2008 Election - Offseason

[Genius]

League of Democracies?

Who's gonna head that? Batman?
If fucking only.

[hatepoppy]

really, i was (for some retarded reason) expecting them both to do better. neither has significantly separated themselves.

whoever said it, i was expecting nixon v kennedy. this is no more than an effective teaser for the comedy of footmouths that will be next weeks debate.

[Mustard]

Ack ma din eh erm... fuck

[marquis]

"What an asshole, he wants to reach out diplomatically."

accept to the country(s) that he has a problem with

[Snatch]

accept to the country(s) that he has a problem with

Which he's right about. Completely.

You guys think Bush is the craziest motherfucker ever. How does he compare to Ahmaeirnaincianejraijrjdjdjdjdjihad?

[Snatch]

SPAIN.

[Mustard]

Zapatowned

[Mustard]

Fundamental!!!

[Ace Rockola]

When all else fails, evoke Reagan.

[Snatch]

Unless you're Biden. Then you make yourself look stupider than Sarah Palin.

[marquis]

So we should only talk to our "friends" and bomb our "enemies" and that will always work...

yeah, b/c that has been great so far.

[Snatch]

MCCAIN KILLS HIM.

HEADSHOT.

[Mustard]

Whew! McCain got feisty there.

[Snatch]

Wow, that was a fucking kill. I'm still reeling.

Obama's camp.

_Xm1XErUvXo

[Mustard]

McCain has his shit down on Eastern Europe.

Except wasn't it the Georgians that were the ones that provoded Russia to attack? Where is Arch when I need him?

[marquis]

I''m surprised that Obama hasn't mentioned that Georgia attacked the province of South Ossetia

[Genius]

I've spent significant amounts of time in Ohio. Apparently that qualifies me to be governor.

[Snatch]

I've spent significant amounts of time in Ohio. Apparently that qualifies me to be governor.

Dude, Obama is getting destroyed. I know it sucks, but it is what it is.

[Mustard]

How the hell did this go from Eastern Europe to energy independence? Did I just hallucinate?

[hatepoppy]

Dude, Obama is getting destroyed. I know it sucks, but it is what it is.
youve said that alot. "bbom. headshot" etc. wtf are you talking about?

i could sit here and say MCCAIN IS GETTING KILLEDZ!

but neither is standing out. ive seen more pointed, concise, and relevant conversation in a debate in high school.

[Snatch]

"Dad dad dad... wait i want to talk dad... stutter... dad... wait wait wait."

[Genius]

Dude, Obama is getting destroyed. I know it sucks, but it is what it is.
Quit pretending to be an Obama backer. I've never seen you saying anything positive about him. Be open with your McCain allegiance. And "it is what it is" is probably the stupidest phrase ever uttered. Of course it is what it is, what the fuck else could it be?!?!?!?

[The Batman]

League of Democracies?

Who's gonna head that? Batman?

I am ready. You wanna join me?

[hatepoppy]

"Dad dad dad... wait i want to talk dad... stutter... dad... wait wait wait."
im watching a few minutes behind live (dvr + shitbreak). did someone say dad dad dad dad dad or are you being ridiculous again?

[Snatch]

youve said that alot. "bbom. headshot" etc. wtf are you talking about?

i could sit here and say MCCAIN IS GETTING KILLEDZ!

but neither is standing out. ive seen more pointed, concise, and relevant conversation in a debate in high school.

The Ahmenijad point. "What're you going to say, no you're not"
Knowing any names of places, leaders, issues.
Speaking clearly about central points of his campaigns.
Not rambling.
Not stuttering constantly.
Not saying "I agree, I agree, I agree."
"What's your definition of rich people?"
Pointing out Obama's hypocrisy.
Having a record.

[Genius]

Quit pretending to be an Obama backer. I've never seen you saying anything positive about him. Be open with your McCain allegiance. And "it is what it is" is probably the stupidest phrase ever uttered. Of course it is what it is, what the fuck else could it be?!?!?!?

[Snatch]

Name some points you remember from Obama tonight.

I don't know what the fuck he's said.

I can say "18 billion." I can say "932 million."

What soundbytes does he have?

When did he make the crowd LAUGH at the other candidate?

When did he try unsucessfully over and over to make a counterpoint?

When did he use specific examples, or use names, or personal experiences?

[Mustard]

I am ready. You wanna join me?
I'm in like Flynn.

Call me Fatman.

[hatepoppy]

The Ahmenijad point. "What're you going to say, no you're not"

-yes. if not in that literal a sense, its irresponsible to assume you cant talk someone down.

Knowing any names of places, leaders, issues.
- i read this like 'my friend henry kissenger'. youre old. we get it.

Speaking clearly about central points of his campaigns.
- which?

Not rambling.
- bullshit point

Not stuttering constantly.
- bullshit point

Not saying "I agree, I agree, I agree."
- bullshit point

"What's your definition of rich people?"
- whats wrong w this question, or the answer provided?

Pointing out Obama's hypocrisy.
- which hypocisy?

Having a record.
- im older than shit. remember, if i croak youll have fucking minnie mouse in the white house.

[Snatch]

shut the fuck up about 932 million.



Point for Obama.

Spending Brain Freeze motherfucker.

McCain sticking Taxation up his ass again.

ORGY OF SPENDING! YUM!

HERE COMES OBAMA.

MCCAIN WITH A "YUP"

MCCAIN IS FUCKING REELING.

IM THE SHERIFF MOTHERFUCKER. NOT MISS CONGEALITY. THATS MY VP.

ONE HALF OF JULY AGO!

All making fun of McCain.

Sorry if you're bitter.

[Mustard]

What is the deal with John McCain and his tongue? He whips it out like a snake.

Am I the only one who sees this? Its weirding me out.

[Snatch]

It's a debate.

I'm not going to say who's going to win the mess that happens after the debate.

I'm just saying if you're sitting here watching this, you see Obama getting killed.

Maybe he's better with a speech written in advance.

There's more debates for him to come back. Still hope he wins.

[hatepoppy]

nah man im not bitter. i was just getting annoyed at seeing you post things like 'KILLZEDES!' without any reference at all to what youre talking about.

well, that was my initial beef. then you started talking shit.

WANNA FUCKING FITE!?! my balls weight 17 lbs.

[marquis]

The one glaring difference that has been shown in this debate is the excessive narrow mindedness for McCain to what he "knows" from his "experience" and what Obama's willingness to listen and explore new ideas shows about his leadership.

[Pollo]

and that's a wrap. so in your unbiased opinion, who won people?

