Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
I really wish the McCain camp hadn't turned to the first women they could find when they tried to pull the "Grrl Power" card.

Me too, there are better females out there for the job I'm sure of it. I mean Palin is just as inexperienced as Obama politics wise (she's been governor 2 years, he's been a Senator 3) and with McCain's health problems she could easily end up as our president...which sort of concerns me.

I don't know, she's to much of a "beauty queen" and plays up that role way to much for my liking.
 
I actually like her. I think she's not an idiot. I think the perceived lack of political knowledge is not a bad thing, I think she's simply against politics as almost every American citizen is. I think she hates the way the system works and is trying to make a point in going against it. The whole process is ridiculous, and you all know that. The way the government works is ridiculous. Their regulations are ridiculous and their fail-to-solve-the-problem-we-failed-to-see-that-we-started behaviour is ridiculous, and you all know that, and she does too. Talk to a redneck, and you'll be appalled at how much sense his internet-deprived, 10th grade educated brain makes. The world really is as simple as "Ye shoot it 'n then ye cook it 'n then ye eat it 'n it's good." In my opinion the Alaskan--where they shoot stuff--understands how simple it actually is, whereas everyone else is too caught up in all the crap.
 
Me too, there are better females out there for the job I'm sure of it.

Certainly, and that was a major part of the problem. McCain passed over several well-regarded Senators and Congresswomen before coming to the final "shock-and-awe" choice of Palin. At least to me, if McCain really wanted a fair shot at the White House (and this is something that I've been talking about since 2006 here at AQ), he needed to stay on the moderate and otherwise independent path and make certain that he choose a similarly minded Vice President. Without a doubt, most Americans are still "right of center" under most circumstances, but McCain drove a large number of them away with the Palin pick. This will likely be a campaign at which we will study frequently in Political Science, and based on these stories of Palin "going rouge," it will likely set up a good way in which we can measure how not to manage a campaign.

Speaking of Trouble Within the GOP:

Republican Fears of Historic Obama Landslide Unleash Civil War for Future of the Party

Telegraph.co.uk
Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable front runner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

Again, this is something I've been talking about on here for a while, and something I've been discussing at length here at AQ. We are seeing a split between the factions of the GOP, and a loss in November will most certainly seal it. Between the neocons, the "base," fiscal conservatives, Libertarians and moderate/progressives like myself, the GOP is showing signs of a split, and I'm not exactly sure how to "fix it."

To that extent, I tend to agree with David Cameron approach, modernizing and otherwise bringing the GOP closer to a center line to make it more appealing to a wider variety of voters. This would certainly bring in far more of the more liberal Republicans like myself, conservative Democrats, presumably a vast majority of the middle 30% of Independents, and possibly work as a small carrot to bring back the much-needed Libertarian coalition.

Either way, as a Republican, these years following the election will be very interesting in more ways than one.
 
Certainly, and that was a major part of the problem. McCain passed over several well-regarded Senators and Congresswomen before coming to the final "shock-and-awe" choice of Palin. At least to me, if McCain really wanted a fair shot at the White House (and this is something that I've been talking about since 2006 here at AQ), he needed to stay on the moderate and otherwise independent path and make certain that he choose a similarly minded Vice President. Without a doubt, most Americans are still "right of center" under most circumstances, but McCain drove a large number of them away with the Palin pick. This will likely be a campaign at which we will study frequently in Political Science, and based on these stories of Palin "going rouge," it will likely set up a good way in which we can measure how not to manage a campaign.
Your source says something nearly different though, stating her supporters far outnumber her critics. Many of them will then vote McCain just to see her get in.
 
Reventón;3198124
Your source says something nearly different though, stating her supporters far outnumber her critics. Many of them will then vote McCain just to see her get in.

Shhhh! Don't tell them our strategery.

Remember that McCain "supporter" who made up a fake attack story and carved a B into her face? Guese what? She was also a Ron Paul "supporter".

In March, Ms. Todd was asked to leave a grass-roots group of Ron Paul supporters in Brazos County, Texas, group leader Dustan Costine said. He said Ms. Todd posed as a supporter of former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and called the local Republican committee seeking information about its campaign strategies.

“She would call the opposing campaign and pretend she was on their campaign to get information,” Mr. Costine said last night. “We had to remove her because of the tactics she displayed. After that we had nothing to do with her.”

