Election Day & Returns Thread

[rosslynhoya]

Nov 4, 2008 23:57:06 GMT -5 TC said:

Anyone want to explain to me how "the best campaigner I've ever seen" is not a giant backhanded compliment?

The McCain campaign was heading into the crapper after the DNC convention bounce and the Sarah Palin pick single-handedly salvaged it, keeping it on life-support for another two months.

She was phenomenal on the campaign trail, hauling in a massive infusion of cash for an effort that badly needed it and sparking the first actual enthusiasm anywhere in the party for McCain. You could say it was the best national campaign effort by a Republican in 24 years if it weren't for what Huckabee almost pulled off earlier this year (in terms of making something out of nothing).

If McCain had picked Boring White Guy With Hardly Any Qualifications #8 as his running mate instead, he would have been given up for dead weeks ago.

[Cambridge]

Nov 5, 2008 11:34:58 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Nov 4, 2008 23:57:06 GMT -5 TC said:

Anyone want to explain to me how "the best campaigner I've ever seen" is not a giant backhanded compliment?

The McCain campaign was heading into the crapper after the DNC convention bounce and the Sarah Palin pick single-handedly salvaged it, keeping it on life-support for another two months.

She was phenomenal on the campaign trail, hauling in a massive infusion of cash for an effort that badly needed it and sparking the first actual enthusiasm anywhere in the party for McCain. You could say it was the best national campaign effort by a Republican in 24 years if it weren't for what Huckabee almost pulled off earlier this year (in terms of making something out of nothing).

If McCain had picked Boring White Guy With Hardly Any Qualifications #8 as his running mate instead, he would have been given up for dead weeks ago.

I disagree. There is a very, very good chance I would have broken the other way if Romney was on the ticket. The economy was the issue, why not have the most respected candidate on the economy on your ticket? It would have been compelling to a much wider segment of the country than Palin.

[SFHoya99]

There's no doubt Palin galvanized the base that put Bush in office.

Her issue is that she alienated a whole lot of undecideds who viewed her as the extremist in the election and a sign that John McCain wasn't running his own election.

No one knows what would have happened, but once the issue became the economy, a social conservative didn't seem like the right play to me.

[mchoya]

Nov 5, 2008 3:54:00 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Nov 4, 2008 23:00:54 GMT -5 mchoya said:

It's ok. Either Obama overreaches and the Republicans come in to fix it in 2010 or his policies work, and we're the better for it. I hope the latter comes true, I believe the former will though.

I read your comments, but I really don't get them at all. Are you suggesting that the same Republican party that has done their best to destroy our economy, our military and our standing in the world is somehow going to come in and "fix" the "mess" Obama is going to create? I just don't understand that perspective at all. There doesn't appear to be any justification or any reason to believe that...at all.

Here's the justification:
1) Historical precedent - May I ask you how you enjoyed the years of 1994-2000, when Bill Clinton was the president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress? Losing a presidential election allows a party to reshape their agenda; there is no way the Republicans will be on the same path that they were on in 2001-2006, because if they did they would be idiots. If you really think that the Republicans will repeat the policies of 2001-2006, you're fooling yourself.
2) Democratic policies brought us into this economic mess. Fannie and Freddie allowed banks to give risky loans and not be on the hook for them, while the Democrats promoted home ownership (even to those that couldn't afford it). Furthermore, the big problems with the economy came after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Congressional approval rating is lower than Bush's. If there isn't quick change, the voters will voice their displeasure.

[rosslynhoya]

Nov 5, 2008 11:41:52 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

I disagree. There is a very, very good chance I would have broken the other way if Romney was on the ticket. The economy was the issue, why not have the most respected candidate on the economy on your ticket? It would have been compelling to a much wider segment of the country than Palin.

It's a fair point, and we'll never know the answer. My guess though is that a guy who was successfully tagged by Republicans as an out-of-touch billionaire during the primary season would not have been an asset in the general election.

Romney didn't just pal around with hedge fund managers and other greedy Wall Street financiers pushing sketchy financial products on an unsuspecting market, he was one of them himself.

