WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now closed)


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:30 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think Romney's problem is that the folks in the middle didn't trust him based on his flip-flopping. No one knew why he stood.

Yes, he flip-flopped a lot, as did the previous losing candidates McCain and Kerry. All three won the primaries in part because they were considered the mainstream candidate, all three kept flip-flopping, all three lost the general election. Maybe there's a pattern there.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:14 am

Marlow wrote:[While Obama is my choice, I am frustrated with his leadership right now, as I was with Jimmy Carter. It's almost as if he's too good a man to be a good President. On the other hand, Mitt offered me zero of substance. America deserves (needs!) strong positive visionary leadership. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton (and to some degree Obama) did that. FDR was that in spades. The rest . . . not so much.

You summed up my sentiments exactly. Amen Marlow!
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby preston » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:20 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:[While Obama is my choice, I am frustrated with his leadership right now, as I was with Jimmy Carter. It's almost as if he's too good a man to be a good President. On the other hand, Mitt offered me zero of substance. America deserves (needs!) strong positive visionary leadership. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton (and to some degree Obama) did that. FDR was that in spades. The rest . . . not so much.

You summed up my sentiments exactly. Amen Marlow!

Kennedy, may he rest in peace, was given a lot of credit for things he didn't do - it was a benefit of being assassinated (and I don't mean "benefit" that it was good). We now know that he taped everyone's conversations in the White House; he wasn't nearly as strong on Missiles in Cuba; and he MLK and other civil rights leaders were incredibly frustrated by his pace. Again, he wasn't the strong President some make him out to be. My point, I guess, is that all of these men must make compromises because it's the essence of a strong democracy. Obama needs to be cut a little slack (though I agree with jazz and Marlow).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Pego » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:22 am

I don't know if it means anything, but I think it is interesting that neither Romney nor Ryan carried their own state.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby kuha » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:27 am

Marlow wrote:My take-away from this election is the same as kuha's: the Republican Party is broken and, for the common good, needs radical fixing. America's strength is the 2-party system - conservatives and progressives (liberal is a misidentification). The Reps are moribund in the mid-20th Century, which was a good time, but the national consciousness has been irreversibly raised and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. I want the Reps to have a viable national platform, but as time goes by and their platform stays stuck in the past, they're just going to lose more and more credibility. I could vote for a TRUE moderate Rep (my choice for the House is one) if s/he had some tether to reality, but Mitt drank the Kool-Aid of the wing-nuts of the party and it cost him the election.

While Obama is my choice, I am frustrated with his leadership right now, as I was with Jimmy Carter. It's almost as if he's too good a man to be a good President. On the other hand, Mitt offered me zero of substance. America deserves (needs!) strong positive visionary leadership. In my lifetime, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton (and to some degree Obama) did that. FDR was that in spades. The rest . . . not so much.


Well stated. The Repub party is just severely damaged now and desperately needs to reinvent itself. Think about it: We have a 7.9 unemployment rate; something like 55% of the population says the country "is on the wrong track"; and depending on how you measure it, more than 50% of the public claims to "hate" the ACA. The incumbent is a black man with a weird name who perhaps 20% of the population "thinks" is a radical Muslim, business-busting, nation-hating, illegitimate alien. And there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions. AND YET, the Repub nominee still fails! If there was ever a "gimme" election, one would have THOUGHT it was this one.

These were not "normal" circumstances, and this can't be seen as a "normal" loss. The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of plutocrats, honest small businessmen, (rhetorical, at least) budget hawks, military adventurers, Any Randian Libertarians, anti-science folks, nativists, religious fundamentalists, racists (yes), extreme social conservatives, and a few other odds and ends. A good percentage of this amalgamation is either very backward looking or pretty purely ideological. I'm all for a sane and responsible "conservative" party, but we haven't had one in quite a while. And that's a real loss for the country.

