StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 03:27am 

Oh and Mike is absolutely right by the way. As usual he has the gift of seeing past bullshit rhetoric and getting to the heart of the matter and it's true that hate is the basic tenet of the Republican party. It's ironic as hell that a political point of view that is supposed to be espousing religious, so called 'virtuous' morals are actually demonstrating the worst attitudes. They aren't running on a platform of 'saving' people, providing for the poor and downtrodden, protecting the innocent, stupid and weak, etc..It's all about moralizing and judging, isn't it? Truly sad!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 03:43am 

I will say this:
Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC motivated me.

It motivated me to fork out $20 for Obama that I really couldn't afford this week.
But ramen noodles are cheap, so I'll manage.

Next week's Saturday overtime will be going to Obama as well.
I really don't like dealing with people I don't know, so I'll contribute whatever cash I can spare in lieu of canvassing or voter registration efforts.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 03:52am 

thus far Mccain's bounce doesnt seem to have affected the swing states-FLorida, Colorado ,VIrginia, Ohio, Penn etc. .Post convention state polls show minimal (1-2%) gains for Mccain


if his bounce is made up primarily of him overperforming in deep red states that's good news to me.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 04:21am 

I've heard, or at least Chuck Todd says so on MSNBC, that Obama is ahead in the electoral numbers. I say that we, the Dems, should fight for that and fuck the popular vote. One reason is it's a surefire win pretty much if you get enough electoral votes, and the other is that's how Bush won the first time and i want this victory to be as ironic as it is crushing.

As you can tell, i'm optimistic here. I genuinely believe the Democrats will win, because i think, normal people are not as stupid as smart people think they are. I think most of these polls are probably just knee-jerk BS after the Republican convention, and in the end we can eek out a victory, not a landslide but winning is what matters.

I will say, i am tired of the Dems being "nice". Fuck that noise. I want the Democrats to cheat, i want them to win, and i honestly cant imagine how anyone could say otherwise after all this time under the Bush regime. At a certain point, you say "Fuck the rules" and you pull ahead. If i had my way i'd get as many of McCain's old war buddies as i can, shove some cash down their throats and tell them to Sweep the Legs (Cobra Kai!!!), cause God damn it that's how politics works. Lord only knows it's done the Republicans wonders so i don't see why Liberals should try and take some self-destructive "high ground"...this is a war not a fucking duel.





Anyway...
Fuck it's been a while, i'm sure everyone was distraught in my absence rite guyse!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 12:16pm 

The underlying math in this election goes like this: if Obama holds every Kerry state, which he should easily do in every state except New Hampshire, that's 252 EVs. Now, New Hampshire is close, but 60% of New Hampshire voters think John McCain is pro-choice, and if Obama doesn't correct that misconception over the next two months, he doesn't deserve to win anyway. So call it 252 EVs out of the gate.

Now consider Iowa. Obama spent months there, more than he spent in any other state. It went big for him in the caucus and turned his candidacy from longshot to frontrunner overnight. Meanwhile, McCain blew off the caucuses, which Iowans consider a grave insult, and has been trailing Obama by more than five points for the entire year; presently, at the height of the McCain bounce, Obama leads there by fifteen. So Iowa is in the bag, along with another 7 EVs. That takes us to 259, or 11 shy of victory.

Now look at New Mexico. It's another Bush state where Obama has had a lead all year. The latest polls put him up by 13, with 8 undecided. Those polls predate the RNC, but no convention bounce is going to cause a 13 point swing. In addition to all this, there's a Democratic landslide in the works in New Mexico, with the Democrats set to easily pick up a Senate seat and possibly a House seat as well. The governor, Bill Richardson, is a dedicated Obama surrogate. The state has a large Hispanic voting bloc, and Obama leads among Hispanics by double digits (remember all that talk about how Obama has a Hispanic problem, and the whispers that Hispanics were too racist to vote for a black man? Notice how it's all dried up and blown away? That's why). Bottom line, Obama will win New Mexico, adding another 5 EVs, and taking him to 264. Now he's short just 6 to win.

And guess what: Obama is in the lead in Colorado and has been all year. Many of the same factors at work in New Mexico are at work in Colorado as well, and on top of that you can add a larger population of young, well-to-do whites who vote for Obama in huge numbers. It's counterbalanced by a greater number of evangelicals, but at present, that isn't enough to give McCain a lead. Colorado has 9 EVs. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, plus Iowa and New Mexico, Colorado alone puts him over the top at 273.