[hifigator]

rossy et al ... as someone said, we will never know. You are right when you mention enthusiasm and galvanizing the base. You are also right on the cash issue, but I think that is an angle that the republicans failed to emphasize as they could and should have. Regardless, I think that a Romney on the ticket might have been the "best" from a succesful standpoint, HAD THEY BEEN ELECTED. But I don't think that it would caused that. The most electable ticket would have been one with true moderate ideology. McCain was painted to not be that, even though every sane individual would recognize John as a moderate when compared to almost anyone else, especially Barack. But the pick of Palin only fanned the flames of McCain as bringing more of the same to the table. The bottom line is that I would have liked to have a fiscally responsible person on the ticket, but one without the right wing lean on social issues. The problem is that even though "I" wanted that, there were seemingly too many rightwingers that wouldn't have gotten motivated enough for such a ticket. So it was almost a case of picking your poison. Too "right" of a running mate and you lose the moderates and independents. Too moderate of a running mate, and your base is too apathetic and doesn't show up in the required numbers. Personally, I don't think it mattered. I think that elections have forever changed, and for all the good that I can see from "everyone having a voice," history has told us that regardless of how we get to this position, the result will be the fall of the Country. I can only hope that we are the exception and not the rule.

[Cambridge]

Nov 5, 2008 17:02:18 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

Nov 5, 2008 16:40:28 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I think that elections have forever changed, and for all the good that I can see from "everyone having a voice," history has told us that regardless of how we get to this position, the result will be the fall of the Country. I can only hope that we are the exception and not the rule.

what the F are you talking about? In nearly every other westernized country that has a representative democracy (in some form), voter turnout is much higher (80-90%) than in the United States. Eliminating or diminishing voter disenfranchisement or voter apathy is not a negative development. If you are talking about giving inmates votes or some other inane musing of your retarded professor friend, that is one thing, but your idiot rambling about "giving people a voice" is the essence of a democracy.

Sure, it may be problematic in the short run for republicans, but that is why it is SO important to reestablish our ties to latino voters, the fastest growing and biggest minority group in our country.

and who's traditional conservative family values and fiscal ideas fall in line with the party's ethos...

[hifigator]

Nov 5, 2008 17:02:18 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

Nov 5, 2008 16:40:28 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I think that elections have forever changed, and for all the good that I can see from "everyone having a voice," history has told us that regardless of how we get to this position, the result will be the fall of the Country. I can only hope that we are the exception and not the rule.

what the F are you talking about? In nearly every other westernized country that has a representative democracy (in some form), voter turnout is much higher (80-90%) than in the United States. Eliminating or diminishing voter disenfranchisement or voter apathy is not a negative development. If you are talking about giving inmates votes or some other inane musing of your retarded professor friend, that is one thing, but your idiot rambling about "giving people a voice" is the essence of a democracy.

Sure, it may be problematic in the short run for republicans, but that is why it is SO important to reestablish our ties to latino voters, the fastest growing and biggest minority group in our country.

So I take it you hope we are the rule then, rather than an exception?

[GIGAFAN99]

Nov 5, 2008 11:41:52 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Nov 5, 2008 11:34:58 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

The McCain campaign was heading into the crapper after the DNC convention bounce and the Sarah Palin pick single-handedly salvaged it, keeping it on life-support for another two months.

She was phenomenal on the campaign trail, hauling in a massive infusion of cash for an effort that badly needed it and sparking the first actual enthusiasm anywhere in the party for McCain. You could say it was the best national campaign effort by a Republican in 24 years if it weren't for what Huckabee almost pulled off earlier this year (in terms of making something out of nothing).

If McCain had picked Boring White Guy With Hardly Any Qualifications #8 as his running mate instead, he would have been given up for dead weeks ago.

I disagree. There is a very, very good chance I would have broken the other way if Romney was on the ticket. The economy was the issue, why not have the most respected candidate on the economy on your ticket? It would have been compelling to a much wider segment of the country than Palin.

39% of voters are Democrats
33% are Republicans
28% are independents

So what's the strategy to pull 90% of your base, half the independents, AND getting some 15% of defectors?

The answer is "none." Base erosion due to W killed the Republicans.

Even with 100% of the base and 60% of the independents, McCain would still need Democrats to vote for him. That's incredible. So the Republican party needs to reorganize its platform to get more people in the tent. That's the only way they win moving forward.

[afirth]

What is the best strategy for them to get more people in the tent? I'm not being obnoxious, I'm actually curious. I know they'll want to do a better job of appealing to moderates/independents next time, but I can't see how they can become more moderate without alienating the biggest faction in the party (far right-wing, social conservatives).

[SFHoya99]

It's actually not that hard.

Most fiscal Republicans I know would likely be willing to put their social opinions behind their economic opinions -- meaning if you were for many of the non-costly social items and managed to be fiscally conservative, you'd get a lot of people.

