Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.
He has significant momentum in the polls and the predicted electoral college victories. I can't see this turning around in a week. For those who are interested in tracking the daily polls statistics leading up to next week, I find these provide good insight:
JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.
JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.
I think the Bradley Effect is still a threat.
I agree. We will know for sure Nov. 5th. In the meantime, Obama supporters should keep the pedal to the metal no matter how good the polls look.
I assume that a NASCAR message board would have the oppositee results, but I wonder how the vote would go if this were a golf message board instead of a track and field message board.
jazzcyclist wrote:I assume that a NASCAR message board would have the oppositee results, but I wonder how the vote would go if this were a golf message board instead of a track and field message board.
Good point, jazz. I suppose I exist in a closed (non-golf) environment but I am surprised at the disparity of the vote here and I too wondered about the demographics of the posters.
The demographics of who is polled is, of course, the reason for the wide range of results. Well, that and the fact people lie in polls to avoid confrontation or to deliberately create misleading data.
The only meaningful poll with be next Tuesday.
JRM wrote:I believe that Obama is to this election as Bolt was to the Olympic sprints. It's not a question of whether he'll win: rather, it's by how much.
I think the Bradley Effect is still a threat.
I question whether or not the Bradley Effect is real, particularly in this day and age. A lot has changed in 25+ years. From a cursory perusal of the data, it seems that there is just as much of a case for no Bradley effect, or even a reverse-Bradley effect, in modern elections with non-white candidates.
This is the fifth election in a row that pitted a war veteran against someone who's never fought in a war, and if Obama wins, the war veterans will be 0-5.
jazzcyclist wrote:This is the fifth election in a row that pitted a war veteran against someone who's never fought in a war
It's a stretch to say Gore "fought" in a war. A big stretch.
He never came under hostile fire, but he did receive a combat medal that goes to everyone who serves in a combat theater, and once you're there, anything can happen. For example, a friend of mine joined the Air Force in order to avoid action, but he ended up receiving a purple heart from wounds received when his base came under artillery fire during the Tet Offensive. Furthermore, Al Gore enlisted in the Army, unlike another famous, Ivy League son of privilege who joined the National Guard, and he was one of only a dozen of the 1,115 Harvard graduates in the Class of 1969 who went to Vietnam. Gore was lucky enough to avoid getting assigned to an infantry unit, but that's just the luck of the draw. I have another friend who was drafted into the Army, but by the luck of the draw ended up going to Germany instead Vietnam, while guys he went to basic training with came home in body bags.
it is true that in the last few election cycles military service seems to not be viewed as a big plus (think Clinton Dole or Obama McCain) as it had been previously. This could represent a real change in US public/demographic interests, temperament and values.
paulthefan wrote:it is true that in the last few election cycles military service seems to not be viewed as a big plus (think Clinton Dole or Obama McCain) as it had been previously. This could represent a real change in US public/demographic interests, temperament and values.
Having been in the military, I can tell you that military service is a plus and a minus. You have to put the creative side of your brain in cold-storage most of the time. There is not much room for 'vision'. There's lots of room, however, for 'do this because I told you so' (which is, of course, necessary in time of war, but we're not always at war - it just seems as if we are )
EPelle wrote:A greater part of Europe also believes that you are always at war.
Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors. Here's the list:
China (1945-46 & 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954 & 1960), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador & Nicaragua (1980's), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999).
Which might go some way to explaining some of the US's unpopularity abroad.
Of course, you can't say much for Britain either (cancels holiday abroad).
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).
The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.
And the fact that only one of those interventions (which I think was necessary). resulted in a democratically elected government - in Yugoslavia.
Other Western countries have done similar things - Britain, France & Australia have intervened in quite a few places as well. With greater power comes greater responsibility but also greater opportunity for abuse. Goodness only knows Britain did many dreadful things when we were top dog. Although I think we wanted to "civilize" rather than "democratize"! Plus ca change, etc, etc!
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Goodness only knows Britain did many dreadful things when we were top dog. Although I think we wanted to "civilize" rather than "democratize"! Plus ca change, etc, etc!
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Winston Churchill wrote:I don't admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I don't admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I don't admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
jazzcyclist wrote:The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.
ALL of them were for both. To say they were devoid of any sense of altruism is far more cynical than the issues merit.
I respectfully disagree. The first Iraq War was done for both reasons as was WWII, but I don't see any altruistism at all for the second Iraq War. On the other hand, I see no ulterior motives for our involvement in WWI, Liberia, Somalia and Korsovo. Now I'll admit that my historical knowledge of some of these conflicts isn't as thorough as it could be, but perhaps you can fill me in and change my mind.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:Somewhere on the 'net there's a list of all the countries the US has bombed between 1945-1999 - it's a rather famous postcard for peace protestors.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stand by and do nothing as atrocities mount elsewhere, we are cowards for letting evil reign. If we go in and get physical, we are the World Police and the biggest bullies on the block. I would rather us err on the side of defending the weak, than worry about how the rest of the world will view our actions. Not that we haven't made some pretty bad decisions, as I believe our current Iraq War is (Iraq One was less iffy).
The problem is that most of those bombings were for our geopolitical self-interest, not altruistic reasons.
Exactly.
You have atrocities like Rwanda and Zimbabwe where nobody does anything because it's not in anyones self interest to do so.
I mean, has there ever been a more heinous regime than Afghanistan under the Taliban. It wasn't until 9/11 that the US reacted. I was in full agreement with the action in that case but it should have taken place years before.
As for Iraq the idea that the whole rthing was done for humanitarian reasons is laughable.
To give credit where it's due I do think the intervention in Yugoslavia was entirely justifiable and done for the correct humanitarian reasons rather than what anyone was getting out of it.
)