I'm certainly less disappointed than Marlow with O's performance to date, given the astonshing barriers he had to deal with. But I certainly would like to see a more efficient and effective process in the next 4 years.
kuha
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:35 am

26mi235 wrote: because of those ideological principles.

It depends on which principles you're talking about. The GOP candidates in Missuori and Indiana lost because of their social conservative views on abortion. The GOP candidate in Arizona, on the other hand, may be one of the most consistent fiscal conservatives, based on his opposition to earmarks; and he won.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Pego » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:45 am

kuha wrote:
Well stated. The Repub party is just severely damaged now and desperately needs to reinvent itself. Think about it: We have a 7.9 unemployment rate; something like 55% of the population says the country "is on the wrong track"; and depending on how you measure it, more than 50% of the public claims to "hate" the ACA. The incumbent is a black man with a weird name who perhaps 20% of the population "thinks" is a radical Muslim, business-busting, nation-hating, illegitimate alien. And there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions. AND YET, the Repub nominee still fails! If there was ever a "gimme" election, one would have THOUGHT it was this one.

These were not "normal" circumstances, and this can't be seen as a "normal" loss. The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of plutocrats, honest small businessmen, (rhetorical, at least) budget hawks, military adventurers, Any Randian Libertarians, anti-science folks, nativists, religious fundamentalists, racists (yes), extreme social conservatives, and a few other odds and ends. A good percentage of this amalgamation is either very backward looking or pretty purely ideological. I'm all for a sane and responsible "conservative" party, but we haven't had one in quite a while. And that's a real loss for the country.

I'm certainly less disappointed than Marlow with O's performance to date, given the astonshing barriers he had to deal with. But I certainly would like to see a more efficient and effective process in the next 4 years.


I am one of those "really disappointed" (more by the Congress than the President, but both), but I fully agree with everything you said above.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:54 am

kuha wrote:The Repubs are an ill-fitting coalition of

Isn't that inherent in a two party system?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:57 am

preston wrote:Not exactly true. It's not like Joe Lieberman (CT), Ben Nelson (NE) or Blanche Lincoln (AR) who was looking at the demographics in Arkansas were "on board" from the beginning. Add in Bart Stupak and others in the House and Obama presided over a majority of democrats who were not "loyal" to his agenda.

I don't think folks like Liberman and Nelson were any more recalcitrant than folks like Ross Barnett and George Wallace, who IMO were even more dug-in, but LBJ still broke them. In March 1965, LBJ called Wallace up to the White House for some "recalibration" on the issue of voting rights. Of course Wallace went in with the attitude that nothing LBJ could do would make him back down. However, at the end, Wallace backed down just like all the rest and when he got back to Alabama he told an aide that if LBJ had kept him in the Oval Office any longer he would have had him marching for civil rights.
preston wrote:Realistically, yes, but metaphorically no. Healthcare to the fringe is no different than civil rights because they're STILL fighting that war. I read yesterday a theme that I've read several times over the last few years: the belief that President Obama is not legitimate. One woman is quoted as saying that she is "tired of him flying in MY airplane!" Comparing LBJ and Obama and the situations they faced is night and day, imo.

I agree with there not being a comparison, because Republicans today are only working to overturn a healthcare law through the democratic process, they aren't openly defying the U.S. Constituion and federal laws and court orders. Even their voter suppresion efforts are being done using the tools of democracy, not at by violence the way it was done in in the 1960's. Remember, civil rights often had to be enforced at gunpoint by sending in federal troops and U.S. Marshalls and it wasn't uncommon for entire counties to be put under de facto military occupation to enforce the law.

preston wrote:One other thing: it is easy to blame the Republicans but I put the blame squarely on Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. They created a nihilism among republicans that Limbaugh and talk radio could never reach; making the Fox view point legitimate, but woefully inacurate at the most liberal definition of the word acurate. Add in Drudge, Red State and others ... in shorter: the republicans will be under no compulsion to be civil or compromise. Sensible republicans will have to break away from the hate meanstest imposed upon republican candidates.