[GIGAFAN99]

Nov 5, 2008 18:55:22 GMT -5 afirth said:

What is the best strategy for them to get more people in the tent? I'm not being obnoxious, I'm actually curious. I know they'll want to do a better job of appealing to moderates/independents next time, but I can't see how they can become more moderate without alienating the biggest faction in the party (far right-wing, social conservatives).

The answer might be "alienate them." Where are they going to go honestly? Become independents maybe? Good.

[afirth]

I understand that there are plenty fiscal Republicans out there who are willing to overlook some of the party members' extreme positions on social issues. (My parents, for one). But if the socially right-wing Republicans are currently considered the party's "base," and the biggest chunk of the party, wouldn't they be angered by a moderate? I mean, they barely rallied around McCain until he picked Palin.

[SirSaxa]

Nov 5, 2008 12:05:11 GMT -5 mchoya said:

Here's the justification:
1) Historical precedent - May I ask you how you enjoyed the years of 1994-2000, when Bill Clinton was the president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress? Losing a presidential election allows a party to reshape their agenda; there is no way the Republicans will be on the same path that they were on in 2001-2006, because if they did they would be idiots. If you really think that the Republicans will repeat the policies of 2001-2006, you're fooling yourself.
2) Democratic policies brought us into this economic mess. Fannie and Freddie allowed banks to give risky loans and not be on the hook for them, while the Democrats promoted home ownership (even to those that couldn't afford it). Furthermore, the big problems with the economy came after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Congressional approval rating is lower than Bush's. If there isn't quick change, the voters will voice their displeasure.

I see. I wasn't expecting to hear that the Dems are responsible for the financial crisis that occurred following 8 years of Republican leadership in the WH, including 6 with the Congress too.

Suggesting Fannie & Freddie was a primarily Democratic problem and that it was the cause of the global financial crisis is a serious misread of the overall fragility of W Street due to the constant march for de-regulation and the drive to lower interest rates. Perhaps you didn't see Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress a week or two ago.

It also ignores the enormous and growing budget deficit and trade deficit that resulted from two wars and simultaneous enormous tax breaks loaded to the wealthiest Americans... and borrowing trillions to pay for it all.

The Republicans have not demonstrated any of the fiscal responsibility they like to talk about so to think that somehow they will come riding to the rescue to fix the mess they created? Now to me THAT is foolish thinking.

[GIGAFAN99]

Nov 5, 2008 19:31:43 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Nov 5, 2008 12:05:11 GMT -5 mchoya said:

Here's the justification:
1) Historical precedent - May I ask you how you enjoyed the years of 1994-2000, when Bill Clinton was the president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress? Losing a presidential election allows a party to reshape their agenda; there is no way the Republicans will be on the same path that they were on in 2001-2006, because if they did they would be idiots. If you really think that the Republicans will repeat the policies of 2001-2006, you're fooling yourself.
2) Democratic policies brought us into this economic mess. Fannie and Freddie allowed banks to give risky loans and not be on the hook for them, while the Democrats promoted home ownership (even to those that couldn't afford it). Furthermore, the big problems with the economy came after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Congressional approval rating is lower than Bush's. If there isn't quick change, the voters will voice their displeasure.

The Republicans have not demonstrated any of the fiscal responsibility they like to talk about so to think that somehow they will come riding to the rescue to fix the mess they created? Now to me THAT is foolish thinking.

Exactly SirSaxa. Is all cynicism dead on this board? The Republicans are going to become true fiscal conservatives out of nowhere, now?

The mess we're in began with bi-partisan initiatives in the Republican Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. If it's good for business, it's always "good for business" with both parties. We're just in the middle of the most pessimistic endgame to the corruption. But has either party learned its lesson? I would file that under "doubtful."

[mchoya]

Nov 5, 2008 19:31:43 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Nov 5, 2008 12:05:11 GMT -5 mchoya said:

Here's the justification:
1) Historical precedent - May I ask you how you enjoyed the years of 1994-2000, when Bill Clinton was the president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress? Losing a presidential election allows a party to reshape their agenda; there is no way the Republicans will be on the same path that they were on in 2001-2006, because if they did they would be idiots. If you really think that the Republicans will repeat the policies of 2001-2006, you're fooling yourself.
2) Democratic policies brought us into this economic mess. Fannie and Freddie allowed banks to give risky loans and not be on the hook for them, while the Democrats promoted home ownership (even to those that couldn't afford it). Furthermore, the big problems with the economy came after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Congressional approval rating is lower than Bush's. If there isn't quick change, the voters will voice their displeasure.