Think about that: as the numbers stand, at the height of the McCain bounce, all Obama has to do is win the same states John Kerry did, and three more in which he's led all year, two of which he leads by double digits. Florida and Ohio, the two states that gave Bush his victories, don't matter in this scenario. McCain can win them and still lose the election. On the other hand, if Obama wins either or both, victory for McCain becomes virtually impossible; there's just nowhere on the map for him to make up 20 or more lost EVs. In fact, McCain is facing tight margins in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, the Dakotas, and Montana, collectively representing 53 EVs. Now, I think in most of those states, McCain will be well ahead by election day, but Obama has been in the lead in Nevada for much of the election and Virginia has been a dead heat.

There's one more interesting scenario in all this. Suppose Obama wins the Kerry states, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada, but loses Colorado? In that case, we have an electoral tie, and barring faithless electors, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Now, the Democrats have a majority there, but in its tiebreaking function, the House members don't vote as individuals, they vote as state delegations, with each state having one vote. Tied delegations effectively have no vote unless someone votes for the other guy. The Democrats control 26 House delegations, which would give Obama the win, but one of those delegations is South Dakota, where a single Democratic congresswoman would have to vote against a guy who probably won her state by a big margin. On the other hand, Delaware's Mike Castle would be in the same position, just mirrored (a Republican whose state will go for Obama by double digits). If both of them flip, it cancels out. If only South Dakota flips, you have a tie in the House and, unless a deal is struck, no election. In that case, the incoming Vice-President automatically becomes President--but hold on, because that's a tie, too. That race goes to the Senate, which stands at 50-49-1 (counting Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as a Democrat). The other "I", is, of course, Holy Joe Lieberman, who would have to chose between Sarah Palin, his good friend McCain's running mate, or Joe Biden. If Lieberman votes for Biden, Biden becomes President on 20 January. If he doesn't, we have another tie, and a constitutional crisis, because the Constitution is unclear on if the sitting Vice-President can cast a tiebreaking vote to determine his successor. So we'd be faced with the prospect of Dick Cheney personally selecting the next President of the United States. However, since the Electoral College doesn't officially vote until 16 December, and the new Congress is sworn in on 3 January, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could (and would, probably) just drag their feet until the Democrats gain bigger majorities in both houses, regardless of the language in the 12th Amendment that says the House must vote "immediately" in the case of a tie.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 02:15pm 

I kind of thought that the recent troop pull-out and the White House narrative of the imminent end of a war is probably going to hurt Obama's campaign more than anything this week. This election really is becoming more about domestic policy (economy, stupid) than anything.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 02:25pm 

It does the exact opposite. McCain has a double-digit disadvantage on the economy. Nobody thinks the Republicans can fix the economy; that's an issue that always plays into the Democrats' hands. And Iraq didn't give Obama such a huge advantage over McCain to begin with. On the war itself Obama had an edge, but the war stopped being the major issue the minute the economy went into the tank. On top of that, if Iraq is a raging clusterfuck on the news every night, that pushed national security in general to the forefront in the election, and McCain (and Republicans generally) have the advantage.

Obama basically played Iraq for all it was worth already. It got him the nomination, but it wasn't going to win him the election. A bad economy favors him the same way it favored Bill Clinton.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 06:16pm 

On the contrary, I suspect that the Republicans' message of "Don't vote Democrat or they will waste your money and raise your taxes" is still a very effective marketing tool among stupid people (who constitute most of the population), despite the abysmal failure of the Bush Administration and the fact that the latest turmoil isn't even the first time that his deregulation ideology has borne such foul fruit: does anyone even remember Enron?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 06:33pm 

The Republicans don't have to convince anyone that they can fix the economy, they just have to drill it into the voters' minds that the Democrats will fuck it up even more than they will.

Democrats will TAX your wages and SPEND it on SOCIALIZED programs. They're a bunch of COMMUNISTS who will take all your money. We'll give you TAX CUTS, you'll have MORE MONEY. We'll even give you a SPECIAL REFUND CHECK! (which of course come straight from their tax dollars and does wonders for the national debt)

And the stupid people will lap it up and vote for them. Works in the US, sadly it works in Canada too.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 06:44pm 

DING DING DING!

Bitching, pissing, and moaning doesn't do a damn thing. And neither does self indulgent naval gazing. Get out ther and get active. Glocksman is part of the Obama campaign, I'm a volunteer in the Obama campaign... is anyone else actively involved in this thing here?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:07pm 

I am. I helped register 500 voters in a predominantly Pro-Obama area of Florida over the course of a single day where I am, and help every single day where I have spare time between classes but not enough to go home and do something. And they did that with a crew of like 10 people. Granted, I was only helping for a few hours, but still, I got a couple of those.

Now, it might be kind of pointless, since it's Florida which probably won't go Obama, but at least it's helping the popular vote, and it gives me something to do because hours of solitary lunchbreak is pretty boring most of the time.