[kid_vidrio]

I'm watching about 30 mins behind and checking in here when I come for more scotch.
So far, Obama seems like Obama, McCain seems like McCain, and Snatch seems like a dipshit.

[Snatch]

nah man im not bitter. i was just getting annoyed at seeing you post things like 'KILLZEDES!' without any reference at all to what youre talking about.

well, that was my initial beef. then you started talking shit.

WANNA FUCKING FITE!?! my balls weight 17 lbs.

I'm pretty sure I showed point for point what I was talking about. I was referring to things that were happening live, the effect is lost on DVR.

You understand what I mean?

McCain is a lot happier than Obama right now. You can tell.

Wait for the polls, I'm going to be proven correct.

[Mustard]

Off topic a bit, but Cindy McCain was dressed up like the Kool Aid man.

[hatepoppy]

What is the deal with John McCain and his tongue? He whips it out like a snake.

Am I the only one who sees this? Its weirding me out.
i keep fucking telling you people. ancient reptilian astronauts created man, and have been manipulating us for our entire history. mccain is just the most recent puppet for the rothschildes (i.e. templar i.e. masons i.e. illuminati i.e. sons of reptiles and man).

he learned the tongue flip from his reptilian overlords as they were manchurian candidating him.

[Snatch]

McCain is up 75 to 25 on Drudge. If that matters.

[kid_vidrio]

Wait for the polls, I'm going to be proven correct.
vBookie. you're dead wrong here.

[Snatch]

Also, why does McCain have cheddar teeth?

[marquis]

vBookie. you're dead wrong here.

odds?

[Archetype]

McCain "won" the debate, but Obama, thus far, looks like he's still got the election under his hat.

[hatepoppy]

he's old.

[Pike Bishop]

Off topic a bit, but Cindy McCain was dressed up like the Kool Aid man.

Cindy McCain is a fucking stepford wife. If her husband gets elected she'll be the scariest first lady since Hillary.

[Snatch]

Notice how it's all fucking Obama people saying that Obama won.

Like I said, McCain made Salient points. He name-dropped. He used numbers effectively. He played the fucking soundbyte game.

He was more prepared.

I think (hope) Obama learns from his mistake and turns McCain into George Bush III, next debate and seals the election for himself.

[nuclearjew]

Cindy McCain is a fucking stepford wife. If her husband gets elected she'll be the scariest first lady since Hillary.
Pretty sure Laura Bush is THE Stepford Wife.

[Insomniac]

If you're Republican, McCain won. If you're Democratic, Obama won. If you're an independent, you're going to forget this night during the next month.

[Pike Bishop]

McCain "won" the debate, but Obama, thus far, looks like he's still got the election under his hat.

I've gotta say, I don't see how McCain won. Obama said the most stuff that I found appealing. Then again, I'm already voting for Obama so... maybe McCain is also saying stuff that will be most appealing to people who were already going to vote for him anyway and that's what makes it seem like he won to certain people?

[nuclearjew]

Quit pretending to be an Obama backer. I've never seen you saying anything positive about him. Be open with your McCain allegiance. And "it is what it is" is probably the stupidest phrase ever uttered. Of course it is what it is, what the fuck else could it be?!?!?!?
Snatch doesn't back anyone, because he's too busy shitting on everything to pledge allegiance to anything.

[taters]

McCain was just made to look like a moron on national television. How many answers to questions can you give that start with you telling an unrelated story and end with you saying 'Ill take care of it if Im elected'. Seriously, did he go to the Karl Rove school of Public Relations.

[marquis]

McCain was just made to look like a moron on national television. How many answers to questions can you give that start with you telling an unrelated story and end with you saying 'Ill take care of it if Im elected'. Seriously, did he go to the Karl Rove school of Public Relations.

for the last 3 months... yes

[Ace Rockola]

They're talking to Rudy on NBC. I wonder how long it will be before he mentions 9/11

[Snatch]

Now, Giuliani vs. Biden.

That's not very fair.

Make Palin fucking talk.

[Mustard]

and that's a wrap. so in your unbiased opinion, who won people?
Well, McCain seemed very down to Earth tonight and did an ok job. McCain hit Obama hard on a few issues, mostly about foreign policy and experience, which is poignant but not unexpected. However, he kept making mischaracterizing statements about Obama's positions and his voting record. That hit me as disingenuous.

Obama played from the defensive side of the issues alot from what I saw. That bothered me a bit, but Obama did do a good job at responding to McCain's mischaracterizations and other assertions. Obama really should have been on the offensive more often, but did a fine job when he was on the offensive. I think the tactic here for Obama was to put up the image of an intelligent and friendly person, willing to work for the average American, and didn't vere too much off of that course.

The debate was about foreign diplomacy and issues surrounding that point. Given that McCain is much more versed in this respect, overall he did a fine job. Obama though, I felt that he held his own and retorted to McCain's mischaracterizations very well. With that said, McCain should have won this debate, but since I feel this debate was an overall tie, I feel that McCain underperformed slightly, and Obama slightly exceeded expectations.

[Ace Rockola]

Wow. Rudy didn't mention 9/11. I'm shocked.

[marquis]

really? I would have guessed those would have been the first words out of Rudy's mouth

[Archetype]

Wow. Rudy didn't mention 9/11. I'm shocked.
Didn't he, right at the end there? Wait, nevermind, I don't know what Rudy you're talking about.

[Snatch]

If you take the first letter of every sentence, it spelled out NINE ELEVEN.

He's getting subliminal on you.

[Snatch]

Besides Drudge, any other polls?

[Ace Rockola]

I agree with Sink that it was an overall tie. I like Obama, and plan on voting for him, but McCain didn't really say or do anything to sway me or even make me question voting for Obama. Obama on the other hand didn't really do anything to make my decision concrete and stand up and scream "FUCK YEAH! McCain got Obampwn3d!"

[Snatch]

I agree with Sink that it was an overall tie. I like Obama, and plan on voting for him, but McCain didn't really say or do anything to sway me or even make me question voting for Obama. Obama on the other hand didn't really do anything to make my decision concrete and stand up and scream "FUCK YEAH! McCain got Obampwn3d!"

The thing is, McCain gave plenty of those moments to his base.

[marquis]

a base that was always going to vote for him. So how does that mean that he "won"?

[Snatch]

MSNBC's Truth Squad going after McCain as hard as it can.

[Snatch]

a base that was always going to vote for him. So how does that mean that he "won"?

Momentum?

[Ace Rockola]

Yeah, but the point of the debates is to sway the undecided voters because the base should be energized after the convention.

