Election Day Thread

by gr » Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:20:23

dajafi-

my card check reference refers to Shumer who keeps trumpeting it as a major issue, one of the first things they want to work on. i'm not a pro-union guy, you know that, but i don't have contempt for people who are, i just disagree (and am happy to leave it at that, no problem).

but i don't see how going to that issue first signals a "change" in washington in a post-partisan sense. it's a change from R to D, but that's it. it's probably the most partisan-based issue they can go to first, and i think it sets a bad tone, one of politcal retribution. i feel like a lot of people think this election was a referndum on that viewpoint. but anyway...

i'm probably guilty of using 'centrist' in an overly-generic sense. i've never believed obama was going to usher in some great post-partisan era where we all get along and legislate on more than a who's-in-power basis. i certainly hope he does, but if i had to offer my opinion, i remain unconvinced. living in washington dc the last 8 years, i'm sick to death of this place and childish behavior on both sides. i don't necessarily think partisanship is all-bad, all-the-time, but the discourse has mostly turned to daytime talk show nanny-ese. regardless of who's fault it was before, i want a more serious, restrained tone in this town or no discussion at all.

by **Scarlett** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:49:23

jerseyhoya wrote:$#@! god damnit we're going to lose NJ-03

I'm in NJ-03.
6:15 pm at polling place, the ticket stub you hand to the person at the voting booth has #638 on it. I ask the booth person if this means I'm only voter #638 for the day. She indicates there are 2 registration areas setup, each using a different ticket book--so I ask if that means I'm around the 1200th voter. She checks some ticker on the side of the booth and says "you'll be voter #604"!
The development I live in has 800-900 houses, most of which have 2 adults living in them. So even if we were ALL of NJ-03, full turnout would have been 1600-1900 voters, not even account for voting age children still living with their parents. YET, at 6:15 pm I'm only voter #604!?!?!?

And for the record, the polling place is the fire hall at the side entrance to the development--ANY one living here could easily walk there--it's not like getting there is a hardship.

AARRGGH! Apathetic cows, I'm living a neighborhood of apathetic cows I tell you!

by **CFP** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:50:22

I have to say I am happy this is all over so I can go back to liking John McCain.

by gr » Wed Nov 05, 2008 13:54:16

dajafi, i should disclose that after reading my original post, i seemed to be making two simultaneous points, interchanging "change" and "centrist." i fear my language recognition abilities have suffered a beating these last few months.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:05:56

Damn, looks like I looked at the wrong county, and a lot of Portland is still out too in Oregon.

by **Mountainphan** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:10:01

So does Obama's win end the presidential aspirations of Hillary (or Al Gore for that matter)?

by **TheDude24** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:20:56

CFP wrote:I have to say I am happy this is all over so I can go back to liking John McCain.

Agreed. I like him, but not when he's being so negative. And taht was much of the campaign. That concession speech was niiice.

by **Bakestar** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:26:47

Mountainphan wrote:So does Obama's win end the presidential aspirations of Hillary (or Al Gore for that matter)?

They'd both be in their late 60s in 2016, I believe. Not totally out of the question, I guess, but I certainly hope they don't run (again).

Semi-related point, but someone mentioned on the television that we've had five straight Presidential elections where the loser had the most robust military record.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:29:16

VoxOrion wrote:Interesting - while all the details aren't in yet, it appears that despite all the fuss over record turnout, so far it doesn't look like turnout increased all that much. It also looks like the "youth vote" only turned out 1% more than in 2004.

I suppose real analysis will be able to occur in the coming days and it's probably too early yet to know for sure.

We're at a shade over 119 million right now. Another couple million votes to come in from Washington and Oregon. We're three million away from the turnout from 2004.

Obama obviously ran better than Kerry among swing groups, but turnout being flat or maybe even down a little shows how much our base just didn't show up.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:54:26

dajafi wrote:
gr wrote:
dajafi wrote:I just read that Obama has asked Rahm Emanuel to serve as Chief of Staff. Not sure if this is semi-substantiated rumor or "someone talking $#@!" rumor, but it's interesting. Emanuel in the Clinton administration and Congress was the hardest-edged Democratic partisan I can remember over the 20 years or so I've been following this stuff--the closest guy to a Tom DeLay among the Democrats. I'm not sure I like that sort of personality controlling access to and setting the agenda for the president.

