Can someone explain to me why anyone wants to vote for McCain/Palin?

[ViperVX]

The funny thing about election is, McCain ppl chosen Sarah Palin not to be a responsible vice president (by that i mean actual knowledge how to do stuff), but to get the number of "Hillary" votes, which they succeded to do, as he's now leading the race.

Obama on the other hand, imo, chosen a guy (Biden) capable of doing the job, but the decision has not brought him much fame or votes, so now they are throwing Clintons on the campain to help, and i am not sure how it's gonna work out.

This whole thing turned out to be a great big one American Idol, with contestants trying to outperform eachother, and "Judges" (political experts and analysts) constantly throwing more logs in a media fire by "suddenly discovering and pointing out" flaws in candidate's plans and programmes.

I doubt, that even 10% of the ppl who will be going to vote in november, at least read or tried to understand what candidates are actualy proposing without the "take" of the media, or simply read the keystones of their programmes.

All of that makes for a very good and interesting Hollywood movie, and i don't know how it's going to end, which makes it better. But, as said by Bill Maher (I know he's a comedian and mostly cares about his ratings, but still) : "If McCain and Palin win the election, my (Maher's) job in the next four years will be much easier".

P.S. If you ask me, who read all candidate's programmes and stuff for educational purpose, i'd vote for Hillary.

 

[AnGuRuSO]

pretty much my thoughts, why would I care what somebody 10,000km away thinks if it sucks to live here?

What about 800 KM away?

Spoiler

Melbourne sucks

 

[Zorlac]

The funny thing about election is, McCain ppl chosen Sarah Palin not to be a responsible vice president (by that i mean actual knowledge how to do stuff), but to get the number of "Hillary" votes, which they succeded to do, as he's now leading the race.

Obama on the other hand, imo, chosen a guy (Biden) capable of doing the job, but the decision has not brought him much fame or votes, so now they are throwing Clintons on the campain to help, and i am not sure how it's gonna work out.

This whole thing turned out to be a great big one American Idol, with contestants trying to outperform eachother, and "Judges" (political experts and analysts) constantly throwing more logs in a media fire by "suddenly discovering and pointing out" flaws in candidate's plans and programmes.

I doubt, that even 10% of the ppl who will be going to vote in november, at least read or tried to understand what candidates are actualy proposing without the "take" of the media, or simply read the keystones of their programmes.

All of that makes for a very good and interesting Hollywood movie, and i don't know how it's going to end, which makes it better. But, as said by Bill Maher (I know he's a comedian and mostly cares about his ratings, but still) : "If McCain and Palin win the election, my (Maher's) job in the next four years will be much easier".

P.S. If you ask me, who read all candidate's programmes and stuff for educational purpose, i'd vote for Hillary.

I agree, I think the only reason (well 3 reasons) Palin was picked was in hopes of picking off the female votes from Obama, inject some excitement for an otherwise hopelessly boring campaign from McCain, and to sow up support for the hardcore Neocon conservatives, something McCain had trouble with.

I don't think it'll work. Palin's 15 minutes of fame are dwindling fast. Obama was the darling for a while, then the media tore into him. Palin was the darling for a few weeks, now the media are tearing into her and for good reason. So much meat with this troopergate, her record, the way she governs (using personal email to conduct official business so it cant be subpoenaed in case...where have I heard that before?). Palin is digging her own grave as well, keeps repeating the same BS line about the bridge to nowhere, earmark spending etc. Its like she keeps recycling her convention speech. It was cute then, but its getting stale now. Plus the negative ads that even Karl Rove says are getting out of hand. I'm glad McCain overplayed the negativity hand and its coming back to bite them.

Also I think its incredibly cynical and frankly insulting to women by McCain to pick Palin only because she's a woman in hopes that will be enough for women to vote for McCain if they previously went against him. Of all the qualified women McCain could have picked for VP if he wanted to go that route (which he didn't but was talked into by his advisers, so much for being a maverick), he picks Palin after barely know her. It was a gamble that seems to have paid off for the short term, but come Nov I think it'll cost him the election. Say what you want about Obama, he's been vetted thoroughly for months so unless we find out he's a gay nazi porn star serial killer, I dont foresee any more controversy or surprises from Obama's backround.

All this bad stuff about Palin however is starting to get attention and we still have another month and half to go. October suprise anyone? I'm glad the media are finally starting to pick apart her record. Hopefully they got over the lipstick/pig (Im still embarrassed about it) bullshit and get to the facts finally.

McCain took one hell of a gamble with Palin. Are you telling me they knew nothing about troopergate, the way she governs (appointing her highschool classmates and close friends to high positions), lying about earmarks and budget handing etc? Either they didnt know which at least makes them inept and incompetent, or they did know and thought no one would find out which is far scarier. Imagine what they would do if they won. Whats next, McCain appoints his pool boy as secretary of energy?

