Jump to content

2008 US Election


Mont Royale

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Experience of a life. Check mark, been there, done that for Simonus.

pretty much. I was watching from home because I thought the park would be crazy. Around 8:30, 9pm I saw that everything looked cool and I realized that history was a mile down the street. Once I got on Michigan Ave it was like a party all the way to Grant Park.

From my vantage point I was able to see the CNN map, but you couldn't really hear much of the sound from the screen. My geography and electoral college knowledge is maybe a little higher than the average bear, so everytime a state changed colour I yelled it out for people around me. When Virginia got called, my section went ape - everybody knew he had not only won, but had redrawn the map.

North Carolina and Indiana (!?!?!) are looking good for Barack.

Missouri looks primed to miss the national pick for the fist time in like 60 years or something.

INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is I hope he'll be as good a president as he is a speaker. That's one of the more annoying parts about an election. You can't hope a guy fails, because you'd be rooting against your own country.

One can only wonder where Obama would be now had Mike Ditka accepted the invitation to run against Obama in the 2004 US Senate race in Illinois. I think sports fans could very well have set Obama back a good many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can only wonder where Obama would be now had Mike Ditka accepted the invitation to run against Obama in the 2004 US Senate race in Illinois. I think sports fans could very well have set Obama back a good many years.

trusts me, Ditka didn't have a chance. Obama was very popular, Ditka couldn't have run a coherent campaign, and the Illinois Republicans were dealing with a major corruption scandal and a sex scandal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trusts me, Ditka didn't have a chance. Obama was very popular, Ditka couldn't have run a coherent campaign, and the Illinois Republicans were dealing with a major corruption scandal and a sex scandal.

Does the rest of the country overrate Ditka's popularity? I guess I'm influenced by the old "Da Bears" skits on SNL, but I've always thought he was hugely popular in the area. Saw an article on CNN about it and the tone definitely seemed to imply Ditka would have had a legitimate chance.

In other athlete-politician news, former Suns guard Kevin Johnson was elected the mayor of Sacramento and former NHL QB and Heisman runner-up Heath Schuler was re-elected to Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say that John McCain’s concession speech was very classy, humble, and respectful. I kinda feel bad for the guy, he was completely screwed out of his chance to become President because of Bush and his running-mate Sarah Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do that in any state, as far as I know. Absentee voting. It's how I voted while I was in college. People can't always report to their local polling station on election, and that obviously shouldn't prevent them from voting.

Should have clarified, they vote by mail ONLY. No polling stations...

Puts a lot of trust in the postal service...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the rest of the country overrate Ditka's popularity? I guess I'm influenced by the old "Da Bears" skits on SNL, but I've always thought he was hugely popular in the area. Saw an article on CNN about it and the tone definitely seemed to imply Ditka would have had a legitimate chance.

In other athlete-politician news, former Suns guard Kevin Johnson was elected the mayor of Sacramento and former NHL QB and Heisman runner-up Heath Schuler was re-elected to Congress.

Think Lynn Swann. It's one thing to want a guy on you sidelines, another to want him in the senate.

Also, I cannot overstate how screwed the Illinois Republican party was by scandal. The Republican governor that left that year is still in jail. Even today the IL Republican party is on life support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think Lynn Swann. It's one thing to want a guy on you sidelines, another to want him in the senate.

Also, I cannot overstate how screwed the Illinois Republican party was by scandal. The Republican governor that left that year is still in jail. Even today the IL Republican party is on life support.

Well, if Arnold could run and win as a Republican in California, then I think anything can happen.

I've never really understood why scandals like that affect the entire party in an area. Seriously, what does him being a jackass have to do with other Republicans running in the area? I guess the same could be said about Clinton's bad press affecting Gore, but at least they were linked pretty significantly.

Should have clarified, they vote by mail ONLY. No polling stations...

Puts a lot of trust in the postal service...

Ok, then I agree that is stupid.

Have to say that John McCain’s concession speech was very classy, humble, and respectful. I kinda feel bad for the guy, he was completely screwed out of his chance to become President because of Bush and his running-mate Sarah Palin.

