Who do we draft?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ May 23 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I double checked his stance on abortion and he is only "personally" pro-life, whatever that means.</div>

Doesn't that mean you don't want to force your view on others.

 

A new day, a new set of polls.

Ohio: Obama 48 McCain 39 (Survey USA).

They did VP's again.

Obama/Edwards 51 McCain/Huckabee 39
Obama/Sebelius 42 McCain/Huckabee 42
Obama/Rendell 40 McCain/Huckabee 42
Obama/Hagel 41 McCain/Huckabee 42
Obama/Edwards 51 McCain/Romney 38
Obama/Sebelius 42 McCain/Romney 40
Obama/Rendell 42 McCain/Romney 39
Obama/Hagel 42 McCain?Romney 40
Obama/Edwards 53 McCain/Pawlentry 35
Obama/Sebelius 43 McCain Pawletry 36
Obama/Rendell 42 McCain/Pawlenty 36
Obama/Hagel 41 McCain/Pawlenty 36
Obama/Edwards 50 McCain/Lieberman 38
Obama/Sebelius 41 McCain/Lieberman 40
Obama/Rendell 41 McCain/Liberman 39
Obama/Hagel 41 McCain/Lieberman 39

I think it is clear from this that Sebelius, Rendell, and Hagel should not be considered for Obama's VP. Edwards is a STRONG VP based on the polling so far. His endorsement seems to have legitimized Obama. Too bad they don't have Richardson or Hillary in these polls.

Mississippi: McCain 54 Obama 39 (Research 2000)
New Hampshire: Obama 48 McCain 43 (Rasmussen)
Pennsylvania: Obama 45 McCain 43 (Rasmussen)

It is nice to see Obama taking a lead in Pennsylvania. Now I want to see him solidify Michigan next. Survey USA was spot on in Ohio during the primary, so like Virginia, I will give them credence for their polling in this state. Looks like Obama has a very good chance of Obama winning 3 of the swing 4. It would be nice to see Obama win all 4 though, but he has work to do in Florida.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ May 23 2008, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 23 2008, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 22 2008, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Richardson.

I won't be voting for McCain or Obama (or Clinton).

I'm quite scared that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian candidate, making me want to stay home and not vote for the first time since 1976.</div>

Why won't you vote for McCain? Just curious.

I have my own reasons for voting Dem of course.
</div>

I want a president like Dr. No. Veto, veto, veto. Make the government smaller. Use the massive amounts of tax money we give it efficiently.
</div>

In the other thread, I mentioned that I am not a big fan of third party candidates. But reading your stance, I am beginning to understand. The Republican party will never embrace small federal government unless pushed in that direction by a third party. The attraction of big government is too attractive for both parties.
</div>

There's a saying that conservatives act like conservatives until they have a majority.

Also, I tend to be a fan of third party candidates. Our political parties don't have much choice but to gear themselves toward the center, with small preferences either way and aren't that different. Our campaign laws are very regressive towards any other party but the big two, and for most of them you have to kill yourself just to get on the ballot, without any chance to voice your views. I don't think our political system promotes democracy as well as we like to think it does.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 23 2008, 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ May 23 2008, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 23 2008, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 22 2008, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Richardson.

I won't be voting for McCain or Obama (or Clinton).

I'm quite scared that Bob Barr will be the Libertarian candidate, making me want to stay home and not vote for the first time since 1976.</div>

Why won't you vote for McCain? Just curious.

I have my own reasons for voting Dem of course.
</div>

I want a president like Dr. No. Veto, veto, veto. Make the government smaller. Use the massive amounts of tax money we give it efficiently.
</div>

In the other thread, I mentioned that I am not a big fan of third party candidates. But reading your stance, I am beginning to understand. The Republican party will never embrace small federal government unless pushed in that direction by a third party. The attraction of big government is too attractive for both parties.
</div>

You have two branches of the govt. to consider. Congress won't pass anything unless there's enough earmarks and outright bribes given out to get the votes in line. The president has his own agenda, and he's willing to sign a bill with those earmarks and riders to get it done - especially if they're for his own party.

One way or another, they're spending that extra money from our pockets. Either borrowed or taxed, and neither is a good thing.

