USA Politics

Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

And you're free to use it howsoever you wish!



In recent news, McCain has decided to go entirely negative, in comparison to the mild negative moves the campaign has done (both campaigns have done).  We're talking attacking Obama for Rev. Wright, other connections with people in his past, everything except calling him a you-know-what.  This is a big swing from the man who promised clean campaigning in January, and it may influence the election in key swing states.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

That's pretty sad, though.  I mean, in Canada, we consider an ad attacking someone's stances as an "American-style attack ad".  In the US, it gets so nasty.  Swift Boating is the common vernacular for this, as we all know.  I just thought someone like McCain might try and keep it cleanish.  It really makes me sad...because once one person goes down this road, we know the Obama campaign, Democrat 527 groups will follow.  Of course, poor McCain has sacrificed so much.  He wants this, you can tell.  I think both men have sacrificed a lot of their principles.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I'd agree.  And I think most of us agree that McCain isn't a bad guy; I like the dude.

And he totally got robbed in the 2000 primary's; this would be a much better country if he had won the primary instead of Bush, but that's a pretty obvious statement to make.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The tactics he is starting to employ are ones that badly hurt him in South Carolina in 2000.  It's a sad irony.

Even sadder is that Obama will certainly hit back below the belt.  The lessons of 2004 are clear.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Yeah, that is true, and unfortunate.  I really liked the VP debate, because they were civil and respectful, while being able to debate (mostly).

I really really hate the mud slinging.  And you are right, he (McCain) got burned by the mud, so he burning with the mud.  Sad.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Wasted155 said:
I really really hate the mud slinging. 

[sexist mode]
Unless two bikini-clad hotties are involved!
[/sexist mode]
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

LooseCannon said:
The tactics he is starting to employ are ones that badly hurt him in South Carolina in 2000.  It's a sad irony.

Even sadder is that Obama will certainly hit back below the belt.  The lessons of 2004 are clear.

Not just 2004; 1992 had lessons also. Kerry's lack of sufficient response to the swift-boating can be contrasted to Clinton in 1992, when Clinton's team responded quickly and forcefully to any attack.

In fact, this election reminds me a lot of 1992 for many reasons...
  • A very unpopular Republican president.
  • The economy as the #1 issue.
  • A Democrat candidate who came to national prominence only four years earlier by giving the keynote address at the Democrat convention.
  • A Republican candidate who is often described as "out of touch".
  • A Democrat vice-president candidate who has been in the Senate for a long time.
  • A Republican vice-president candidate who is widely ridiculed.

I have a gig with my band tonight, so I'll miss SNL. I'll have to look for the Tina Fey video tomorrow.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

"I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."  Spot on.

And the comment about gay people is absolutely hilarious.
Another classic.

"Some people are gonna say I only say this to pander to Florida voters, but since a very young age my greatest two loves were always Jews and Cuban food."  :lol:
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

The Global Presidential Poll

Discover the world view of the U.S. Presidential election, find out which global issue rates as important and more.

+

Global Poll Finds Obama Preferred in All Countries But U.S.

A new global poll of 17 countries finds a huge preference for Barack Obama over John McCain in the presidential election in 16 of those countries. In the 17th country -- the U.S. -- McCain was edging out Obama.

Barack Obama's proclamation last July to being a "citizen of the world" was affirmed Monday as a new poll -- taken before the August conventions -- showed that in 16 out of 17 countries surveyed he was the overwhelming choice to be the next president of the United States.

The lone country to prefer a John McCain presidency: the U.S.

The Reader's Digest magazine poll, released Monday, asked 17,000 people in 17 countries, including the U.S., whom they would like to see elected president.

The poll also found that, counter to Obama's claims that America's reputation abroad is taking a beating, half of the 16 countries surveyed offered strong "pro-American" sentiments.

Obama's favorability ratings soared in Brazil, Taiwan, Germany -- the site of his "citizen of the world" pronouncement -- and the Netherlands, where support for the Illinois senator exceeded 90 percent. The Reader's Digest poll findings are consistent with other international polls conducted this year on the presidential race.

A BBC poll released Sept. 10, for instance, found that Obama was preferred 4-to-1 on average across 22,000 people surveyed in 22 foreign countries.

But in the U.S., Obama's pre-convention margin of support was dramatically smaller, revealing stark differences in his national and international perception, according to the Reader's Digest survey. In fact, before the conventions, the poll showed McCain holding a 38-36 percent lead over his Democratic opponent.

The latest polls conducted in the U.S. in recent weeks show that lead disappearing, with Obama now holding a 50-42 percent lead over McCain in the Gallup daily tracking poll out Monday.

In a FOX News-Opinion Dynamics poll released Wednesday Obama held the lead -- 45 percent to 39 percent -- over McCain. A new FOX News/Rasmussen Reports poll of key swing states is due out Monday.