There may not have been any right-wing media riling up the rejectionists the way FOX News and Limbaugh do today, but it wasn't needed since the segregationist politicians themselves did it themselves in stadiums and convention halls that would make Hitler blush.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:03 am

aaronk wrote:As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run...I am hesitant to state my reasons...

You should have quit while you were pondering...
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:06 am

preston wrote:Kennedy, may he rest in peace, was given a lot of credit for things he didn't do - it was a benefit of being assassinated (and I don't mean "benefit" that it was good). We now know that he taped everyone's conversations in the White House; he wasn't nearly as strong on Missiles in Cuba; and he MLK and other civil rights leaders were incredibly frustrated by his pace. Again, he wasn't the strong President some make him out to be.

Well said. I let my parents and an uncle listen to some of those tapes once it made them nauseous when they got to hear firsthand how weak he was on civil rights, and how willing he was to accomodate the segregationsts in the interest of maintaining/restoring calm.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:07 am

DrJay wrote:On FOX, Sarah Palin said "It's a perplexing time for us..." if things continue likely the early trends are showing. What's so perplexing about losing, about the electorate voting for the other guy's platform? When that happens, you lost. Pretty simple.

Sarah perplexed? Again? Say it ain't so.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:13 am

j-a-m wrote:
aaronk wrote:As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run

Not sure if she would've won, but I agree that she would've had a better chance than Romney. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, Romney was just too similar to the current President.

Totally disagree. The electorate is moderate with fringe elements. None of the GOP candidates looked moderate in the primaries, and Sarah would have looked right of them. Romney had to move to the middle (etch-a-sketch) to win. Any Presidential candidate has to! The GOP doesn't get it, yet, but Clinton did and hence the recent Democrat successes. Congress on the other hand can be filled to the brim with whackos.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:17 am

tandfman wrote:
26mi235 wrote:As an addendum, the popular vote is now 2,450,000 margin for Obama and may change by another million due to the location of the remaining votes to be counted. So much for a 'narrow' victory without a popular-vote mandate'.

On the other hand, had Obama won the presidency and actually lost the popular vote, there might have been a bi-partisan movement to get rid of the electoral college. IMHO, that would be a good thing.

That should have happened in 2000 but didn't. Why? Small states love it. You can be a game breaker! Without it the media would focus on the North East, West Coast, Great lakes, and leave out the south and the mid west.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:26 am

jeremyp wrote:Romney had to move to the middle

Four years ago they said that about McCain, four years before that they said it about Kerry, and it keeps not working out too well. Now at least three consecutive elections were lost by the candidate who was more of a flip-flopper than his oppponent. Maybe voters would appreciate some consistency in a candidate's opinions.

In terms of strategy, Obama's biggest weakness was the unpopularity of his healthcare law. And Romney was the one candidate who couldn't focus his campaign on that issue, because he did essentially the same back when he was Governor.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:37 am

Now that the election is over, I really hope that Obama will quit treating Benjamin Netanyahu with kid gloves. If ever there was a world leader who needs to be put in his place, it's him. To quote Bill Clinton after his first encounter with Bibi, "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mney_.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby preston » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:44 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Now that the election is over, I really hope that Obama will quit treating Benjamin Netanyahu with kid gloves. If ever there was a world leader who needs to be put in his place, it's him. To quote Bill Clinton after his first encounter with Bibi, "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mney_.html

ABSOLUTELY! He's up for election in about 3 months, it would be wise for Israel to vote him out.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:46 am

j-a-m wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Romney had to move to the middle

Four years ago they said that about McCain, four years before that they said it about Kerry, and it keeps not working out too well. Now at least three consecutive elections were lost by the candidate who was more of a flip-flopper than his oppponent. Maybe voters would appreciate some consistency in a candidate's opinions.