[marquis]

with those that already support him?

edit: to snatch

[Snatch]

When people discuss it, they have a lot of points that they can make as "Obama got fucked."

Obama fans have, "I think he was very controlled, and did pretty well."

It's all about what people can remember.

[Ace Rockola]

After the next debate, nobody will remember this one.

[Snatch]

Ya, maybe you're right. Too bad Lehrer couldn't control them at all.

[marquis]

what I saw was a smart man making coherent points and sounding like he understands the details and complications of serious situations. And a less smart man talking about why being "around for a while" means he doesn't have to care

[Snatch]

Which goes to show that for 95% of people, debates don't do anything.

People see and hear what they want to hear.

I just want to see people make the other people look stupid. I got what I wanted, but not in the way I expected. I wanted Obama to go after McCain for being a Bushite.

[Mustard]

ZOMG!!! McCain wasn't wearing a US Flag lapel pin!

[Snatch]

Just wait until the neo-cons come out of their caves to talk about this shit.

[Snatch]

Obama killing on MSNBC site.

[SNIG]

McCain is killing on Drudge. Polls mean shit.

[Desperado]

McCain is killing on Drudge. Polls mean shit.


Really, drudge is the most scientific way to judge this debate...? Like people have previously said, Dems will think Obama won, Rep will think McCain won.

[dadaelus]

The polls just point out what we know: People go where they hear the things they need to hear. Whoever loses the election will give a concession speech that will ask people to rally around the winner and support them. Those people will go Fuck You Loser, grind their heels against any kind of progress, prepare for the next election battle in two years to possibly create a stalemate, and then prepare for the election war that starts the year after that.

I think that people that support either party are sure they are 'right' and have the best plan. Sadly it seems that part of that plan is fucking over the other party 'to keep them from doing harm' should they be in power.

[Ace Rockola]

You basically summed up the American election system up in a single paragraph.

[URFloorMatt]

Debating policy is mostly pointless. Obviously Democrats agree with Obama and Republicans agree with McCain.

Based on poise and presentation, I thought Obama carried the day. McCain blinked incessantly, and I don't think ever once even looked at Obama during the debate. His smile is awkward; his posture is awkward; his giggle (for lack of a better word) is awkward. McCain seemed flat, particularly early on in the debate. Obama seemed comfortable and engaged, not afraid to challenge McCain. He looked directly into the camera several times, and often looked at McCain when he spoke or in response to McCain.

Probably more important, Obama was more direct and aggressive than in any of his previous forums and debates, so reaction among the punditocracy will, I think, be that Obama showed a net improvement. His answers didn't ramble or droan. He brought up salient facts (whether they were true or not, I have no idea) that made McCain seem wrong. McCain could never seem to do that; he just seemed to retort "Well, you don't understand" like some grumpy old man frustrated by the young whipper snapper who was clearly showing him up.

It seems to me that McCain has framed the debate that Obama is "too risky" a choice in these uncertain times. If that's his argument (maybe he's tossed that for a new one, I've had a hard time keeping up with his erratic behavior lately), I don't see how this debate was a win for him. Obama came off presidential.

At worst, it was a tie. If you're McCain, ties don't do you any good when you're already trailing. Especially when you consider that this was the national security debate, and that's McCain's home turf. Plus, I'd wager a lot of viewers turned out after the economy talk ended, and McCain seemed especially bad during that portion of the discussion.

[kareyn01]

Since people were asking about polls, a CBS insta-poll of undecided voters (500 of them) had the following:

40% Obama won
38% draw
22% McCain won

CNN had the following (also undecideds):

51% Obama won
38% McCain won

Iraq 52-47 Obama
Economy 58-37 Obama

[Pollo]

MSNBC's Truth Squad going after McCain as hard as it can.

MSNBC aired an anti-McCain commercial the other day showing his cases with cancer, using pretty graphic images which I thought was inappropriate. now am I surprised how crushed he gets on that channel, not at all ... but it's not like anyone is watching since MSNBC has the lowest ratings (or so I remember) of all the major networks covering the election.

Since people were asking about polls, a CBS insta-poll of undecided voters (500 of them) had the following:

40% Obama won
38% draw
22% McCain won

CNN had the following (also undecideds):

51% Obama won
38% McCain won

Iraq 52-47 Obama
Economy 58-37 Obama

ouch, Obama creamed McCain on the economy ... I'd like to see how the nationwide polls are on Monday after McCain tighten up Obama's lead with the economic crisis and suspending his campaign.

[Snatch]

By these polls, I was wrong. I thought McCain accomplished more.

[Lone Wolf]

I was surprised that Obama didn't beat McCain around a lot more. McCain came off like a prick to me, but I think people will buy into that.

[Lone Wolf]

MSNBC aired an anti-McCain commercial the other day showing his cases with cancer, using pretty graphic images which I thought was inappropriate. now am I surprised how crushed he gets on that channel, not at all ... but it's not like anyone is watching since MSNBC has the lowest ratings (or so I remember) of all the major networks covering the election.




It was a brutal ad, but would you have been shocked if McCain ran the same style of ad?

Also as far as I know the Olbermann hour is right there if not above any hour in cable news prime time

[kareyn01]

MSNBC aired an anti-McCain commercial the other day showing his cases with cancer, using pretty graphic images which I thought was inappropriate. now am I surprised how crushed he gets on that channel, not at all ... but it's not like anyone is watching since MSNBC has the lowest ratings (or so I remember) of all the major networks covering the election.



ouch, Obama creamed McCain on the economy ... I'd like to see how the nationwide polls are on Monday after McCain tighten up Obama's lead with the economic crisis and suspending his campaign.

Except McCain hasn't tightened up the polls by "suspending" his campaign, or through the economic crisis. Exactly the opposite has happened. And if these numbers are extrapolated to the rest of the undecideds, that's not good news at all to McCain.

I posted earlier that the historical impact of debates on polls is a 4 point swing, two points up for the victor, and two down for the loser. If you then assume that 10% of the country is undecided, the CNN and CBS poll results fit right in with that model. What was a 4-5 point Obama lead would then become an 8-9 point Obama lead. If not, we'll know that the two polls weren't representative of the undecideds still out there.

[Claydon]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

[Snatch]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

Is this a joke?

[Archetype]

I think democracy is the joke.

[dadaelus]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

Let us see who is happy about that little nuggett in about 6 weeks.

[kareyn01]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

Correct. But Obama's recent rise in the national polls has also led to a positive trend in every battleground state except Pennsylvania and Minnesota (and he's still polling ahead in both states). No, a 2 point lead in the national poll numbers doesn't mean an electoral college victory, but a 6-8 point lead means it would be almost impossible, given realistic voter spreads, that the candidate polling behind would be able to win the electoral college.