It's not that I'm an anarchist type of Libertarian. I do believe in government doing reasonable things, and especially things that are such huge projects that the private sector can't really do. Like the space program, or build national highways.

PJ O'Roarke is a conservative-leaning humorist, closer to my view of things than anyone calling themselves republican or conservative. In one of his books, he wrote about how there's like 200 federal programs to fight poverty. The cost of simply writing people checks who are below the poverty line, so they won't be anymore, is a tiny fraction of the cost of all those programs. It's plain ol' common sense.

I am in sync with many issues on the left - I favor abortion, and civil rights for example. On the other hand, I just can't get behind the "if I don't own it, then the state must" mentality. Or worse - the "you're a doctor, we're going to pay you what we think you're worth and you have no say in it" mentality toward universal health care. It's forcing people to work for other people at non-negotiated wages... I cannot think of anything worse.

If the government wants to be an insurance company, then I'm all for it. They could offer the ~45M people without health insurance a govt. issued policy for break-even prices (govt. doesn't need to profit). They could offer malpractice insurance to doctors, too. Even then, I'm convinced there's no controlling the skyrocketing costs without getting the individual involved. Doctors used to take a chicken or pig in trade for their services, right?

Then there's the entitlements. They're about 1/2 the entire spending of the govt. and growing. And going bankrupt. You've got one party (Obama's) who wants to tax our way out of the problem, or break promises to people who've contributed their fair share all along. The other party actually has the right ideas, but would rather see the systems die from bankruptcy than really force their agenda and fix them.

The same is true for education. Obama's party is conservative on the issue - fighting just about any change proposed. The system is badly broken and needs serious fixing. It's not about more money just yet, it's about paying bad teachers big paychecks and not being able to fire them due to tenure, and not being able to pay/attract good young teachers who want to pay off their college loans. It's also about the local governments diverting funds from inner cities to the rich suburbs. Obama's party fights vouchers as if there's something wrong with them - the truth is the only two social programs I can think of that actually work are voucher based - GI Bill and VA loan programs. To that, the people who live near and attend Obama's church really want them, as they're a way to send their kids to good schools.

To conclude my rant, I don't see Obama or McCain really fixing anything. I sorta like McCain for his maverick tendencies, but if I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for an actual Democrat I sorta want Obama to win because it should shut up the most whiniest of people I've ever had to endure in all my years of political interest. Not so sure the republicans are going to be better about it, tho they seem to "get it" about why they're sucking wind and show some humility. When Clinton won, they went after him something fierce, but what has been done to Bush in retaliation is far worse.
</div>

Speaking of health care and vouchers, I figured I'd use this space to plug the one national health care program I think is a really good idea. Universal Health Care vouchers seem like they have the best chance of improving our health care system while simultaneously appeasing all the different special interests who have something at stake.

As its planned, everyone not eligible for Medicare would receive a voucher whose value is risk-adjusted (the more conditions/older you are, the more it's worth) which could be used to purchase health-care from any insurance plan. Medicaid and S-CHIP would be dissolved, Medicare would gradually be phased out as well, and our current employer-based plan would be scrapped. The restriction on cross-state competition would be repealed, so large companies who benefit from economies of scale would develop to allow for greater risk pooling.

Liberals get universal coverage, conservatives get increased private choice and less bureaucracy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ May 26 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, I've spent a little time and I'm not ready to chime in on the Republican ticket.

Tim Pawlenty, the somewhat popular Governor of Minnesota, looks like the default choice on their ticket.

The electoral map for McCain looks pretty bleak this cycle. You could see a reverse of what happened in 2000, where Gore won the popular vote by a relatively large margin, but lost the general election. There are a number of swing states that have had changing demographics that have reached a tipping point. And even more importantly, they have Democratic Governors, so the have political machines in place: namely CO, NM and IA. Kerry would have won if he had won those three states in 2004. And Obama is favored in all of Kerry's states, with the addition of OH (which is leaning Obama and has a Democratic Governor), NV (toss up w/ Republican governor, so I'll give it to McCain), Missouri (leaning McCain, a reach for Obama), VA (narrow McCain with a Democratic Governor). Georgia and Alaska also have a chaos factor at play with the relative popularity of Bob Barr who is polling at 6% nationally and at 8% in GA. The last time the Democrats won Georgia was in 1992 because of Ross Perot's influence.