In terms of strategy, Obama's biggest weakness was the unpopularity of his healthcare law. And Romney was the one candidate who couldn't focus his campaign on that issue, because he did essentially the same back when he was Governor.

The problem with the GOP is they either move from right field to the middle or as McCain, Romney from the middle to the right to the left. Kerry never moved much. As to the health care law or stimulus, or bank bail out, or most of Obama's programs they were very poorly sold to the public. In fact what surprises me most about this election is that Obama won while doing a p poor job of selling his position, and that could only be due to Romney being viewed as even vaguer.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jeremyp » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:50 am

preston wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Now that the election is over, I really hope that Obama will quit treating Benjamin Netanyahu with kid gloves. If ever there was a world leader who needs to be put in his place, it's him. To quote Bill Clinton after his first encounter with Bibi, "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mney_.html

ABSOLUTELY! He's up for election in about 3 months, it would be wise for Israel to vote him out.

Israel has sold out to the far right and Bibi needs them and they need him. I agree that now that Obama has won he needs to get bolder. Israel for one, Cuba another (end the sanctions), and a bold plan to cut the deficit while keeping the necessary military cuts, a plan to shore up medicare (everybody pays more, rich opt out).
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:53 am

jeremyp wrote:
aaronk wrote:As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run...I am hesitant to state my reasons...

You should have quit while you were pondering...


Miss Half-Term! The funniest thing here. We all need a laugh... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:00 am

kuha wrote:
The Repub party is just severely damaged now and desperately needs to reinvent itself.


Good luck with that. The Republican Party on the national level has primarily one interest and that is the very, very wealthy pay little or no taxes. And has long as the Koch brothers and their ilk are funding the GOP that is not going to change.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Pego » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:03 am

preston wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Now that the election is over, I really hope that Obama will quit treating Benjamin Netanyahu with kid gloves. If ever there was a world leader who needs to be put in his place, it's him. To quote Bill Clinton after his first encounter with Bibi, "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mney_.html

ABSOLUTELY! He's up for election in about 3 months, it would be wise for Israel to vote him out.


Nothing would please me more.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby preston » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:04 am

jeremyp wrote:Israel has sold out to the far right and Bibi needs them and they need him. I agree that now that Obama has won he needs to get bolder. Israel for one, Cuba another (end the sanctions), and a bold plan to cut the deficit while keeping the necessary military cuts, a plan to shore up medicare (everybody pays more, rich opt out).

The real "red line" needs to be the abandonment/dismantling of settlements AND the removal of nuclear weaponry from Israel. (the big "wink" needs to end) As long as Israel has a weapon, Iran will never stop trying to get one. Sanctions be damned.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:06 am

jeremyp wrote:Israel has sold out to the far right and Bibi needs them and they need him. I agree that now that Obama has won he needs to get bolder.

If I were Obama, I would go to Israel and meet with opposition leaders such as Shelly Yachimovich and ask what he can do to help them politically? After Bibi's meddling in our politics since Obama was elected, including appearing in anti-Obama TV commercials, which ran in south Florida, I think turnabout is fair play.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Cooter Brown » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:18 am

Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

About the only demographic the GOP doesn't offend on at least some level is the aging and shrinking rich fat white guys demographic.
Last edited by Cooter Brown on Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:19 am

preston wrote:
jeremyp wrote:Israel has sold out to the far right and Bibi needs them and they need him. I agree that now that Obama has won he needs to get bolder. Israel for one, Cuba another (end the sanctions), and a bold plan to cut the deficit while keeping the necessary military cuts, a plan to shore up medicare (everybody pays more, rich opt out).

The real "red line" needs to be the abandonment/dismantling of settlements AND the removal of nuclear weaponry from Israel. (the big "wink" needs to end) As long as Israel has a weapon, Iran will never stop trying to get one. Sanctions be damned.

