Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2008, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,763 posts, read 39,578,376 times
Reputation: 8243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Speaking for myself, I would have voted for McCain no matter who he picked, because I will not vote for a Democrat (ever) and certainly not a socialist like Obama; but when McCain announced Sarah Palin (whom I had never heard of ) and then I heard her first speech, I thought, "Wow, finally a message I can get behind. This woman is exciting!" And my wife agreed.

McCain was a bore, and he had no message. He wouldn't engage (talk about why Obama was the wrong man for the job) or discuss the real issues at stake. It wasn't untill Sarah Palin got up to speak that we got any message (from the Republicans) about who Obama is, and what his policies were (of course we were getting this from "alternative media" sources).
I hear what you are saying, but all Sarah Palin did was spew a few catchy phrases about socialism (false), associations (voters didn't care), and some false prophet called Joe the Plumber, who has been proven to be nothing but an opportunistic dork. She was good for a small minority in the party, but not good for McCain, who ended up having to climb on her coattails, making his supporters go WTF? The McPalin ticket spoke ENTIRELY about Obama, which was to their detriment and defeat. They hardly spoke about what they would do, now they would improve the country, other than saying "we'll do the oppposite of what Barack Obama would do". Obama, on the other hand hardly mentioned McPalin in his speeches. He stuck to what he and his administration would do for our country. McPalin had no message, just vitriol against their opponents and the voting populace saw through it like cheesecloth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2008, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Oh, yeah, right. We really believe that.
You don't have to believe it, and you can roll your eyes, but it's true. And Ifound her terribly offensive to anyone who is the least bit different from her standard idea of what a "real American" is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 08:58 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
493 posts, read 714,064 times
Reputation: 151
I think that we all knew that, but the problem is that she is not popular with the majority which I'm sorry are democrats and rising independents So the GOP can keep their love fest with her, it won't win her much but a senate seat if she's looking for a change in career
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Georgia
1,258 posts, read 2,303,041 times
Reputation: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
According to a post election poll, (Rasmussen) 69% of GOP voters say Sarah Palin helped McCain.

This is in direct contradiction to staffers who thought she was a "liability".

91% of Repulicans have a favorable view of Sarah Palin. Only 8% have an unfavorable view.

64% said Sarah Palin would be their top choice for President in 2012, next to Mike Huckabee (12%), and Mitt Romney (11%).

From this, it is clear that it is the Republican Party itself (and in particular, the McCain campaign staffers), that are responsible for the trashing of Sarah Palin.
Does this suprise you? The people who still actually consider themselves the Republican core (the 15% of America) are amongst the stupidest, scariest, brain-washed drones on the planet. Is it any suprise Palin is their new idol?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 02:27 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,186,943 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82 View Post
I don't find it hard to believe at all that Palin registered well with the republican base. She doesn't resonate well with the moderate, independent vote. That will be her major obstacle for a 2012 run.
Do you have any stats on that? I haven't seen any on how she did with independents or so-called "moderates".

McCains biggest obstacle was himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Georgia
1,258 posts, read 2,303,041 times
Reputation: 675
Does anybody really care what the 'GOP voters' think at this point? These are the same ignorant, failures that cursed us with George Bush...The same foaming at the mouth nutjobs who think the world is going to end next week because Obama was elected President.

Good, great, let them make Palin the leader of their party and future! It will make it that much easier to defeat and be done with these nutjobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 02:39 PM
 
Location: CO
2,885 posts, read 7,099,648 times
Reputation: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Do you have any stats on that? I haven't seen any on how she did with independents or so-called "moderates".

McCains biggest obstacle was himself.
Here's one poll; if you do the research, you'll find more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us...cs/31poll.html

Quote:
. . .While a majority viewed Ms. Palin as unqualified for the vice presidency, roughly three-quarters of voters saw Mr. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, as qualified for the job. The increase in the number of voters who said Ms. Palin was not prepared was driven almost entirely by Republicans and independents.

Over all, views of Ms. Palin were apparently shaped more by ideology and party than by gender. Ms. Palin was viewed as unprepared for the job by about 6 in 10 men and women alike. But 8 in 10 Democrats viewed her as unprepared, as well as more than 6 in 10 independents and 3 in 10 Republicans.

