching this race
http://www.pollster.com/polls/mn/08-mn-06-ge-bvt.php

Tinklenberg (*giggle*) is facing an up hill battle in a conservative district but hopefully this momentum will get him over the hump

[border]

That sucks that your posts were deleted. I would have loved to read them and the replies to them. That forum is a serious nuthouse though.

While I was being disingenuous and probably needed to be banned, I was kind of hoping to understand the disconnect between "Christian charity" and the evangelical opposition to charitable social programs.  Unfortunately I never really got an explanation.  Once you speak in favor of something like Universal Health Care, that means you are a socialist and that means you are a Marxist and that means you are a Communist and Communists hate Jesus.  All I came away with is the same cynical assumption I started with -- it's okay to legislate morality, it's okay to force everyone towards a Christian ideal.....but if that Christian ideal is going to result in higher taxes then that's evil socialism.

You can still see me being quoted in a number of threads from yesterday and today.  One person asked me to name how the private sector was failing for healthcare and I mentioned that there were currently 47 million Americans without insurance.  The response from was:

They don't take into account the number of people who have turned down coverage because "it is too expensive", yet they come into the county ER with cigarettes, elaborate hair that has been done professionally, fake nails, expensive cell phones, tricked out cars, etc. Now...how can they not afford health insurance???

I don't think it's really hard to read between the lines here (fake nails, elaborate hair, tricked out cars).  This guy is as bad at being a closet racist as I was at being a closet liberal.

[Phoenix Dark]

Chris Matthews being an ass
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553

 

Nancy is SO hot though

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Palin's wardrobe............$150,000
Palin's make-up.............$13,200
al-Qaeda endorsement....Priceless

There are some things small donors can't buy. For everything else, there's McCain-Palin '08.

[MrAngryFace]

Chris Matthews being an ass
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553

 

Nancy is SO hot though

To quote Jon Stewart, "What the Pfuck?!"

[Human Snorenado]

Chris Matthews being an ass
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553

 

Nancy is SO hot though

Ok, are you just practicing your Red State/The Corner commenter shtick or what?  Aren't you supposed to be black?  That bitch needs to eat about 20 hamburgers, and her face is all angular and shit.  Ew, seriously ew.

[Phoenix Dark]

There's something about her, I dunno. I like her hair, I like her eyes. Not a fan of skinny women but still, she's a milf.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

She is the definition of fake, even down to the nose job.

[Human Snorenado]

GOP House "Death List" leaks, says they expect to lose a net of 34 seats.

A document provided to Washington Whispers from a House GOP official shows that they could lose a net 34 seats. That means the Democrats would have a 270-165 advantage in the 111th Congress. In the Senate, Republicans expect to lose also but to keep up to 44 seats, ensuring their ability to stage a filibuster.

So let me get this right... they expect to get blown the fuck out of the water in the House, losing a net of 34 seats, but only lose FIVE Senate seats?  Man, I want some of what they're smoking.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

105 seat advantage

[recursivelyenumerable]

Obama got up and said: “Don’t underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don’t underestimate our ability to screw it up.”

he actually said that? 

[Brehvolution]

105 seat advantage

Political genocide.

[Phoenix Dark]

Speaking of leaked internals...

An internal poll from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania has him just two points ahead of Sen. John McCain, according to The Hill.

"WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race." The Obama campaign "wouldn't confirm the internal poll numbers, but said that the e-mail was sent without permission."

Update: Apparently this poll was reported a week ago, though it's relevance is more interesting today considering the McCain campaign's recent actions.

Let me get this straight

-Obama has no plans on campaigning in blue states for the next two weeks
-Yesterday Rendell sent emails begging Obama to come  back to Penn. and seal the deal
-Internal polling from last week shows Obama up by 2; media re-reports story today

This sound fishy to anyone else but me? It sounds like they're setting a trap for McCain, who's camp already thinks their only way to win is to flip Penn. I've heard talk that if Obama blows out McCain in the Philly area he should secure a win there, and apparently his camp thinks this is possible. Reliable polls show Obama up by 7-12 points in Penn...