The GOP and McCain are serving up the election to the dems on a silver platter. Its the democrat's race to lose. I just want Obama to fight back harder. Biden gave a good solid speech today and I really cant wait for the debate against Palin. Obama gave a terrific speech and he was on fire. He needs to be more like that, and less the professor. He needs a good one or two liner that ppl can remember. Unfortunately our country is too dumb and has a short attention span, so while Obama gives articulate answers, he needs something simple that ppl can remember. Remember Reagan's "Are you better off than you were four years ago" line? That was very effective and that something Obama has to come up with.

The crisis on wall street today is perfect red meat for the dems against McCain and the McCain camp know it. They just need the friggin balls to go after him and after him hard. As far as the Clintons are involved, they NEED to go fight for Obama. They have a lot at stake as well. If Obama loses, they'll share almost as much of the blame. The Clinton supporters say Bill and Hill will go to bat and campaign hard so I hope soon because Obama needs it.

 

[hajj]

Then, you must be the first European I've seen who might be for McCain. BTW how high are your taxes in the Netherlands?

I probably am the first European who supports McCain on this board.
Taxes in the highest tax band are 52% over here, so a bit more than in the most expensive cities in the US.

 

[BlaRo]

Plus the negative ads that even Karl Rove says are getting out of hand. I'm glad McCain overplayed the negativity hand and its coming back to bite them.

Speaking of negative attack ads, what do you guys think of this?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk[/YOUTUBE]

To play devil's advocate here, it's pretty degrading for the McCain camp to not only brutally attack Obama but to get it so wrong...but I doubt the Obama camp is exactly virtuous either. And that's the frustrating thing about politics: you can't believe anything both sides tell you. Fuck this, I give up.

 

[optimusprime]

Speaking of negative attack ads, what do you guys think of this?

Most of those "DISTORTION" rebuttals were stretching...

Though, as much as I hate to say it, the end justifies the means this time. I mean, remember like two weeks ago when we all found out that Obama voted in favor of "post-birth abortion"? That's just illogical.

 

[Momentum57]

Hunter S. Thompson once said "Nixon brought in all the great people into politics and Clinton drove all but the worst out"

 

[Jacobfox]

Speaking of negative attack ads, what do you guys think of this?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk[/YOUTUBE]

To play devil's advocate here, it's pretty degrading for the McCain camp to not only brutally attack Obama but to get it so wrong...but I doubt the Obama camp is exactly virtuous either. And that's the frustrating thing about politics: you can't believe anything both sides tell you. Fuck this, I give up.

It's a PAC. They exist on both sides. More so on the republican side.
Obama's kept the campaign relatively clean vis-a-vis smears. Some dems, namely those at slate.com, have wondered why he hasn't hurled more of these McCain-esque wild pitches. As of last week, Politfact reported that McCain had made 11 barely true claims, eight categorically false claims and three so-called pants on fire lies since July. In the same time, Obama's told 8 bare truths, four categorical lies and no pants on fire lies. The other two major factcheckers agree. So the question becomes, if this tactic is so successful, why won't he dig the dirt a la McCain? The answer is that he wants to try to maintain a "moral high ground" (frankly impossible). The guys doing the hatchet jobs to McCain are independent left-wing groups. This is how Bush won in '04. The main difference is that Bush's people (and McCain's) took/are taking the approach of attacking the candidate's strengths. The Kerry military service was one of the main advantages he had over Bush, who got put into the Alabama Air National guard because of strings pulled by daddy and then went AWOL. And yet, by baselessly attacking Kerry's valor, they managed to mangle his personality. They're trying to do the same thing with Obama, insisting that his skill as an orator is the mark of an uncaring elitist, rather than just intelligence. Not sure how it'll end up yet. I'm still busting my ass for Obama, and I hope it all works out.

 

[Scott]

Am I the only European who fears that America might elect Obama? :shock: The only thing that counts to me is the impact on the world economy (read: Europe) and here Obama is clearly the worse solution. He has hinted to cool down NAFTA, he wants stricter and more stringent regulation for banks.
Someone who is willing to sacrifice the free market to win votes, is likely to do this later again. Today it might be trade with Mexico, and I know that the WTO forbids new tariffs on European products, but tomorrow that might be just help him to win new votes.
Straining banks with ridiculous laws after the 1929 stock crash meant that the Dow Jones only reached his pre-1929 level in 1954. The current climate among financial institutions and the awareness of the public on issues such as the credit crunch means that someone like Obama could possibly push through left-wing regulation against banks.
In such though times as today I hope that no democrat will have the chance to become president.

Dude, if I could give you +10 for that I would... if we ever meet the beer is on me too!

 

[Firecat]

In such though times as today I hope that no democrat will have the chance to become president.

Tough times as today, while a Republican is sitting in office, right?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Obama making it any worse. And I'd like to think McCain wouldn't either.

9/11 had a major impact on the economy, but the war was the proverbial "nail in the coffin"....Any plan to fix the economy has include a solution to the conflict.

/stating the obvious.