Last edited by suzco; 11-08-2008 at 03:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 03:27 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,186,943 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
I hear what you are saying, but all Sarah Palin did was spew a few catchy phrases about socialism (false),
Actually this is not false at all. Why don't you do some research on him? He is an admirer of Karl Marx and studied Marxism. He is also an admirer of W.E.B. Du Bois, a black civil rights leader who was an avowed communist. Nobody just made this stuff up. But, the so-called "mainstream" media, who were so "in the tank" for Obama failed to report anything negative. There are some, however that did do the research and reported it, so don't be so quick to brush it off as false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
...associations (voters didn't care),
Sad commentary on the American voter, if they do not care about the background and associations of someone running for President of the United States. Such an important office demands careful consideration of the candidate. I think a lot of people are in for a rude awakening, because I think there going to get something they never expected nor do they want it. They voted out of ignorance, because they were so wrapped up in their hatred of Bush. They didn't bother to find out who Obama is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
...and some false prophet called Joe the Plumber, who has been proven to be nothing but an opportunistic dork.
He may be all those things, but he was dead right. Redistribution of wealth is what socialists are all about. Why don't you check out some of the Socialist Websites to find out what they believe? And by-the-way, Obama is/was (if it's still active) a member of the "New Party", a Socialist party in Illinois, and there are photos of him with the other members, and a news story to prove it.

None of these things got reported by the "mainstream" press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
She was good for a small minority in the party, but not good for McCain,
Wrong. She was very good for McCain. Else, why did he surge in the polls (though not enough) after her first speech? She brought his campaign back from the dead. I can't help it if the McCain staffers didn't think so. They are dead wrong. Look at the crowds she drew, and the money that started to roll in after she was picked? I think that is proof enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
...who ended up having to climb on her coattails, making his supporters go WTF?
I don't know what you mean by that. Oh, yeah, now I understand what you're saying.... but he should have been doing that all along. He didn't engage, as I said in another post. That was his problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
The McPalin ticket spoke ENTIRELY about Obama, which was to their detriment and defeat. They hardly spoke about what they would do, now they would improve the country, other than saying "we'll do the oppposite of what Barack Obama would do".
You're only partly right here. They should talk about Obama, and McCain's downfall was that he didn't talk about Obama enough (if at all) because he didn't want to run a "negative" campaign.

This is not good strategy when you're trying to win. You have to talk about your opponent, and there was plenty to talk about; plainly Obama's socialism (you don't agree, but it's out there for all to see), and his plans for taxing the hell out of everyone who is driving the economy. You cannot grow the economy by stifling those who drive it by placing a heavy tax burden on them. That slows everything down. And it is a proven fact (J.F.K, Ronald Reagan, and Bush 43) that when you lower taxes, you increase revenue to the Federal government. This isn't even arguable.

But McCain had another problem. Too many of the things that Republicans are normally for, McCain was against, and had the record to prove it: McCain/Feingold, so called campaign finance reform (no conservatives favored this mess of a piece of legislation); he voted against the Bush tax cuts, so he had no credibility in that area; he has always supported the ban on offshore drilling; he supports Cap and Trade legislation; and on and on. He could have been Obama's running mate, for cryin' out loud!

He couldn't talk about what he would do different, because he had never done anything different. Someone suggested that he should walk across the isle (as he says he is willing to do), and sit down!

McCain lost because he was McCain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
Obama, on the other hand hardly mentioned McPalin in his speeches. He stuck to what he and his administration would do for our country.
He didn't have to. McCain gave him no fight. He knew where he was, and all he had to do was get through it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl View Post
McPalin had no message, just vitriol against their opponents and the voting populace saw through it like cheesecloth.
No, the populace didn't see through anything. As you said above, they didn't care. They saw a handsome guy who was a smooth talker. They still don't know what he stands for, but they are about to find out.

Palin had the message, which is why she energized the Republicans, drew the crowds and brought in the money. It was McCain that didn't have the message.

Again, if you are going to win, you have to sling some mud (but it should be truthful). You have to attack your opponent where he is weak. Any pundit will tell you that negative campaigns work. That's why they all do it.

Obama is weak on National Defense (he wants to cut the military), weak on National Security (he thinks Iran doesn't pose a threat, and he said so). He has some serious issues with the Constitution (free speech, read "Fairness Doctrine" — it will probably be back) and has said that the Constitution is a "flawed document" (his own words), because it does not say what the "government should do on your behalf" (his words again), which sounds an awful lot like the socialist he is.

I think we are in for some very hard times.

Lastly, Obama himself has some responsibility for the mortgage crisis, as one of the things he was doing as a "community organizer" was seeing to it that banks loaned money to people in poor neighborhoods that couldn't afford to pay them back (through the provisions of the CRA). He was one of the ones going around threatening banks with a negative report, if they didn't make the loans.

He also personally benefited from Fannie Mae, as did Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and a whole bunch of other top Democrats (like Jamie Gorelick). Obama received more money in less time than Chris Dodd.

Last edited by nononsenseguy; 11-08-2008 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 03:50 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,186,943 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xotik View Post
I think that we all knew that, but the problem is that she is not popular with the majority which I'm sorry are democrats and rising independents So the GOP can keep their love fest with her, it won't win her much but a senate seat if she's looking for a change in career
By "majority" I assume you mean Democrats, and they may be the majority in Congress right now, but the majority of the American populace are conservative (64% identify themselves that way, according to the poll that has done that one for many years), and not liberal.