Is the Obama campaign purposely sending signals to McCain that Penn may be up for grabs so they rush in there, wasting valuable time instead of campaigning in states that are actually competitive?

[Tristam]

needs to go into an Obama ad. Totally undercuts the socialist attacks
[youtube=425,350]X2JPbQOHEkY[/youtube]

Michigan State

"MY DAD IS FUCKING RICH! AND SO WAS HIS DAD! LIFE'S NOT FAIR, I TELL YOU!"

[brawndolicious]

well that Michigan State video is awesome.

[MrAngryFace]

Lets discuss this. Keep in mind this location was linked to by Huffington, but I want someone here who is better at this shit to work it out and say what they think:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html

edit:

538 post on current polling:

Some Likely Voter Models are Suspect
There are eight current national polls that list separate sets of results for likely and registered voters. (In this case, for reasons that will be apparent momentarily, I am deliberately double-counting the two Gallup likely voter models). On average, Barack Obama leads by 9.8 points in the registered voter versions of these polls, but by 7.0 points in the likely voter versions -- nearly a 3-point difference:



Note, however, that the likely voter models appear to segregate themselves into two clusters. In one cluster, there is a rather large, 4-6 point difference between registered and likely voter results. In the other cluster, there is essentially no difference.

The first cluster coincides with Gallup's so-called "traditional" likely voter model, which considers both a voter's stated intention and his past voting behavior. The second cluster coincides with their "expanded" likely voter model, which considers solely the voter's stated intentions. Note the philosophical difference between the two: in the "traditional" model, a voter can tell you that he's registered, tell you that he's certain to vote, tell you that he's very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded from the model if he hasn't voted in the past. The pollster, in other words, is making a determination as to how the voter will behave. In the "expanded" model, the pollster lets the voter speak for himself.

Frankly, I find polls showing a 4-6 point gap between likely and registered voters to be utterly ridiculous. Why?

1. Among people who have already voted, Democrats lead overwhelmingly. Zogby pegs Barack Obama's advantage at 27 points among people who have already voted. The New York Times details how Democrats are overperforming, sometimes dramatically, in states where early voting is underway. (By the way, the New York Times' data on Florida is wrong, as it includes absentee ballot requests as well as early voters. According to an Open Left diarist, Democrats have a 24-point advantage among those who have actually voted early in Florida).

Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.

2. Enthusiasm is much higher among Democrats than among Republicans. The latest Diageo/Hotline numbers show that 72 percent of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for their candidate, as opposed to 55 percent of Republicans.

3. Most likely voter models are unlikely to distinguish newly registered voters from what I would call lapsed registered voters. If someone is registered, and has been registered for a long while, but has not cast a ballot since they pulled the lever for Ross Perot in 1992, there is good reason to be skeptical about their intentions. On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote. Barack Obama's advantages are principally from among the newly-registered voter group.

4. There is an enormous discrepancy in the strength of the Republican and Democratic turnout operations. In past elections, such as 2004, this advantage favored the Republicans; in this one, it favors the Democrats. Barack Obama has somewhere between a 2:1 and a 4:1 advantage in field offices in most battleground states. He is relying almost exclusively on volunteers (the exception are a couple of cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, where Obama will most likely pay 'street money' to canvassers on Election Day). McCain, meanwhile, has already had to hire paid canvassers in Florida, and perhaps he will also in several other states.

5. Turnout among 'unlikely' voter blocks was substantially up during the Democratic primaries. Youth voters (18-29 year olds) increased their share of the Democratic electorate by 52 percent. Latino voters increased their share by 42 percent. Black voters increased their share by 8 percent.

I would like to issue a challenge to those pollsters like Franklin & Marshall and GfK which in spite of all the facts above, are showing a substantial shift toward the Republicans when they apply their likely voter models. E-mail me -- my contact information is at the top of the page -- and tell me why you think what you're doing is good science.