Granted, there's still over a month remaining in the campaign, and anything can happen, but trending in the right direction both nationally, and state-to-state. (check out www.fivethirtyeight.com)

[Stax]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

You realize Obama is MORE successful electorally, right? As in McCain has essentially no state with a real legitimate chance of taking from the Dems 04 column (MAYBE NH), but there are practically a dozen Republican ones in play? And that just from Iowa and some of the Western states Obama already wins?

[freegood]

I think democracy is the joke.

And the politicians are laughing.

[URFloorMatt]

thankfully this country does not have the issues of tyranny of the majority, but rather a more sensible system called the electoral college.

If anything, the electoral college is more susceptible to tyranny of the majority now than it was in 1789, since nearly every states' electoral votes are swung unanimously by a mere plurality of voters. In any given state, it takes no more than 51% of voters to capture twice their worth in electoral votes for the candidate they support. The remaining 49% of the state's voters are completely voiceless in the electoral college.

It's tyranny by the fifty sub-majorities.

[vasili denisov]

League of Democracies?

Who's gonna head that? Batman?
I thought this was the best take (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/27/krauthammer-mccain-un/) on it. It's a much darker perspective than I expected, and not from some liberal critic, but neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer, who takes credit for the idea.

[Pharon]

In any given state, it takes no more than 51% of voters to capture twice their worth in electoral votes for the candidate they support.
* Except for Maine and Nebraska.

Also, I fail to see how this is any more tyrannical than it was in 1789. Please elaborate.

[Stax]

* Except for Maine and Nebraska.

Also, I fail to see how this is any more tyrannical than it was in 1789. Please elaborate.

The party system, while it existed with Federalists and Anti-Federalists, was nowhere near as rabid in that period. Now 80-90% of states are effectively ignored for a few 'battlegrounds'. Dunno if I'd say that creates a tyranny of the majority MORE nowadays, but the system itself certainly promotes such tyranny. In the popular system just whoever gets the most votes win, that's how an election works. If you're a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in Massachussetts, might as well stay home as far as the presidential race is concerned because your state-majority going the other way makes your vote meaningless nationally.

[Pharon]

I find this whole "the electoral college is tyranny" to be a bullshit argument. I even posted an article at the old site (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=2678673#post2678673) which shows you have MORE individual power with the electoral college than you do without it -- and that's NOT just voters in battleground states, but ALL voters.

But let's just go back to 1789 and see how those electoral votes were cast, and compare them to today's "unfair" system, shall we?

In 1789, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1789_Presidential_election#Electoral_vote) is how electors were chosen:

By state legislatures: Connecticut, New Jersey, Georgia, New York, South Carolina

Two electors appointed by state legislature and each remaining elector chosen by state legislature from list of top two vote-getters in each congressional district: Massachusetts

Each elector chosen by voters statewide; however, if no candidate wins majority, state legislature appoints elector from top two candidates: New Hampshire

State is divided into electoral districts, with one elector chosen per district by the voters of that district: Virginia

Of course, even with that, the New York legislature failed to appoint its allotted 8 electors in time, so there were no voting electors from New York; two electors from Maryland did not vote; and one elector from Virginia did not vote and another elector from Virginia was not chosen because an election district failed to submit returns.

So I'll ask again, how exactly is the electoral college MORE tyrannical today than it was then? At least now ALL states choose their electors by popular vote. I'd call that progress, to say the least.

[Stax]

It isn't moreso today, I agree with that (I was just saying what it seemed he was).

But saying you have generally more power as a voter under the electoral system is silly (your first paragraph). I am in CT and once primary season is over you don't see the candidates EVER outside of fundraisers (which you probably don't get to go to as a normal person anyways).

[Pharon]

But saying you have generally more power as a voter under the electoral system is silly (your first paragraph).
The math says otherwise.

[Hanover Fist]

It isn't moreso today, I agree with that (I was just saying what it seemed he was).

But saying you have generally more power as a voter under the electoral system is silly (your first paragraph). I am in CT and once primary season is over you don't see the candidates EVER outside of fundraisers (which you probably don't get to go to as a normal person anyways).

I have news for you. If it weren't for the electoral college you would never ever see any politician in Connecticut or almost anywhere outside the top 15-20 most populous cities in the country.

[Stax]

I have news for you. If it weren't for the electoral college you would never ever see any politician in Connecticut or almost anywhere outside the top 15-20 most populous cities in the country.

But my vote (were I a Republican in CT, say) would have an equal effect on the presidential election to anyone else anywhere else in the country. Yes, obviously media markets and such would dictate what politicians you see, but that's a force largely outside of government control (beyond "equal time" requirements and such). But right now a Republican in Mass or CT or a Democrat in Texas or Utah essentially has 0 presidential votes, where a voter of any stripe in a few key states has infinitely more power over the race.

[Claydon]

For those who think this country is a simple majority wins in an election, go take poli sci 1. We like most democracies require a plurality, not a majority. Ours is a first past the post winner takes all system.

[Claydon]

I am sure states like Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska love the electoral system. If you folks want to do away with the electoral system, perhaps we should do away with the senate as well. I mean...after all, HOW DARE hawaii and alaska have as much power in the senate as say, california or texas.

[Stax]

For those who think this country is a simple majority wins in an election, go take poli sci 1. We like most democracies require a plurality, not a majority. Ours is a first past the post winner takes all system.

Uhhhh.... What? If you do not receive a majority of electoral votes the race goes to the Congress. Where are you getting that we have a plurality system (this is true for smaller races, but not the presidency)?

I am sure states like Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska love the electoral system. If you folks want to do away with the electoral system, perhaps we should do away with the senate as well. I mean...after all, HOW DARE hawaii and alaska have as much power in the senate as say, california or texas.

But they don't. They have a vote that is scaled to population giving them virtually the same % of the total votes at play. It helps them slightly, but really quite marginally. On the other hand every single Democratic voter in every state you listed but Hawaii and every single Republican in Hawaii has 0 power.

The electoral system does not 'empower' small states because outside of including votes for Senate seats (so even the smallest state has a minimum 3 votes) the system is still basically scaled by population. All it does is paint a picture with 538 data points when we are actively collecting 200+ million data points on the same subject at the same time.

[Claydon]

Uhhhh.... What? If you do not receive a majority of electoral votes the race goes to the Congress. Where are you getting that we have a plurality system (this is true for smaller races, but not the presidency)?