Bottom line, McCain is going to have to cut into some of the states Kerry won in 2004 to win in November. There's too many ways for the election to go wrong for him, to rely on the same path that GWB used in the last cycle. Pawlenty is the only Republican Governor from any of the states Kerry won. Pawlenty would also help out in neighboring WI, which looks like it might be the most up for grabs of any of the Mid-West states. He's not the best candidate, but it is rather slim pickings when choosing from swing states.

Also, I was checking the number of GOTV rallies that Obama held on the opening day of his registration campaign: he held three in Minnesota and Wisconsin, far and above the average.

(He held four in TN, a state that won't be in play unless Gore is on the ticket -- providing a little extra fuel for my theory about AL Gore as VP.)</div>

I think if he picked someone like Condoleeza Rice as VP, all bets are off.

I've been a huge proponent of Rice as VP for a number of reasons. One of the reasons why is Marist University and WNBC did a poll a few weeks ago and found that a McCain/Rice ticket would trump either a Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama ticket. Keeping in mind Clinton is from New York, and that New York is one of the most liberal states in the country with New Jersey and Massachusetts, If a McCain/Rice ticket could win in New York, it could certainly win in Ohio, Florida (who's residents cannot be happy with Democrats at this point), and other swing states.

The obvious downside to this is that McCain will be linked to Bush through Rice, but since the Democrats will be twisting statements made by McCain and linking him with Bush anway, it just might be worth it to put Rice on a ticket.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ May 27 2008, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, I've spent a little time and I'm not ready to chime in on the Republican ticket.

Tim Pawlenty, the somewhat popular Governor of Minnesota, looks like the default choice on their ticket.

The electoral map for McCain looks pretty bleak this cycle. You could see a reverse of what happened in 2000, where Gore won the popular vote by a relatively large margin, but lost the general election. There are a number of swing states that have had changing demographics that have reached a tipping point. And even more importantly, they have Democratic Governors, so the have political machines in place: namely CO, NM and IA. Kerry would have won if he had won those three states in 2004. And Obama is favored in all of Kerry's states, with the addition of OH (which is leaning Obama and has a Democratic Governor), NV (toss up w/ Republican governor, so I'll give it to McCain), Missouri (leaning McCain, a reach for Obama), VA (narrow McCain with a Democratic Governor). Georgia and Alaska also have a chaos factor at play with the relative popularity of Bob Barr who is polling at 6% nationally and at 8% in GA. The last time the Democrats won Georgia was in 1992 because of Ross Perot's influence.

Bottom line, McCain is going to have to cut into some of the states Kerry won in 2004 to win in November. There's too many ways for the election to go wrong for him, to rely on the same path that GWB used in the last cycle. Pawlenty is the only Republican Governor from any of the states Kerry won. Pawlenty would also help out in neighboring WI, which looks like it might be the most up for grabs of any of the Mid-West states. He's not the best candidate, but it is rather slim pickings when choosing from swing states.

Also, I was checking the number of GOTV rallies that Obama held on the opening day of his registration campaign: he held three in Minnesota and Wisconsin, far and above the average.

(He held four in TN, a state that won't be in play unless Gore is on the ticket -- providing a little extra fuel for my theory about AL Gore as VP.)</div>

I think John McCain is a real longshot to win the election. It looks like the LP may take a sizeable chunk out of his base, and the political winds seem like they have blown away from the republican party.

In my lab, people bring up politics quite a bit, and people almost unanimously bring up talking points about current issues where they rail against Bush and the state of the country. Tax cuts for the rich, fear mongering, the bad economy, Iraq war, etc. I usually think their sentiments are slightly missguided, but it seems to be the popular consensus. The same thing happens when I go to work as well.

And for the first time, it seems like the GOP is going to get oufunded pretty badly as well.

The guilt by association factor will play a big role, and even though I don't think it is important, the fact that John McCain isn't particularly charismatic seems like it is going to hurt him quite a bit since people will be reluctant to believe he's significantly different than George Bush.

I actually think this election may be the most lopside victory since the last time an Arizona senator ran for president.