Does McCain already have the Election won?

[Stormbringer]

A quick follow up:

I'm not trying to imply anything about Obama's broader base of support. I'm just trying to speak to Adrian's comment and what I've run into personally.

[Darth Wong]

I guess Americans are only comfortable voting for someone who claims to represent Jesus and the divine Creator of All The Universe, not someone who is a powerful speaker and has people believing he can make a difference. The first kind of guy is great: let's vote for him! The second kind of guy, on the other hand, is really scary and off-putting.

[Darth Wong]

Does it occur to you we had the base to fight and win in the Second World War because we continued innovating and planning, even during the Great Depression?

Actually, America had the ability to fight and win in the Second World War because of its robust manufacturing base.

[Adrian Laguna]

Does it occur to you we had the base to fight and win in the Second World War because we continued innovating and planning, even during the Great Depression?

Actually, America had the ability to fight and win in the Second World War because of its robust manufacturing base.

Which in the modern day is being shipped off to China. I wonder which of the two candidates is promising to reverse that trend?

(Not a swipe at IP, I know where he stands, just sayin')

[D.Turtle]

Give me a Pro-Gun,

On the Issues.org.
Short version: Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok.

Pro-Nuke,

Obama on the O'Reilly Factor: Part 4 starting at about 1:00
Short version: Nukes are a go, along with solar, wind, hydro, and so on.

Pro-ABM

Obama on the O'Reilly Factor: Part 4, starting at about 4:05.
Short version: Missile Shield is a go and is there to stay.

Democrat and I'll vote for them in a heart beat.

Well, 2.5 out of 3 isn't too bad

[Tribun]

I found this:

Spiegel.de

Blizzard of Lies

Anyone with an Internet connection can disprove many assertions of the McCain campaign.

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign -- and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 -- my first year at The Times -- trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful -- you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” -- she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues -- on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

[RedImperator]

Interesting bit of news. A CNN poll before the Republican National Convention had McCain with a 52-37 lead on the question "Who can best unite the country?". After Sarah Barracuda and the rest of the RNC, Obama now has a 53-37 lead in the same poll.

Source.

[D.Turtle]

Earlier in this thread there were some people worrying about Obamas fundraising.

Well, the August numbers are in:

Obama raises $66 million in August

Sen. Barack Obama raised $66 million in the month of August, making it his best month ever and the best in American political history, an aide said Sunday morning.

Obama is releasing that number after suggestions that his fundraising was failing to meet expectations. It puts him on pace to substantially outspend John McCain in the last two months of the race, in which McCain will be limited to spending the $84 million supplied by the Treasury under public financing rules.

Obama's large take, and the expectation that he'll raise even more in the race's final two months, may put to rest some Democrats' worries that he'd made a mistake by opting out of public financing.

It doesn't mean the Democrats will outspend the Republicans this year, though. The Republican National Committee's cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, in combination with swelling outside spending, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how it's spent, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending.

An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August. The new figure — which shatters his previous one-month record of $55 million — also demonstrates how the increasingly heated, nasty race has energized Obama's fundraising and raises expectations that he will raise that much or more in each of the next two months.

Obama's tally suggests that McCain's late-August choice of Sarah Palin, which has energized conservatives — though largely too late for them to contribute directly to McCain's campaign — may also wind up deepening Obama's reserves when its full effect is felt in his September report.

The McCain campaign raised $47 million in August.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that the Obama campaign had $77 million on hand; it had just under $66 million on hand at the end of July, meaning that it spent roughly $55 million last month.

If we decide these numbers will stay (more likely is that they will increase for Obama), Obama would have a direct funding advantage of about $50 million over McCain. Of course this ignores the RNC and DNC and 527s, which will probably close the gap. But there is absolutely no reason to panic over the fund-raising.

[SirNitram]

Obama quietly raises record-breaking amounts and removes the leash on the liberal 527's.

Dangerous game, but it looks like a blitz in the last moments to produce a bounce at the right instant.

[irishmick79]

Interesting bit of news. A CNN poll before the Republican National Convention had McCain with a 52-37 lead on the question "Who can best unite the country?". After Sarah Barracuda and the rest of the RNC, Obama now has a 53-37 lead in the same poll.

Source.

Excellent. I wonder if this marks a shift in sentiment amongst independents a bit. At least to my understanding, Obama's lack of experience was a problem for a lot of independents and undecided voters. I had a feeling that the Palin pick would negate this problem, and once these voters take a good hard look at Palin, they will probably be scared away and move into the Obama column. Hopefully, we're seeing the beginning of that shift here.

[Edi]

Interesting bit of news. A CNN poll before the Republican National Convention had McCain with a 52-37 lead on the question "Who can best unite the country?". After Sarah Barracuda and the rest of the RNC, Obama now has a 53-37 lead in the same poll.