About a month earlier, he said, Ms. Todd sent an e-mail to the Ron Paul group saying her tires were slashed and that campaign paraphernalia had been stolen from her car because she supported Mr. Paul.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm

:gasp:

I guess there really are nuts on both sides.

HA HA HA
 
Last edited:
I actually like her. I think she's not an idiot. I think the perceived lack of political knowledge is not a bad thing, I think she's simply against politics as almost every American citizen is. I think she hates the way the system works and is trying to make a point in going against it. The whole process is ridiculous, and you all know that. The way the government works is ridiculous. Their regulations are ridiculous and their fail-to-solve-the-problem-we-failed-to-see-that-we-started behaviour is ridiculous, and you all know that, and she does too. Talk to a redneck, and you'll be appalled at how much sense his internet-deprived, 10th grade educated brain makes. The world really is as simple as "Ye shoot it 'n then ye cook it 'n then ye eat it 'n it's good." In my opinion the Alaskan--where they shoot stuff--understands how simple it actually is, whereas everyone else is too caught up in all the crap.

I don't think she's really an idiot either, she just acts like one, hence the beauty queen comment. However, I do think she is just as inexperienced as Obama is, if not more so. However, both McCain and Biden have loads of experience. I suppose it all balances out, I just wish the Republicans would quit trying to paint Obama as inexperienced when their VP choice is on the same page.

I would love to give our country more credit then what you are talking about, but sadly you are right. Although I don't think having someone in office or at least a heart beat away from office that doesn't understand our countries workings is a good thing. I want the best person for the job, but it really doesn't look like I'm going to find it this year, guess I need to wait four more years.

This also begs the question, if McCain gets elected will he be able to do an eight year run? I mean he would be 80 when it was all said and done, and as I've said I believe the job of being president takes a lot out of you. Bush has aged quite a bit and so has Clinton.
 
Reventón;3198376
Um, the Democrats were doing the exact same thing.

Must not have been as outspoken about it then, I have heard no TV ads or read any articles about it. Everything I've seen the Democrats paint McCain as being Bush 2.0 (which I think he will be) and failing at economics (which he probably does, but so does Obama). Both sides are enormous hypocrites.
 
This also begs the question, if McCain gets elected will he be able to do an eight year run? I mean he would be 80 when it was all said and done, and as I've said I believe the job of being president takes a lot out of you. Bush has aged quite a bit and so has Clinton.
I'd have to say being President probably is or is close to the most stressful job in the world. Especially with all the unexpected international happenings that have gone on in the last decade. But we've had some old guys in there before. I think the old man looks pretty healthy in that golf cart picture posted before. We may find out if he can handle it or not. Nobody knows yet.
 
Reventón;3198124
Your source says something nearly different though, stating her supporters far outnumber her critics. Many of them will then vote McCain just to see her get in.

That was in reference to GOP party members in the article, which is a demonstration of the split in the party. I'm making reference to the 30% of Independents in the middle as well as those Hillary Clinton supporters who are supposed to "break the ceiling" with a Palin choice. She was a good short-term pick, not a long-term one. In the end, the McCain campaign is paying for it.
 
I know this has been brought up before, but I figure it was a good time to bring it up again. It's known as the political compass test which gives it's interpretation of where you belong on the political spectrum.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I took it as was not surprised by how I scored and is fairly close to the candidate I think I'll be voting for in the end. Here is the breakdown of candidates from what they see.

uscandidates2008.png
 
Bob Barr is more Authoritarian than Libertarian? Eh? He is running in the Libertarian party, right?

Where is Micheal Moore on that graph? I want to know that to help judge everyone else, lol.

pcgraphpng.php


Hmm. I'm not sure if that is what I was expecting or not. I guess I'm getting the words libertarian and Libertarian confused. Though, I did stop short on thinking about some of those answers. There's many that I've never considered before, so I wouldn't doubt I answered many prematurely.

EDIT: So if Bob Barr is a Libertarian, than why is his position so authoritative? Shouldn't he be a little lower on the graph, seeing as the root word of Libertarian is liberty?
 
Last edited:
How very mature, just goes to show that you can not be taken seriously.

usprimaries_2008.png


====

EDIT: So if Bob Barr is a Libertarian, than why is his position so authoritative? Shouldn't he be a little lower on the graph, seeing as the root word of Libertarian is liberty?

This is what they say.

