• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

OT - Politics

S

SFP

New member
McCain had to have made the classiest speech ever for a candidate that lost in a presidential election.

We now need to hope that the newly elected President Obama can get this nation back to the path of prosperity, beyond the wallets of special interest and truly govern from a centrist perspective to unite this so divided country that was polarized with the politics of the Bush administration.
 
SanFranciscoPete said:
McCain had to have made the classiest speech ever for a candidate that lost in a presidential election.

We now need to hope that the newly elected President Obama can get this nation back to the path of prosperity, beyond the wallets of special interest and truly govern from a centrist perspective to unite this so divided country that was polarized with the politics of the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

I know many on here do not hold this belief, but I for one, believe the people of the United States elected the correct man for the job ahead of us.

The past 8 years have been a complete disaster in so many areas, and the view of the United States has never been worse world wide. Barack Obama is the right man to help heal the wounds of the previous out of control administration.

Hope won as did change.
 
Here's a little of a stumper..........

After all the stories of people voting early in droves, standing in lines for hours, overloading the voting capabilities in many states, etc...

Wouldn't you have thought that maybe 2 or 3 times as many people voted in this election as ever before??

The truth is that there really were record numbers who came out to vote...BUT......


NOWHERE near as many as I would have though given all those impressive news report about massive numbers that suggested 200% and 300% more people than in past years.


reference....

2004 Presidential Election...
Bush 62.03 million total votes
Kerry 59.03 million total votes
sum..........121 million total votes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html

2008 Presidential Election
"It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election,
based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27552153/

thus only about 13% more people voted this election than last one...
(136.6/121)

**and they are already taking into account the ones yet to be counted.
BUT they even moved my polling place to a gymnasium that is 10 times larger than the little room it's been in before becasue of expectations of HUGE numbers.

so how does a 13% jump account for such massive numbers reported, such long lines, such descriptions of huge turnout?
Keep in mind, just the numbers given in the press for the massive, huge turnout at "early voting" should have swallowed up all those 13% more voters and left yesterday pretty unscathed.

shouldn't the system as it's always been have been able to handle a 13% jump easily without moving to huge gymnasiums and hiring extra poll attendants and running out of ballots, etc....?

Anyone have an explanation?
My polling place had 20 or so people there before me at 6AM before opening and I have never even had one in past elections, and by the time we all got in and got our ballots, there was a total of probably 40 there (when never more than 3-4 were ever present at that time when I've voted before.)
 
I believe that Obama will have a really tough time getting us out of this mess that Bush left us! I hope he keeps to his word that he will govern for the people, disregard special interest groups and push for policies in which there will be large support from both sides of the aisle.

I'm an economic conservative and in most circles a social liberal (libertarian). It's funny though here in SF my views are considered conservative and I'm sure in Peoria I'd be a liberal. My real passion is the cause of small farmers and business in which I believe the last 30 years of policies and politics have eroded the ability for these groups to thrive. Our true economic engine has more to do with the welfare of these groups then large corporate welfare. IMHO

I will regardless of who I voted for hold out hope that President elect Obama will do the right things but I will also be keeping an eye out that he does not go back to politics of old. This would be the same if McCain would have won.
 
Chico said:
I thought this was a sports related board.
Click to expand...

It is but occasionally we go off on another direction and in the title we usually lead with OT which stands for Off Topic! Hopefully this topic did not ruin your day if so I apologize.

BTW...Some people find that politics is a sport!
 
SanFranciscoPete said:
McCain had to have made the classiest speech ever for a candidate that lost in a presidential election.

We now need to hope that the newly elected President Obama can get this nation back to the path of prosperity, beyond the wallets of special interest and truly govern from a centrist perspective to unite this so divided country that was polarized with the politics of the Bush administration.
Click to expand...


During the campaign I lost a lot of respect for McCain because of his mudslinging, after watching his speech I then regained that respect. I wish he would have taken the high road not not took his campaign in the gutter. Another huge mistake was his choice of a running mate. It was reported today on FOX that she didn't know Africa was a continent and didn't even know what countries were in NAFTA.
 
Just a couple of points here..

SFP, you are right on with Mccain's speach.
--very classy and reminiscent of the Mccain of 8 years ago.imo--

I'm on board with you Houstontxbrave... I will add that like him or not, Obama has run one of the most organized campaigns that I have ever seen. The Reagan campaigns in the 1980's were the closest that I have seen from an organizational standpoint.