They were voting against Bush (they saw McCain as just another Bush, though he's really anything but — he himself is very liberal).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Georgia
1,258 posts, read 2,303,041 times
Reputation: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Actually this is not false at all. Why don't you do some research on him? He is an admirer of Karl Marx and studied Marxism. He is also an admirer of W.E.B. Du Bois, a black civil rights leader who was an avowed communist. Nobody just made this stuff up. But, the so-called "mainstream" media, who were so "in the tank" for Obama failed to report anything negative. There are some, however that did do the research and reported it, so don't be so quick to brush it off as false.


Sad commentary on the American voter, if they do not care about the background and associations of someone running for President of the United States. Such an important office demands careful consideration of the candidate. I think a lot of people are in for a rude awakening, because I think there going to get something they never expected nor do they want it. They voted out of ignorance, because they were so wrapped up in their hatred of Bush. They didn't bother to find out who Obama is.



He may be all those things, but he was dead right. Redistribution of wealth is what socialists are all about. Why don't you check out some of the Socialist Websites to find out what they believe? And by-the-way, Obama is/was (if it's still active) a member of the "New Party", a Socialist party in Illinois, and there are photos of him with the other members, and a news story to prove it.

None of these things got reported by the "mainstream" press.


Wrong. She was very good for McCain. Else, why did he surge in the polls (though not enough) after her first speech? She brought his campaign back from the dead. I can't help it if the McCain staffers didn't think so. They are dead wrong. Look at the crowds she drew, and the money that started to roll in after she was picked? I think that is proof enough.

I don't know what you mean by that. Oh, yeah, now I understand what you're saying.... but he should have been doing that all along. He didn't engage, as I said in another post. That was his problem.



You're only partly right here. They should talk about Obama, and McCain's downfall was that he didn't talk about Obama enough (if at all) because he didn't want to run a "negative" campaign.

This is not good strategy when you're trying to win. You have to talk about your opponent, and there was plenty to talk about; plainly Obama's socialism (you don't agree, but it's out there for all to see), and his plans for taxing the hell out of everyone who is driving the economy. You cannot grow the economy by stifling those who drive it by placing a heavy tax burden on them. That slows everything down. And it is a proven fact (J.F.K, Ronald Reagan, and Bush 43) that when you lower taxes, you increase revenue to the Federal government. This isn't even arguable.

But McCain had another problem. Too many of the things that Republicans are normally for, McCain was against, and had the record to prove it: McCain/Feingold, so called campaign finance reform (no conservatives favored this mess of a piece of legislation); he voted against the Bush tax cuts, so he had no credibility in that area; he has always supported the ban on offshore drilling; he supports Cap and Trade legislation; and on and on. He could have been Obama's running mate, for cryin' out loud!

He couldn't talk about what he would do different, because he had never done anything different. Someone suggested that he should walk across the isle (as he says he is willing to do), and sit down!

McCain lost because he was McCain.


He didn't have to. McCain gave him no fight. He knew where he was, and all he had to do was get through it.



No, the populace didn't see through anything. As you said above, they didn't care. They saw a handsome guy who was a smooth talker. They still don't know what he stands for, but they are about to find out.

Palin had the message, which is why she energized the Republicans, drew the crowds and brought in the money. It was McCain that didn't have the message.

Again, if you are going to win, you have to sling some mud (but it should be truthful). You have to attack your opponent where he is weak. Any pundit will tell you that negative campaigns work. That's why they all do it.

Obama is weak on National Defense (he wants to cut the military), weak on National Security (he thinks Iran doesn't pose a threat, and he said so). He has some serious issues with the Constitution (free speech, read "Fairness Doctrine" — it will probably be back) and has said that the Constitution is a "flawed document" (his own words), because it does not say what the "government should do on your behalf" (his words again), which sounds an awful lot like the socialist he is.

I think we are in for some very hard times.

Lastly, Obama himself has some responsibility for the mortgage crisis, as one of the things he was doing as a "community organizer" was seeing to it that banks loaned money to people in poor neighborhoods that couldn't afford to pay them back (through the provisions of the CRA). He was one of the ones going around threatening banks with a negative report, if they didn't make the loans.

He also personally benefited from Fannie Mae, as did Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and a whole bunch of other top Democrats (like Jamie Gorelick). Obama received more money in less time than Chris Dodd.

Thing is...McCain and Palin have just as many 'nefarious associations' in their closet...Council of World Freedom, Rev. Haggee, Keating, Rev. Muthee, VECO Corp., Alaska Independance Party...etc. etc.

See what you Republicans didn't understand is that we are in desperate times thanks to your guy George Bush. So things like this that worked to trash Clinton, and defeat Kerry, don't matter now! Things were serious this time, it wasn't about putting the clown who could scare people the most into office...Sorry Bush politics didn't work!

Obama faced McCain head-on with all the issues and the American public resoundingly supported Obama's stance on the issues! Get over it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top