Political Compass
The Libertarians' choice of diehard conservative Bob Barr is particularly odd. Their party is now led by an anti-choice enthusiast for the death penalty who initially supported the Patriot Act, though later regretted it. He is also pro teacher-led prayers. While Libertarians tend to place more importance on economic matters, Barr has nevertheless not displayed unbridled enthusiasm for free trade, although he ticks most of the right boxes on matters of taxation and public spending.

Barr might be a part of the Libertarian party but it doesn't mean his way of thinking is overly libertarian. I honestly do not really care for him, but I do like libertarian ideology.
 
Last edited:
That political compass sucks. The diamond one is much better.

As for Bob Barr, that score is probably more representative of his time spent in congress.
 
You going to at least put up a link for the diamond one? If you think it's better then you probably should show us where we can answer the questions for it.
 
You going to at least put up a link for the diamond one? If you think it's better then you probably should show us where we can answer the questions for it.

Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I prefer most variations of the Nolan chart. Do a search for Nolan Chart and you should get a bunch of tests.

This is a good example:

 
Here is the test I took:
http://www.quiz2d.com/index.php

Seemed to come out the same way as the political compass for me and about where I would expect to be. Although judging by this one there aren't any candidates that are even close to what I believe in.

There is also this test I found:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Which when I took it gave me more or less the same answer as the other two.
 
Authoritative = Traditional and Libertarian = Progressive.

Here is mine:

pc.png
Yeah, but the Moon waffles changes its position all the time; it's hard to vote for it, although it remains in office.

...Or is the Conservative view that the Earth, Moon, and stars are fixed in place for eternity?
 
Last edited:
Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I prefer most variations of the Nolan chart. Do a search for Nolan Chart and you should get a bunch of tests.

This is a good example:


In fact, Nolan has a quiz you can take right on their website:

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

I scored just the right of the N in "Libertarian" from your image above, although Nolan's chart is rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise to your chart example here. There were a few questions where I didn't completely agree with any of the answers.
 
For calibration purposes (since I know where I stand) I took all three tests. Each seems to be calibrated properly.

I scored prefect libertarian on Omnis's poll. I scored almost perfect libertarian on this one:

http://www.quiz2d.com/index.php

And I got a very libertarian score of (7.88,-5.23) on the Cartesian test (which was first posted) http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I felt that the Cartesian test had the worst questions, but none of the three were without bias. Omins's poll had the best questions (in my opinion) but they definitely lead you to a libertarian conclusion. The Cartesian test, though, was out in left field with questions which inherently had nothing to do with politics at all.

For example, these statements are not inherently political:

- "Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."
- "Astrology accurately explains many things."
 
I know this has been brought up before, but I figure it was a good time to bring it up again. It's known as the political compass test which gives it's interpretation of where you belong on the political spectrum.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
My wife got this test from someone on MySpace and I attempted to take it, but I had to quit because I found the wording of some of the questions to have a biased leaning of their own.


For example, the very first question:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
The interests of ethical trans-national corporations does serve humanity in the end. This question alone is making you choose between evil corporations or helping starving children, when a successful corporation can result in technologies that will allow cheaper food/energy/housing/clothing/etc and help the starving children in third-world countries.

It shows that whoever wrote this lacks a decent knowledge of economics and how capitalism does hep humanity.

On top of that, any survey that lacks a neutral option immediately fails in my opinion. I have to choose to either agree or disagree on everything, when I find the questions are setup to force me to choose between two things that I think can go together.

As for Bob Barr, that score is probably more representative of his time spent in congress.
I was thinking the same thing. Anything that does not take into account that Barr is a Conservative convert to Libertarianism is not judging him based on his current policies and ideas.

It would be equivalent to someone judging YSSMAN's vote this election on his past Republican leanings.


As for the Nolan Chart: I have always liked this one. Drawn out explanations of each position, not some yes or no and no in between.

Here is where I fall.
nolanchartpd3.jpg
 
I felt that the Cartesian test had the worst questions, but none of the three were without bias.

Read the FAQ on the page, they aren't questions they are statement. I found not of them to be biased.

===

The Nolan chart on their site gave me a similar answer as the other ones did, although like the other ones there is still no candidate that fits.
 
My history professor was talking about hearing Obama badmouth the constitution. Anyone hear anything about that?

Nothing more then a bunch of half-cocked blog posts from wack-o's, same goes if you Google "John McCain badmouthing the Constitution".


====

I'm still surprised by some of the reactions to the political compass test, there is nothing biased about the test itself. All the statements are biased though, you either agree or disagree with them, that's the point. Seriously read the FAQ it explains it quite well.
 
Last edited:
Back