OTOH, a lot of Republicans seem to think Emanuel's pretty okay on policy grounds. He's no flaming Bolshevik; he's a policy moderate with a taste for blood.

More broadly, I'm a little surprised at how many of the rumored Cabinet names are old standbys: Larry Summers coming back to Treasury sounds likely, Gates probably will be asked to stay on at Defense, Lugar and Kerry are both in the mix for State, Napolitano is rumored to be the leading candidate for Attorney General.

you're seriously surprised? i'm not. he has john kerry on 5-person list for secretary of state. might just be for show, but why? his VP's been around for 30 years. i don't get why people think obama will be a centrist. he's never been anything of the sort and with party control on congress, he has no real reason to be.

we have a legit economic crisis and what's at the top of the dem's priorities in the senate? UNION CARD CHECK. if obama's serious about governing from the center, he'd make his party table that bill for a while and ask they work on something more relevent to people's financial lives.

i hope he at least starts from a bi-partisan perspective. we'll see.

Not really sure how to respond to this, other than to suggest that your definition of "centrist" and Philly the Kid's seem pretty far apart. Which I guess isn't a huge surprise.

I believe the Democrats won this year because, on balance, they came across as much more serious about governing than did the Republicans. The GOP doesn't come back until they show that they're more serious about addressing the country's problems than about self-perpetuation and self-enrichment. By the same token, the Democrats will blow it in 2-4 years if they show themselves to be as unserious in addressing problems as Bush was.

I hadn't heard about card check as "the top priority," but let's face it: unions have been getting hammered in the tuckis, and not in the Matt Stairs sense, for a long time. I'm pretty sure you and I disagree about their role and value by enough that arguing about it here wouldn't be a lot of fun for either of us. But they played a big role in getting Obama across the finish line, validating him among those "hard-working white Americans" in places like Ohio and Indiana. He's not going to table card-check, though I also don't think it'll be a huge concern that the titanic struggle over this will exactly paralyze the federal government.

A "bi-partisan perspective," like you and PtK regarding "centrist," is in the eye of the beholder. I really do believe Obama will want to work with people like Lugar and McCain and Graham and the Maine ladies; the question is whether their own leadership, people like McConnell, will try to block everything to create gridlock and a situation where they can blame the Dems for failing to deliver on promises, or if they're more interested in sharing the credit and passing legislation. It's the same issue of how serious everyone is about governing as opposed to pure politics.

My view of Obama prior and future, is that he will not be forwarding a true progressive (liberal) agenda. Business interests will still rule Washington, very few substantial things will change -- there will be no repeal of teh Patriot Act, there will be no turning back of privatizing military and security, prison expansio -- we will remain involved in armed conflicts -- we will conitnue to pour billions in to Israel.

He will do a few fluffy things for PR around environment, schools and kids, health care -- but it will be business as usual.

Clinton didn't cause or foment the dot.com era -- he was in the right place at hte right time. Obama will be somewhat left to luck. If the Dems in Congress make his life miserable, then he'll be Carter -- if they let him goven with some competence to a general and broad audience -- the progressive movements will quickly sour on Obama and his DC.

My thing that I caution to all the liberals I know, is to temper expectations -- this guy is bright, well spoken, intellecutally curious -- but he's part of a machine and system and don't project on to him something that he never was, never claimed to be, and won't tamper with by suddenly going rogue-left once in office. In general, once you are the Prez, you become even more conservative and hawkish to maintain the authoritarian image.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:55:23

jerseyhoya wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Interesting - while all the details aren't in yet, it appears that despite all the fuss over record turnout, so far it doesn't look like turnout increased all that much. It also looks like the "youth vote" only turned out 1% more than in 2004.

I suppose real analysis will be able to occur in the coming days and it's probably too early yet to know for sure.

We're at a shade over 119 million right now. Another couple million votes to come in from Washington and Oregon. We're three million away from the turnout from 2004.

Obama obviously ran better than Kerry among swing groups, but turnout being flat or maybe even down a little shows how much our base just didn't show up.

Or that Kerry won and the corrupt machines and other techniques flipped the election :shock:

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 14:59:48

Mountainphan wrote:So does Obama's win end the presidential aspirations of Hillary (or Al Gore for that matter)?

I think Gore's political aspirations have been over for some time. If not, he would have run for this year's nomination.