I will also add that I browse the Duke Basketball report message boards. That site has a separate forum in which they discuss political topics etc. There are some very interesting topics on those threads. I would much rather have an "OT" thread like this thread in which the topic is clearly defined than some other threads that I have seen that have veiled references to a political topic etc. I am not meaning to bash anyone with that last statement, but I believe that there are some very interesting and informed people on this board whom we could engage in civil discussions/debates.
 
Beninator I really enjoy thoughtful debates with intelligent, informed and civil people regardless of their political affiliation. There may be a chance that they can convince me to their point of view and at least I will be able to see another persons rational thought process.

I loved the McCain 8 years ago. The one who said health care reform will only come when you eliminate the special interest of the Republican's Insurance companies and the Democrat's Trial Lawyers from the equation. I have no idea why once he wrapped up the Republican nomination we did not see that guy again. I believe the 2000 McCain would have at least ran a much more energized campaign. I'll leave Palin out of my discussions because she to me is not why I would ever vote for a Republican. Social conservatives to the far right scare the bejesus out of me.

Obama ran one of the most disciplined well run campaigns in history, even more then Reagan IMO. Did you ever think a Democrat would ever raise that much more money then a Republican? One well oiled machine!
 
SFP, it takes more than a post by you concerning an election to ruin my day. The wind on the golf course today ruined my day. Oops, I'm talking sports on a sports board.
 
If Obama's job as president comes anywhere close to his skills as an orator, this country will be much better off than it is now.
 
SFP, from your last post, I completely agree.

The one thing that will be very interesting, is to see what the republican party will do with their leadership and party. Will the R's stay to the right, or will they move to the center or center-right?
 
Beninator said:
SFP, from your last post, I completely agree.

The one thing that will be very interesting, is to see what the republican party will do with their leadership and party. Will the R's stay to the right, or will they move to the center or center-right?
Click to expand...

I am a Democrat but follow politics with heavy interest. I do not see any way the Republican party can not move more center/ and or just right of center. That is where decision votes lie, generally.

I really am interested in what the feeling are now after the fact on McCain. Was he actually the right choice for a presidental nominee? The nomination of McCain was following a person who is many aspect extremely similar, not just in policies both foreign and domestic but in age. Was it smart to follow up Bush with a man even older? Let face it many times appearance has more to do with votes then does intelligence or policy.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to find a man who was younger, to do as the Repulbicans did with Palin and try to energize their base, or even female voters.

McCain though made huge mistakes, from his decisions on the VP, to how he appeared in the debates. He came off visually as very bitter and condesending. He non verbal and even when he gave Obama eye contact, showed, a man who has little if any respect for his oppenent.

The choise of Palin was brillant for about 1 week. He stole headlines and in the begining stole "Hilary" votes. But he did not do his homework on her. He was nominated in March, decided on her in August and I am convince he did not know her. The choice he made in her, and then her becoming a huge factor, and maybe more became she became what people talked about, that choice really seemed extremely short sighted and not what was best for his overall campaign.

The Republicans in my opinion must go back and look at in their center and right of center and those independents and look hard at how they voted and more importantly why they voted. The campaign by McCain really got out of hand in many ways, the Republicans must find a way to speak to young voters and those who are on the fringes of their party or are undecided voters with no political affliation.

By the way, it is really sad that the voters of Illinois do not get to elect who will replace Obama as the next Senator to the state. It is horrible that a person such as the current Illinois Govenor is given the ability to choose who that person is, and that person can be himself or a likely opponent in 2 years. My money is he knows he is unelectable and why not just take a new job in Washington. Sicking that he could be a Senator.
 
HoustonBrave I 100% agree with you! The problem with the Republican party is that they have been lead by the neo-conservatives and ultra conservative religious right, the extreme element of our country. Until they create a palatable platform for those in the center they will continue to lose their base.

The Democrats need to watch out that they do not swing the pendulum way to the other side or a similar circumstance will occur.

I'm a true Independent with inclinations of a fiscal conservative and a social liberal libertarian. Neither party for the longest time has satisfied my political wishes. Bill Clinton's later year legislative policies came close but had trouble to lead due to Monica-gate. Right now the politicians I like are non-electable for one reason or the other. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg.

May Obama lead with centralist policies, if he does I will stand behnd him with my support, if not I will write him and my congress woman with the same matter I wrote about our current President.
 
SanFranciscoPete said:
HoustonBrave I 100% agree with you! The problem with the Republican party is that they have been lead by the neo-conservatives and ultra conservative religious right, the extreme element of our country.
Click to expand...

