I don't usually try and prognosticate in which direction the tracking polls are liable to move, but it looks to me like the debate may have been a pretty significant help for Barack Obama.
The Zogby-Reuters poll is already out. From reading Zogby's write-up, it sounds like Obama must have had about a 9 point lead in Thursday's interviewing and, oh, a 5-6 point lead in Wednesday's interviewing. This compared with a 2-point lead over the Sunday-Tuesday window, before the debate occurred. (Zogby's party ID weightings are screwy, but we'll discuss that at another time; the poll should be fine for inferring trendlines).
Research 2000 had Obama winning Wednesday's daily sample by 12 points, as compared with 9 on Monday and 8 on Tuesday.
Or take a look at the most recent Rasmussen polling. They put five polls out tonight: Obama by 3 in Florida, Obama by 1 in North Carolina, Obama by 16 in Michigan, Obama by 8 in New Jersey, and McCain by 7 in Indiana. From among that set of polling, the Indiana result is poor for Obama, and the New Jersey result is a little below expectations, but the North Carolina and Florida numbers are pretty good and the Michigan number is very good. Obama's two worst polls from that group -- Indiana and New Jersey -- were conducted on Tuesday, principally before the debate. The other three, which were stronger for him, were conducted on Wednesday, after the debate.
So, I don't know. Take this with a grain of salt. But there are some hints that Obama may be on track to post some of his strongest numbers yet as we head into the weekend.
10.10.2008
Debate May Have Helped Obama
@ 1:31 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
817 comments
This site makes me so happy.
Is everyone as disgusted as I am with McCain/Palin's really nasty, mean attacks, and the incitement to hatred that they trigger? Everytime I see one, I send a small (all I can do) check to Obama, as a way of protesting.
I can go to bed now and have sweet dreams...
@Lee
Yes I am
have you seen the youtube videos of people in the line for the rallies yelling
"commie faggots" and "sand nigger" and "terrorist"
it's so frightening
I hope the rest of the country feels the way I do and its just an anomoly
Cindy McCain and her fake outrage over Obama voting no on a funding bill because it contained no timetables weeks after her husband voted against a funding bill because it DID have a timetable was about as pathetic an attack as i've ever seen.
Hey, first time poster. I have a question. Why is McCain going to Iowa again this weekend? His campaign claims that his internal polling is better there than it is in the public polls. I know that Nate says that this a is a lie campaigns often tell to boost morale--but then why is McCain actually GOING to the state?
Just curious about other people's take on this...
Has any candidate, ever, used there spouse as an attack dog other than Clinton (and Bill was clearly a politico)? Cindy said she was not political and was not getting involved period. Maybe she is back on drugs...
Agree that things are still moving Obama and I am a bit surprised by it. I thought the debate was an Obama plus. Is it possible the scared right is falling for these attacks from Palin more than the left, and the red states are reacting - like IN.
wntsmth-
I think McCain's only shot is to pull in the Bussh 2004 map and pray they win in a squeaker, amybe even losing the popular vote along the way. They need every state for that, and IA is one they would sure like. That said, I go to IA alot on business and see no move to McCain in IA at all. Sure, you can call some rural voters and get weird polls there, but Des Moines is very, very, blue.
@lee
In a word, yes. It terrifies me. For the first time, I'm really afraid of either an assassination attempt (and God willing, ONLY an attempt) and/or a riot being sparked.
McCain and Palin should be ashamed of themselves - especially McCain. I had a fair amount of respect for him before this even though I didn't agree with him. But I now find him despicable. No one should be stirring up this kind of bigotry and anger. They're playing with fire.
I wonder what Lieberman thinks of this - he of all people should realize the danger these tactics represent. I hope, assuming that he's honest enough to get it, that he informs McCain of it, because he might be the only person who might be able to break through McCain's frustration and anger.
Dont worry markedman...if they keep that crap up, a 527 will tape it and air it as an ad, and it will scare the **** out of everyone except republicans.
And nate, your optimism allows me to sleep better.
Nate's optimism is great, but Barack has something to say to you if you lose faith in his electoral possibilities:
http://punditkitchen.com/?s=chill
wnstnsmth said...
Why is McCain going to Iowa?
My assumption is that the poll average here is pretty close to whatever internal polling the campaigns are doing. In that context, it doesn't make sense.
Except when you try to think about where McCain OUGHT to go. Yes, he ought to go to Virginia/North Carolina to shore up those states, but that's a solely defensive posture, and if he wants to win, he's ultimately going to have to make some aggressive offensive moves to change the current electoral map.
So there's an element where they'd probably rather play offense than defense, on the off chance that they can catch Obama off guard.
But there's probably also another consideration in play--the McCain campaign probably believes that the Bradley effect is real (or wants to believe that, which is the same thing), and therefore concludes that Obama will lose Virginia/North Carolina anyway since he has only a relatively small lead in those states, and that Iowa and Wisconsin are closer in striking range than they look. It's a pretty big gamble to take, but consistent with the huge risk-taking behavior of the McCain campaign so far.
Facing an ever-widening lead for Obama (though I agree with Nate and others that it will peak/plateau), the Right is now a cornered animal.
Intellectually honest conservatives recognize that it's too late and are already compiling a list of "what went wrong" in the GOP's 2008 run, starting with McCain's nomination and ending with the Palin pick.
The diehards, however, are betting the farm on a good ol' fashioned Rovian smear-and-fear... but Obama's background is relatively clean (on account of his short political career and his generally ethical behavior). As a result there's little ammunition for them.
Net result? Media and mainstream America loses any and all interest in Ayers, Wright, Rezco, et al by the middle of next week at the latest.
At this point McCain only wins if we have a terrorist attack, and even then... a squeaker.
There is so much going on right now---including the stock market crash and the smear campaign against Obama (and the repercussion against McCain)---that it is hard to figure out why polls are moving up or down. If indeed the moving up and down is more than just noise.
I don't know how much further Obama has to go up. It seems like he has converted most of the undecideds, and he would have to start digging into the base at this point.
But of course, last month, I didn't think Obama would have a 90% win percentage in Virginia, and I didn't think the stock market would be at 8600 points.
I think that Obama should preempt McCain in the final debate and bring up Ayers BEFORE McCain.
"You practice the politics of personal destruction, and you don't even have the courage to say those despicable lies to my face"
If Obama gets that in before McCain brings it up there is absolutely no way McCain could respond to that or continue to use the personal attacks without looking like even more of a buffoon.
@gymble
I'm kind of afraid of an assassination attempt too, however if it's ONLY an attempt, it will jump his poll numbers significantly. Not to be a cold hearted bastard, but if Obama is OK (which, God willing, is what would happen), the country's even better.
I'm guessing the attacks are having minimal effects on Obama--the best the have is Ayers, which people realize is total bunk, especially when the response is the Keating scandal.
WHY IN THE HELL AREN'T YOU POSTING THE GALLUP POLL NUMBERS ON THE SUPER TRACKER?
I DON'T SEE ANY BLUE DOT AT +11
baudknight-
Great point. I am so sure there is no Bradley Effect based on data that I dis miss it. The Gallup organization seemed to confirm that the Bradley Effect does not exist today.
That said, IA makes sense if you just cut off 2-4 points from every state. If you do that, IA is in play and FL, NC, and VA are close but leaning repub.
That is a conpletely insane position to take, but no more insane than suspending your campaign with no plan, or picking Palin.
"Why is McCain going to Iowa"
My friend speculates that McCain has gone from campaign to performance art. More reasonably speaking, as things get more desperate for McCain, he's going to have to try to pull bigger and bigger rabbits out of his hat, so he'll be doing strange things.
What are your takes on this "obama interfered with negotiations between Iraq and Bush" story that has popped up again? It is now in the Washington Times (that liberal rag, err) and apparently he was acting within his role as a senator on the foreign relations comittee.
I was worried a lot when the headline came up, but now considering the source and the limited allegations I am not sure.
What do you all think?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/
No surprise that Obama was helped by the debate given McCain's contempt, pacing, and hovering over the crowd. Not to mention "That one!"
Senate Spotlight: Minnesota
What's good for GM is good for GM
great job as always Nate. I am just gonna keep posting trying to get you to come to TX, and trying to get Sean to set up a date for us. I am in grad school and an always use help from a cute, oBama backing statistician who loves fantasy baseball!
On Obama digging into the repub base.
I think he has a shot, I have no polling to show it yet but my repub friends, and even Mule Rider and Real Joe on this board are becoming despondent over the market and being on the losing side for the first time in years. When you add that Palin scares most sane people, even sane republicans, there is some digging to do in the repub base. How do you do it? Youmake them cofortable with Obama...which is exactly what this new long form family and America Obama ad does. Have you seen it? Saw on a PA station tonight, it is very well done.
Rastaman,
No all caps!
The blue dots are not individual polls, but polling averages!
Don't yell
Palin totally killed McCain's campaign in Florida by reminding elderly Jewish voters of the European horrors of the 1930s. Obama will win FL by 4 points. Especially at a time when people between 60 and 65 just saw their retirement accounts evaporate 20% in 2 weeks.
McCain knows it and he's angry. His surrogates know it and they're stuck. Expect to see Rev. Wright on Monday. It's the last card in the deck; unfortunately it also debunks the Muslim smear and they don't have the air power to counter Obama's ad spending.
McCain is running against The Dow, Bush and Palin's hard-core supporters. All before dealing with Obama.
@gymbal and lee:
I actually think there's another effect that won't be measured in the polls. The assassination and intimidation rage factor may do quite a bit to trip of Obama's ground game. It certainly has me a little concerned that I'm going to run into a flagrant nutjob who will think that _I'm_ a terrorist, or a socialist, or a pinko, or something completely fucked up like that, just because I support Obama. So that, it seems to me, is the real danger here.
One day, when i'm long dead. I hope we have a blue America. It will never happen in my lifetime. Alot of this wingnuts need to die off before it can happen.
Anyone got a clue on Obama's fundraising last month? It has to be a huge number to outspend McCain like he has.
Here's hoping the RNC bails out on McCain soon and tries to defend the senate. It may be there only real shot at power in 2009.
@rastaman
The blue dots are an AVERAGE of that day's polls, that's why.
Remember when McCain's campaign almost went bankrupt in the summer of 2007?
McCain credits over a hundred townhalls in New Hamphsire for his win there on January 8th which breathed new life into his campaign.
McCain's current campaigning is all about the rallies and the townhalls. He's hoping luck will strike him once more. But you can't sprint through a 100 townhalls in every swing state in 25 days, even if your Mom is 94-years-old.
I drive a truck, a completely sane republican lawyer I work with asked me if I had a gun in the glove compartment to protect myself since I was "driving around with that Obama bumper sticker".
These folks are scary, and Palin really needs to lay off the hate.
> I think that Obama should
> preempt McCain in the final
> debate and bring up Ayers BEFORE > McCain.
It would be much more powerful to simply turn to him and ask, "John, what happened to you? You used to be respectful and true to your ideals. I don't recognize you any more."
Whoops: "trip up."
In other words, some people who may otherwise be thankful that they can finally put Obama stickers on their cars, may suddenly feel driven out of town.
I'm not completely convinced of this effect yet, but it's really important that Obama supporters brave the Obama haters. They must not be cowed.