But they don't. They have a vote that is scaled to population giving them virtually the same % of the total votes at play. It helps them slightly, but really quite marginally. On the other hand every single Democratic voter in every state you listed but Hawaii and every single Republican in Hawaii has 0 power.

The electoral system does not 'empower' small states because outside of including votes for Senate seats (so even the smallest state has a minimum 3 votes) the system is still basically scaled by population. All it does is paint a picture with 538 data points when we are actively collecting 200+ million data points on the same subject at the same time.


I have zero power being a republican in california so what is your point? Furthermore, we are a plurality, first past the post, winner take all system. Look it up. The majority of the votes does not matter, look at bush in 00. True wyoming may only have 3 votes however, what if you had 268 votes and wyoming was the last state to come in for you. You think these guys are going to ignore even 3 votes if the state is remotely in play? It does indeed empower the smaller states (based on population). Without the college all you would need to win is the majority of the population of california, florida, texas, the north east and a couple southern states and BOOM, you are in. Thankfully the founders were fearful of the tyranny of the majority. In california we have a tyranny of the minority, what a fucking nightmare that is. Or look to the Italian government, they have one of the most unstable systems in europe due to the tyranny of the minority.

[vasili denisov]

For those who think this country is a simple majority wins in an election, go take poli sci 1. We like most democracies require a plurality, not a majority. Ours is a first past the post winner takes all system.
You're mixing up two different things, plurality and electoral college, you can have one without the other. In the US, candidates are winning based on a majority anyway, not of votes, but of electors as represented by the states of the electoral collage, because you're dealing with only two candidates. Were it to be more than two candidates, you'd be speaking of a candidate winning the most number of electoral votes. At no point is there a requirement that a candidate receive over 50% of votes. You could get rid of the electoral college tomorrow, employ direct voting, and you'd still have a plurality system.

I think the distinction you're making is between single winner voting systems and proportional voting systems; the chaos in Italy has nothing to do with that. There's far less chaos in Canada or Britain than in Italy or Israel, though they employ the same system.

[Stax]

What vasili said. Of course we aren't a majority POPULAR system, the popular vote has no meaning. But you most certainly need a majority of what are currently the only votes, the electoral college.

Proportional voting has its good bits and bad bits, but no one is talking about that. They are saying why should we take a less accurate picture of who the country wants to lead them? Would you like it if, instead of looking at each individual organ system, your doctor looked at your 'chest region' and despite having heart problems he decided you were healthy? No, because by looking at a general area rather than the specific bits that comprise it he came around to a less accurate image. In 2000, and 3 other times in our history, more Americans wanted one candidate yet our imperfect imaging system of the EC said they wanted the other guy.

[Pharon]

But right now a Republican in Mass or CT or a Democrat in Texas or Utah essentially has 0 presidential votes, where a voter of any stripe in a few key states has infinitely more power over the race.
This is not a shortcoming of the Electoral College, but rather of 48 of the State Legislatures who decide how to allocate electoral votes.

In other words, the winner-take-all rules in place now could easily be changed to be proportional based on Congressional District winner, for example, without having to change the Constitution at all. And the smaller states would still maintain that slight edge they'd need to stay relevant.

The best thing about keeping the electoral college is that it minimizes the impact of recounts. Imagine how difficult it would be to try and implement a recount in all 50 states, instead of one or two. It would be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, to say the least.

[Mustard]

Hmm... I wonder. Would it be more of a "fair" election if (like Pharon said) electoral votes were based on Congressional District winner.

So basically, each district won equals one electoral vote. It would decrease the amount of electoral college votes available from 540 to 435, but at least that would remove the possibility of a tie.

[Pharon]

The problem with that is you'd need to amend the Constitution to override Article II §1 Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Personally, I see no problem giving the two electors who represent the Senate to be tied to the overall state popular vote. It's still better than the way it is now, and the Constitution wouldn't have to be changed at all.

Problem is to implement this, every state has to do it individually. Talk about herding cats...

[Mustard]

That would be virtually impossible.

[Claydon]

This is not a shortcoming of the Electoral College, but rather of 48 of the State Legislatures who decide how to allocate electoral votes.

In other words, the winner-take-all rules in place now could easily be changed to be proportional based on Congressional District winner, for example, without having to change the Constitution at all. And the smaller states would still maintain that slight edge they'd need to stay relevant.

The best thing about keeping the electoral college is that it minimizes the impact of recounts. Imagine how difficult it would be to try and implement a recount in all 50 states, instead of one or two. It would be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, to say the least.

Nebraska has a proportional based system for the presidential election.

[Rover]

In 2000, and 3 other times in our history, more Americans wanted one candidate yet our imperfect imaging system of the EC said they wanted the other guy.The United States is not a collection of people. It is a collection of states. Electing a president by popular vote has just as many downfalls as with the electoral college. Mainly, you'd have to live in one of the 15 most populous metro areas to have a chance to see a campaign. Although it would completely remove the relevance of the Iowa caucus and the NH primary, so I guess there would be some benefit. Really, why even bother dividing into states. We could just reorganize into 50 federal districts, or maybe even more or less, depending on how the governing structure needs to work out. Why is there a North and South Dakota? I think I just saved billions of dollars a year in operating costs. West Virginia? Welcome back to Virginia. NH, VT, ME? New Vermaine has a nice sound to it. NoCal really becomes NoCal, and SoCal becomes SoCal. We're all just people, why don't we divide up so that we're easier to govern?

The biggest problem with the popular vote is that the wasn't the intention of the founding of the country. The people didn't get together and form a country. The states did. The United States is a federation of states and each state should have as proportionally equal a say in who the president is as possible.

Maybe you're okay with LA, Chicago, and NYC choosing your president, but I'm not. Try reversing your position. You can still live in CT, but you live in a small town with 400 people. New York City is more like New York Town. Everything you politically believe is the same.

In the middle of the country are huge farming megapolises (what is the plural of -polis?), where 18 million people have guns and farm all day long. They know everybody's name and believe everyone is their neighbor. On Sundays they go to church and believe God exists. They believe unions are worthless and government is, too. Among those 18 million people are a few who believe like you do, but they've been sufficiently oppressed that their viewpoints are meaningless.

Would you want those huge cities of conservative ideals choosing your president? I don't think so.
This is not a shortcoming of the Electoral College, but rather of 48 of the State Legislatures who decide how to allocate electoral votes.

In other words, the winner-take-all rules in place now could easily be changed to be proportional based on Congressional District winner, for example, without having to change the Constitution at all. And the smaller states would still maintain that slight edge they'd need to stay relevant.