 

[CyberMonkey]

Am I the only European who fears that America might elect Obama? :shock: The only thing that counts to me is the impact on the world economy (read: Europe) and here Obama is clearly the worse solution. He has hinted to cool down NAFTA, he wants stricter and more stringent regulation for banks.
Someone who is willing to sacrifice the free market to win votes, is likely to do this later again. Today it might be trade with Mexico, and I know that the WTO forbids new tariffs on European products, but tomorrow that might be just help him to win new votes.
Straining banks with ridiculous laws after the 1929 stock crash meant that the Dow Jones only reached his pre-1929 level in 1954. The current climate among financial institutions and the awareness of the public on issues such as the credit crunch means that someone like Obama could possibly push through left-wing regulation against banks.
In such though times as today I hope that no democrat will have the chance to become president.

Well, yesterday the downfall of AIG and with it the entire USA economy was almost there. Half a year ago, oil was 90 dollar a barrel, two months ago it was 150 and today it's 90 again pic. How can you support a system which allows this to happen?
"but its the rules of the free market!" If you leave financial institutes to work by their own "ethics" and "rules", you end up with an explosive air bubble.
I'd rather have some constraints on the cynical opportunism of the top financial leaders than a situation which is impossible to maintain.

Today I heard McCain say that the "economic fundamentals" are "solid" and he gave a warning to those "corrupt, opportunistic business leaders". Yup, this guy is totally believeable. I'm not saying Obama would have a better solution, but at least he looks like he's trying.

 

[optimusprime]

"but its the rules of the free market!" If you leave financial institutes to work by their own "ethics" and "rules", you end up with an explosive air bubble.

No no no no. The Fed is responsible for the bubbles of late. It's hardly what I would call a "free market" institution.

 

[optimusprime]

Obama's kept the campaign relatively clean vis-a-vis smears.

Like his recent ad claiming that McCain is out of touch because he "can't send an email." Well, it's absolutely true that he can't send an email, mostly because the North Vietnamese crushed all his fingers and broke both his arms. Good luck topping that one.

 

[CyberMonkey]

No no no no. The Fed is responsible for the bubbles of late. It's hardly what I would call a "free market" institution.

All I know the feds are cleaning up the mess with 85 billion dollar. But if you know more, please do elaborate.

 

[Vltros]

Wow! This has been a very interesting thread to read. I've always been interested on how Norh Americans see politics and why do they choose their presidents, as we are never given the people's thoughts or ideas on their choices. And this thread has been a perfect way to get informed.

Answering the thread title question (from a foreigner point of view); I think people would like to vote for McCain because he's the safest choice. What he has proposed it's just an extension of what has been done in the USA for the last 8 years and more. It doesn't change much the political status of the Country and it's internal cohesion. North America is experiencing a HUGE monetary downfall which is biasing a lot the people's thoughts. Vote McCain for the safer choice and try to recover from the downfall with the safest option? Or vote for Obama and it's liberal thoughts?

I seriously think that North America needs a reboot and needs to face it's future from a different point of view. Things need to be changed in order for the country to be recovered. And always choosing the safer conservative route it's not the best option. Not only has happened to the USA but many other countries in the world, including Spain which is in a serious monetary crisis too.

PS: One question that has always been on my mind. Why there's no Social Security in the US??

 

[hajj]

No no no no. The Fed is responsible for the bubbles of late. It's hardly what I would call a "free market" institution.

The Fed highly increased the monetary base whenever there was a crisis, so they lowered interest rates and made more money available. Normally this would come together with inflation, but falling prices for products from Asia meant that inflation has rather low for years. The rise of the monetary base also meant that people had more money available to invest into property which meant that their prices rose.
At a certain point the normal mortgage banks had difficulties to give out more mortgages, so investment banks bought up these mortgages repackaged them and sold them off. Together with default insurance these foul mortgages could receive investment grade ratings and could be sold to risk-avers financial institutions.
The investment banks themselves kept many mortgages in special purpose vehicles that could be kept offbalance as long as these are refinanced every year. As long as there are little defaults this system works for all parties: investment banks, insurers and investors.
With rising defaults this system falls apart and this what is happening now. Many parties have taken on large risks which they cannot hedge or control and some capital bases are too small to put up with the losses. Most of these failures were only possible after the financial industry was deregulated in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, so Bush had nothing to do with it. I consider this one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed under Clinton, but sadly many parties in the financial sector could not grasp the degree of change this needed to properly assess the new risks.

All I know the feds are cleaning up the mess with 85 billion dollar. But if you know more, please do elaborate.

That is a credit line, it is unsure whether the actual cost for the us taxpayers will be 85 bn.

 

[Firecat]

All I know the feds are cleaning up the mess with 85 billion dollar. But if you know more, please do elaborate.

You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I hear all this talk about the "free market" and "less regulation" and cries to keep the government out of the business sector, and then we see these massive bailouts.

 

[optimusprime]

All I know the feds are cleaning up the mess with 85 billion dollar. But if you know more, please do elaborate.

Obviously that's not free market. If big companies know that the government won't let them fail, there's nothing to stop them from taking unreasonably large risks (aka subprime lending) and letting the government give them a nice big handout when it goes bust.

 

[Twerp128]

^But just look at Chrysler since the bailout, transformed company really.

 

[Crazyjeeper]

PS: One question that has always been on my mind. Why there's no Social Security in the US??

Seriously?