An international preference poll conducted by Pew last June also showed McCain led Obama domestically -- 60-59 percent -- among respondents expressing confidence in the candidate. Confidence in Obama over McCain surged in countries such as France, Germany and Australia.

It was in Germany last July 24 that Obama proclaimed to a wildly enthusiastic crowd in Berlin that he was "a fellow citizen of the world."

Reader's Digest Washington Bureau Chief Carl Cannon cited various reasons for the disparity, noting that many of the Republican Party's core positions are irrelevant to individuals overseas.

"The Republican Party is not organized around the notion of running for election anywhere but the United States," Cannon told FOXNews.com. "A number of Republican issues, including defending the Second Amendment or opposition to abortion, simply are not salient questions in Europe."

Cannon cited President Bush's low approval ratings as another disadvantage to McCain's international reputation.

"John McCain comes from the same party as Bush, and is considered just as hawkish on Iraq," he said.

The prospect of an African-American president was yet another factor in Obama's overwhelming approval rating abroad, according to Cannon, who said that "people abroad are inspired" by his historic candidacy.

The Reader's Digest poll also found striking differences in attitudes towards Americans.

When asked, "Do you consider yourself pro-American, neutral or anti-American?" half of the 16 countries expressed more "pro-American" than "anti-American" sentiments, despite unpopular opinions on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Cannon told FOXNews.com that this finding was inconsistent with the Democrats' claim that most of the world detests the U.S. because of the Bush administration's unfavorable foreign policies.

"What this shows is that people in the world still care about America and still look to America," he said. "They might care about the Iraq war, but they don't judge us based solely on that issue."

Anti-American attitudes were highest among those surveyed in Indonesia, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada.

India and South Africa were the countries with the most positive opinions about the U.S.

Respondents in 16 out of 17 countries said they were more likely to expect their view of the U.S. to improve if Obama is elected president. South Africa was the only foreign country where a McCain victory would have a slightly more positive impact on their image of the U.S.

In response to a question about whether interviewees would consider moving to the U.S., respondents in India expressed the strongest interest -- 73 percent -- as did the majority of participants in South Africa, the Netherlands and France.

Respondents in Poland, Russia, Indonesia and Australia were least likely to consider the move, according to the poll.

The 16 foreign countries also varied greatly in the amount of attention given to the U.S. presidential election. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Australia, and South Africa were among those countries that have generated the most interest in the election, while Brazil, Poland, Russia, India and Taiwan have paid the least attention.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

1,000 people per country? That's actually a rather small sample, but understandable due to the scope I guess...
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

1,000 people per country is actually perfectly normal for polls of these sizes.

Though, I would argue the numbers are out of date, since Obama is clearly leading in the United States now.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I would say (even though I have a bias) that Obama won the debate last night against McCain. McCain needs to stop talking trash about Obama and start answering the questions he's being asked.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

That was my thought as well.  It was interesting to see, but very dull.  Not as much 'fire' as I expected. 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Did you watch it on CNN where they had the focus group tracker? that was useless...
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

I have a bias, too, though in the opposite direction, yet I also think Obama did better in the debate.  McCain's best point was an afterthought at the end of an answer, and it got lost.  His statement was, and I'm paraphrasing, "the last president to raise taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover, who also used protectionism."  His ultimate (unarticulated) point was that Obama's economic plan, in light of the current economic crisis, would likely plunge the U.S., and then the world, into a depression.  Raising taxes and trade barriers, as Obama has proposed, in a period of economic crisis is idiotic, and potentially disastrous.  Hoover thought that doing so would help American workers, too, but ultimately they did more harm than good by gumming up, rather than lubricating, the wheels of the economy.  Whatever the redistributive merits one may have seen in Obama's economic plan as originally proposed before the bottom dropped out of the world economy, that plan makes absolutely no sense now.  I found it odd that both candidates are clinging to economic plans articulated a year ago, and that neither of them -- even when specifically questioned -- was willing to say, "you know what, the world has changed since I proposed that plan, it won't work now.  Maybe I can implement it at the end of my first term, but for now, we are in crisis mode." 

Ironically, the questioners, and too many American voters, keep asking the question, "what will you/the government do to help fix the economy?"  That's the wrong question.  The real question ought to be, "How can I be sure that you/the government won't make things worse?"  The government needed to act to prevent a total disaster in the short term, but in the long run, the economy can fix itself.  Eventually, banks will figure out that there are creditworthy, potentially profitable businesses to which the banks can give loans and make money on those loans.  It may be six months from now, and it may be two years.  But eventually, a market-based economy will recover from downturns, even big ones.  However, if the U.S. government enacts too many "bailout" or "rescue" programs that don't work and ultimately damage the creditworthiness of the U.S. government itself, then we have a problem of a whole different magnitude.  At this point, I'm hoping that Obama -- who is now definitely going to win -- is just keeping to his earlier, now-obsolete, plan to get himself elected, and once in office, will see that the changed circumstances in the economy will necessitate at least delaying his economic policies.  The fact that Warren Buffett seems to be advising Obama is some comfort. 

