-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Frank the Great
Banned
JayDubya said:
There aren't good, strict Constitutionally-based arguments for a lot of the shit the S.C. decides. Hell, even Marbury v. Madison, which establishes judicial review in the first place, isn't explicitly in the Constitution. Everyone forgot about Bush v. Gore a few days after it happened, despite it being an absolutely tragic decision for the safety of American federalism and the checks and balances of government.
There is a really good argument, however, that taking away rights - even only perceived rights - pisses people off. Especially something like abortion rights, which most people approve of anyway.
The abortion issue is not going to get touched.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
JayDubya said:
For you, yeah. But honestly the abortion argument can be summarized into two groups: people who want to keep Roe vs Wade and want everyone to have the choice of abortion, and those you want to eliminate Roe vs Wade and want to eliminate the choice of abortion for everyone. People like you Jaydubya, who want to leave it too states, are a small minority.
Which state though?
Put me in the majority category, too. I just like to play by the rules, which means supporting an amendment (that would never get the 37 ratifications needed).grandjedi6 said:
Congress certainly has no authority to do anything on the matter.
SCotUS has no authority to do anything on the matter, but they certainly unjustly usurped it.
The PotUS has no authority to anything on the matter. The only precedent for anything like it would be the Emancipation Proclamation, which doesn't even really have much in common with such an act because all that did was make a promise to citizens of another nation and had no effect on Union slave states.
StoOgE said:
Yeah, that's the question I called shallow. It would be interesting to hear the answers to a similar question that was written much better.
Hitokage said:I'm saying that if there were good arguments I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them.
A revision, then. There can be "good" arguments for anything, as a matter of quality of rhetoric and ingenuity. Perhaps the word I was looking for was "valid."
I fail to see how anyone could present a "valid" argument for federal involvement while still respecting the Constitution and the limits it places on federal authority.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
adg1034 said:
Her?
He meant Meg Whitman
Alright, just got finished listening to this week's Bill Moyers. FASCINATING discussion with Andrew Bacevich. He's a conservative ex-Colonel, now scholar with a new book about the reasons for an Imperial Presidency. Covered a wide range of topics, from the changes in American foreign policy after the Cold War to the reasons for seeking Middle East dominance to what it means to support the troops. Just a great interview, really makes me think that maybe it's time for term limits to not only be on the President, but also on Congress.
Agreed. Be it 2012 or 2016 Jindal will be the front-runner when he runs and he will run. Jindal is just one of those guys you can tell in your gut will one day be a nominee for president, like Obama in 2004.Diablos said:Not until 2012 if Obama wins/2016 otherwise.
Seriously though, I expect Jindal to be the frontrunner in the next GOP pool of Presidential candidates, along with Sarah Palin.
I would love term limits on congress. Also for President I like the idea Jimmy Carter laid out a few years back. Single 6 year terms for Presidents. Presidents always govern based on the fact they have a re-election and thus govern for that motive, and after they have a re-election they tend to become lame ducks since there will be a new president soon.Tamanon said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
I just hope he doesn't become President.Diablos said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Obama should be the nominee if Obama losesCheebs said:
I wasn't alive when that happened, but I find it really hard to believe that Carter was THAT bad of a President. Seems like a totally backwards Democratic convention and the hostage crisis really fucked with America's psyche.Ventrue said:I agree with this idea, but I can't help but feel that Carter proposed it simply because his re-election campaign turned out like this:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Recessions tend to kill reelection bidsDiablos said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
The general election doesn't begin until September. That's when everyone wakes up and looks at the political landscape. In Carter's case that is when they saw the sucky economy and the hostage crisis. Compared to Reagan strict optimism it isn't hard to imagine why Carter faltered.Cheebs said:
Also McCain is as much as we dont want to think it, a far stronger opponent for Obama than Carter was for Reagan. Carter was in the White House, McCain wasn't thus it makes things 100x harder.Diablos said:
Obama vs. Cheney would be more comparable than Obama vs. McCain to 1980 (sadly).
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Speaking of McCain.....
The Librarian
Banned
What's the change that works for McCain?!
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Dax01 said:
Changing his diapers?
Changing the channel to Matlock?
LOLOL MCCAIN IS OLD/late night comedian
Cheney would be getting his ass kicked -- or should I say, his face "peppered" -- right now.Cheebs said:
I'm starting to truly get concerned about Obama's chances. During the primaries I was just getting frustrated with it dragging out like everyone else was, but there seems to be a LOT of things working against Obama, more than I thought. I just see things tightening up and being more of the same (that is, 2000 and 2004). Which is just a bad scenario, elections suck when they're that close.