I see. I wasn't expecting to hear that the Dems are responsible for the financial crisis that occurred following 8 years of Republican leadership in the WH, including 6 with the Congress too.

Suggesting Fannie & Freddie was a primarily Democratic problem and that it was the cause of the global financial crisis is a serious misread of the overall fragility of W Street due to the constant march for de-regulation and the drive to lower interest rates. Perhaps you didn't see Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress a week or two ago.

It also ignores the enormous and growing budget deficit and trade deficit that resulted from two wars and simultaneous enormous tax breaks loaded to the wealthiest Americans... and borrowing trillions to pay for it all.

The Republicans have not demonstrated any of the fiscal responsibility they like to talk about so to think that somehow they will come riding to the rescue to fix the mess they created? Now to me THAT is foolish thinking.

Rather than get into a long Editeding match about who is responsible for the credit crisis (and there's no way that there isn't culpability on both sides of the aisle, the two previous occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, plus backers of each party, plus Greenspan himself), I am arguing the future. There's no way the Republican Party is going to run on a platform that doesn't deal with reining in spending. The movement is going to be away from social issues and back towards fiscal conservatism, while Bush's platform was not about fiscal conservatism (NCLB is one such example).

Do you really think the Republicans are going to campaign on or want a repeat of the Bush years?

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 5, 2008 7:22:03 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This may surprise some but I am really happy with the election results. Reason? Because it is the will of God. I would have chosen a different outcome but to think I know more than the Guy upstairs would be ludicrous. I'm also very happy to live in a country where the people, with no significant intimidation, can decide who is to lead them in national, state and local races. A sincere congratulations to all the winners of this election and may God guide you in your service to this country.

Ed deserves tremendous credit for this message, posted shortly after the conclusion of an intense and spirited campaign. May we all give thanks for a stunning display of democracy and hope that the results in the coming years match the hope that we share at this hour.

On Edit: I would also applaud the grace with which the Bush family and administration has responded to the results. The message of the Obama campaign and yesterday's election is likely not lost on them. For them to reach out with the expediency that they have is admirable. Their help is needed over the coming weeks.
thepage.time.com/details-on-michelle-obama-laura-bush-conversation/

[hoyatables]

Nov 5, 2008 21:20:25 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Nov 5, 2008 7:22:03 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This may surprise some but I am really happy with the election results. Reason? Because it is the will of God. I would have chosen a different outcome but to think I know more than the Guy upstairs would be ludicrous. I'm also very happy to live in a country where the people, with no significant intimidation, can decide who is to lead them in national, state and local races. A sincere congratulations to all the winners of this election and may God guide you in your service to this country.

Ed deserves tremendous credit for this message, posted shortly after the conclusion of an intense and spirited campaign. May we all give thanks for a stunning display of democracy and hope that the results in the coming years match the hope that we share at this hour.

On Edit: I would also applaud the grace with which the Bush family and administration has responded to the results. The message of the Obama campaign and yesterday's election is likely not lost on them. For them to reach out with the expediency that they have is admirable. Their help is needed over the coming weeks.
thepage.time.com/details-on-michelle-obama-laura-bush-conversation/

Absolutely agree about Ed. He's a class act all the way.

Also agree about applauding Bush.

[hifigator]

Nov 6, 2008 10:50:57 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

Nov 5, 2008 21:20:25 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Nov 5, 2008 7:22:03 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

On Edit: I would also applaud the grace with which the Bush family and administration has responded to the results. The message of the Obama campaign and yesterday's election is likely not lost on them. For them to reach out with the expediency that they have is admirable. Their help is needed over the coming weeks.
thepage.time.com/details-on-michelle-obama-laura-bush-conversation/

that blurb by the way written by Georgetown grad Katie Lelyveld, Class of '01! She is M. Obama's Comms Director...congrats to her - she has worked her butt off and deserves this triumph.

And the landmarks continue -- first an african-American President-elect and now a positive comment about W in the mainstream.

[Cambridge]

Nov 6, 2008 11:57:16 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Nov 6, 2008 10:50:57 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

Nov 5, 2008 21:20:25 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

that blurb by the way written by Georgetown grad Katie Lelyveld, Class of '01! She is M. Obama's Comms Director...congrats to her - she has worked her butt off and deserves this triumph.

And the landmarks continue -- first an african-American President-elect and now a positive comment about W in the mainstream.

Say what you will about MSM bias, but I think we can all agree that W earned his tarnish.