Source.

Uh, not exactly. It was Obama as uniter 52-37 prior to the Republican convention and results virtually unchanged afterward at 53-37. You seem to have misread that part of the article:

McCain's image as a uniter was not helped by the Republican convention or by his selection of Palin. Both played to the Republican base. Before the conventions, voters polled by CNN were more likely to see Obama than McCain as someone who "can unite the country," 52 percent to 37 percent. After the conventions, Obama's lead as a uniter was virtually unchanged, 53 percent to 37 percent.

[apocolypse]

Interesting bit of news. A CNN poll before the Republican National Convention had McCain with a 52-37 lead on the question "Who can best unite the country?". After Sarah Barracuda and the rest of the RNC, Obama now has a 53-37 lead in the same poll.

Source.

Excellent. I wonder if this marks a shift in sentiment amongst independents a bit. At least to my understanding, Obama's lack of experience was a problem for a lot of independents and undecided voters. I had a feeling that the Palin pick would negate this problem, and once these voters take a good hard look at Palin, they will probably be scared away and move into the Obama column. Hopefully, we're seeing the beginning of that shift here.

That's a bit how I've moved. I've voted Rep in the past, but I'm going from a bit in the middle and shifting towards Obama. Although I live in CA, so it's not like it matters terribly if I voted Rep again anyway.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does it occur to you we had the base to fight and win in the Second World War because we continued innovating and planning, even during the Great Depression?

Actually, America had the ability to fight and win in the Second World War because of its robust manufacturing base.

Are you trying to claim that it didn't matter that we continued research and planning into strategic bombing, carrier warfare, and other tactics during the interim? Surely we would've won on the basis of our economy, but it could have been longer and bloodier. The investment made was relatively small and well-worth the returns in my opinion. Comparable to the continued development and progress of missile defense. Furthermore, its based around a more defensive strategy, which I think is a welcome concept and one I hope is extrapolated upon to replace aggressive shit like the Bush Doctrine. Of course, I am almost certainly voting for Barack Obama and his conditional support for missile defense is more than enough for me. How anyone could stretch the difference between his and McCain's positions on their websites into being more important than the Republican's absurd social, fiscal, general economic, energy, and general defense positions is completely incomprehensible to me.

[Terralthra]

MariusRoi has said before that he votes based on an explicit ABM support litmus test.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, so he's a moron. Thanks.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Give me a Pro-Gun,

On the Issues.org.
Short version: Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok.

Pro-Nuke,

Obama on the O'Reilly Factor: Part 4 starting at about 1:00
Short version: Nukes are a go, along with solar, wind, hydro, and so on.

Pro-ABM

Obama on the O'Reilly Factor: Part 4, starting at about 4:05.
Short version: Missile Shield is a go and is there to stay.

Democrat and I'll vote for them in a heart beat.

Well, 2.5 out of 3 isn't too bad

Somehow I don't think this'll faze him. He's anti-Obama pretty much 'just because'.

MariusRoi has said before that he votes based on an explicit ABM support litmus test.

And no other meaningful criterion.

Oh, so he's a moron. Thanks.

Nailed it like a JDAM, IP. See this LOL CHAT LOG; he admits to boting for Bush in 2k4, among other such epic stupidities. At least I got him to agree with me that Bush has done severe damage to America, at which point he promptly changes the subject

[Darth Wong]

Does it occur to you we had the base to fight and win in the Second World War because we continued innovating and planning, even during the Great Depression?

Actually, America had the ability to fight and win in the Second World War because of its robust manufacturing base.

Are you trying to claim that it didn't matter that we continued research and planning into strategic bombing, carrier warfare, and other tactics during the interim?

In the context of this thread and MariusRoi's bizarre argument, we're talking about one particular weapon system, remember? There is no single research program that was integral to American victory in WW2. The single most important factor was industrial output, which is why America did better as the war dragged on. Its performance at the beginning, despite these efforts you speak of, was not very good.

[Dominus Atheos]

You know, madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If you're questioning my sanity, I'm not going to disagree with you.

The democrats were ineffectual in 2000, they were ineffectual in 2004, if they're ineffectual in 2008 then there's no guarantee that they're going to suddenly 'get it' in 2012. The voting public isn't going to suddenly figure out how it all works and be smarter from then on. If anything you're helping establish a trend for republican victories for years to come.

It's a risk, I know. But I'm looking at the lessons most democrats learned after 2004 and Kerry's clusterfuck of a campaign, and think that it may only take 1 more stinging defeat and 4 more years of languishing under republican rule for the Democratic party to realize what needs to be done in order to win a campaign, and nominate someone willing to do them.