Why in a year like THIS can the Democrat not have a HUGE lead in the polls right now? I just don't get it.
I think what people don't understand about Obama is that he generates a lot of his own hype. He IS his own media machine. Seriously. People say he's a media darling, but not really. It is McCain who is the real media darling this year; he always HAS BEEN, as every news network just loves to call him a Maverick instead of pointing out all of the things that have made the Straight Talk Express make far too many U-Turns.
Nobody wants to be too critical of McCain. They'd rather pick on Obama because it seems easier for some reason, even though McCain has plenty of faults of his own.And the thing that's really worrying is, if Barack Obama can't manage more than what seems to be a max of a 9-10 point lead, typically only a couple points ahead or tied, then WHO COULD? I don't think Hillary would have been able to; people greatly exaggerated her appeal to the everyman. She is an extremely polarizing figure, and I think she would have been an instant loss for the Dems this year, I really do. I'm so glad she did not win the nomination; it would've been over before it started. Plus, look at how selfish and incompetent her campaign was during the primaries... can you imagine that against the GOP in the fall?!
But, really, regardless of how optimistic or pessimistic you feel about his chances: If Obama loses this Presidential election, no Democrat will finally be able to take back the White House in a long, long time. He's a once in a lifetime opportunity for the party.
Most importantly, I think this displays how unbelievably clueless many voters/potential voters are out there. The Iraq war is taking a backseat to the economy, which is understandable, but the two really do go hand in hand. Just because it isn't at the top of their list of concerns doesn't mean they should stop caring; ending the war in Iraq will help the economy here. People seem to be unable to put that together, though, as the whole "surge is working" parade is leaving a good impression on a lot of people as their wallets shrink at the pump. Amazing.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
The man is a total dirtbag, but there is just about no chance the national media picks up on this, because it is somehow impossible to question McCain.thefro said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Diablos said:Cheney would be getting his ass kicked -- or should I say, his face "peppered" -- right now.
I'm starting to truly get concerned about Obama's chances. During the primaries I was just getting frustrated with it dragging out like everyone else was, but there seems to be a LOT of things working against Obama, more than I thought. I just see things tightening up and being more of the same (that is, 2000 and 2004).
Why in a year like THIS can the Democrat not have a HUGE lead in the polls right now? I just don't get it.
I think what people don't understand about Obama is that he generates a lot of his own hype. He IS his own media machine. Seriously. People say he's a media darling, but not really. It is McCain who is the real media darling this year; he always HAS BEEN, as every news network just loves to call him a Maverick instead of pointing out all of the things that have made the Straight Talk Express make far too many U-Turns.
And the thing that's really worrying is, if Barack Obama can't manage more than what seems to be a max of a 9-10 point lead, typically only a couple points ahead or tied, then WHO COULD? I don't think Hillary would have been able to; people greatly exaggerated her appeal to the everyman. She is an extremely polarizing figure, and I think she would have been an instant loss for the Dems this year, I really do. I'm so glad she did not win the nomination; it would've been over before it started. Plus, look at how selfish and incompetent her campaign was during the primaries... can you imagine that against the GOP in the fall?!
But, really, regardless of how optimistic or pessimistic you feel about his chances: If Obama loses this Presidential election, no Democrat will finally be able to take back the White House in a long, long time. He's a once in a lifetime opportunity for the party.
A "couple point lead" is a big lead and a 9-10 lead is HUGE. Remember: each candidate will have their own ceilings and floors for polling data, and also the general election hasn't even begun yet.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
What's the average anyway? There are too many "poll of polls" out there.grandjedi6 said:
Day to day polling is pointless, we've all come to this conclusion by now (I hope). Obama has short periods of time where he's 9-10 points ahead, but I don't really know if that carries any weight. Realistically, they seem to be tied, sometimes Obama is a couple points ahead. And is that huge? Kerry was a couple points ahead most of the time IIRC, but we know how that movie ended.
I'm not saying "omg Obama is doomed", but I am concerned. It's hard not to be especially with the attack ads starting, and McCain resorting to such low tactics. The media lovefest over John McCain and his ability to connect with a lot more people than I initially thought in a year like this is a scary thing
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
I finally watched that McCain ad I posted before. It goes after Obama for dropping the public finance agreement.
On another note: McCain ads have infected fivethirtyeight
On another note: McCain ads have infected fivethirtyeight
- Status