What the McCain campaign is doing is inciting violence and people have gone to jail for it. It is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre and slander all in one breath. It is dispicable and shameful. You'd think MCain would have more hnoor than that and say something to the effect: My friends, I have run a dishonerable campaign because I've been persuaded by mom campaign but it has just hit me. I've surrounded myself with lobbysists and Bush men. I'm done. I know what this country needs adn i can give it to you guys by bringing a democratic and republican cabinenet to the white house. Barack Ogama is great guy and will be president after my first term and will be ready by then. However, we need to win in Iraq, and we need someone that knows how to run government in a bipartisan way. I do and Obama can be my VP. He will learn or maybe I can be his VP and I will help him bring a true Bipartisan government to the USA.
@KernelReefer
I think that you're right about the way an attempt would affect the polls, but honestly, I'd rather not have that scenario occur at all. I'm afraid of someone getting hurt if McCain and Palin insist on sticking to this path. I could easily see a riot occurring and then it's almost certain that someone would get hurt or killed.
I suspect that Obama's debate performances are the best antidote to the fear-mongering. Ayers may be meat for the base, but the independents who actually decide the election are going to have a tough time merging the caricature of a crazy-eyed liberal with someone as calm and intelligent as Obama. The images don't match up, which has been part of McCain's problem the whole time. A few months ago, it was Obama "the bumbling naif," then Obama "the wordy celebrity," then Obama "the Washington insider," and now Obama "the terrorist sympathizer." There's a reason they keep switching smear tactics - they keep not working.
I don't have the faintest idea why McCain keeps going to Iowa. Maybe because if he went Virginia (or worse, North Carolina) the media would start calling "defense"? If he goes to Iowa, it looks as if he's still in the game, poll numbers be damned. At this point, I agree with what Nate said a while back - unless there's significant movement in the national numbers, McCain is toast.
@ Wilson
I don't just want this country blue, I want it run by real progressives. Unfortunately it seems we've lsot that spirit, a casualty of the post-1960s come-down I suppose.
Today's Democrats, while much better than the GOP, would be considered the center-right party in my ideal political landscape.
The Secret Service is being forced to investigate these statements, and if they keep up the Secret Service will likely step in and ask for less hate. That would be an amazing turn, but it is their job to stop this stuff.
Oh, don't worry, I have no gun and my bumper sticker is firmly placed where it will stay.
Hey Fred:
I have to agree with you. Fortunately, I've heard tales of military bases near my home where residents are actually finally showing their Obama support on their lawn and on their trucks. I have reason to believe that some people are legitimately just looking for answers and guidance; and that some of the hate has got to fade.
Fact is, we have really two options here: a completely erratic old man PTSD, or a bright new thinker with a brilliant education. Now may not be the time to roll the dice on an explosive and unpredictable tightwad with no sense of the economy and one foot in the grave.
Even if McCain wants to play offense, shouldn't he do that in NH where 100 townhalls helped, or MN where the polling is closer?
Why would they think IA would have a big Bradley Effect? It is a very white state, but those folks are also very tlerant (I am almost one of them, raised on the border).
@ryan
intellectual conservatives. aren't these those confused people who don't want less government but still want the government to interfear with abortions?
this race looks just about over. if Obama brings up ayers in a anti-personal attack statement before mcshame can bring it up, the GOP is going to be toast
one more thing, with all the young voters etc. i can really see Liberal rule for the next 30 years at the fedrel level
Plus, Obama overpreformed in the in Iowa which is next to IL
We're so used to cowering in the corner at this point in the election cycle, waiting for another Democratic candidate to roll over, that perhaps we might not readily see that this candidate is unique, this set of circumstances is unique, and best of all, the Obama Campaign has handled EVERYTHING that has been flung in its direction - at least thus far.
I'm not suggesting things can't change quickly, but I'm starting to have some serious faith in these folks! Here's hoping many of them stick around for an Obama Administration....
This is great news. I don't know if it's possible for Obama to go higher, but the election is only 24 days away and it's unlikely that he will drop significantly.
We need to eliminate the Republican status quo. Destroy their confidence, decimate their numbers and annihilate their support. A 60+ majority in the senate would set the tone for the next several decades. The republicans are an anchor on our nation's progress, and we need to turn the pages of history, leaving their backwards ideas in the past where they belong.
With each debate, it seems, Obama's numbers go up. The more attention he gets, the greater his numbers are. Crush those political fossils and their outdated ideas.
McCain shouldn't bother with MN, IA and PA.
Sean, the thing is, whenever the subject changes, Obama is usually flat footed until a couple days later. So as long as the subject stays the same then he should be fine but a change of topic could put Obama on his feet again. Hopefully with early voting and more money this can be mitigated but if there is an october surprise, I'd say it helps McCain, unless he messes it up like he did the economy.
True conservatives are George Will and the now dead Buckly. They did care about social issues a little, but they cared about economic and government size alot. Someone just wrote that the social conservatives like Palin are stealing the heart of the republican party (David Brooks?). When Reagan brought the social conservatives on board they were always tangential to the real government. He whipped up for votes, but left them out of the governemnt. The real difference with the neo-cons and Bush is they allow these evangelical crazies to govern as part of there group. This insane policy change has killed the true traditional repub party.
At this point, what Obama is also doing is forcing the GOP to make trade-offs. RNC has to decide at what point they become vulnerable to a blowout in the Senate. If Dems are sensing they can unseat the GOP Senate leader, you know things are bad.
Regarding Obama-haters:
I recently picked up my brother-in-law at the airport in Norfolk, VA (we were headed to Virginia Beach for a family reunion). A relatively new audi with two white men in the front and two white women in the back pulled alongside me (a white doctor driving a 2001 Blue Subaru Forester with an Obama magnet) while at a traffic light. They were giving me the thumbs down and I could see the vitriol in their lip movements. I rolled down the window and the older of the two men (probably 65-70, in the passenger seat), yelled, "go back to Kenya you fucking asshole."
I pulled back up to them at the next light, and asked, "Am I an asshole solely because of who I choose to vote for?"
Passenger: "God damn right you fucking asshole, go back to Kenya you fucking asshole."
Driver: "(to the passenger) Bruce, bruce . . . calm down (to me) no really, why would you vote for Obama?"
Me: If your racist, ignorant colleague doesn't give you reason enough, I don't know what will.
-- Never struck me as dangerous, but I did feel like a minority in the Virginia Beach (read as: Navy central) area with my Obama magnet.
Palin would be the last, scary step inthe evangelical takeover of the repub party. She would be a true evangelical in the most powerful seat in the party, or one of them. That alone should scare the hell out of a true conservative like George Will. He should fight it, he must fight it.
Come on George, endorse Obama!
The fiscal conservatives are likely to be the ones that Obama could sway over to his side. Lets face it, the social conservatives would be willing to live in Middle Ages conditions as long as abortion is outlawed.
The way for Obama to woo the fiscal conservatives is to passionately promise an end to the socialism practices of government controlled banking etc immediately following the resumption of normal economic conditions. He can also promise extensive regulations to promise this sort of calamity, but he will insure that we do not impose excessive regulation. He needs to make all the fiscal conservatives know that the current government intervention is a short term fix, and will give way to regulated free market principles following the recovery of the economy.
Nawaid,
There are intellectual conservatives out there, who are able to articulate a cohesive ideology and philosophy, and I respect that... even if I'd never want to live in a world run by them. That's what's great about being a liberal, we accept relativism so we can still like people even when we know they're wrong :)
Perhaps the reason McCain himself jumped into the Ayers issue on Thursday instead of just using Palin and surrogates is because his campaign saw very strong post-debate numbers for Obama on Wednesday. They are afraid the bottom may fall out.
shadowguide-
That is what is so funny, the evangelicals would NOT be wiling to live in the middle ages to outlaw abortion. The obsession goes deeper, the derangement - most believe that the country of the U.S. is some kind of God given right to them and if we all pray harder and follow God then the country wil be safe and great. These folks are completely deluded and crazy, and that is why they must lose.
Why Obama is going to Iowa and Wisconsin:
Because if he pulled that race-baiting crap in Virginia or North Carolina it would be a scandal. Better to do that in the midwest.
This is excellent news!
FOR JOHN MCWALNUTS! !!
Coupla quesitons:
Am I the first to post this?
Where'd all the FReeperz go?!?
You mean McCain?
That race baiting crap is niot flying in IA. If he wants to race bait, he needs to go to ID.
I do kinda miss the freepers. They are all planning to secede because they are such strong Americans...
I know that the McCain tactics are maddening but we can not stoop to their level. Saying that conservatives need to die off and saying that all social conservatives are crazy is not true. There are plenty of democrats that disagree with abortion. I'm one of them and I'm not even a christian. does that make me crazy or Bob Casey Jr. from PA crazy? no So we need to hold ourselves to higher standards... look where it is getting Obama :)
"There are intellectual conservatives out there, who are able to articulate a cohesive ideology and philosophy, and I respect that... even if I'd never want to live in a world run by them. That's what's great about being a liberal, we accept relativism so we can still like people even when we know they're wrong :)"
See, that's the thing. I UNDERSTAND fiscal conservatism. I disagree with it, but at least I understand the underlying philosophy behind it. Social conservatism on the other hand...I just don't even fathom how these people think. They are just hands down batshit loony to me. I can't wrap my mind around any sort of logic behind their beliefs....and I'm a Christian. The version of Christianity that they believe in is right out of the middle ages. It's just a damn scary thing. Watching that Palin witchcraft video makes me cough up bile. I'm scared to death of that woman having her well manicured finger on the button. She is loony bin material in my eyes.
> These folks are completely
> deluded and crazy, and that is
> why they must lose.
Don't kid yourself. There are a lot of them between the Cascade/Sierra and the Applachians (among other places). These rallies and the anger that is emerging is really disturbing - it's talk radio turned up two or three notches. Palin is playing with serious fire and obviously has no idea what can happen because in Alaska this sort of stuff is harmlessly remote from the rest of the country. It won't take much to ignite the mixture of desperation, economic despair, and simple racism. That McCain either doesn't see it or won't stop it is even more disturbing.
The GOP is whipping up the hate in this election. I recently emailed an old friend I had not spoken to in three years. I just wanted see what he was up to and I mentioned I was voting for Obama, and I asked what he thought. He emailed me back a lengthy diatribe that sounded like a McCain campaign talking points memo. I essentially asked him to chill out, and I got another diatribe. I did not respond in kind, but simply said I did not want to hear anymore and left it at that.
Ryan: Please don't accept relativism. Relativism is a bad view. Accept relativity. Accept that views differ. Don't accept that there is no standard of evaluation between those views.
derek-
Who has stooped to any level? Evangelicals are scary folks, believen a higher power will come down at every moment to change the world. That itseelf is nuts in any objective sense.
How does that say anything about abortion? I sure did not...
Yes sorry, i mean McCain.
I don't think it matters where he is doing it as long as it gets on the teevee. It might not work well in Iowa but at least he can fire up the base and keep Obama on defense there. And it gets on the news.
Maybe I'm off base, but I think it would be far too dangerous, politically, for him to make those sorts of attacks in VA or NC
Also, I wonder how closely the GOP is watching this. They have to also be concerned about paralyzing the party brand. If these attacks don't take in the polls, I imagine there will be some pressure to stop and just lose with dignity.
I don't think many people know much about election law, or McCain's gambit would be a lot clearer to everyone.