The best thing about keeping the electoral college is that it minimizes the impact of recounts. Imagine how difficult it would be to try and implement a recount in all 50 states, instead of one or two. It would be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions, to say the least.While I wouldn't mind trying out the electoral votes by congressional district to see how it works for a few elections, I think it would be subject to more corruption. When the state legislatures get together every 10 years to redraw the districts there would be gerrymandering like you couldn't believe.

Let's see if we can divide up the district that has 90% black into 2 districts with 45% and make sure we get 37% union workers with highschool educations...

This district needs to be 100% black and the other district we need to make sure that everyone has a bachelors degree but not a masters degree or higher and if we can get the numbers of single women with kids down to 3% and the numbers of retired veterans to 43%...

I just see the congressional district method devolving into something that is hyper political and potentially hyper divisive. I think the electoral college as is, is just fine. It's worked for 220 years, why fix it?

Hmm... I wonder. Would it be more of a "fair" election if (like Pharon said) electoral votes were based on Congressional District winner.

So basically, each district won equals one electoral vote. It would decrease the amount of electoral college votes available from 538* to 435, but at least that would remove the possibility of a tie.You could just allocate the 2 senator "votes" to the winner of the popular vote in the state, which is what Maine and Nebraska do.

[Mustard]

Fuck... it is 538. Color me retarded.

[Pharon]

Nebraska has a proportional based system for the presidential election.
Yeah, so does Maine. That's why I said 48 states and not 50.

Maybe I should type slower.

[Pharon]

While I wouldn't mind trying out the electoral votes by congressional district to see how it works for a few elections, I think it would be subject to more corruption. When the state legislatures get together every 10 years to redraw the districts there would be gerrymandering like you couldn't believe.

Let's see if we can divide up the district that has 90% black into 2 districts with 45% and make sure we get 37% union workers with highschool educations...

This district needs to be 100% black and the other district we need to make sure that everyone has a bachelors degree but not a masters degree or higher and if we can get the numbers of single women with kids down to 3% and the numbers of retired veterans to 43%...

I just see the congressional district method devolving into something that is hyper political and potentially hyper divisive. I think the electoral college as is, is just fine. It's worked for 220 years, why fix it?
First of all, the gerrymandering couldn't be any worse than it is already. What needs to happen is a computer drawing up those lines and not state legislatures. At least you'd see some objectivity.

Second, the Electoral College has not been a 'winner take all' system for 220 years. In the beginning, state legislatures picked most of them. I'm not sure at what point it devolved into that, but I'm convinced it was a bad idea from the very start. Proportionality is the best way to go there. It's the best of both worlds.

[taters]

Again, I am fairly amazed I agree with Pharon on the Gerrymandering issue. We are probably thinking of opposite examples, but in my home state Texas, Gerrymandering of districts is so bad they have ensured a one party state indefinitely.

[Pharon]

Again, I am fairly amazed I agree with Pharon on the Gerrymandering issue.
If you're starting to agree with me more, it must mean you're getting smarter.

<3

[Claydon]

Yeah, so does Maine. That's why I said 48 states and not 50.

Maybe I should type slower.

or i should sober up

[Rover]

First of all, the gerrymandering couldn't be any worse than it is already. What needs to happen is a computer drawing up those lines and not state legislatures. At least you'd see some objectivity.

Second, the Electoral College has not been a 'winner take all' system for 220 years. In the beginning, state legislatures picked most of them. I'm not sure at what point it devolved into that, but I'm convinced it was a bad idea from the very start. Proportionality is the best way to go there. It's the best of both worlds.And it's bad with only Congressional seats on the line. Imagine with the presidency thrown in the mix. The only benefit would be the state houses would be so busy focusing on whether to divide an apartment building in half, they wouldn't be able to get any other legislation done.

I just see it as becoming a really divisive factor. Race, gender, employment, education would all become even bigger factors in voting.

I wouldn't mind seeing it work for an election or two, just because I think it could potentially work.

The biggest problem of all would be that the President would most likely be of the same party as the House of Representatives. I don't think that would be in the best interests of anybody. Without doing the math, I think that it would always be the case

[Pharon]

The biggest problem of all would be that the President would most likely be of the same party as the House of Representatives. I don't think that would be in the best interests of anybody. Without doing the math, I think that it would always be the case
It would probably make it more likely, but I think that when you throw the two Senate votes in (based on statewide popular vote), it wouldn't always be the case.

[Rover]

The more I think about it, maybe not. My old congressional district has elected the same Democrat for years, but voted for George Bush the last 2 elections.

[Claydon]

people like republican presidents.

[Deadhead Derek]

at election time, 40 % do, 40 % don't and if we have a gop pres, it means 11% of the middle do too.
If this bailout goes through, it will be a while before any area, district or seat is filled with the party of the bailout voting incumbant.

[Smokestack]

Country first (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_bailout;_ylt=AqtPXnRgu9fuYsVSgrTSSACyFz 4D): (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_bailout;_ylt=AqtPXnRgu9fuYsVSgrTSSACyFz 4D%29:)

Obama plans return to Senate for bailout vote

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama plans to return to the Senate this week so he can vote for the Wall Street bailout package.
The Illinois senator is expected to support the plan, but hasn't committed yet since he's still examining the details. The $700 billion compromise legislation is up for a vote Monday in the House, with the Senate vote expected as early as Wednesday.
A spokesman for John McCain said the Republican nominee plans to be in Washington and hopes he'll be able to vote, depending on the schedule.
Obama was scheduled to campaign Wednesday in La Crosse, Wis. It was unclear if his morning rally there would still go on, depending on when the vote is scheduled, but campaign organizers said they hoped he could still attend.

[Stax]

Country first (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_bailout;_ylt=AqtPXnRgu9fuYsVSgrTSSACyFz 4D): (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_bailout;_ylt=AqtPXnRgu9fuYsVSgrTSSACyFz 4D%29:)

Obama plans return to Senate for bailout vote

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama plans to return to the Senate this week so he can vote for the Wall Street bailout package.
The Illinois senator is expected to support the plan, but hasn't committed yet since he's still examining the details. The $700 billion compromise legislation is up for a vote Monday in the House, with the Senate vote expected as early as Wednesday.
A spokesman for John McCain said the Republican nominee plans to be in Washington and hopes he'll be able to vote, depending on the schedule.
Obama was scheduled to campaign Wednesday in La Crosse, Wis. It was unclear if his morning rally there would still go on, depending on when the vote is scheduled, but campaign organizers said they hoped he could still attend.