EDIT: One thought I had:  I'll bet McCain is wishing he picked Mitt Romney as his running mate right now.  He's the only one of the various candidates with the economic candlepower to understand, let alone solve, this problem.  I doubt McCain would make a change at this point, but he's got to be getting desperate, and Palin has looked like a cretin in the interviews she's had since the convention. 
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

Obama's tax plan doesn't involve a tax lift for all people, though - only for a small percentage, and a cut for most, a cut for people who make lower incomes.  That's income more likely to be spent than saved, which may assist.  Plus, I happen to think that McCain's statement was wrong: George H. W. Bush hiked taxes during his tenure.  I don't think either man will be able to balance the US budget, and well, to be fair, I would make that my priority.  Higher taxes aren't going to kill the US economy, especially not the changes Obama's promoting.  On the contrary, McCain hasn't explained how he intends to shred between $500 b. - $1t from the US budget, which will be necessary to balance the budget with the massive tax cuts he is promoting.  Obama's tax plan might not be the best, but McCain doesn't seem to have a plan.

Plus, one thing that scared me about McCain last night was his proposal to buy all the bad home loans in the US then re-value them to make the payments more affordable.  To me, this means spending billions and billions more - maybe even as much as 1-2 trillion - and then ensuring a lot of this money will never come back.  That's even worse than the current $700b bailout.  Just because McCain'll be dead before 2020, most likely, doesn't mean he shouldn't care what happens to the US after then.  I don't know.  That amount of money is irresponsible and it's just ridiculous.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

cornfedhick said:
I doubt McCain would make a change at this point [for his running mate]

He can't. The ballots are set, and can't be changed. The laws vary from state to state, but I doubt there's any state that will allow a new candidate on the ballot less than one month before the election. Palin could withdraw, but no replacement could get on the ballots.
 
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison

LooseCannon said:
Obama's tax plan doesn't involve a tax lift for all people, though - only for a small percentage, and a cut for most, a cut for people who make lower incomes.  That's income more likely to be spent than saved, which may assist.  Plus, I happen to think that McCain's statement was wrong: George H. W. Bush hiked taxes during his tenure.  I don't think either man will be able to balance the US budget, and well, to be fair, I would make that my priority.  Higher taxes aren't going to kill the US economy, especially not the changes Obama's promoting.  On the contrary, McCain hasn't explained how he intends to shred between $500 b. - $1t from the US budget, which will be necessary to balance the budget with the massive tax cuts he is promoting.  Obama's tax plan might not be the best, but McCain doesn't seem to have a plan.
 

I do think higher taxes on business and the most productive workers, coupled with trade barriers that will make goods more expensive (and thereby offset the extra few hundred dollars that lower-income workers would save in taxes), very well could further hurt the economy.  See the article by Professor Boskin I posted in this thread -- page 16, Reply # 477.  (I don't know how to link it.)  Professor Boskin is very smart.  He's at Stanford, so I necessarily think very highly of him.   :)   Speaking of which, I was drinking buddies at Stanford with a guy who is now one of the five members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh.  No joke: we used to help each other with problem sets in economics courses.  Warsh is a smart guy, and has spent almost his entire professional career rising quickly through the ranks at Morgan Stanley.  Still, I'm a little nervous that he's one of the guys responsible for saving the world economy, since I've seen him in drunken idiot mode.  

LooseCannon said:
Plus, one thing that scared me about McCain last night was his proposal to buy all the bad home loans in the US then re-value them to make the payments more affordable.  To me, this means spending billions and billions more - maybe even as much as 1-2 trillion - and then ensuring a lot of this money will never come back.  That's even worse than the current $700b bailout.  Just because McCain'll be dead before 2020, most likely, doesn't mean he shouldn't care what happens to the US after then.  I don't know.  That amount of money is irresponsible and it's just ridiculous.
  On this, I agree with you completely, absolutely, unequivocally and 100%. 

EDIT:  I agree with SMX that it is probably too late to get Romney on the ballots, but as you say, Palin could be - ahem - persuaded to withdraw, and McCain could promise to appoint Romney to fill the vacancy if elected.  I'm not entirely sure whether that would be subject to Congressional approval, but if so, it would presumably be given.  In any event, it's almost certainly a moot point, as McCain almost certainly won't do this. 
 
Back
Top