Hillary, at 60 or so, isn't done yet. Even if Obama is a 2-term president, I think she realistically can give it another run if she enjoys good health.

by **Philly the Kid** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:03:01

BuddyGroom wrote:
Mountainphan wrote:So does Obama's win end the presidential aspirations of Hillary (or Al Gore for that matter)?

I think Gore's political aspirations have been over for some time. If not, he would have run for this year's nomination.

Hillary, at 60 or so, isn't done yet. Even if Obama is a 2-term president, I think she realistically can give it another run if she enjoys good health.

Perhaps -- but wouldn't she have to distinguish herself in those years? Have a new message. Would she be a "back to ....????" or a "now we're ready for...." ?? I can't see her having a shot in 12 if Obama falters it will prime the wheels for the next Rep, and if Obama gets two full terms and has a presidency analagous to Bill Clinton -- then how would she distinguish herself at that point? "hi, I'm the person you rejected for the guy you luv'd and just had for 8 years, he can't run again -- so now put me in tehre??" -- AND -- will she be voting against the Pres for 8 years to show she was never with him?

I guess anything is possible, she'll always have the name recognition but will she have the support in the trenches the dough and any message that anyone cares about by 2016?

by **traderdave** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:05:54

Is it wrong to hope that McCain takes both Missouri and North Carolina so that I can be exactly right on my prediction of EVs? 8-)

Seriously, what a great night. I think even hardened Republicans have to be proud of what we, as a country, accomplished last night. Both guys gave fantastic speeches and to see people in tears, especially blacks, really put an exclamation point on the enormity of what happened.

I voted for Obama and, obviously, I am very, very happy that he won. That said, he now has a job to do. Beginning Jan 20th he needs to start to earn my 2012 vote. If he doesn't get this country headed in the right direction by then I will gladly vote him out of office. I have faith, however, that the US will be in a much better place both domestically and internationally at the end of Obama's first term.

Hoya - FWIW, I was rooting big-time for Chris Myers in NJ-03. I was sad to see that Adler pulled that one off.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:08:24

PTK, I have no idea. I mean, a guy none of us ever heard of before 2003 is now president.

I was trying to point that (1) I don't think she'll be too old and (2) I don't think her aspirations are finished or necessarily will be in 2012 or 2016.

BTW, now that the election is over, shame on any Democrat or liberal columnist or whatever that made fun of John McCain for his age. Look at the nation's demographics - early 70s just isn't that old anymore. McCain is roughly the same age as my mother, who, relatively speaking, is one of the most active, youthful, progressive and interesting people I know.

I think the calling McCain old stuff was never much of a factor, but it was beneath the people who used that approach - or should have been beneath them.

McCain may be a bit out of touch. His health may be questionable. He certainly was not the right person for this election (no Republican I know would have been). But he was not and is not too old to be president or to serve two terms in the White House.

by **Werthless** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:19:11

Philly the Kid wrote:
Perhaps -- but wouldn't she have to distinguish herself in those years? Have a new message. Would she be a "back to ....????" or a "now we're ready for...." ?? I can't see her having a shot in 12 if Obama falters it will prime the wheels for the next Rep, and if Obama gets two full terms and has a presidency analagous to Bill Clinton -- then how would she distinguish herself at that point? "hi, I'm the person you rejected for the guy you luv'd and just had for 8 years, he can't run again -- so now put me in tehre??" -- AND -- will she be voting against the Pres for 8 years to show she was never with him?

I guess anything is possible, she'll always have the name recognition but will she have the support in the trenches the dough and any message that anyone cares about by 2016?

The perception of Hillary has changed a lot in the last 8 years, and it can change a lot in the next 8. There are going to be plenty of unforeseen issues for Hillary to take a stand on. I mean, just think about the last 8 years, and the how the discourse on global warming, Iraq, energy policy, Patriot Act, executive power, Afghanistan, and tax policy have allowed politicians to shape their public reputation on these issues. Look at Al Gore!

by **philliesphhan** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:19:16

Still rather annoyed with the likely prop 8 results
even more so annoyed with people like my dad who support it

by **Werthless** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:20:45

philliesphhan wrote:Still rather annoyed with the likely prop 8 results
even more so annoyed with people like my dad who support it

Does he know you're gay?

JK

by **philliesphhan** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:24:43

That would be convenient in making him look like an idiot

by **kruker** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 15:36:48

PA Head Fake

Short, interesting read.

Archived

Election Day Thread