No wai, you can campaign and do your job? If only every presidential candidate ever knew this we could've told Johnny boy- Oh wait. They did all know that.

[Hobnail_Boot]

I say fuck a bail out. Just send me the $10,000 directly and let me "invest" it myself.

[Feng]

people like republican presidents.

Since when????!!!!!

[UNC]

Since 96?

[Yelram]

Since when????!!!!!

Repubs.
2 term Eisenhower
2 term Nixon
2 term Reagan
1 Bush 1
2 Bush 2
36 years
Dems.
Kennedy 1
Johnson 1
Carter 1
Clinton 2
20 years

So atleast since Eisenhower, before that the Dems werent the same as they are now.

[Pharon]

Repubs.
2 term Eisenhower
2 term Nixon
2 term Reagan
1 Bush 1
2 Bush 2
68 years
Dems.
Kennedy 1
Johnson 1
Carter 1
Clinton 2
36 years

So atleast since Eisenhower, before that the Dems werent the same as they are now.
Dude, I'm too tired to try and figure out how your math got those figures, but why not just keep it simple and say this -- in the past 40 years, 7 of the last 10 elections went Republican?

[Yelram]

Dude, I'm too tired to try and figure out how your math got those figures, but why not just keep it simple and say this -- in the past 40 years, 7 of the last 10 elections went Republican?
HAHA, whoops, didnt catch that there. I had a long day.

[freegood]

A spokesman for John McCain said the Republican nominee plans to be in Washington and hopes he'll be able to vote, depending on the schedule.

Depending on whether McCain campaign could use Obama's yes vote as a wedge against angry taxpayers against the bailout....

[smahoo]

new poll shows Obama fairing poorly

http://borowitzreport.com/article.aspx?ID=6922

this can't be

[Smokestack]

Repubs.
2 term Eisenhower
2 term Nixon
2 term Reagan
1 Bush 1
2 Bush 2
36 years
Dems.
Kennedy 1
Johnson 1
Carter 1
Clinton 2
20 years

So atleast since Eisenhower, before that the Dems werent the same as they are now.

Seems like a selective "since." If we take it back past Ike and say since FDR, obviously this equation changes. If we say since 1992, then it seems kind of even (and less so if and when Obama wins). And if you look at approval ratings, you could assert that people like to vote for Republican presidents but then hate themselves for it afterward.

[Stax]

Also it's rather difficult to identify Eisenhower with the Republicans. I love Eisenhower, and he very very clearly was more of a cross-cutting candidate than one of a particular party. He barely announced which party he'd run with before the nominating conventions.

EDIT - And what Smokestack said. Starting at Eisenhower is retarded since your allegation that Dems "Weren't the same" before him is false. FDR was the man who realigned the Democratic party, that's why folks identified themselves as FDR-Democrats.

[Rover]

Okay, fine. We go back to 1860.

18 GOP (22 terms)
8 Dem (14 terms) Cleveland counts once with 2 terms. Johnson doesn't count because he was elected as a unity ticket with Lincoln.

Carter could barely get elected, even after Watergate. Clinton couldn't get elected without Perot. The country is center-right. That's why it doesn't elect Democrats to national office. And when they do, they certainly don't elect them back to back to back to back to back.

[kareyn01]

Breaking news that McCain is pulling out of Michigan today, pulling all of his ads, and sending his staffers into PA, WI, and OH. Given Obama's gains elsewhere, if McCain can't pick off at least one of the Kerry states, its going to be close to impossible for him to win.

[Desperado]

Breaking news that McCain is pulling out of Michigan today, pulling all of his ads, and sending his staffers into PA, WI, and OH. Given Obama's gains elsewhere, if McCain can't pick off at least one of the Kerry states, its going to be close to impossible for him to win.


Hanover can you confirm?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/22895


McCain pulling out of Michigan
Jonathan Martin 1 hour, 1 minute ago


John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.
ADVERTISEMENT

McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.
McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans had been bullish on Michigan, hopeful that McCain's past success in the state in the 2000 primary combined with voter dissatisfaction with Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and skepticism among blue-collar voters about Barack Obama could make it competitive.
McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin spent the night after the GOP convention at a large rally in Macomb County, just outside Detroit. The two returned later last month for another sizable event in Grand Rapids.
But recent polls there have shown Obama extending what had been a small lead, with the economic crisis damaging an already sagging GOP brand in a state whose economy is in tatters.
A McCain event planned for next week in Plymouth, Michigan, has been canceled.

[Pharon]

McCain is pulling out of Michigan
Pulling out never works. If he wants to fuck Michigan, he should wear a condom.

[kareyn01]

Pulling out never works. If he wants to fuck Michigan, he should wear a condom.

Is the Rhythm Method no longer an option?

[Pharon]

Is the Rhythm Method no longer an option?
Ask the Catholics how well that works.

[Stax]

Okay, fine. We go back to 1860.

18 GOP (22 terms)
8 Dem (14 terms) Cleveland counts once with 2 terms. Johnson doesn't count because he was elected as a unity ticket with Lincoln.

Carter could barely get elected, even after Watergate. Clinton couldn't get elected without Perot. The country is center-right. That's why it doesn't elect Democrats to national office. And when they do, they certainly don't elect them back to back to back to back to back.

I don't disagree the country is center-right in comparison to the world.

However on the term argument, going back to 1860 is just as retarded as starting after FDR. FDR IS WHEN THE PARTIES REALIGNED, so starting before or after him is meaningless.

[Stax]

Breaking news that McCain is pulling out of Michigan today, pulling all of his ads, and sending his staffers into PA, WI, and OH. Given Obama's gains elsewhere, if McCain can't pick off at least one of the Kerry states, its going to be close to impossible for him to win.

He might as well have pulled out the day he didn't pick Romney. The state had already shown itself to not have the massive schism some claimed it would over Hillary that would've given the Republicans a real shot, and without Romney there's really no chance.

[CrazyCarl]

I see more McCain/Palin yard signs than Obama signs. But I live in a Republican town

[Mustard]

VP debate is... on

[Mustard]

Can I call you Joe?

[nuclearjew]

Did Palin get points just for showing up? She had points before she even spoke.

[Mustard]

her hair is in her left eye. point for not wiping it away.

[Gary_Busey]

Palin is very good at telling everyone what the Republican party says John McCain has done.

[Ace Rockola]

Right out of the gate, with a soccer field reference. Been coached much?

[Mustard]

the american workforce is not eligible to be the fundamentals of the economy.

unless this happens to be the first time in history people can be regarded to as fundamentals.