Well, he was the one who chose Palin, so he screwed himself on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say that John McCain's concession speech was very classy, humble, and respectful. I kinda feel bad for the guy, he was completely screwed out of his chance to become President because of Bush and his running-mate Sarah Palin.

McCain screwed McCain. He's the one that chose Palin. Just one more proof of his poor judgment in times of crisis. America dodged a bullet there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if Arnold could run and win as a Republican in California, then I think anything can happen.

I've never really understood why scandals like that affect the entire party in an area. Seriously, what does him being a jackass have to do with other Republicans running in the area? I guess the same could be said about Clinton's bad press affecting Gore, but at least they were linked pretty significantly.

Arnold spent a lot of time prior to his gubernatorial run positioning himself as an political actor and he needed a once in a generation political mess - the recall - to give him his shot. Ditka is not a known political quantity in Illinois and the political mess tarnished his own party.

I might tend to agree with you about scandal, but in this case Ryan's misdeeds were enabled and replicated throughout the administration. For a long time Illinois was reliably democratic at the national level and would consistently elect Republican governors. I think Ryan belied the apparent notion that Republicans were better and more ethical local administrators.

My conjecture might be a little paradoxical at closer glance, but you have to remember that despite his somewhat shady reputation nationally, Mayor Daley is LOVED in Chicago.

Also, as a purely procedural issue, the Ryan scandal knocked so many prominent republicans out of power that the party has been essentially headless ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious of your opinion of Palin now, with the benefit of hindsight of the campaign.

I don't see why an electoral repudiation should change one's perception of the correctness of a given candidate's positions. It may, however, force one to rethink their electability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious of your opinion of Palin now, with the benefit of hindsight of the campaign.

My opinion hasn't changed. I think she probably grabbed some extra female votes, but in the end didn't help the ticket because of her inexperience. I said all along that choosing her negated the experience factor that McCain had over Obama. I think Romney or even Lieberman would have been better choices. The economy was one of Romney's strengths, so he definitely could have helped McCain there. Plus, I think he would have appeased conservatives who were wary of McCain. Lieberman, I think, would have been quite interesting. He would have further alienated conservatives, but likely would have brought in quite a few moderate liberals. I think either one would have been a safer pick, but McCain knew he would lose if he played it safe. I don't think a different VP would have changed the outcome. It might have made the result a little closer, but I think Obama had it won all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion hasn't changed. I think she probably grabbed some extra female votes, but in the end didn't help the ticket because of her inexperience. I said all along that choosing her negated the experience factor that McCain had over Obama. I think Romney or even Lieberman would have been better choices. The economy was one of Romney's strengths, so he definitely could have helped McCain there. Plus, I think he would have appeased conservatives who were wary of McCain. Lieberman, I think, would have been quite interesting. He would have further alienated conservatives, but likely would have brought in quite a few moderate liberals. I think either one would have been a safer pick, but McCain knew he would lose if he played it safe. I don't think a different VP would have changed the outcome. It might have made the result a little closer, but I think Obama had it won all along.

George W. Bush remains the main reason John McCain is not the US President today. Even though McCain is quite different from the likes of Bush and Cheney, he just couldn't brush us the terrible reputation his party has earned over the last 8 years. Still by working on the experience factor, and backed up with a strong competent running mate that inspired a radical change from the previous Bush administration, McCain probably could have won the election... unfortunately he picked Palin, who was nowhere near ready, looked terrible when put on the spot during interviews, and scared off a lot of people with the mere possibility should could become President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is Mickey Mouse in Canada compared to that. Every word comes out with spit and polish in the States. Up here speech writers - if they're used at all - plagerize. ;)

And what do you mean big step between him and Bush? Bush was a great speaker! I don't think I've seen a better comedian in years.

Props to McCain for his speech - and shutting up the boo-birds. Good fella, wrong party at the absolute worst time.

What is it, 76 days and counting in the Bush ... er... regime? Tough to find a polite word.