Amen! Obama wouldn't even have to do anything proactive to stop settlement building. All it would take would be for him to withhold his veto at the U.N. the next time a settlement resolution is put on the table and the Israelis would kick Bibi to the curb faster than you can say Iranian nukes.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Daisy » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:41 am

Cooter Brown wrote:Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

I guess that is one way to look at it. In contrast, I was wondering how they could do so well.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Pego » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:44 am

Wall Street seems displeased today.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby aaronk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:47 am

Conor Dary wrote:
jeremyp wrote:
aaronk wrote:As the one lonely voice who proclaims that SARAH PALIN would have been declared President-Elect tonight...had she run...I am hesitant to state my reasons...

You should have quit while you were pondering...


Miss Half-Term! The funniest thing here. We all need a laugh... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Heh.
Apparently, people on this board either don't know how to read, or are blinded to the truth.
(Except for J-A-M, and 1 or 2 others!)
So let me TRY to educate you, by telling the TRUTH about Sarah Palin, and some SOURCES of the truth.

1. It was NOT a "half-term". She was in office 2 years and 7 months and 22 days, which is just shy of TWO-THIRDS of her term, not half!

2. Why did she resign!! So MANY misconceptions about this. But all you need do to find the TRUTH is to read Chapter Five of her 3,000,000-selling memoir, "Going Rogue", the chapter title being "The Thumpin'". In one chapter, she DETAILS EXACTLY why she resigned!!

3. Is she an "idiot"? She's been an avid reader since she was 5 years old. She sought to improve the quality of education in Alaska while Governor. She wrote (Yes, SHE wrote them!!) 2 books, 100's of Facebook Notes, and many Tweets, not to mention op-eds in major newspapers and magazines.

4. She "lacks foreign policy experience"! Funny, they must have MISSED that about Obama in 2008!! While Governor, Sarah met with many foreign trade ministers, visited her Alaskan troops in Kuwait, Iraq, and at Camp Landstuhl, and in 2011, had a private dinner meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Also, in a speech in Denver in 2011, she outlined a 5-point Doctrine for the Use of American Military Force. Also, the general consensus is that she OUT-debated Biden in their 2008 debate, even though Joe was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and had 36 years in the Senate!!

5. She's a know-nothing on issues of consequence. Huh?? She spoke out, in speeches, FB Notes, op-eds, and interviews (Too many to list here!!) on Quantatative Easing, N. Korea, Iran, Egypt, Obamacare, Energy Independence, the US being "downgraded", the Constitution, the budget (or lack thereof!!), the trillion dollar debt and deficits, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our border and immigration problem and on and on!! As noted, she laid out a Doctrine on our military, and another 5-point Doctrine on our economy (in her Indianola, Iowa speech on Sept 3, 2011).

6. She said "You can see Russia from my house!". NOPE!! Tina Fey said that. Sarah said "You can see Russia from land here in Alaska!". And THAT is TRUE!! (Look up Big and Little Diomedes Islands!!)

Continued in the next post.
aaronk
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:51 am

Daisy wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

I guess that is one way to look at it. In contrast, I was wondering how they could do so well.


Because about 40 per cent or so of the country would have voted for the GOP no matter who the candidate was. Even Miss Half-Term.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby JRM » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:55 am

On the statistical side of things, Nate Silver's model proves to be virtually flawless. He was 50 for 50 on his state predictions, and the popular vote tally is looking good too.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby JRM » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:57 am

Conor Dary wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

I guess that is one way to look at it. In contrast, I was wondering how they could do so well.


Because about 40 per cent or so of the country would have voted for the GOP no matter who the candidate was. Even Miss Half-Term.


Well, it's probably more appropriate to say that a significant portion would have voted against Obama (the real motivation).
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:59 am

JRM wrote:On the statistical side of things, Nate Silver's model proves to be virtually flawless. He was 50 for 50 on his state predictions, and the popular vote tally is looking good too.