[Mandark]

The rule of thumb is that if a poll looks like an outlier, that's cause it is one.

That evangelical/born again number really does look out of line.  If a big discrepancy shows in one of the demographic questions that's usually a sign that the topline number (who they're voting for) isn't reliable.

Plus Nate Silver has really earned his stat nerd cred at this point, so I'd defer to him anyway.

[MrAngryFace]

Yeah I couldnt tell on my own, I mean its from huffington, it links to a page made for geocities, how could I say if it was a good source or bad source when I dont know how to read polls lol

[siamesedreamer]

There's no way the REPs keep 44.

Saxby is in deep shit here in GA. I believe he's the last man standing between the DEMs getting 60. Holy fuck if that happens. Gawd damn NeoBolsheviks...

[Mandark]

Gawd damn NeoBolsheviks...

Thanks to Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, I'm not sure which party you're referring to!

[siamesedreamer]

Naw...the people who support the New Party/DSA candidate.

[Mandark]

Wait, I just remembered that Bolshevik translates as "majority" so that rules out the Republicans.

We could start calling them Mensheviks, though.

[siamesedreamer]

There you go. 

Happy to say all three of my congressional representatives voted against that shit.

[Mandark]

Oh lordy, you're not one of those "let the banks fail" fundies, are you?

[Mandark]

Yes, yes.  You found some people on the internet who are dumb.  Congratulations!

It's tempting low fruit, but you should limit yourself to the actually funny cases.

[border]

I'm actually kinda curious what the Rapture Ready reaction to the bailout was......but that site's already wasted enough of my time, and I'm too lazy to go thumb through their archives.

I wish they really would get raptured away.

I think the more satisfying justice would be if the rapture actually happened and they weren't taken with it.

[Mandark]

It's just so... old.

Next thing you're going to post "Did you know there's FUD e-mail going around saying Obama's Muslim?"  Quality control, people.

[border]

Come now.  We can't all be Mandark or Fragamemnon.

[Fragamemnon]

Here's a question that no one is really asking but is a really big deal-if the GOP loses as many moderates as they look to be losing in the House, how on earth is the party going to move back and reclaim the middle? A reactionary right-wing House leadership next Congress almost looks completely inevitable, as the House Republican Study group block will have more than enough votes to get whoever they want just out of their own caucus.

Even in the peak of Republican rule the Democrats kept on a very sizable contingent of "blue dog" conservatives that balanced out the party in the House. They have always been, and will continue to be, a postitive moderating effect on the House.

The Republicans won't have that moderating group. They will be an weak opposition with no ties to the center of American politics, and having ceded the groud of "fiscal conservatism" through the reckless budget excesses in the Bush era, they'll just stammer around about immigration and tax cuts for rich people and other random bullshit and be really scary folk in general. I can't help but think that a huge win here might really set them back in the House for a VERY long time.

[Mandark]

The Blue Dogs and boll weevils were partly an artifact of the weird patchwork history of the old Democratic party, partly a result of DLC-type efforts, and partly evidence of how economic populism can still be popular in socially conservative areas.

The GOP doesn't have that flexibility.  The party leadership moved so far to the right it left the northeastern moderates as easy pickings, and the base really doesn't trust anyone who disagrees on even one of their pet issues.

Movement conservatism in the US at this point is much less about individual issues or even governing philosophy than it is about tribal affiliation.  There's a large group of people out there who feel infringed upon in different ways by liberals, blacks, gays, Arabs, atheists etc.

I expect to see a big effort (well, many competing and overlapping efforts) to remake the GOP, but it's going to be even harder than it was for the Democrats in the 80's.  The Dems were a big tent party which was seeing its coalition fray.  Republicans have been telling themselves for years that they're an embattled minority.  A lot of them are going to embrace what's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[border]

My layman's observation is that the economy is fucked.  If things are not turned around by the 2010 midterms, it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to regain lost ground in Congress.  And that's really what worries me most - that we will see another Clinton situation, where a Democrat occupies the White House but is rendered impotent by a fiercely conservative Congress.

