The Politics Thread

[a1]

Or, for that matter, attempted to justify not having a passport until the age of 43 because "I had a job".

whats wrong with not having a passport ?

why does geography come up in these 'arguments' but not that these folk (presedential candidates, ministers etc) ,say, cant speak russian or persian or whatever.

that team america film notes it too.

[InsaneApache]

Palin's a cretinist, gun toting nutjob. As corrupt as they come. She will do well.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Or, for that matter, attempted to justify not having a passport until the age of 43 because "I had a job".

whats wrong with not having a passport ?

why does geography come up in these 'arguments' but not that these folk (presedential canadates, ministers etc) ,say, cant speak russian or persian or whatever.

that team america film notes it too.

Good reference text.

I'd say that travel broadens the mind, and that someone who had no intention of leaving her country until forced to by work commitments is probably not the best choice for a potential world leader.

However, most of all I'd say it's a pertinent point in answer to this (which it was):

Does Obama have any more experience of foreign affairs than Palin?

[Lord Kangana]

Palin's a cretinist, gun toting nutjob. As corrupt as they come. She will do well.

Exactly.

See also Nixon, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.............

[InsaneApache]

It's a shame that the Democrat s running on a Obama and Liden ticket. At least he's much better than Hilary 'I dodged bullets in Kosovo' Clinton. She was bloody awful, nealy as bad as Micheals sister.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Palin's a cretinist, gun toting nutjob. As corrupt as they come. She will do well.

I would though!

Imagine dropping that one into the conversation in the vault at the Old Dog and Duck!

[warthog]

Maybe McCain meant to appoint Michael Palin. After all, he's well travelled.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Maybe McCain meant to appoint Michael Palin. After all, he's well travelled.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Not having a passport sounds a big deal to us, but it is, of course, a different context over there. Lots of Americans never leave the country.

America is vast and could not be fully explored with a lifetime of trying. And Americans can't just pop through to France on the Eurostar. I'm sure there are plenty who would love to visit Europe but can't afford it.



Anyway...


McCain seems to be finished, if the polls are to be believed. Obama even has a slim poll lead in North Carolina where Bush won a very commanding majority in 2004. But then, he wasn't up against the Obama cult.

Looks like the only thing that can save McCain now is the 'Bradley Effect'. (Barring a some sort of political disaster for Obama.... which reminds me, where the hell are his people hiding Pastor Wright?!)


Oh and if I hear the vulgar euphemism 'within a heartbeat of the presidency' one more time I'll scream.

[Athers]

That mental woman is within a missed heartbeat of the Presidency.

[Horza]

The Bradley effect (which didn't exist in the case of Tom Bradley) diedsometime in the mid 90s, and Obama appeared to benefit from some sort of reverseBradley effect in the dem primaries.

So basically, Obama has more money, better organisation, better messaging, better oratory and is on the right side of most of the issues while the Republican brand is in shit after a long and bloated incumbency and they're on the defensive across battleground states and some solid Bush04 states (and heading for a 6-10+ seat loss in the Senate). That better be one hell of a revamp McCain is planning...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The Bradley effect (which didn't exist in the case of Tom Bradley) diedsometime in the mid 90s, and Obama appeared to benefit from some sort of reverseBradley effect in the dem primaries.

So basically, Obama has more money, better organisation, better messaging, better oratory and is on the right side of most of the issues while the Republican brand is in shit after a long and bloated incumbency and they're on the defensive across battleground states and some solid Bush04 states (and heading for a 6-10+ seat loss in the Senate). That better be one hell of a revamp McCain is planning...

Your second link doesn't work for me, but I can't diasgree with what much of what you're saying. The mythical story of the Bradley exit polls predicting a healthy win for Bradley and then the actual votes delivering a defeat does become distorted and exaggerated each time it is told. I mention it half in jest....

McCain's toast... the Obama machine with its army of invigorated disciples, and the normal factors that weigh against incumbent governments give him no chance at all. Time to strap in and hope that our worst fears about the man who has written two biographies before having a career don't come to pass.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

That mental woman is within a missed heartbeat of the Presidency.

Well done for picking up on the element of vulgar euphemism to which I was referring...

[Lord Kangana]

Anyone who's willing to sing "bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" is clearly both a populist and a loon. And with a running mate with dubious ethics, they seem to have a perfect right-wing catch all.

I'd be amazed if they don't get a landslide once the Turkeys get to use their x.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In the interests of fairness, we might as well post another article from that website, from prominent right-wing commentator, Jonah Goldberg.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ard_o.html

[.....]

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we're a nation of "Bull" Connors.

Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' African American mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor. Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him.

I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But what often gets confused is that the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters' fear of appearing racist. There's no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are the racists. (Actual racists might lie about why they aren't voting for the black candidate, but it's unlikely they would lie about voting for him.) But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. And if voters don't keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work.

The media's obsession with race in this election is, in fact, probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only encourages non-racist people to be embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.

Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they're Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll confirms this. It claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters. According to the pollsters' statistical modeling, support for Obama is six points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I'm skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.

If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party (imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!). But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines "racist" as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.

Copyright 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[Lord Kangana]

Hmmm, not the most coherently argued point. Republicans are Republicans, Democrats are Democrats? How the hell would you have change in government if that were the case?

[BWFC_Insane]

Hmmm, not the most coherently argued point. Republicans are Republicans, Democrats are Democrats? How the hell would you have change in government if that were the case?

Its total and utter nonsense thats what it is LK.

Fact is there is a significant number of Americans who will vote Republican who are racist.

Go to the Southern states, and there is a hell of a lot of open racism in places.

They all vote Republican. But thats OK because they are on the side of "God".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's not a complicated point.

Republican racists are not relevant when considering what effect racism might have on the voting, because they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee whatever, his colour.

There's a reason Goldberg precedes that with *NEWSFLASH*.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't think its the points that are complicated to anyone, more the reasoning is a little absurd.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's not a complicated point.

Republican racists are not relevant when considering what effect racism might have on the voting, because they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee whatever, his colour.

There's a reason Goldberg precedes that with *NEWSFLASH*.

So do you think there are more voters who will vote for Obama because he is black, than there are who will vote for McCain because Obama is black?

Essentially the inherent racism of republicans is fine is what you're saying.

To be honest given the inherent and appalling racism that is still rife in the USA I think its probably only fair that some people might be so ashamed they vote for the black candidate.

As for using the "better candidate" card, I imagine you would have supported Gore because other than in the eyes of a retard he was clearly the better candidate?