Sam Wang at PEC did excellent also. With even more confidence. He had the chances of an Obama win at near 99% for about 10 days or so.

    The popular vote is Obama 51.1% to Romney 48.9%. Again, this exactly matches my prediction, which was state polls with a little Bayesian help from national polls.

http://election.princeton.edu/

About 3 weeks ago I stopped reading the pundits, etc. And only paid attention to Silver and Wang. So I was pretty relaxed yesterday morning.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby aaronk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:01 am

Continued from previous post.

7. She had an 88% approval rating, the highest of any Governor in the USA.

8. As Governor, she took on...and BEAT...the Big Three oil companies. (Read the book "Sarah Takes On Big Oil" by Kay Cashman and Kristen Nelson, or see the Steve Bannon documentary movie, "The Undefeated" from 2011, for a detailed account!) She passed AGIA and ACES, which paved the way for the largest private sector infrastructure project in N.American history, and for returning a large chunk of oil profits back to the people who deserved it, the Alaskan people! She also passed the most sweeping ethics bill in Alaskan history, helping to clean up what had been one of the most corrupt governments in America!!

9. "Game Change", the movie, is one big fat LIE!! Want the TRUTH about the 2008 campaign?? Read Chapter Four of "Going Rogue"! It's right there before your eyes, written by the central character herself!

10. There's so much more. She NEVER banned books from the Wasilla library, or even TRIED to! She followed the Alaska Constitution to the letter, as evidenced by her rejecting a repeal of a law allowing benefits for gay and lesbian couples. (BTW, one of her lifetime friends is a lesbian!!)

11. And finally (Though there's TONS more I could reveal!!), she, a Republican, fought against, and defeated, the Republicans in Alaska more often than she did Democrats!! She beat a 3-term incumbent Republican for Mayor. She beat a 20 year Senate vet, and incumbent Republican Governor in the primary in 2006. She, as Chairwoman of AOGCC, caused Randy Ruedrich, Commission member AND Alaska state GOP party Chairman, to resign AND be fined the largest fine against a public official in Alaska's history.
Last edited by aaronk on Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
aaronk
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:04 am

Daisy wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

I guess that is one way to look at it. In contrast, I was wondering how they could do so well.

Zackly!!

kuha wrote:there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions.

Oh MAN, I can't wait to see how Jon Stewart mercilessly skewers Fox News (sic) tonight!!! :lol:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21121
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:05 am

Pego wrote:Wall Street seems displeased today.


    There are many lists now circulating of the biggest winners and losers from the election; oddly, however, none of the lists I’ve seen mentions just how bad this result is for Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:07 am

Marlow wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:Who knew that running an anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-middle & working class, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-minority, pro-war, pro-theocracy platform would result in colossal failure?

I guess that is one way to look at it. In contrast, I was wondering how they could do so well.

Zackly!!

kuha wrote:there are media outlets that enthusiastically feed these pathetic delusions.

Oh MAN, I can't wait to see how Jon Stewart mercilessly skewers Fox News (sic) tonight!!! :lol:


Especially Rove's meltdown on Fox...hee, hee,...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/0 ... ll-in-play
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby gh » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:14 am

well, between reading all these messages here, and finding out that every Facebook friend I have is now a deep political thinker, there goes half my morning!
gh
 
Posts: 46334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby kuha » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:20 am

aaronk wrote:11. And finally (Though there's TONS more I could reveal!!)


To be as charitable as possible, I think not. She is yesterday's media flurry, nothing more. Her "moment" was brief and is long gone; she has no politcial future at all on the national stage.
kuha
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE ELECTION? (now open)

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:23 am

Conor Dary wrote:Especially Rove's meltdown on Fox...hee, hee,...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/0 ... ll-in-play

There's also a link there to Sarah Palin's take (disappointed!) and BOY does she look different! Has she lost a ton of weight? Was she sick?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21121
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests