U.S. Elections 2008

[MetroMan]

Tina Fey as Palin on SNL

Wow... she couldn't be any more identical. Amazing work... great skit.

 

[Roy G Biv]

LOL

You think Democrats will??

Obama was nominated by non-Democratic voters in primaries and caucuses nationwide. Wherever there was a state with a closed primary where only Democrats were allowed to nominate party leaders, Hillary won every time.

Wouldn't that logic dictate that Obama was the right choice, since he was better at securing Indepedent votes? They weren't all Republicans hoping for an Obama victory so they could beat him. Rush Limbaugh was actively campaigning for Hillary.... to ensure a GOP victory.

Would Hillary be beating McCain right now? That's an insane assumption to make. The primaries proved that Obama can run a MUCH better campaign, and raise more money.

My guess is that the Palin novelty bump wears off...

ORLANDO, Florida (AFP) - John McCain Monday insisted US economic "fundamentals" were strong despite a banking crisis and Wall Street meltdown, prompting a scathing rebuke from his White House foe Barack Obama.

"Senator McCain, what economy are you talking about?" Democratic candidate Obama said after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sent fear across the globe and spooked investors, wiping 500 points off the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


The crisis, just 50 days before the presidential election, marked a moment of peril and opportunity for the candidates, neither of whom has yet carved out a wide advantage on the economy, which polls show is the top concern of voters.


McCain said that despite the anxiety winging through global financial markets, the underlying conditions of the staggering US economy were sound.


"There has been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. People are frightened by these events," he told supporters in the battleground state of Florida.


"Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times," Senator McCain said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080915/usa/us_vote_finance_banking_2

And quotes like these (which the Dems have already made into effective ad) will only help.

 

[theowne]

Ugh, American politics suck. Just scandal after scandal and gaffe after gaffe. LIPSTICK ON A PIG!??!??

P.S. I completely agree that Obama would have made a better Vice President pick. In fact, just reverse the current ticket and you'd get a much better one. Biden/Obama vs. McCain/Palin. I don't particularly think Hillary would have been any better so I'm leaving her out. But imagine if the ticket was reversed...

In many states it doesn't matter, and in those states Obama won with help from Republicans who voted in Democratic primaries.

How exactly do you know this? If could have been that unregistered liberals were motivated by Obama to go out and vote for him, or independents, the same.

 

[Brandon716]

Would Hillary be beating McCain right now? That's an insane assumption to make.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and my educated guess based on my knowledge of US politics is that yes, Hillary Clinton would be far and away surpassing John McCain in the polls and would sweep the nation to a victory without question.

With Obama we have this doubt and he's neck-and-neck in an election that was handed to Democrats.

And yes, I don't believe the media when they said Republicans were crossing over to support Obama. I believe Republicans voted for Obama in the primaries because they saw an opportunity to nominate a more beatable Democrat.

West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and New Mexico would easily be in Clinton hands or at least competitive should she have been the nominee. Instead we have a maybe on Colorado and Virginia and know that Iowa is secure with Obama.

Instead we have the biggest disaster since Al Gore's popular vote win but electoral vote loss in 2000.

If Obama wins this election on the hair of his teeth, okay, but I don't see him winning a convincing victory just yet.

 

[Brandon716]

How exactly do you know this? If could have been that unregistered liberals were motivated by Obama to go out and vote for him, or independents, the same.

I know this because of the exit polls that suggested much of Obama's support came from Republicans in the primary, particularly in states that will never, EVER vote Democrat like Kansas or Idaho or (fill in your red state here).

 

[kEiThZ]

I wonder how the recent economic turbulence (to put it mildly) will affect the polls. Yesterday's crash brings back memories of Black Tuesday.....

 

[Brandon716]

In my opinion America in 2008 resembles nothing of the America of 1929. Americans don't care that millions of their fellow citizenry (over 300,000 last month in August alone) are losing their homes (just like what happened in 1929).

America no longer has even a remote sense of community involvement, community responsibility, or care for their neighbor in a sense that goes beyond words.

Its the selfishness that has given rise to the new era of conservatism, and it isn't going away simply because the stock market is going south, millions losing their homes, and millions losing their jobs.

As it stands today, it will probably take 30-40% of Americans being chronically unemployed with closer to 25-30-40% of Americans without a home before we see any real change.

And as bad as we need change, I hope we never see 30% unemployment or 30% of the public without homes. It would be a tragedy because all it is in our technological society is simply the largest mis-allocation of resources and wealth in the history of mankind.

Americans have a political sense of schitzophrenia. Americans want health care, but they don't want government to tax and spend for it. Americans want banks to offer mortgages that make sense, but they don't think corporations and banks should be bound to government regulation and rules and just expect it to magically happen by market magic.

Magic never worked, and if you want something you have to pay for it and spread the costs and regulate it by rules so that it doesn't become too expensive to fund.

Until Americans realize you have to pay for something in order to get it, and you have to have rules or nothing will be followed then we'll be stuck in this never-never land of the people who have everything and the people who have nothing and a shrinking middle class.

At present I don't trust the American people by clear majority to make smart decisions, and I believe it will take a national crisis on levels not seen in generations to change attitudes.

I HATE that it takes crisis before change sets in. We could so avoid crisis with being smarter before it happens.

But oh well.

 

[afransen]

It would have had more influence if it occurred two weeks hence. I suspect that, since it is mainly a US phenomenon, it will lose steam. The economy overall will of course be an issue.

 

[afransen]

Brandon, on the other side of the coin, a lot of those people whose mortgages have been foreclosed have themselves to blame to a large extent. They signed up for a mortgage they couldn't afford. Yes, the banks were waving money in their faces, but it does not excuse their fiscal imprudence.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon, on the other side of the coin, a lot of those people whose mortgages have been foreclosed have themselves to blame to a large extent. They signed up for a mortgage they couldn't afford. Yes, the banks were waving money in their faces, but it does not excuse their fiscal imprudence.

Moreover, I would add that while many are going bankrupt not many are ending up homeless. The banks are still letting many people renegotiate their mortgages, stay in their homes, etc. That's quite a contrast to what would happen in Canada.

Though I would agree with Brandon's point that there is a perverse understanding of taxes and government services over there. I have never met an American who had anything good to say about government in the US....regardless of political stripe. As my colleague told me once, the country was founded on a tax revolution, and they haven't learned to accept taxes since. I suspect its due to the fact that Americans perceive and probably receive very little benefit from their government.

I would argue that Canada faces the opposite malaise. Canadians have never met a government program they didn't like and one which did not qualify for funding. Though thankfully, that era is slowly falling behind us. There's probably a happy medium somewhere.

 

[Hydrogen]

Canadians have never met a government program they didn't like and one which did not qualify for funding.

Well, some Canadians. I've never found it too difficult to find people who have their pet hates in terms of programs. Certain arts programs certainly get backs up. Also, in my experience, it's not all that hard to find people who even have a hate-on for medicare.

 

[afransen]

There is ebb and flow, although government participation has been ebbing for 15 years in this country. Perhaps the retiring boomers will reverse that. It's my hope that when the time comes, we at least tax in an intelligent way.

 

[Brandon716]

Brandon, on the other side of the coin, a lot of those people whose mortgages have been foreclosed have themselves to blame to a large extent. They signed up for a mortgage they couldn't afford. Yes, the banks were waving money in their faces, but it does not excuse their fiscal imprudence.

A key point in what I wrote is that Americans are too stupid to understand the need for regulation so they can only get loans they can eventually pay back.

Americans don't have the concept of regulation and taxes that moderate a shaky economy.

There is one thing people aren't supposed to blame themselves for. That's what happens when someone lives or gets a job in a market where housing prices are above the local economy's average income ability to pay. These overpriced markets occur because of a lack of regulation in the housing market.

When you have nothing but unaffordable homes because of lack of good public policy, what are you to do? Go homeless?

Its not all the individuals fault.

 

[Brandon716]

Moreover, I would add that while many are going bankrupt not many are ending up homeless. The banks are still letting many people renegotiate their mortgages, stay in their homes, etc. That's quite a contrast to what would happen in Canada.

That isn't the entire story. Many people have been kicked out of their homes. And only because of emergency government policy passed earlier this year are some homes qualified for refinancing.

If Canada is a nation where everyone believes in a government program, I'm sure it'd be much easier to create a program to save people's homes in a crisis state. Remember, the US is in the midst of an economic crisis and the program that allowed people to stay in their un-affordable homes was only passed after the crisis hit. Many people were kicked out of their homes before the recent policy bailout.

 

[afransen]

A key point in what I wrote is that Americans are too stupid to understand the need for regulation so they can only get loans they can eventually pay back.

Americans don't have the concept of regulation and taxes that moderate a shaky economy.

There is one thing people aren't supposed to blame themselves for. That's what happens when someone lives or gets a job in a market where housing prices are above the local economy's average income ability to pay. These overpriced markets occur because of a lack of regulation in the housing market.

When you have nothing but unaffordable homes because of lack of good public policy, what are you to do? Go homeless?

Its not all the individuals fault.

Rent? Home ownership is a risk like any other investment. I see no reason why the government should insure against that risk.

Alternatively, get a job elsewhere. If the salary is too low to overcome the high cost of living, there will be a shortage of labour and a rise in salary. Perhaps people don't understand the idea that one shouldn't necessarily take the job with the absolute highest salary. The purchasing power of that salary in its market is a more important consideration.

If Canada is a nation where everyone believes in a government program, I'm sure it'd be much easier to create a program to save people's homes in a crisis state. Remember, the US is in the midst of an economic crisis and the program that allowed people to stay in their un-affordable homes was only passed after the crisis hit. Many people were kicked out of their homes before the recent policy bailout.

Canada wouldn't allow such a crisis to develop in the first place, with its more sensible financing regulations. Apparently zero down 40 year mortgages are being phased out again--probably wise!