Going negative on Obama is the only way to make use of RNC's money. By law, RNC's Independent Expenditure Committee cannot run pro-McCain ads, however, they can run negative ads on anyone. Obama's financial advantage is so overwhelming that the only way McCain can even begin to match it is by pooling together with RNC's IE Commttee.
They probably fear that if they don't pool money together their message will be completely drowned out by Obama's ads.
I haven't spoken with a high school friend of mine since Bush won the last election. Literally, I spoke with him the day of the election, bet him a case of beer that Kerry would win, and then lost the election. I was so defeated that I never followed up.
I'm looking forward to buying him that case of beer, minus a few beers for the deflation that we've experienced under Bush, on November 5, 2008. A little late, but I figure if I apply interest (which in this case will be negative), I'm basically good.
The three biggest social conservative issues is Abortion, Gays and Guns. Abortion is preventing someone from living. Whether you call that murder or preemptive surgery to prevent life it is still taking something. To me that is inarguable. Now there may be "good reason" to do it but I think it is completely rational to believe that no matter what that good reason, there is another way. As far as gays go, I'm gay and I don't want gay marriage. Again, I think this is should be left up to churches but either way, gays should be given the same rights as straight couples. Civil marriage=civil unions and religious marriage=church ceremony. Anybody who argues with that is not a social conservative they are a hater. As far as guns go, our constitution gives us that right and democracy, even though it is messy, we should protect freedoms enumerated in the constituion. So I'm on base with 2 out of 3 of the Christian conservatives and I'm a hard core democrat. Not all social conservatives are crazy
pygmy, you might find this article interesting (at least the first part where she talks about the tension with her friends).
Crunchy Cons
Evangelicals are crazy, social conservatives are just, well, on the road to agnostic salvation ;)
Ayers? Basically, they're grasping for the only thing they can find that's in reach that they MIGHT have some possibility of blowing up into a big enough media distraction object to cover Palin getting reamed seventeen different ways when the Troopergate report hits.
The Base won't care. Nothing short of something public, obscene and blasphemous, is going to crack that group of (often) mouthbreathers. But the conservatives who still think... and the independents who are trying to decide... are going to recoil from an incompetent, ignorant, vapid, venal, corrupt VP nominee who lies like a bear rug. Which goes to... judgment--McCain's--which is precisely what Obama's been jabbing at all along.
Do we really want to vote for an old guy whose health is iffy, who's said to have a terrible temper, and whose judgment sucked on the war (all along), and sucked on selecting such a corrupt, nitwit zealot as his VP nominee? Good god, she'd be next in line to a guy with a good chance of just checking out.
Palin's an albatross for McCain now--with the parts of the electorate he desperately needs to reach. So the ONLY thing left is to throw mud at Obama--any mud that anyone puts in his reach--hoping that there's a rock in there somewhere.
Epic Fail.
But it's going to be butt ugly, and my guess is that McCain will succeed mostly in pushing a lot of people into just not voting (for him), as well as some into voting Obama. Flailing doesn't look presidential.
I've come to suspect that just like the Dow doesn't seem to know where it's going to find a stable stopping point... the EV count for Obama will shift beyond what would seem reasonable... normally.
Because we're not in a "normal" time at all.
Krassen:
I think this goes beyond simply a negative campaign. As I understand it, a negative campaign ad is any ad that merely mentions the other candidate. It's negative by virtue of non-focus on the candidate running the ad.
These ads are SMEAR ads. The campaigns are pure acid. They're nasty, hate-filled shock-jock stuff.
The very idea that somehow Obama -- a MAJOR political party candidate -- is a terrorist or a traitor is completely outrageous, not to mention logically incoherent. He's running for political office precisely because he's not a terrorist. Being a terrorist would suggest that he employed tactics of terror to achieve political ends. Similarly, being a traitor would suggest that he sells out the government; but he hasn't sold out the government. He's a _constitutional law_ scholar. He's been studying this shit forever.
"The three biggest social conservative issues is Abortion, Gays and Guns."
It's not just the political issues, it's their entire world view. I don't want a president making energy policy who assumes that the Rapture is coming any day. I don't want my president to have their finger on the trigger who honestly believes that god will not let any harm come to our nation. I don't want my president to make a fool of us on the international stage by calling a damn Crusade against Muslims or something.
I am not sure who said what and want to stay on top of the conversation but it was said that conservatives need to die off so the US can be blue or what not and it was said that conservatives are crazy. Surely the democrats, who admittedly must cater to some interests in the electorate are not RIGHT on every single last issue? Surely conservatives have some good ideas or they wouldn't have as much support as they do.
@Derek:
You may be on board with 2/3 issues, but it's the ideology that drives the belief.
Theirs is based on hate.
Well said Fred! (inre: the Will/Buckley Con distinction)
Whoop...Whoop...(sirens going off) First time poster here.
I work in an Indiana Obama office. Many of the locals remind me that this state is the current HQ for the KKK. I have had several people in the past week target Obama (me) with extreme racist hate when calling them from the phone banks. This has to be directly related to the acceptance of it being perpetrated by McPain. This state may not be so easy to swing as some of the other "swing" states but we keep on soldering on. When we canvas on foot we remember to keep a look out for unusual events around us. I am amazed at some of the pain and hurt that people express to me when calling them (nice people)...some of their stories are incredible.
McCain just put his people in play here about 10 days ago...O has been here since the primaries.
Great piece on New Albany Nate.
If (god forbid) there were an attempt on Obama's life, there are only three possible outcomes:
1) Obama dies, Biden (and whoever he picks as his new vice-president -- maybe Hillary?) win in a landslide on the sympathy and outrage.
2) Obama lives, and wins in a landslide on the sympathy and outrage.
3) Obama lives because a secret serviceman took the bullet for him, and the secret serviceman dies. McCain and Palin are publically criticized for irresponsible rhetoric by someone high up in the Secret service, pilloried by the press, and go on to lose every state but Oklahoma. Democrats win 60+ senate seats even without Lieberman. McCain retires in disgrace; Palin is recalled (nominally over Troopergate).
So, if anyone from McCain's campaign is reading this -- are any of these really what you want?
Agnostic salvation:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/leviticus2.html
Getting kicked out of Falwell University is good for the soul (the best church parody on the web, from someone kicked out of Falwell's University three weeks before graduation - thats tolerance for ya!):
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Holy crap, the Alaska Secessionist Party was sponsored by Iran. Yes, THAT Iran!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/
Also, Ayers is a damn college proffessor, does that mean that his college is a terrorist sympathizer too and every kid who goes there is and every parent who allows their kid to go to school there might as well be sending them to a madrasa? WTF? Sarah Palin is scary but she is not a good representation of social conservatives. She is vastly inexperienced and hasn't put a lot of thought into her beliefs. I think she is a skilled politician and I think her upbringing in ID and living in AL gives her a tainted world view. There are smart conservatives out there, and some of them are democrats.
The levitcal law is the law from the book of LEviticus - can't eat much, can't wear mixed threads clothing, can't masturbate, and you pretty much get killed or maimed for any violation.
"wnstnsmth said...
Hey, first time poster. I have a question. Why is McCain going to Iowa again this weekend? His campaign claims that his internal polling is better there than it is in the public polls. I know that Nate says that this a is a lie campaigns often tell to boost morale--but then why is McCain actually GOING to the state? Just curious about other people's take on this..."
I'm an Iowan, and it's just inexplicable. If he really thought Iowa was close (and it's not), why would he dump on ethanol subsidies *and* try to rip out the throats of the Des Moines Register editorial board?
Either...
(a) McCain is deluded about his Iowa chances, or
(b) he's just going through the motions (though Iowa's a strange place to do it, since he's never been very popular there, and even had the gall to skip the Iowa caucuses in January while Obama was practically living in Iowa before the caucuses, which of course he won)
My guess is it's primarily B, but also we're clearly seeing some signs of A.
Being conservative is not based on hate. Who do conservatives hate when they don't want abortions? Who do conservatives hate when they want the right to own a gun and not have to have it disassembled? I think they typically do hate the gays but that is changing over time. It is the next big civil rights battle... but morality will prevail.
Graham, I think somebody earlier already said it best when they said M has to make a showing of being on the Offensive. I haven't heard anything from anyone about Ioway softening up...it is generally well educated and not too fundamentalist there...his recent negative message doesn't fit in that state.
Derek-
The philosophy is fine, it is the implementation that screw it all up. Look at Hannity or Rush, and say 50 times:
"Somewhere in America, a conservative is lying"
McCain's number of attendees at his Wisconsin rallies today were way way less than the numbers Bush managed to get. McCain is seriously overestimating his chances in Wisconsin, which I might remind everyone was a blue state in both 2000 and 2004. This year we look to be a very blue state.
And furthermore, even if by some miracle McCain did squeak through in Iowa... whoop-dee-damn-do, he gets 7 electoral votes. Maybe he ought to be more worried about Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida right now. The wheels are coming off at McCain HQ.
On a different note, when I'm not in Iowa I'm in Egypt, and right now it's Egypt. Was with two friends in a hotel bar last night, and two Egyptian waiters came up (a man and a woman) and desperately wanted to know if Obama would win. They were beaming with happiness, and you could tell they wanted the old America back so badly. This is a typical reaction to Obama in Egypt, but last night's had a bit more emotional punch to it than usual.
Ryan-
Sure, picka VP who hates America, is a crazy evangelical, a seccionist - and then use as an attack dog on those issues (religion, patriotism, etc.). It makes perfect sense, great choice
Okay, SERIOUSLY. Speculation -- POSITIVE speculation at that! -- about the consequences of an assassination attempt? Are you kidding me? I am horrified, this is on the level of Republicans going "wow, if only we have a terrorist attack in the next month maybe we'll win after all" or something equally appalling. However upset and miserable it would make me, I would much rather LOSE this election to John McCain than have an assassination attempt take place against Obama, and I'm sorry, I think it's incredibly sick to publicly speculate about it like it's just some other political event.
Well done on Colbert!
Hannity and Rush are partisan hacks. Again, the political elite are kinda crazy but your everyday american is a lot alike. We all want less abortions, some of us just see it as a morality issue. We want common since gun laws. We want immigration reform. Ironically, McCain used to be somewhat centrist in his conservative beliefs. Not all conservatives are evil. Some are, but so are some leftists. I've heard some people on the left that make me want to puke, granted more so on the right but still. That is why I love Obama. Because he is pragmatic and understands at the end of the day, we are all American and we are all human. We typically have the same values and desires and we can coexist despite differing views. I just wish some of you guys would be more like Obama and less like Jeremiah Wright
"two Egyptian waiters came up (a man and a woman) and desperately wanted to know if Obama would win. They were beaming with happiness, and you could tell they wanted the old America back so badly. This is a typical reaction to Obama in Egypt, but last night's had a bit more emotional punch to it than usual."
Yeah, I have a friend from Dortmund, Germany and he has consistently been saying for years that half of Europe thinks USA is way too right wing - too interventionist, too hawkish, and our xenophobia reminds him of some of the more...infamous...times in German history. The more right wing we go, the more the rest of the world distrusts and fears us.
If we can manage to slide more comfortably to the middle, we'll probably see a lot of our current adversaries like Iran and North Korea lightern their rhetoric towards us. The rhetoric is a two way street - both sides right now think they need to sound tough for their own people.
@ roger: brilliant.