I believe this has a lot to do with the level of celebrity worship in the US. I believe the optics and perception around big rallies and speeches means a lot more in their pop culture environment then it does to Canadians...having said that I also think that Canadian youth is very taken by this same pop culture media and celebrity worship. Since the 18-26 year old crowd grew up in this environment more then any other they are bigger slaves to marketing, consumerism and celebrity...no offense to the younger posters on the board intended. Since Canadian politics is not geared with a big marketing machine, celebrity creation and use (through celebrity backing...only in the US does it really matter where the actors/singers vote LOL) it could be something of an explanation as to WHY the US is getting a better voter turn-out. If you break down the youth vote in Canada it's where the really signifcant loses are in the turn-out.

Those big rallies in the US also cost hundreds of thousands to stage...the Canadian parties (whose funding is split across 4-5 parties instead of 2) just don't see the value in holding them. The only people who really attend are their core voters anyhow...but in the US that means "building" on the candidates celebrity status, marketing their speeches...hell, we're lucky if the media covers the entirety of candidates victory(or losing) speeches. For all we know they were great...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this has a lot to do with the level of celebrity worship in the US. I believe the optics and perception around big rallies and speeches means a lot more in their pop culture environment then it does to Canadians...having said that I also think that Canadian youth is very taken by this same pop culture media and celebrity worship. Since the 18-26 year old crowd grew up in this environment more then any other they are bigger slaves to marketing, consumerism and celebrity...no offense to the younger posters on the board intended. Since Canadian politics is not geared with a big marketing machine, celebrity creation and use (through celebrity backing...only in the US does it really matter where the actors/singers vote LOL) it could be something of an explanation as to WHY the US is getting a better voter turn-out. If you break down the youth vote in Canada it's where the really signifcant loses are in the turn-out.

Those big rallies in the US also cost hundreds of thousands to stage...the Canadian parties (whose funding is split across 4-5 parties instead of 2) just don't see the value in holding them. The only people who really attend are their core voters anyhow...but in the US that means "building" on the candidates celebrity status, marketing their speeches...hell, we're lucky if the media covers the entirety of candidates victory(or losing) speeches. For all we know they were great...lol.

I think it more has to do with Barack Obama himself. Even in US politics, it's not often that someone comes along and captures the imagination of people like he did. There are many who were popular and respected, but perhaps the kind of connection that people have felt toward a charismatic candidate may have last occurred with JFK, at the federal level at least - though some may argue Clinton came close. It's happened in Canada as well: Trudeau-mania swept the nation in '68!

It's one thing to listen to a candidate state his policies and talk about change, but it's quite another to really believe and be inspired by his conviction as he does it. That's a rare occurrence. Obama's gift of oratory has been his greatest asset so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this has a lot to do with the level of celebrity worship in the US. I believe the optics and perception around big rallies and speeches means a lot more in their pop culture environment then it does to Canadians...having said that I also think that Canadian youth is very taken by this same pop culture media and celebrity worship. Since the 18-26 year old crowd grew up in this environment more then any other they are bigger slaves to marketing, consumerism and celebrity...no offense to the younger posters on the board intended. Since Canadian politics is not geared with a big marketing machine, celebrity creation and use (through celebrity backing...only in the US does it really matter where the actors/singers vote LOL) it could be something of an explanation as to WHY the US is getting a better voter turn-out. If you break down the youth vote in Canada it's where the really signifcant loses are in the turn-out.

Those big rallies in the US also cost hundreds of thousands to stage...the Canadian parties (whose funding is split across 4-5 parties instead of 2) just don't see the value in holding them. The only people who really attend are their core voters anyhow...but in the US that means "building" on the candidates celebrity status, marketing their speeches...hell, we're lucky if the media covers the entirety of candidates victory(or losing) speeches. For all we know they were great...lol.

"... and for those Joe Six-Packs playing a drinking game at home: 'celebrity'." *drinks up*

j/k

I'll chime in. Most of what you said is true Zow, but the celebrity thing isnt completely about celebrity worship itself. There's an inherent political culture difference between the US and the rest of the Western world.