But think about it? 500 votes. 70% are Pro-Obama. 30% are Pro-McCain, when you count undecideds as not voting. That's a scant +100 added to Obama for the day. 538, a polling compilation and mathematical projection site, has McCain ahead by 3.5%.

Why 538? Well, I'm a poll junkie, and I <3 Five Thirty Eight. Their methodology is exquisitely good mathematically- It's in here.

Assume that every single florida resident votes and that they are voting according to the polls. Assume that McCain wins by 3.5%. That's a win by 600,000 people. Each day, getting +100 votes, we'd need 6000 days of working. There are 55 days.

Thus, to pull off a Florida win, we need 110 similar groups of about 10 people. 1100 people to swing a state.

At minimum, it'll tighten the race, and if it goes to the House of Representatives via tie then Obama will win every single time if he has the popular vote- but if he tied the electoral but lost the popular? Would the Democrats really do it that time, or bow to the pressure?

So get out and help the man win the popular vote, win the state you're in- even if the state you're in is solid McCain, or solid Obama. Can it be done? Maybe. Will it be done? Probably not, but you still should get the hell out of the internet and do something about it if you're going to whine.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:20pm 

I find it hilarious that Geriatric Action Man and Nazi Barbie are serious contenders for runnning the most powerful country in the world. It would be naive to believe that Obama will wave a magic wand on all of the nation's current problems, but at least he shows most indications of not steadfastly keeping America in a mess unlike his opposition.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:20pm 

Ghetto Edit- Granted, I'm an unofficial volunteer, and can't really claim credit for most of the stuff that the group is doing.

I show up because their meeting place is near a subway, and I like to occasionally grab a subway sandwich for lunch because I am bad at cooking. After eating my sandwich, I help with whatever there is unless it sounds like a major pain in the ass [voter registrations in 110 degree heat, for example] for an hour, then go back to class.

Does that make me an Obama Campaign volunteer, or just a bored collegiate student?

Perhaps the two are close enough that it doesn't matter.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:31pm 

This would be interesting, to say the least (although nerve-wracking as hell). I'm presuming it would end up in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction unless Cheney seizes the initiative and appoints Palin as President (and even then it probably would end up there; I would imagine that the Democrats would immediately file a suit in the Supreme Court). Which leaves us the entirely interesting and unpleasant situation of having another President essentially chosen by the Supreme Court in general and presumably Anthony Kennedy (the swing vote on the Court) in specific.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:34pm 

To add, I wouldn't envy Biden if he won the Presidency that way. There would probably be loud calls for him to choose Obama as his VP (assuming Pelosi doesn't automatically get bumped up because of the line of succession), then resign honorably to allow Obama to have the Presidency.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:47pm 

Who the fuck do you think you are, asking people to ACT instead of just pissing and moaning? This is SDNet, where the smartest people in the Internet gather to accurately diagnose all of the world's problems, but we're far too intelligent and busy planning for the impending economic collapse and end of civilization to get involved in the unimportant details of everyday life, such as jobs, elections, or poverty. Don't you DARE ask us to actually ACT!

You make a good point, in any case. Rather than bitching about Republicans and creationists on SDNet, maybe time would be better spent in the real world registering people to vote and canvassing for Obama.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 07:48pm 

How do you know that he hasn't done those things?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:01pm 

Yeah, and I'm doing my best to make sure Florida goes blue this year. I desperately want us to go blue, and not just blue, but bright blue (too much to ask, I know). Just so there's no fucking question this time.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:06pm 

The QUESTION was who else had done it, not an accusation. Though frankly as an accusation I'd put my money on less than 3 dozen out of the entire forum population are actually actively involved in a campaign.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:19pm 

At which point Obama can appoint Biden as vice president.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:26pm 

Does this take into account the number of states such as Illinois who have tied their electoral votes to the popular vote?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:31pm 

I'm 99.99% sure that you're wrong about this and at most some states have said they will do this if enough states also comply to ensure the candidate with the most popular votes always wins the election.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:52pm 

he's wrong about it.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:54pm 

Some of us still read these things called "newspapers" and thus get a more locally flavored news report than "rumor some random guy with a blog heard".

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5

Seriously, how many links do I need to post to disprove your "99.99% sure" opinion? Because a cursory Google search turned up 3,330,000 returns. So you know, I can keep doing this until I have enough to do away with your gut assertion. Hope the reality based thinking doesn't hurt too bad.

Anyway, for those of you who go by the facts instead of their GI tract can see, 4 states with 50 electoral votes have passed laws bypassing the electoral college and tying their votes to the popular vote. Aside from effectively removing franchise from anyone in those states in favor of the high population states, how does this affect the national election?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2008-09-09 08:56pm 

edit: youre right

its a plan that didnt succeed. becuase not enough states joined in.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/