@ wilson: America WILL turn blue, some problems will get fixed, then the D's WILL sooner or later f#@k it up, and maybe by then we'll have a party that stands for fiscal responsibility AND personal freedoms. Maybe.
Just because someone is wrong on Global warming and completely out of her league and played local politics by trying to scrounge up votes where ever she could get them, even if it was from the AKIP doesn't mean she hates American. That is just as bad as the Obama Ayers attacks. Come on people. Why do we have to be nasty.
Abortion is preventing someone from living. Whether you call that murder or preemptive surgery to prevent life it is still taking something. To me that is inarguable. Now there may be "good reason" to do it but I think it is completely rational to believe that no matter what that good reason, there is another way. As far as gays go, I'm gay and I don't want gay marriage. -- Derek
If you're a gay male, with no chance of being on either end of a pregnancy, you don't get a vote on abortion IMO :/ At least, I find that my gay male friends don't have a good understanding of the complexities of contraception and the many, many ways it can fail, in addition of course to rape, incest and so on, and the issues relating to the mother's health. Those that put their lives on the line have to be the ones making this decision.
I'm all for taking steps to minimize the occurrence of abortion, of course. Education and contraception for all, absolutely.
As for gay marriage, you may not want it, but why stop somebody else who does? *shrug* Certainly equal civil and economic rights as provided in "union" arrangements are more important though.
Graham
as a traveler you now how the world used to admire America as a beacon of freedom and democracy not a self centered bully and agressor....my experiences have been similar throughout the world Moslem and otherwise....let's take America back from the savages....
Today in Waukesha, WI in a clip no doubt on YouTube, McCain promised a black supporter he would bring up ACORN and Jeremiah Wright at next week's debate. The crowd wanted McCain to go for the jugular on Obama's Chicago cast of characters.
Jeremiah Wright is not inconsistent with the former child Muslim theory or even the false current Muslim rumor because -- Jerome Corsi revealed that Jeremiah is a former Black Muslim, Trinity sells Nation of Islam DVDs, Trinity gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, and according to usamaway on YouTube Trinity told him they allow new members to remain Muslims if they wish.
Look for Wright's greatest hits to be in heavy rotation again in the last 2 weeks of the campaign especially in VA, NC, PA, WI, MN, and OH.
Some discussion on this site yesterday prompted me to look again at the graphs on the www.electoral-vote.com site. In particular I overlayed the graphs that excluded sites where the margin was less than 5%. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html)
This review did reassure me.
From June until Kerry was swiftboated it is true that the 2004 graph looks much like 2008.
The Swiftboating dramatically reduced the number of "firm" Electoral College votes that Kerry had - its impact on the "firm" Bush EC votes was much less marked.
Kerry recovered somewhat but neither candidate managed to hold more than 270 in "firm" EC votes from then until the election. This meant that with so many marginal states liable to swing either way the outcome of the 2004 election was hard to predict.
From August this year the pattern is markedly different to the corresponding period in 2004. We have cheered as Obama has steadily increased his "firm" EC votes right past 270. The Palin effect shows as just a (large) blip in an otherwise consistently upward trend.
McCain in contrast has essentially flat-lined in "firm" EC votes all year. Without a swiftboat 2008 equivalent in the next three weeks he is not going anywhere.
mrinsight22-
Hey man, I encourage your guy to bring up Rev. Wright, the secret Muslim nonsense, and all the other attack lines they have. Each time you attack with these themes, you only cause the silent middle third of America to recoil against these attacks. Your base loves it, the other 75% of America thinks is kinda sad, particularly during an economic downturn of massive proportions.
As far as gays go, I'm gay and I don't want gay marriage. Again, I think this is should be left up to churches but either way, gays should be given the same rights as straight couples. Civil marriage=civil unions and religious marriage=church ceremony.
This entire ridiculous argument is over a word: "marriage". The word "marriage" has two separate but closely related meanings. In federal law it means "a common form of contract in which two people decide they want to live together, which has various legal priviledges in the tax code, immigration law etc.". In church, it's the name of a religious sacrament (a ceremony) used to bless two people who have decided they love each other and want to live together. The "pro-gay marriage" people are using the word in its legal meaning: they want to adjust the terms of a form of legal contract so it no longer has a requirement that the two parties in the contract be of opposite genders. They don't see this as having anything to do with religious matters: obviously it's up to a minister to decide whether or not he's willing to perform a religious ceremony. Some do, some don't, that's fine.
Unfortunately, many people with strong religious faith seem to confuse the two meanings of the word, and think we're trying to legislate a religious subject, "marriage" in it's religious meaning, despite the fact that that would be in clear breach of the Constitution.
What I'm waiting for is for someone (well, five someones) in the Supreme Court to get a clue, and declare that the use of the word "marriage" anywhere in the Federal legal code is a breach of the separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution, since it's the Federal government making laws about an institution of religion, and declare all Federal laws that currently contain the words "marriage"/"married"/etc. unconstitutional until they are changed to "civil union"/etc.
Wikipedia - "Evangelicalism is a theological movement, tradition, and system of beliefs, most closely associated with Protestant Christianity, which identifies with the Gospel. Although evangelicalism has been defined in a number of ways,[1] most adherents consider belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"), some expression of the gospel through evangelism, a high regard for Biblical authority, and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus to be key characteristics" Forgive the definition, but as an evangelical "Born Again" Christian I wanted to clearly state what it truly means. As a long time visitor on this site, I have witnessed the word being used more and more recently (especially since Palin, and I guess I want to make a distinction. I am an Obama supporter. I have been appalled by the so-called evangelical right as much or more so than many on this site. More so perhaps because of my faith. I see the right as a whole as Pharisaic (prideful hypocrites). I am angered at what "they" tout as to what it means to be a "true believer". I am angered that they have misled many (believers, and nonbelievers). I am angered that they claim love and spew hate. I am angered that I have to defend myself to people in the last 8 years that I am not "them", and I, in no way believe these people, including Bush to be Christians. I apologize for being way off topic. I just had toget that off my chest. Obama '08
(i apologize, this has almost nothing to do with data...)
Anyone else notice in the videos from Blogger Interrupted, and observations from those on the ground how dangerous and plastic the term "terrorist" is? It reminds me of "commie-pinko" decades ago. Its a label.
The fact that freepo's made such a fuss a few years ago when there was a debate about its accuracy in news reporting when the BBC and others decided to avoid it makes me wonder if the word terrorist was kept alive as a political tool intentionally.
Asking who Bill Ayers is and what he did in the sixties is too complex. But if you can label him a terrorist, and Obama a bad person(tm) by extension, you've got a much more powerful political tool. Hell, you've got a commercial. When it comes to talking points for the simple minded, you need concepts that are simple to grasp.
This isn't just on the right, compare the use of the word fascist by some on the left.
Once again, apologies, but it's always nice to have a place where it doesn't feel like thoughts are being thrown into the ether.
Unfortunately for women, and straight men, Gay men and steril men and women do get a voice on abortion. Isn't democracy grand and messy.
As far as gay marriage, I'm not saying someone shouldn't have it, I'm saying the federal government should make no law dictating how someone practices their religion and since a marriage is a church ceremony, the gov. should make no law on it. In other words it should be up to each church. But the gov can make a law and should make a law saying that any "marriage" whether in a church or not is a civil union and that comes with certain rights and restrictions etc. That is my position.
It tickled me that at the end of this post I happened to get one of the ads that reads, "Obama Finished?"
Roger, I used to think like you do but there are A LOT of gays that want to get married in a church. i don't know if you are gay or not or have a lot of interaction with the gay community but as a member of the gay nation, and as someone who has a close friend who works for Pride International there are A LOT of gays who want a church ceremony. Just a point of (semi) fact. Otherwise I totally agree
truthseeker-
You're an Obama supporter and an Evangelical, tell me - do you feel comfortable around your church talking openly about your support for Obama? My mother goes to a local Baptist Church, and she needs to keep her vote choice a secret because she would get kicked out of the church if they knew she was for Obama. I'm not kidding whatsoever. She is a fairly moderate person, she is pro-choice. She knows a few other women in the church who are also secretly pro-choice. She even knows two women from the church who have had secret abortions (both abortions were Downs Syndrome cases) and if anybody knew that any of these women were pro-choice or actually had abortions, they'd turn into a torch carrying mob. Maybe your church is different than my mother's Baptist church, but to me - the description above is what "Evangelical" means to me.
You know, church attendance is down in American. Some would argue that this means that the Evangelical movement is declining but I don't think so. I think it means moderates are leaving church. This means the hard wing of the church is left to direct what the church does. While some moderate churches are thriving, like Rick Warren's, most churches I've been to are very right wing. This means that we are going to have to learn to work with evangelicals and not call them names. They vote and will continue to vote. They are an organization with special interests after all.
When I think Evangelical, i think intolerance, which is the exact opposite of Jesus. The Democratic party by far lines up with my Catholic beliefs more so than the Republican party.
Republicans lie with too much ease. They seem to enjoy it.
Republicans demonize those who are not like them.
Republicans use hate and fear to their advantage, always have.
Republicans do not give a rats ass about the poor or impoverished.
Republicans are xenophobic.
Republicans believe WAR and imperialism are American values.
The democratic party is the party of values. They are far from perfect, but actually have ethical standards and are far more tolerant than republicans, and run much better governments.
"You know, church attendance is down in American. Some would argue that this means that the Evangelical movement is declining but I don't think so."
I'm not sure why Church attendance is down, but I'll tell you why I stopped going to church. I am tired of the fact that just being a good Christian isn't enough anymore. I get harassed to get more extreme in my beliefs. I don't want to join a stricter church. I don't want to give up my god given right to think for myself, and give it away to some douchebag extremist church leader. I still have faith, but I am tired of being confronted by the extremists.
since AKIP (alaska ind. party) endorsement by IRAN is emerging with quite a powerful video here is a nice one from AKIP's photo gallery
http://www.akip.org/store/visitak.jpg
Palin clears self of ethical wrongdoing in Troopergate. See, she didn't even NEED God to forgive her this time, she did it herself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/
Shadowguidex
First, thank you. That is exactly where my anger stems from. I attend two evangelical "Bible believing" churchs, and for the purpose of an example, I am completely anti-abortion, as I believe everyone is in the two churches (small congregations) I attend. If someone admitted to an abortion in either church, I am certain the pastor, and many others, would offer love and understanding. Yes they would denounce the act as a sin, as would I, but I sin too. As for my Obama support, I have no problem in stating it. As for your mother's church, I would run. If you feel you have to hide truth for fear of persecution in Church. That is not the Church Jesus wanted.
Jesus.
Yes Fred
"As for your mother's church, I would run. If you feel you have to hide truth for fear of persecution in Church. That is not the Church Jesus wanted."
I've offered her that council a few times. She is involved in her church, she is 60 years old and LOVES to babysit. She babysits all the time for many of the churchgoers, she does a lot of in church daycare type things, and she teaches Sunday School and whatnot (she even quilts a baby quilt for every newborn to the church). She likes the church because it is very active, not really because of the opinions they have.
She is really nervous about anyone finding out about her real beliefs because she really honestly enjoys how active the church is, and all the babies she gets to care for.
I just feel so bad for her - she is fearful that she'll be discovered and booted out of the church for beliefs contrary to what they espouse - and I think it's totally unfair for them to judge her that harshly, because believe me - she is a good person and a good Christian.