Even if your cunning plan would did work, how long to you think the benefit would last and how many years of Republican rule do you think it will take to get the point across? If you're lucky, you'll get two terms of Democrats after 12 years of Republican rule, suddenly the country forgets how it got so fucked and votes Republicans back in. You can then begin your clever little campaign tactic of voting for the Republicans in order to get them out of the long term all over again.

I'm betting on (and do realize it's a bet and not guaranteed) this loss galvanizing the Democrats and turning them into a real opposition party, instead of one who's reaction to being told to jump by the republicans is to turn around, drop their pants, bend over and ask "Before I do that, would you like to fuck me up the ass?" Having a real opposition party would do wonders for the political process in this country. We all know all the terrible things republicans do and all the reasons not to vote for them because we have several dozen members who watch liberal blogs and websites and post things they find here so we can all know about them, but no one mentions them in the "mainstream" news, so the vast majority don't know about them.

If someone was willing to mention how Palin, after (quoting broomy here) "having her water break and, instead of going to a doctor/hospital like a normal women, she really did give a speech then board an airplane for a 6 hour flight back to Alaska followed by a 45 minute drive to give birth to a high-risk baby a month prematurely in a suburban clinic" they might be a lot less willing to vote for her. But no one does because "family is off-limits." Or how McCain finished 800-somethingth in his class at the air force academy and then went on to crash 5 planes, but "John Mcain served his country well, and we don't want to devalue that." Or how after he got back from his captivity in vietnam and his wife who had been a supermodel when they had been married had been in a car accident as was a lot less attractive, he cheated on her, divorced her, then filed for marriage to an heiress worth hundreds of millions, and all before the first wife had completed physical therepy because "we don't want to run a smear campaign."

I was watching the news the other day and apparently the Democratic party leadership decided not to bring S-CHIP up for a vote anytime before the end of the year. They are refusing to bring up a piece of legislation that would tax smokers and give the money to poor, sick children, is supported by something like 80% of the public, and which the republican party strongly opposes. There are no words for that kind of incompetence. Anyone who votes against it would look like a cold-hearted bastard who puts the wishes of his party and big business above the needs of poor sick children, and the Democrats refuse to bring it up for a vote. They clearly don't want to win, so why should I vote for them?

Long story short, if you don't agree with the guy's policies, don't vote for him.

As I said, I believe a McCain presidency cause a domino effect that would do more good in the long run then a Obama campaign. (who would probably just roll over for for the republicans in the name of "unity" and "compromise" and "bringing the country together" and not subscribing to "divisive politics" anyway)

[Illuminatus Primus]

In the context of this thread and MariusRoi's bizarre argument, we're talking about one particular weapon system, remember? There is no single research program that was integral to American victory in WW2. The single most important factor was industrial output, which is why America did better as the war dragged on. Its performance at the beginning, despite these efforts you speak of, was not very good.

I already conceded his on-off litmus test of sufficient enthusiasm for ABM in particular is totally retarded.

[Lusankya]

It's a risk, I know. But I'm looking at the lessons most democrats learned after 2004 and Kerry's clusterfuck of a campaign, and think that it may only take 1 more stinging defeat and 4 more years of languishing under republican rule for the Democratic party to realize what needs to be done in order to win a campaign, and nominate someone willing to do them.

But conversely, if the Democrats win this time, then it will prove that dirty campaigning isn't necessary to win an election. Then maybe the Republicans will see some virtue in clean campaigning and will change their campaign tactics. Unless you think there's some kind of social benefit to dirty campaigning I really don't see why you see "making the Democrats campaign dirty" is a positive outcome.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why would the Republicans campaign cleanly if they've had so much success with campaigning dirty? It's not gonna change if the Dems win, unless the Republicans themselves end up changing. The whole dirty campaign shtick is because a lot of guys and gals in the GOP are dirty people.

[Lusankya]

Oh, I doubt they'd change right away, but by voting for them, DA will continue to give them that success. And if people continue to vote for the clean campaign, then the Republicans will have to change their tactics. Besides, encouraging the Dems to use the same tactics will most likely mean that they'll turn into Republicans-lite, rather than anything exceptionally different.

[Anguirus]

If you're questioning my sanity, I'm not going to disagree with you.

Doesn't that kind of end any debate right there?

[Big Phil]

For a board full of such (allegedly) smart people, you all have some short memories. Dirty politics isn't going to go away even if Obama wins, and it didn't start with the Republicans. In this country it goes back as early as 1796, and the Romans (among others) were practicing dirty politics before the birth of Christ; anyone here familiar with Cicero?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflif ... s.slogans/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... erson.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_87706856

[Darth Wong]

Would you care to quote the post where someone claimed that the concept of dirty politics was invented in the last decade? Since you seem to be patting yourself on the back for triumphantly disproving this claim, it would be nice to see who made the claim in the first place.