The position of US President gets so much more exposure than that of Prime Minister here, it makes the American people see the President as a member of their family, like a cousin or something. Because of that, they make the position something very personal. They've developed the expectation that the President (and his wife and kids by extension) needs to be completely open about his private life, and that he also needs to be friendly. Only in America does the question "Which Presidential candidate would you rather have a beer with?" has any relevance.

Canada is much more like Europe and has allowed (and even prefered) that their Head of States maintain a certain level of privacy. We dont expect or even desire to personnalize the Prime Minister position so much. The closest Canada ever came to have a that level of intimacy with it's Prime Minister was during the Trudeaumania years in the 70's.

But everything else you said is pretty much true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it more has to do with Barack Obama himself. Even in US politics, it's not often that someone comes along and captures the imagination of people like he did. There are many who were popular and respected, but perhaps the kind of connection that people have felt toward a charismatic candidate may have last occurred with JFK, at the federal level at least - though some may argue Clinton came close. It's happened in Canada as well: Trudeau-mania swept the nation in '68!

It's one thing to listen to a candidate state his policies and talk about change, but it's quite another to really believe and be inspired by his conviction as he does it. That's a rare occurrence. Obama's gift of oratory has been his greatest asset so far.

You would be surprised how easy it is to be inspired when surrounded by a big cheering crowd, extra fake crowd noise on top of good lighting, make-up and clothes on the speaker...then throw in a well versed speaker who has mastered their body language, rise and fall of the tone in their voice, etc...the message is important but it's FAR from the biggest part of the package usually.

As a quick and dirty example look at how some schools get people all worked up at a pep rally...

Typically, what you say is the smallest part of what people recognize when they communicate a message. As I recall, only about 7% of what people remember from the inspiring "message" is actually the words used...mostly it's body langauge and tone of voice...and in a large crowd I'm sure the ebb and flow of the mob reaction.

Edited by Zowpeb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be surprised how easy it is to be inspired when surrounded by a big cheering crowd, extra fake crowd noise on top of good lighting, make-up and clothes on the speaker...then throw in a well versed speaker who has mastered their body language, rise and fall of the tone in their voice, etc...the message is important but it's FAR from the biggest part of the package usually.

As a quick and dirty example look at how some schools get people all worked up at a pep rally...

Typically, what you say is the smallest part of what people recognize when they communicate a message. As I recall, only about 7% of what people remember from the inspiring "message" is actually the words used...mostly it's body langauge and tone of voice...and in a large crowd I'm sure the ebb and flow of the mob reaction.

If it were that easy to be inspiring, more people would be. I'm not necessarily referring to the people physically present at the rallies; a lot of people were inspired just watching it on TV.

Yes, I agree it's not solely about the message, but how it's conveyed... as I said, his conviction in delivering the message. It's why Obama ended up being rated so high in integrity without a long track record to back it up - people just believe him by how he speaks. Or, along those same lines:

"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." Jean Giraudoux, French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist

:lol:

Powerful oratory can move mountains. It's a gift - JFK had it, Lincoln had it, Churchill had it, and Hitler* had it. Obama has it too.

(*Disclaimer: comparisons of Hitler to the others do not extend beyond public speaking skills!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were that easy to be inspiring, more people would be. I'm not necessarily referring to the people physically present at the rallies; a lot of people were inspired just watching it on TV.

Yes, I agree it's not solely about the message, but how it's conveyed... as I said, his conviction in delivering the message. It's why Obama ended up being rated so high in integrity without a long track record to back it up - people just believe him by how he speaks. Or, along those same lines:

"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." Jean Giraudoux, French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist

:lol:

Powerful oratory can move mountains. It's a gift - JFK had it, Lincoln had it, Churchill had it, and Hitler* had it. Obama has it too.

(*Disclaimer: comparisons of Hitler to the others do not extend beyond public speaking skills!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk is cheap.

I'll give him a chance but his policies will make things much worse. Bailouts, 1 trillion in new spending, entitlements for everyone who he considers isn't rich, free health care.

Who is going to pay for all that?

What's with all the Palin bashing? If you don't like her policies fine but blaming her for everything is crazy.

She has more executive experience then Obama so i'm not getting that arguement either. I don't agree with some of her policies but she wasn't running for president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...