Truthseeker is an example of the moderate conversative of which I was speaking! Yay for moderates. Election Projection now predicts +8senators for dems and +13 house seats for dems. That is amazing. They get their 8th senator from MN. I'm getting so excited. If we could pull an upset in GA or MS* then we would have sixty with Ass hole Joe. Maybe we could tell him if he voted with us everytime we wanted to stop a filibuster we'd give him a senate chair? The reason I say GA is because of the early voting nate mentioned, you know the 39 percent African American vote so far!
As far as gay marriage, I'm not saying someone shouldn't have it, I'm saying the federal government should make no law dictating how someone practices their religion and since a marriage is a church ceremony, the gov. should make no law on it. In other words it should be up to each church. But the gov can make a law and should make a law saying that any "marriage" whether in a church or not is a civil union and that comes with certain rights and restrictions etc. That is my position.
A perfect example of someone conflating the legal meaning of the word "marriage" with the religious one.
A "marriage-in-the-legal-sense" is not a religious ceremony -- that's why you can do it by going to the courthouse and signing on the dotted line in front of a court clerk (even if the court clerk happens to be an atheist, female, and immoral to boot). A "marriage-in-the-religious-sense" is a religious ceremony, and, as you correctly point out, the federal government is constitutionally forbidden from saying anything about it -- such as saying that it allows you to file a joint tax return, or get a green card, or anything like. Which is exactly the case: you can go to the church, stand in front of the minister, and do the entire religious ceremony, and for legal purposes like tax returns and so forth it has absolutely no effect; to to that, you have to go sign and file the correct paperwork at the county courthouse. The two institutions, the two meanings of the word "marriage", (religious and legal) are, legally speaking, entirely separate, and have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. People are just in the habit of usually doing them on the same day.
Which is why I really, really wish the Supreme court would get rid of the entire silly argument by removing the source of the confusion, and declaring the use of the word "marriage" in a legal context unconstitutional. Then the religious types can have the word "marriage", the lawyers can come up with some ugly phrases like a "Civil-Union License" to replace "Marriage License", "Civil-Union partner" to replace "spouse", and so forth, and people will finally stop frothing at the mouth over a simple-minded confusion of two different meaning of the same word.
So, anyone selling "Marriage Law is Unconstitutional" bumper stickers?
Roger, you misunderstand my position I think. I'm saying that the government should not tell Baptist Church in Dallas TX that they have to allow two gay men or women to be married at taht church. A church should not be forced to provide a faith based ceremony but rather should be allowed to decide for themselves. Not the actual, lawful marriage should be law. AKA yay for civil unions. So do you still disagree with me now that I have clarified myself?
Shadowguidex
I am sorry. Without knowing your mother's or you own believes I will just keep this simple. If she loves being there, I would view it from a social standpoint. As for spiritually, I would find a different Church. I must have visited 30 Churches before I found one that simply followed the Bible. Then again, I couldn't follow my own advice. I couldn't bite my tongue and feel comfortable. Heck, I had to same something at my pastor's home when I saw a picture of Bush, but we respect each other, and know neither of us has all the answers.
*Now the actual lawful marriage should be called a civil union and available to all
I am so, so addicted to 538.com! Thank you, Nate, Sean and...photographer (sorry, forgot your name and I love your photos).
The variety of blog posts tonight are amazing. Am I the only one, or do others here appreciate the breadth and width of discussions? I love being exposed to new and different thoughts and beliefs.
I'd love to join in tonight, but it's been a long day. Nite.
Derek
I'll have to digest being called a moderate conservative. Not sure what I think of that. I try to be a devout evangelical Christian, but if I try to tell you what to do, I don't love you. If I try to force my beliefs on you, I push you further away from what I believe wholeheartedly to be the truth. If I don't care for the poor, I don't have love in my heart. If I convict you in what I believe to be your sin, I am a hypocrite, and will be judged. Just my take on it, and the above is exactly what I see from the "right".
Roger, I used to think like you do but there are A LOT of gays that want to get married in a church. i don't know if you are gay or not or have a lot of interaction with the gay community but as a member of the gay nation, and as someone who has a close friend who works for Pride International there are A LOT of gays who want a church ceremony. Just a point of (semi) fact. Otherwise I totally agree
And there are a significant number of ministers who would be happy to give them a church ceremony (particularly amoung the Angilicans, Unitarians, and Reformed Jews). But that religious ceremony has absolutely nothing to do with the Gay Marriage-as-a-legal-contract debate: the latter about what happens if and when they try to file paperwork at the county courthouse. What happens in the church and what happens in the county courthouse are entirely independant -- it's possible to do one (if the minister's willing), or the other (if the law allows), or both. Sure, most people do both on the same day. Many even have the minister file the paperwork for them. But they're still two separate independent actions.
(And since you asked, I'm straight, and religious. But not narrow.)
Wow. RCP finally has Obama projected at 277 EV. They finally put Virginia into the Obama column!
Check it, check it yo!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data
OK, so two responses. I didn't mean to call you a moderate conservative, I meant to call you a moderate evangelical.
As for Roger, I'm still not sure where we disagree if we do and it seems like you are disagreeing with me, lol. I agree though, the debate is framed all wrong within society. But that is because there are haters, homosexuals who want a church ceremony, low information voters who are easily rallied by a misframed debate on this issue etc. Not sure what to do about it except cooler heads prevail and educate as many people as I can.
Got my Colorado mail in ballot today. Another Obama vote in the tank! Also voted with my pocket book on the positive news of the Obama media buy and the negative news from the McCain KKKampaign.
This is like the Republican convention set loose in the world, spewing hate, hate doesn't sell.
The polls are good for Obama, but I got a feeling that the vote will be close - because of the various vote purging operations and voter challenges that Republicans are engaging in, sometimes backed up by federal law.
Democrats automatically start at a disadvantage in that regard - so they need to win by a significant certain percentage to get through.
goldhill-
Woot. Bank it up yo.
For me, I'll wait until November 4th, drive the four blocks to the elementary school near my house and vote. Takes me like 5 minutes. I love Wisconsin voting, it's so smooth and easy.
Got my Colorado mail in ballot today.
Colorado had a huge voter purge - led by the Republican Sec of State, who was then called tapped to serve at Fed level.
Colorado may stay Rep because of vote purging etc.
benjamin-
I don't think you've got too much to worry about. Remember John Kerry came really close to winning last time, and that was before the Bush Administration made our country into a damn joke. This is gonna be a landslide.
Ayers is a ludicrously slim reed on which to hang your hopes, mcshame...I guess they went there instead of Wright because that one got picked to death, and wright is a christian, which kills their Obama the muslim meme
btw, the branchflower report on Palin comes out tomorrow, and I have to think it will be bad news for the pitbull, since it otherwise made no sense for the mcshame crew to try everything in their power to stop it.
That and the dow takes us into next week and the debate, so if the numbers hold or increase, it is done...we may see wright, though I doubt it...
I hope you are right, shadow.
There is a whole lot of dodgy business going on.
I think voter purging won't be that big of a deal. The Obama campaign has been in court all across the country this month, they have a superior ground game, they don't need any one state like McCain needs, and Obama is pretty good at voter purging etc. It is how he got the democratic nomination in Chicago, lol. I'm not too worried about the Republican Machine because like Clinton, Obama's team is all over it.
Okay.
Everyone can speak their opinion on abortion five ways til tuesday, it's your right. Ultimately it comes down to the woman's decision.
A woman seriously contemplating an abortion for whatever reason she has, a good woman would discuss this in-depth with her partner and make a decision both are comfortable with.
However, it is HER body and she can do whatever she likes, no matter who may be upset with that in the process.
No one wants to have an abortion, and if you think otherwise you're kidding yourself.
As a woman, I get upset that there are so many people out there telling me what I can and can't do with my body. I don't think I could ever have an abortion (though I've never been a victim of rape or incest either, knock on wood), but I know if any of those two unfortunate events did come up, I'd have to seriously consider it. It is absolutely none of your business.
Abortions will NEVER go away. Overturning roe v. wade would be a disaster of EPIC proportions which would tear our country apart even more than what it is now. Women would go to shady practices, or go back to using coat hangers and then you'd have more health issues being raised from this.
The only way to minimize abortions is to have thorough sex education, and wide-spread knowledge and use of contraceptives. Abstinence-only education leads to more abortions. The only kids who actually practice abstinence (maybe .6% of the total population to pull a number out of my ass) are going to do it regardless.
Until men can get pregnant, and know how it feels to have a fetus inside of you from a guy who slips you some roofies at a pub or your uncle billy bob, then get the fuck out of my reproductive system rights.
Derek
Thanks, but it was a joke. The point is that although my beliefs are definitely right of center for my own life, I just never understood how I have the right to make them your beliefs. Excluding abortion, I am pretty much on the left.
Roger, you misunderstand my position I think. I'm saying that the government should not tell Baptist Church in Dallas TX that they have to allow two gay men or women to be married at taht church. A church should not be forced to provide a faith based ceremony but rather should be allowed to decide for themselves. Not the actual, lawful marriage should be law. AKA yay for civil unions. So do you still disagree with me now that I have clarified myself?
Then you, I, and the entire Pro-Gay-Marriage-Law movement are in total agreement.
None of those "activist judges", and no-one in the Gay-Marriage-Rights movement has ever suggested that a church should be forced by law to carry out a religious ceremony that the church believes is counter to its religion. That would be a flagrant (and horrible) breach of the separation of Church and State (and if anyone was actually crazy enough to try it, it would get ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat, by a 9-0 majority). The only place that anything like that has ever been suggested is in cynically misleading Republican attack ads and right-wing radio talk shows, designed to exploit religious voters (to win their vote for a party that, on economic matters, is their enemy). If you were under the impression that anyone on the liberal side had ever suggested that, I'm sorry, but you've been lied to by the Right.
Derek,
On your abortion views, do you subscribe to the view that the morning-after-pill constitutes abortion since it might be killing a fertilized egg?
If you do, tell me what alternative does a woman have if she is pregnant after a rape?
Or if the pill fails to work, do you believe the woman needs to accept the child as part of her fate and alter her life plans to accommodate the pregnancy?
The issue we have with conservatives and abortion is, they (maybe you) are not like the vegetarians. Vegetarians don't eat meat, but don't mind others eating. Anti-abortionists can choose not to have abortions in their family and not be friends with people who abort.
Right, Roger which is why I was confused as to why my position was so controversial, lol.
As for the woman in the group who took offense to my anti abortion sentiment. I think that
1. telling people how they could and could not treat their "property" aka slaves was also a moral right. The government stepped in and said you cannot treat people this way. And thank God they did. Just as slaves are not property, I do not see a soon to be baby as part of your body in the sense that it, at some point, detaches itself from your body. This would be more like a parasite than an actual part of your body.
2. As someone who was molested (raped) by a family member (incest) I still believe that if I had been inpregnated, which is impossible, the gov. still has the moral obligation to tell me I had to have the baby. So if you don't like when people speculate about your body and your right to end a pregnancy then I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't conjecture about rape and incest. I don't mind you doing it but it seems a bit hipocritical.
3. I agree that cutting off the supply doesn't really work that well E.G. drugs. Making something illegal doesn't fix the problem but that, along with lowering the demand will make abortions far less comon in America.
Michael,
Obama is finished. Finished with the election, they mean. He's done. He's won. He has reassured the american voter, and instilled confidence.