[TVC15]

My layman's observation is that the economy is fucked.  If things are not turned around by the 2010 midterms, it shouldn't be hard for Republicans to regain lost ground in Congress.  And that's really what worries me most - that we will see another Clinton situation, where a Democrat occupies the White House but is rendered impotent by a fiercely conservative Congress.

This is also why I'm kinda expecting the next president to be a one termer.  Between the economic crisis and whatever the Iraq exit strategy ends up being, there's going to be a lot of ammunition to fire on the incumbents.  Unless Obama hits a dinger and the Democrats in the House and Senate get together, they can clearly become easy targets.  It's not like their behavior in the House and Senate in the past 2 years has inspired much confidence, either.

[Mandark]

If Obama wins, I think voters will recognize a couple years from now that he inherited a crappy situation, which I suppose is the upshot of having the housing bubble burst sooner rather than later.

I really really really don't want to see a backlash against the Dems in 2010, cause that's when the state legislatures get to gerrymander Congressional districts for the next decade.

[Fresh Prince]

The question for the GOP is who could defeat Obama. I still don't think they have anybody that could do that. Maybe Huckabee if the economy gets better, maybe Romney if it gets worse but just. 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

.

[TakingBackSunday]

I've seen everything Experiment

I've seen it all

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

That is just fine with me.

[Crushed]

My dad is now saying that "the main media"* is trying to say that the election is over and that McCain should just give up.


*does not include Fox

[Brehvolution]

It would be better if it was Joe the shrubber.

[Crushed]

it's like a look into FoC's mind!

[siamesedreamer]

November forth is going to be very bad for the GOP. But, you're never as good as your best day and you're never as bad as your worst. I expect that over the next few months there will be tons and tons of people claiming that its the end of the Republican Party. Yada, yada, yada...

What's going to be missing from their triumphant conclusions is the massive overreach the DEMs are about to embark on with bullshit like this:

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

There will be other types of overreaching of course. But, if they fuck up 401K programs in a way that affects people earning less than $250,000 per year, they will face the wrath of voters in 2010 and have a 1994 style debacle.

[Human Snorenado]

If Obama wins, I think voters will recognize a couple years from now that he inherited a crappy situation, which I suppose is the upshot of having the housing bubble burst sooner rather than later.

I really really really don't want to see a backlash against the Dems in 2010, cause that's when the state legislatures get to gerrymander Congressional districts for the next decade.

I think that there would just be too much ground for the GOP to make up for them to take back either the House or Senate.  Plus, there's once again more GOP Senate seats (19) than Dem (15) up for re-election in 2010, and a couple of them could be retiring- Sam Brownback in Kansas and McCain in Arizona.  There are two popular Dem female governors in those states that could run for those seats.  Of the Dem seats up, the only one that looks vulnerable to me is Dorgan in ND.  Meanwhile, on the GOP side you've got Bunning (KY), Murkowski (AK), Burr (NC), Isakson (GA), Grassley (IA), Martinez (FL), Bond (MO), Gregg (NH), Voinovich (OH), Specter (PA), and most definitely whore enthusiast Vitter (LA).  Any and all of those could be vulnerable.  I don't see a situation in which the Dems lose seats in the Senate in 2010.  In the House maybe.

And personally, the single biggest thing that Obama can do in his first year would be to find and kill Osama bin Laden.  That would be a big slap in the face to the GOP and I think Obama knows it.

[siamesedreamer]

The rumor is Isakson is gonna run for Gubna and Tom Price would theoretically take his seat.


Anyway, saw this yesterday:



Just think - only one more tax credit and they can achieve their goal of having >50% of all tax filers not paying any taxes! Its a built in voting majority!!!

Writing welfare into the tax code - Change we Need. 

[Human Snorenado]

Fuck the rich!

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

The GOP won't be making any headway for a few years.