----------------
I greatly disagree. I would say that 90% of elected republicans that say they are religious are just paying lip service to get elected. That's why you find so many scandals within the party. These individuals are VERY far from being ultra conservative. If you saw ultra conservatives in washington you would see abortion abolished, no strict gun laws, outlaw of pornography and X rated films, removal of the patriot act, removal of welfare, overall government shrinkage, and higher spending on defense.

In the eyes of an ultra-conservative Bush was a liberal. This is all coming from my experience with religious conservatives.
----------------


As far as Obama goes, I don't think there was any way that a republican could have won this election because of the way the economy has been acting. Over the past 20 years people think of democratic administrations when they think of political leadership in times of great economic condition. I think this was the main factor leading to Obama being elected.

sanfranpete, I do agree that the small business is a HUGE factor in keeping our economy thriving. Unfortunately Obama's tax plan appears to be a detriment to them. IMO if Obama plans to accomplish any of the welfare and economic goals he told everyone then taxes for everyone will go up. Hopefully he will be able to right the economy and get it growing again, but this will take some time to fix and recover from.

My true wish for America is to NOT be a dual party country. For the wide range of people, minorities, religions, etc. that we have in America, having two parties represent them is retarded. We need a good 20 parties. Anymore the two parties keep getting more and more similar, and even know you here "bipartisan" by every politician at almost every public venue. Yes we need to work together to get through some problems, but when the two parties become so similar you can't really tell them apart representation is greatly diminished. However, the likelihood of more major parties is practically 0.
 
tornado said:
Here's a little of a stumper..........

After all the stories of people voting early in droves, standing in lines for hours, overloading the voting capabilities in many states, etc...

Wouldn't you have thought that maybe 2 or 3 times as many people voted in this election as ever before??

The truth is that there really were record numbers who came out to vote...BUT......


NOWHERE near as many as I would have though given all those impressive news report about massive numbers that suggested 200% and 300% more people than in past years.


reference....

2004 Presidential Election...
Bush 62.03 million total votes
Kerry 59.03 million total votes
sum..........121 million total votes.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922901.html

2008 Presidential Election
"It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election,
based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27552153/

thus only about 13% more people voted this election than last one...
(136.6/121)

**and they are already taking into account the ones yet to be counted.
BUT they even moved my polling place to a gymnasium that is 10 times larger than the little room it's been in before becasue of expectations of HUGE numbers.

so how does a 13% jump account for such massive numbers reported, such long lines, such descriptions of huge turnout?
Keep in mind, just the numbers given in the press for the massive, huge turnout at "early voting" should have swallowed up all those 13% more voters and left yesterday pretty unscathed.

shouldn't the system as it's always been have been able to handle a 13% jump easily without moving to huge gymnasiums and hiring extra poll attendants and running out of ballots, etc....?

Anyone have an explanation?
My polling place had 20 or so people there before me at 6AM before opening and I have never even had one in past elections, and by the time we all got in and got our ballots, there was a total of probably 40 there (when never more than 3-4 were ever present at that time when I've voted before.)
Click to expand...

a partial explanation from cnn.com

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/07/record-turnout/#more-29833
 
Stryker said:
My true wish for America is to NOT be a dual party country. For the wide range of people, minorities, religions, etc. that we have in America, having two parties represent them is retarded. We need a good 20 parties. Anymore the two parties keep getting more and more similar, and even know you here "bipartisan" by every politician at almost every public venue. Yes we need to work together to get through some problems, but when the two parties become so similar you can't really tell them apart representation is greatly diminished. However, the likelihood of more major parties is practically 0.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I asked the question. IMO, if the R's move to the center-right, they run the risk of being similar in many ways to the D's with few exceptions... However, if the R's move to the right, they can differentiate themselves, but their margin of error for an Electoral College victory is narrow as they will loose the west coast and will still probably lose a majority of the east coast. (and myself) States such as Florida, North Carolina, and even Montana are starting to show a change with the population demographic.. --this is of course under current conditions--
 
I believe if a party ever existed that truly was fiscally responsible, not in the hands of special interest and socially libertarian in bent respecting the wishes of non-government and religious social agenda but not making them part of policy but the out come of their austere objectives policies I would join them in a heart beat.

Example: We can have people who are anti-abortionist and woman Rights movement together because what both have in common is that neither one want a woman to have to make that choice. Now creating programs to educate and prevent unwanted pregnancies should be put in place that can realistically meet these goals. Just saying, "do not have sex" and "here are condoms use them" are polar opposite plans that are not really working. Combine a culture of true education, prevention and a dash of common sense morality may do the trick. IMHO
 
back to the mvc

back to the mvc

It looks like Obama has won Creighton's congressional district and one electoral vote in Nebraska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top