Another set of ads I find is, "Hillary Thrashes Obama" which still keeps showing up. Someone forgot to tell Google to stop those.
Cloud9ine. I am not sure what I think on the morning after pill. I tend to think better of it because it doesn't produce as much psychological harm to the woman. However the basic principle is the same. Ending life etc. First off I think the statistic is something like only 2 percent of all abortions are rape related. I'm not saying it isn't a tough issue. I just think that abortion is morally wrong period. I'm somewhat deontological in my thoughts about it. Ending potential life is wrong. I know there are good reasons but there are also good reasons to harvest 1 guy's organs to save 10 lives and there are good reasons for going into Iraq but does that make it right? I'm not even a Christian and this is what I believe.
I'm rambling and I apologize for that, hope that gives you more fodder, lol.
Derek,
Nobody, I repeat, nobody should want to have an unnecessary abortion. I am with you on this. Which is why I bring up Incest and Rape not because I am being hypocritical.
As to slaves, it is a question of basic human rights. As to a fertilized egg, if you keep religion out of it, that is just another egg, sunny side up, until months have passed. Yes, we should draw a line somewhere, but treating a single-celled organism like it is a person and putting it on a pedestal above all else, is a bit disconcerting.
I am not a woman, by the way.
But coming back to Rape and Incest or Mother's health (all other cases I agree with you, so we don't need to discuss those - not being hypocritical), what's your solution? Providing Condoms to those contemplating rape? Incest-oriented Sex-Ed classes? Kill the mother, save the baby?
Unfortunately I don't have a solution, but I have a principal. Ending a potential life is wrong. There is no religion involved in that. It is common sense. That egg will be alive in the future unless you do something to it (or unless it doesn't on its own in which case this discussion becomes mute) Also, you don't have to believe a dogma to believe that all men have souls.
Full disclosure, my mom considered having an abortion but didn't. I feel that it is part of the government's job to represent those who are voiceless, whether this is minorities or future generations (talking about the national debt and global warming here) or unborn feti. If my mother had had an abortion as her mother and grandmother (who both clame to be Christian's) had had one i wouldn't be here. That has always made me a little biased. Oh and I don't think it is here right to decide if i'm here or not.
sorry for the poor typing and spelling, I've very tired but having a good time. Love you guys!
It has been 11 minutes, either the discussion has been tabled, everyone has gone to bed, there is a new post, or someone is typing me a really long message.
It's 4:12 AM. What do you expect?
Well, I'm up, your up, and abortion tends to raise strong opinions so I thought I might get a response. I don't get to chat with many intelligent peolpe seeing as I live in Oklahoma. I try my best but intelligent, open-minded people are hard to come by. Plus, Cloud9ine was awake as of a bit ago, lol.
A really great article from The Independent, well worth reading:
Matthew Norman: The peculiar tragedy of this flawed hero, John McCain
This bulbous oblong of coiled rage came across as an appalling old waxwork
Friday, 10 October 2008
For one whose single rhetorical flourish is the gratingly incessant appellation "My friends", John McCain has very few left. The roll call shrinks by the day as his bamboozled campaign grows nastier, and if the decline maintains its trajectory this year's Friends of McCain Thanksgiving Dinner in Arizona will be held, in homage to his naval career, in a solo canoe. By then, even the Clintons will have baled out because, barring a malevolent miracle, Barack Obama will be President-Elect, and Senator McCain's value to them as Oval Office seat-warmer until 2012 will have gone the way of Lehman Brothers. Even his wife, Cindy, can barely tolerate his presence, judging by the body language at the end of Tuesday's debate in St Louis. As they gingerly embraced, you sensed her wondering whether seven houses will provide a sufficient cordon sanitaire from each other's company come 5 November.
This debate was a riot of paradox, being at once both turgid and captivating, meaningless and hugely significant. As an aural event, it was tedious. Obama was much the more lucid, especially on healthcare and foreign policy regarding Pakistan, but McCain held his own on the economy (or about as well as any candidate advocating $300bn in tax breaks for large corporations and their CEOs could expect to do at this point in US fiscal history).
It was visually that this debate really mattered and, while it is too soon to divine public reaction from the polls, one suspects it went a fair way to securing Obama the White House in the absence of monstrous scandal: Barack and Britney caught in flagrante delicto at an Osama bin Laden fundraiser perhaps; Michelle giving OJ Simpson the Black Power salute on visiting day at the penitentiary; Russia unilaterally reviving the Warsaw Pact; or the detonation of a radioactive device on Pennsylvania Avenue.
McCain looked simply dreadful. Sallow, fatigued, hunched, tentative and miserable, this bulbous oblong of coiled rage came across as what the Prince of Wales knows as an appalling old waxwork. The clinching image, I think, was the rear overhead shot, as he made staccato movements across the stage that highlighted the large circle of hairlessness on his head. No bald man has won a general election in Britain or the US in the television age (Dwight Eisenhower was the last Anglo-American alopecian victor back in 1956) and this one is now a very long shot to buck the trend.
So much for this one, and on to "that one"... the most memorable moment of the debate season thus far. Flailing about idiotically in the quest to portray Obama as the Bush-Cheney cheerleader in contrast to his maverick self, Senator McCain mentioned an energy bill that emerged from the White House. "You know who voted for it? You might never know," he said, and then, without turning to face Obama, he flipped an arm in the younger man's direction. "That one," he added, lest any doubt remain.
We could argue until Doomsday whether "that one" was a rung or two down the offensiveness ladder from "uppity". My feeling is that it falls into that vast category of Things White People Don't Think Are Remotely Racist But Wouldn't Say In A Million Years About Other White People. Certainly, you can't imagine McCain using it of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
But racism, while still a small, nagging threat to Obama's chances, is a red herring here. What was so revealing about "that one" was that it crystallised the uncontainable disdain that is annihilating McCain's reputation. It isn't undermining his candidacy, because the economic mayhem and his volatile reaction to it has already done that. Yet his inability to show Obama common courtesy is unveiling him to a previously admiring electorate as a mean-spirited, cantankerous old git. If the repeated use of "old" appears ageist, so be it. Everything about McCain's dismissive attitude to Obama is geriatric. In fact he is only 72, which these days is anything but old. My father is McCain's senior by a year or two, and could pass for his son. I have friends in their mid-80s whom I think of as contemporaries because there is nothing remotely retrograde about their perspective on life.
For all his energy, on the other hand, McCain could pass for 92 because he radiates the sourness of the crotchety Meldrovian grump, slumped in a high-backed, plastic chair snarling "dunno they're born" whenever a middle-aged politician appears on the telly. Everything about his debate demeanour bespeaks a man struggling mightily to subjugate his rage that, after all he gave up in the Hanoi Hilton – his freedom, health and, as seems increasingly evident, a portion of his sanity – this smartarse liberal from Chicago swans along, not yet out of his congressional diapers, to steal the prize to which he believes his sacrifice entitles him.
So while Obama vaguely but empathetically seeks to assuage the terrors of Americans about their financial future, McCain seeks sanctuary in the distant past. He unleashes the increasingly gruesome Sarah Palin, Alaska's very own Cretina D'Evil, to raise Obama's extremely tenuous links to William Ayers, a Weatherman four decades ago, and the only people listening are the rednecks at her rallies whose shouts of "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" she is content to let pass without rebuke. McCain's flirtation with revisiting Tony Rezko, the bent Chicago property developer from whom Obama bought a chunk of land in a deal he long ago called "boneheaded", seems set to become a full-blown affair, meanwhile, and it can't be long before his surrogates dredge up the Rev Jeremiah Wright.
Like many failing generals, McCain is waging not the present war but the last one in which Field-Marshal Rove defeated John Kerry. He wants to shrink a truly Goliathan election into another Lilliputian one, a tactic as misconceived as making the race about mature and dependable character when it is so obvious that the only grown-up in the room is Obama.
What made McCain look so weak and hopeless on Tuesday wasn't just the combination of pallor, jerkiness, the tonsure and the contrast between how, when not speaking, Obama sat with commanding tranquillity, whereas McCain paced anxiously in the background like someone in a hurry who cannot remember where he parked the car. It was the image he projected of a man weighed down and constricted by the sense that the campaign he is fighting is unworthy of him, but unable to change his tune because there's nothing left to sing except "For God's sake don't trust this terrorist-consorting, America-hating naif."
It is the tragic hero's traditional fate to be brought down by a central flaw he cannot see in himself. The peculiar tragedy of McCain, a hero himself as his pandering to veterans ever reminds us, is that he well knows he is squandering his long-husbanded capital of personal decency with the sort of wild profligacy that created the economic catastrophe that should cost him the election. His entire sense of purpose and self-worth is founded on a romantic notion, bred in the bone of this son and grandson of admirals, of noble service to his country. This loss of his honour may prove more excruciating than losing the White House to a man that a year ago John McCain would never have dreamt of dismissing, with such vinegary condescension, as "That One".
Well, my opinion on Abortion....
This was decided 40 years ago, and retreading a Supreme Court decision that has already been decided upon goes against the practice of judicial precedent. The courts need to value judicial precedent and not overturn decisions without extremely good reasons for doing so. Very very few times in history has the Supreme Court overturned a precedent. Roe vs. Wade doesn't qualify as a case that needs to be overturned, notably because it infringes on nobody's rights aside from the theoretical - aka you cannot accuse someone of murder when you cannot prove that the baby was 100% certain to be born - it's a potential life - who's to say that the fetus would go to full term, lots of fetuses are stillborn or miscarried. I firmly believe that the courts should NOT be politicized, and the more that people reject the idea of judicial precedent, the more we continue to fall into the trap of politicizing the courts. So, to summarize, my own opinion of abortion doesn't come into play as this issue has been legally decided.
This is probably foolish, but I'm going to step into the abortion debate. I'm not going to even try to address the legal or constitutional issues, instead I'm going to discuss my own personal moral and religious views. (And I should probably warn you in advance that they're a little unconventional.)
So, at what age do I personally think that aborting a fetus the full moral equivalent of killing an adult human? (Note that even this doesn't automatically mean it should be always be illegal: for example, killing an adult in clear self-defense where there was no practicable alternative is legal -- and there might be an analogy to aborting in cases where the mother's health was clearly in extreme danger.)
Morally, it seems pretty clear to me that there's no major automatic ethical issue until the child has a soul - until that point contraception and abortion are morally equivalent (you're closing one possible path into the future and opening up another, and you should try to make the best call you can as to which future will be best for all concerned).
So, at what point after conception does a fetus acquire a soul? We're clearly well off into metaphysics here, so I'm going to give my personal (and highly subjective) experience. When my wife was pregnant, I didn't get a sense of an additional presence around her during her first trimester or so. During her second trimester or so, I did kind of get a sense of another presence, but it didn't seen centered in her womb, it was, frankly, more like there was an unborn soul often hanging out near her. During about the third trimester, that extra presence did seem to gradually become solidly centered in her womb. There weren't sharp transitions between the trimesters, they were both ongoing gradual changes.
So, based on that impression, my guess is that, if that was a correct impression and was typical (two very big ifs), then a fetus initially has no soul, partway through the pregnancy it starts to attract the attention of a soul, and by late pregnancy that soul is more and more firmly in the body of the developing fetus. This is, of course, metaphysics, and your mileage may well vary. But for me, based on this impression and some considerations of practicality and the rights of the parties involved, I support first trimester abortions as a matter of simple choice, second trimester abortions with some kind of good reason, and third trimester abortions only in extreme circumstances. (Of course, I also believe in reincarnation, and so in the third trimester I'd accept "this child will be born horribly deformed and in constant pain, and would be better off just starting over in another incarnation" as an extreme circumstance -- and yes, I'm also for assisted suicide with good reason, and if necessary I would be willing to shoot a fatally injured person to put them out of their misery.)
Unfortunately, this is a case where they separation of Church and State doesn't help us. For someone who genuinely believes, as many religious people do, that a fertilized egg has a soul, that that egg is that soul's one chance to live a fulfilling life, and that that egg thus has the same ethical and moral status as an adult human, then they clearly have the same moral imperative to try to get abortion law changed (for everyone, not just themselves) as I would to change a law that made killing people for cannibalism legal. Morally, they can't just stand by and allow others who don't agree with them to make a choice that in their view destroys the life of an innocent, just as I wouldn't be happy with a law that said that cannibalism was a matter of religious debate and so there was an individual right to choose whether or not you wanted to kill and eat people.
So, religiously, I disagree with the stance of, say, the Catholic church on first trimester abortions. But given their beliefs, their stance is entirely moral and reasonable.
I really wish the old Catholic belief that children who die before being baptised will be reincarnated (after a brief stay in Limbo) hadn't died out. If most Christians still believed that, US politics would be a lot less toxic.
You also couldn't "prove" that slaves weren't property. That was a stance that was heald and then later dismissed. Likewise, the only reason the unborn don't have rights is because we say they don't. That is a philosphical and yes, partisan question but so was the question as to whether black people who were "sold" into slavery were property or equally created men. Keeping the status quo for status quo's sake is non sensical to me. Where is my analysis wrong?
More bad news for McCain.
Zogby tracker gives Obama a 5 point lead (48-43) and reports that the last two nights of polling show a much larger lead for Obama.
Strategic Vision (a Republican pollster) has Obama ahead by 8 in Florida (52-44) and ahead by 2 in Ohio (48-46).
It would seem that McCain's McCarthyite hate speech is not going down well. His rallies are becoming reminiscent of Nuremberg circa 1936.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_ge/voter_purges
I know it'd be pretty stupid to have a "voter fraud" statistic in you guys' model...
I just hope a lot of people are looking at this site, regardless.
"You also couldn't "prove" that slaves weren't property. That was a stance that was heald and then later dismissed. Likewise, the only reason the unborn don't have rights is because we say they don't. That is a philosphical and yes, partisan question but so was the question as to whether black people who were "sold" into slavery were property or equally created men. Keeping the status quo for status quo's sake is non sensical to me. Where is my analysis wrong?"
Well, slavery is not a good legal justification for overturning judicial precedent. The legality of Slavery was altered via a Constitutional Amendment, not overturning any Supreme Court ruling precedents. There is a tangible, strong, undeniable difference between the two, and nobody should be allowed to make comparisons between the two. Must also mention, the Supreme Court in the 1800s did hear cases regarding slavery, and they never attempted to change the legality of slavery - it's just not something that the courts do, it isn't their function. If the Pro-life proponents really want to make changes to the issue, then they should be spending their time and energy amending the Constitution, not politicizing the courts. The only reason the Pro-life movement is focused on the courts, is because they now it is basically impossible to get three quarters of the 50 states to agree to amend the Constitution to make Abortion illegal - so they try other less savory methods like stacking the Court, which I am so 100% against I cannot tell ya. The courts need to remain free of politics.
Roger, I do understand where you are comming from about there being a general since of when a baby gets a soul but this exercise seems academic. As a matter of morality, given the choice, have an abortion in the first trimester for whatever reason and possibly killing something with a soul, vs. as definately not killing something with a soul seems like a pretty obvious choice. Plus, what is your stance on the gov's obligation to protect the rights of those who can't protect themselves?
Just a thought. What must it be like to be a Republican right now?
To know that the only way your candidate wins is if you ignore the economic crisis and the other real issues that face us and persuade voters to change their minds by bombarding them with hateful smears and lies about your opponent.
It must be a pretty empty existence right now.
OK Shadowguideex, I am in total agreement with you. I had never really looked at it in that way. Thanks for expanding my world view. However, that does raise an interesting game theory delima. Change an immoral law via bad governence or keep the immoral law and have good governance? Also, the courts have to interpret the constitution and since abortion is clearly not mentioned in the constitution it does fall into the court's jurisdiction.
Regarding the Constitutional Amendment making Abortion illegal...The likelihood of that happening is next to zero. It would require 33 states to ratify. It is far far more likely that an amendment would go through making Abortion _legal_ (aka a guaranteed right). In fact, if this is the epic landslide of an election that it is shaping up to be, the chances of a constitutional amendment making abortion legal is theoretically in the realm of possibility.
I agree, I just counted it up and I think that 18 states could be for making it illigal and 32 for it to be a legal right. So I tend to agree
actually, probalby 22 to 28. But still not even close
I am posting as an Australian so feel free to tell me to shut up and mind my own business, but I want to throw in my two cents.
America has blown my mind over the last 12 months. The campaign of Obama and his viable candidacy in a country I had largely dismissed from my moral radar has really altered my worldview, and in one hell of a positive way.
This campaign has given me overwhelming hope, but these recents attacks by McCain scare the hell out of me. I feel like this election needs to be made something new; I feel it needs to be made a time that America can vote back its dignity. After eight years of Bush like this is a much needed remedy.
So I don't know if this will work, I don't know how much American's care, but I know it would motivate me. I think everyone should be getting together as Obama people and saying 'no longer will bigotted, angry people chose our country's course'. Get so fired up in taking back the country from these people that the election is a wash just from the ground game. Everyone needs to vote. Companies should shut down for the day just because 75% of their workers didn't rock up. This election should be a wash, or I fear America will be.
"Change an immoral law via bad governance or keep the immoral law and have good governance?"
I'd always stay on the side of good governance, particularly since the majority of Americans in poll after poll after poll do not view Abortion as immoral. The minority opinion is that it's immoral. My own opinion again, doesn't matter since I find this issue to have been resolved legally 40 years ago by the Supreme Court.
"Also, the courts have to interpret the constitution and since abortion is clearly not mentioned in the constitution it does fall into the court's jurisdiction."
They did so already - the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to Abortion. The Supreme Court does have the ability to overturn a decision made by prior courts if they determine the decision to be a particularly heinous and awful one, but in this case, especially because the majority of the public agree with the decision, I don't think that a reasonable court that operates correctly would ever overturn the decision. The only way the decision would be overturned is if the court gets stacked with people who do not value precedent, a cornerstone of judicial practice that has endured for centuries. You have the right to disagree with the decision of the court 40 years ago, but I think the only way that the decision should be reversed should be by Constitutional Amendment. That's the correct route to go.
As a man I will never get pregnant. That in itself makes me feel I don't have a vote on abortion.
However, I do have a 14 year old daughter. What would I do if she was pregnant?
The answer would have to be situational. It has to do with my feelings about parenting.
I have only the one child. On two occasions I have refused to father a baby. I believed the women would be poor parents.
I have nothing against taking on most or all of the parenting. That was not the reason. The reason was that I had to take on the posibility that the child would be exactly like the mother. Good parenting can go only so far. It can't work miracles.
And so my likely advice to my daughter if she were pregnant. If the boy is a shit have an abortion, but otherwise we can work it out.
Keep abortion legal. It helps weed out some pretty disgusting genes.
liam hedge-
Thanks for your support. I'm an Obama supporter myself, and I fully intend to vote for him on November 4th. I have convinced my fair share of others to do so as well. In many many ways, I think our nation has been on the wrong track for a long time, and I'd like to see the nation I love regain some of its lost reputation and dignity.
I think you have captured the big picture of this election as far as history will view it. However, it is also a change in our political system. We have tried divided gov and we have tried republican government and we don't like either so nwo we are going to try democratic party. They better not fuck it up.
"Keep abortion legal. It helps weed out some pretty disgusting genes."
Haha. That's definitely an opinion on abortion right there!
I'm not going to voice my opinion since I don't think this is an issue that necessitates an opinion - it has been legally resolved afaic.
Whoa blame,
Careful; that's a pretty unfounded statement and a highly irrational argument. Many of the greatest leaders and people I have ever known or met have come from many of the worst parent I have ever seen in my life.
Genetics, in my experience and as far as I can see historically, have little to do with whether a person grows up into a good person
Barack Obama's father was a piece of shit, and look at how well he turned out!
Bill Clinton's father was a piece of shit too, IIRC, and he turned out to be a pretty good leader - although he couldn't keep his winky in his pants around fat chicks.
OK shadow, again, you are saying we should uphold the past because it is the past. That is a bad argument because people and courts make mistakes. Not saying they did but they can.
As far at the father, in the United States, we do not exacute thieves because it is immoral to do so. Therefore we should definately not kill the children of "shit" because of who their parents are.
What do you guys think the chances of the Democrats completely overhauling the democratic system in America should they be given sufficient power? I mean Republicans have for at least the last eight years manipulated lax electoral laws and loopholes to purge voters and keep down the lower-middle class vote.
I mean for one thing, would it be possible for them to declare election day a public holiday? so at least those people who do work have greater opportunity to vote. Here in Australia elections are always on a Sunday, now I know Tuesday is constitutional and would take a miracle to change but could they make it a public holiday?
Oh, and another point. Is anyone else concerned that with all this damn publicity Nate is getting this forum may start to be filled with trolls and we all lose the only thing close to rational conversation on the internet?
Hedge, yes they could and that is a very good idea... Actually, local and state governments are the ones that practice the voter fraud you here about usually. And the democrats have made a lot of inrodes but yeah, this election cycle should help them take back some more legislatures.
Here is an article about the state races
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2008/pr091108Battleground.htm
Liam, as long as Obama is doing very well in the polls I think trolls will be discouraged from staying on here too long, lol.
"OK shadow, again, you are saying we should uphold the past because it is the past. That is a bad argument because people and courts make mistakes. Not saying they did but they can."
Except that Precedent is the concept upon which the entire Judicial system is built around. Every single lawyer who prosecutes or defends anyone or any entity in court have to utilize prior precedence to prove their case. If you ignore predecent, then every single time you attempt to build on prior decisions, you need to build your case totally from scratch. The Roe vs. Wade precedent has been utilized in many many court cases since, as an established precedent. By overturning a precedent, you in effect overturn every single case that utilizes that ruling in its arguments. It's like a castle made of cards. You cannot remove a fundamental card from the bottom without destabilizing the entire system. Judicial precedent is so entirely important you just don't understand how fundamentally destabilizing it is to overturn a court ruling; moreover, you need to recognize just how utterly rare it is for the courts to do so - it's generally considered anathema. You just don't do it.
Derek said...
Actually, local and state governments are the ones that practice the voter fraud you here about usually. And the democrats have made a lot of inrodes but yeah, this election cycle should help them take back some more legislatures.
Yeah, actually I remember reading that now. No federal electoral commission? that is absolutely bizzare in my books. I think it's a great lesson in constitutional law that the whole process should be much more malleable, so long as everybody votes and gets counted. I mean the electoral vote system I don't think anyone would argue with if I said that it is completely irrational and at least partly responsible for a severe diversion of justice in 2000.