After the 4th, there is going to be in fighting between the Neocons and the theocons to see who gets to rule.  Most GOP remainders think that the GOP didn't go far enough to the right and several will proceed to push themselves so far to the right that they become irrelevant, making their spots ripe for the taking in 2010 (except for the archconservative areas).  The smarter Republicans know that the days of Bush are done and it is better to move towards the center with some reluctance.  That way, if Obama works, they will stay in office.  If not, they can criticize but not sound like a loon.

Sarah Palin will go on the media circuit and bemoan about how McCain muzzled her.  She will create an image that if she ran things, she would have beaten Obama.  This will lull the GOP into a false sense of security, coupled with the fact that the economy will not unfuck itself in such a short period of time, hoping that people will get pissed and toss Obama out.

The GOP is desperately short of talented, charismatic leaders.  Most of the big GOP members either retired, booted out from scandals (DeLay), or got sacked (Santorum).  All that is left is Huckabee, Romney, Palin, Jindal, and maybe Cantor.  If that is their best and brightest for 2012, Obama will get another blowout result.

[Bocsius]

How little do you have to make to pay no taxes? I'd like to make that little.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Not really

[close]

[TakingBackSunday]

As much as I'd like to agree with you Experiment, I have to side with TVC and think Obama will unfortunately be a one term president.

[MrAngryFace]

Yeah fuck the selfish rich. If I had as much money as them id just do what bill gates does. Fucking rich fucks.

Ill side with Experiment on this one. Its much easier to be cynical then optimistic as a pessimist. I think I can do my part to not piss all over his term before he even enters office.

[Brehvolution]

Fuck the kids of rich people too. Most haven't done shit in life yet they feel an amazing amount of entitlement.

[MrAngryFace]

Thats why Warren Buffet rox. Hes like FUCK MY KIDS and his kids are even like YEAH FUCK US! WE'LL EARN OUR OWN WAY WE HAVE EDUMACATION THATS ALL WE NEED!@ Between him and Bill Gates the world has a couple awesome rich people.

[TakingBackSunday]

Fuck the kids of rich people too. Most haven't done shit in life yet they feel an amazing amount of entitlement.

This.  I come from a wealthy suburban area and the kids there a fucking worthless.  None of jobs, can't think for themselves, and get everything handed to them on a platter.  They don't worry about college tuition, that makes me fucking sick.

[treythemovie]

This is also why I'm kinda expecting the next president to be a one termer.  Between the economic crisis and whatever the Iraq exit strategy ends up being, there's going to be a lot of ammunition to fire on the incumbents.  Unless Obama hits a dinger and the Democrats in the House and Senate get together, they can clearly become easy targets.  It's not like their behavior in the House and Senate in the past 2 years has inspired much confidence, either.

Had the economic crisis occured during Obama's administration you might be right. But the way things are now, the public seems ready (and already has) to blame Bush entirely for the crisis. I think it would be pretty easy for Obama to paint himself as simply "cleaning up the mess" and avoid any such backlash.

[MrAngryFace]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/palin-fashion-includes-sc_n_137090.html
 -- haha

[treythemovie]

November forth is going to be very bad for the GOP. But, you're never as good as your best day and you're never as bad as your worst. I expect that over the next few months there will be tons and tons of people claiming that its the end of the Republican Party. Yada, yada, yada...

What's going to be missing from their triumphant conclusions is the massive overreach the DEMs are about to embark on with bullshit like this:

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

There will be other types of overreaching of course. But, if they fuck up 401K programs in a way that affects people earning less than $250,000 per year, they will face the wrath of voters in 2010 and have a 1994 style debacle.

I think the last 8 years have shown us that the public really doesn't give a damn about overreaching. It's overreaching and fucking it up that causes the backlash.

[MrAngryFace]

Also Larry David's column on the election is sadly very familiar to me. This primary and general election cycle has me so worn out. Im probably taking the 4th and 5th off as vacation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/waiting-for-nov-4th_b_137029.html

[Mr. Gundam]

I've considered calling in sick on November 5th...