"I mean for one thing, would it be possible for them to declare election day a public holiday? so at least those people who do work have greater opportunity to vote. Here in Australia elections are always on a Sunday, now I know Tuesday is constitutional and would take a miracle to change but could they make it a public holiday?"
The Federal Government's acknowledgment of holidays here does not require any other entities to grant time off. The Federal government's holidays on the calender only apply to federal employees. It's still up to the states to decide if they will let their employees off those days, and it's up to individual companies to decide if they will let their employees off (If a company has you work on a State holiday, you generally get paid extra, but not necessarily, depends on the state).
Liam, Actually, we have an FEC,, but Bush has rendered it useless by not filling its required membership. Not sure if that has changes as that was a while ago when I heard about it but...
Shadow, if a house of cards is built on a shaky foundation we shouldn't keep piling cards on and we cannot allow inconvience to discourage us from examining our moral fiber and our philosphical stance on human rights. Sorry, there are more important things than stability of the legal system. Also, I doubt your doom and gloom scenario would occur. The courts can narrowly or broadly apply changes in precedent.
"No federal electoral commission?"
We do not have any Federal elections in the United States. We have 50 state elections where we pick a representative called an Elector. The electors all meet later in the year and vote for president, then the vote is sealed and delivered to the House of Representatives and Senate in January. The house opens the vote and counts them, and the one with the most elector votes wins.
http://www.fec.gov/
Homepage for the FEC of the United states
...and the 50 state elections sometimes are not well controlled or monitored.
Derek and truthseeker do seem to have a more open minded view of religion and politics, but when folks like Dobson and Falwell politicize their churches it makes us all have to look at religion in a differentlight, which is bad for all of us.
Well, I guess I'm responsible for starting the abortion tangent in my response to Derek's thoughts, but I appreciate the unusual temperateness of the discussion... so let me make a couple more remarks :)
I should say that I'm an ex-linguist, and as such have given a lot of thought to the nature of categories. One very robust finding of linguistic semantics is that all categories encoded by language are "fuzzy": they do not have absolute boundaries, rather, category membership is a matter of degree.
The fuzziness is not something regrettable; rather, it is a fundamental reflection of the nature of human cognition and has a biological basis in the structure of the brain. It applies everywhere in the lexicon, and certainly to the category "person".
So, with that preamble, when in the course of the development of a fetus does a it become a person, with a right to live? Derek thinks it's when the egg is fertilized, but that's just one view. Roger thinks it's when the fetus attracts a soul, sometime in the third trimester. Some folks might want to say that a fetus is a non-person and doesn't become a person until birth; the Catholic Church and some other Christian groups feel that the potential life in the sperm and the ovum already qualify as sacred; and some widely used contraceptive methods do in fact at least sometimes affect the ovum right after, rather than right before, fertilization. And there are some who would argue that Derek as a gay man is ending potential life by producing sperm which have no access to an ovum.
Which of these views is "correct"? From my perspective as a semanticist, that is not an answerable question. There are a lot of places you can draw the line, and every one of them is just as arbitrary as the others. It's like looking at a scale from black to white.
So, if semantics or definitions don't provide the answer, how does a society decide whether abortion is ethical or not? The only way to determine this is to decide what course of action is most beneficial to the individuals involved and society more generally. In other words, take it on a case-by-case basis and take into account the well-being and viability of the fetus and the situation of the mother, including economic, psychological and biological factors.
To sum up this long post: in my view, saying "life begins at conception" is just as arbitrary as saying "life begins at birth" or "life begins at the production of the sperm or egg". Or just as arbitrary as saying "marriage is (only) a union between one man and one woman", for that matter :) Categories don't preexist societies and languages, so you can't go to the dictionary for the answers to ethical questions, including the question of when contraception becomes abortion and when abortion becomes infanticide.
"examining our moral fiber and our philosphical stance on human rights."
That isn't the job of the Judiciary - and that's not the basis upon which they made the Roe vs. Wade decision - the decision was based upon the constitutionality of the law not the morality of it. It's the job of the Congress to decide what I quoted above. If the congress is unable to pass an unconstitutional law outlawing abortion, then they should press for a Constitutional Amendment if they disagree with the court ruling instead of politicizing the court.
I am really worried about how mccain/palin are whipping up their crowds into such a hate frenzy - -it is like yelling fire in a building. They must be held accountable for this - no? They are talking honesty - -when Palin still refuses to do any more "mainstream" media interviews!?!?
Remember, it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to look at laws and decide if they are right or wrong, it's their job to decide if they are constitutional or unconstitutional.
There are many times in which the individual members of the courts thought a law was wrong, but decided it to be constitutional, and conversely, there are many times when they have decided that a good law an unconstitutional law.
Yeah, I know how the system works at the moment, but really it is just an outdated system based on a virtually feudalistic system. I mean the whole "United States" thing is great except that the emergence of new technologies and social norms have meant you are now a federal entity.
I mean I feel like for a person which is going to be in control of the most powerful military in the world to be elected by such a disjointed and, in some instances, dishonest system is incredibly dangerous. It's a bit of a slap in the face of a "one man, one vote" concept when one American voting for the American president in New York has less sway on the result than one American voting in Virginia.
Hi everybody, my first post. I’m an Italian addicted of this site and this morning (instead of working) I did some very raw analysis of the 2004 polls. Using RCP archive, I’ve tried to compare the polls in the first half of October 2004 with the final results of popular vote. I analyzed 19 battlegrounds States (states that one month before the election were between +6 Kerry and +6 Bush). I didn’t find the early October 2004 RCP averages, so I used the polls in the period 10/01-10/15 and I’ve done a raw and personal estimate, so the data could be not very precise.
I found that Kerry was up in 8 (ME, MI, MN, NH, NM, NJ, OR and PA) and he managed to win all but NM (where the margin was, more or less, Kerry +1). Three states were completely toss-up and Kerry won Wisconsin and Bush won Iowa and Ohio. Bush was up in 8 (AR, CO, FL, MO, NC, NV, VA, WV) and he won all.
Using the final RCP averages (or the last few polls), I found that Bush won all the states where he was up and lost all the states where Kerry was up.
Overall, the difference between the early October polls and the final result was -1,8 for Bush (polls underestimated Bush average margin in these 19 states by 1,8%). The difference between RCP final averages and final result was Bush +1,01 (final RCP averages underestimated Bush average popular vote margin in these 19 states by 1,01%).
In many cases the polls estimates were accurate (+/- MOE), only in Arkansas, North Carolina and West Virginia the margin for Bush has been much higher in final results than in early October polls and in final RCP averages. In Florida the difference is relevant with the final RCP average (RCP: Bush +0,6; popular vote: Bush +5) but not significant with the early October polls (when Bush was more or less +3). In Maine the margin for Kerry was greatly underestimated in early October, but almost exactly predicted in the final RCP average. In Nevada the margin for Kerry was greatly overestimated in early October and in RCP final average.
My few cents (of Euros…).
The only way to determine this is to decide what course of action is most beneficial to the individuals involved and society more generally. In other words, take it on a case-by-case basis and take into account the well-being and viability of the fetus and the situation of the mother, including economic, psychological and biological factors.
But how do you determine what is best. My mom was an albino and so am I, she was very poor because she was a teenager as was my dad and their parens were both very poor as well. My mom and dad, despite long odds got through college, got master's degress in social work and now run their own business. I am going to college with a 4.0 etc. How do you determine this. You can't do that either.
This is why you must make this an argument of principle because it is too hard to determine the outcome of something 18,30 or even 50 years from conception. Who knows what an unborn child can and can't do?
"Yeah, I know how the system works at the moment, but really it is just an outdated system based on a virtually feudalistic system."
It's not a feudal system, it's a confederation. I agree, our system is weird, but it works. I think the major problem we have is that the system is designed for only two parties, and cannot adaquetely function with a third party, since the winner of the EC needs a majority of electoral votes. I wish we had a parliamentary system like Germany and virtually all other major democracies, but alas, we have our weird system.
Parlimentary systems turn into two parties too, they are just called coalition government. We do the same thing. If a third party gets enough traction, usually on a single issue, a party or both incoroporates that issue. It is different but not neccisarily bad or less desirable IMO.
"The only way to determine this is to decide what course of action is most beneficial to the individuals involved and society more generally."
Well, the heart of the issue is WHO makes the determination. Should the government make the determination, or should the individual? The supreme Court ruled that the individual makes the decision 40 years ago. Do you think that the government is better able to decide this for the individual, or do you think that the individual can make their own decision?
Again, I'm not going to state my opinion, since IMO, this issue was decided 40 years ago.
"Hi everybody, my first post. I’m an Italian addicted of this site"
Welcome aboard, good to have you, my Italian friend. Well thought analysis.
Shadow, not true. It isn't WHO makes the decision, the gov vs. the ind.
The heart of the issue is does the ind. have the right to make that decision or don't they. They were not determining whether or not the state or the ind. got to decide on the unborn child's fate.
The argument is does a woman have the right to chose?
Alternatively alamala we can determine when a fetus becomes a person scientifically. Namely when the fetus is viable outside the mother, that is my definition of personhood.
Most human fetuses,or a large proportion, never implant and are aborted naturally. Many that do implant also never develop. This is not a perfect engineering process.
Alternatively alamala we can determine when a fetus becomes a person scientifically. Namely when the fetus is viable outside the mother, that is my definition of personhood.
Most human fetuses,or a large proportion, never implant and are aborted naturally. Many that do implant also never develop. This is not a perfect engineering process.
"Shadow, not true. It isn't WHO makes the decision, the gov vs. the ind. "
The ruling in Roe vs. Wade decided that the government isn't the entity that should be responsible for making the decision - aka they cannot say you can't have an abortion, and they cannot say you must have an abortion. The pendulum swings both ways. If you overturn Roe vs. Wade, then some states could be allowed to pass laws that say you MUST have an abortion if you don't qualify as a good parent.
The ruling states that the individual is the correct entity to make the decision, not the government.
Fred, while that may tell us when a fetus becomes a human that doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the fetus, pre scientifically deemed a human, has the right to be given a shot at life.
OK, again, Mr. Doom and Gloom (shadow) can you imagine a state in which a law would be passed saying parents must have abortions? Really?
Also, the courts are not neccisarily bastions of logic. E.G. Gore and Bush 2000
The comments have veered into other themes but my take was exactly what Nate is suggesting. The debate was a clear win for Obama. Look, the more these two guys are shown together, the better for him. You would have to be a deaf-blind-racist not to see one's superiority over the other, style, substance, demeanor, you name it. That's why consistently the polls declare Obama the winner.
My gut feeling is that undecideds will continue to fall behind Obama and therefore we will continue seeing his lead expand, a few more points. He is closing the deal with all those undecided, and how!
I posted this yesterday. For those wondering why McCain is going to Iowa. His ground game campaign is lead by----the genius who directed Giuliani's one state debacle!
Now it all makes sense:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/will-giulianis-top-staff_b_133323.html
derek-
It does not, you can't make it on your own and you got noone to take of you then it is their choice, not yours.
"OK, again, Mr. Doom and Gloom (shadow) can you imagine a state in which a law would be passed saying parents must have abortions? Really?"
I'm not injecting any emotion into this issue whatsoever, I'm just stating logical fact - think of me as Mr Spock. Again, my opinion on abortion is irrelevant since this issue was decided legally 40 years ago, I'm just trying to explain the issue from a judicial standpoint, not a moral one.
Post a Comment