[Ace Rockola]

She said America needs something new in the same sentence as "John McCain has voted along his party lines 96% of the time". I suprised they told her that fact.

[Genius]

This bitch is a cunt-whore.

[Gary_Busey]

Palin doesn't like to talk specifics, just generalized metaphors for doing work.

[Mustard]

joe six pack and hockey mom. quaint.

[Genius]

Could you people honestly put up with four years of this trollopy-twat?

[Genius]

Biden swings at McCain...and connects.

[Mustard]

you know what they say about people who blink fast when they talk...

[Genius]

Let me just go on record.

I would vote for George W. Bush over Sarah Palin.

[Ace Rockola]

Her reponses don't address anything thats been said or asked. What is she going to do when she runs out of talking points?

[Gary_Busey]

She asked Palin to respond on Biden's comments on McCain, she starts talking about taxes.

[Mustard]

ouch, biden on deregulation, palin focuses on taxes and refrains from talking about it.

can't be a good sign...

[Ace Rockola]

She's a maverick! She's not gonna follow your yellow bellied rules!

[Genius]

177 times! Take that bitch!

[Desperado]

I almost feel sorry for her...almost hahahaha.

[Pharon]

I want them to ask her if she thinks her running mate is clean and articulate.

[Ace Rockola]

Wow, she joined the debate.

[heelsguy]

Biden better quit smiling condescending when Palin is talking....or rather, yes. KEEP smiling like that Mr. Hairplugs

[Mustard]

hmm, palin says paying taxes isn't patriotic? i disagree, because i like paying for police, firefighters, educators, roads, etc etc etc.

[Genius]

Did she just take a swipe at Bush?

[Gary_Busey]

OUCH! Nice Biden.

[Mustard]

ultimate bridge to nowhere...

kapow

[Genius]

THE ULTIMATE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE!!!

[Desperado]

hahaha bridge to nowhere nice...

[Mustard]

characterized, not the hardest word in the english language.

[heelsguy]

what? how about the capital gains tax you were going to raise? guess you are going to keep that? yeah. that would be GREAT for the stock market!

[Genius]

characterized, not the hardest word in the english language.
Try saying it after you've had as much to drink as Biden has. Wait until his hands disappear behind Palin's podium...

[CrazyCarl]

isn't this a question about promises the candidates can't keep? what the fuck is she going on about?

[Mustard]

what IS the deal with biden smiling big? is he being... polite?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Palin is out of her league.

[Muji]

she should have chosen porn over politics

[Genius]

Answer the question, jerk!

[heelsguy]

she IS hot though. admit it

[Gary_Busey]

She doesn't answer the questions. She just spits out some new splurge of generic propaganda.

[Gary_Busey]

she IS hot though. admit it
Oh, I'd jizz all over her face.

[Muji]

i would rather hit piper, track or bindy palin

[Desperado]

CNN has this approval meter below the candidates... Palin is getting rocked

[Fletch]

"Main streeters"

WTF

[Gary_Busey]

Did she just ignore another question/response?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Keep saying words baby.

[Desperado]

Shes gotta learn that this isnt about her... shes supposed to be hyping mccain up.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Worst thing to say at a debate "I dont want to argue..."

[Mustard]

ugh... you guys are right. these generalizations are getting pretty ridiculous.

[Desperado]

" Hi im Sarah Palin and ive never left Alaska : )"

[BIG PIZZLE]

I'm glad she cleared up what the chant is.

[Gary_Busey]

I think Biden keeps laughing because the generalizations and ignoring of questions is getting ridiculous.

[Desperado]

I think Biden keeps laughing because the generalizations and ignoring of questions is getting ridiculous.

[Mustard]

ugh... raping? that probably wasn't a good word to use on national television, even in an attack.

[Ace Rockola]

Gay marriage. Shit's gonna hit the fan now.

[Genius]

ugh... raping? that probably wasn't a good word to use on national television, even in an attack.
Obama used "orgy". It's a trend.

[Gary_Busey]

Oh shit, I think she just put her foot in her mouth on the gay marriage thing.

[Mustard]

hoo boy, here come foreign policy...

[Ace Rockola]

I hope she gets asked what winning in Iraq means.

[Gary_Busey]

Weren't the pre-surge numbers the reason why there was a surge?

[Mustard]

with all due respect... faced

[Ace Rockola]

How is the Iraqi's taking over for themselves surrender?

[Mustard]

*double take*

White flag for surrender? oh really?

[Desperado]

shes pretty much just gonna attack biden, thats definitely clear.

[Ace Rockola]

Uh oh. She's pulling her trump card out too early.

[Philip Lombard]

Her American flag pin is bigger. I think she wins.

[Gary_Busey]

Biden is getting into it.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Nuculer?

[Philip Lombard]

fail

[CrazyCarl]

the moderator sucks

[Gary_Busey]

RACIST!!

[Pox]

NOOK YOU LUHHHR

I need 4 more years of that.

[BIG PIZZLE]

"Ready to back you up there..." What a fucking podunk tool this bitch is. I would destroy her.

[Pharon]

NOOK YOU LUHHHR

I need 4 more years of that.
"And is it nuclear or nucular? You know I've actually heard United States Senators on C-SPAN refer to it as nucular. Now color me reactionary, but I don't think you should vote on this shit till you learn how to pronounce it." - Dennis Miller

[Genius]

Choke this bitch. Choke. This. Bitch.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c300/genius34/g-cvr-081002-debate-645pgrid-6x2.jpg

[Mustard]

i see palin finally moved that hair out of her left eye. point taken away!

[BIG PIZZLE]

Building an embassy in jerusalem? wtf?

[Mustard]

What is the country directly to the north of Isreal?

[Soup Nazi]

I think I must be watching a different debate then a lot of people. I thought Obama raped McCain on stage during their 1st debate (so you know where my leanings may be), but I actually think Palin is out-performing McCain (though still not out-performing Biden) when you compare these 2 debates.

Or maybe my expectations were just so low, that she seems somewhat impressive.

[BIG PIZZLE]

It used to be Lebanon. Now it's just rubble.

[Mustard]

another shot at Bush from palin.

[Mustard]

change is comin'. eloquent.

[willydong]

to much finger pointing backwards?? yeah, thats what the cops did to john wayne gacy

[Gary_Busey]

SLAM DUNK

[BIG PIZZLE]

Biden is strong.

[Mustard]

what did she just say about using nucular weapons being used?

[BIG PIZZLE]

what did she just say about using nucular weapons being used?

4KsPKbwNz28

[dadaelus]

I actually miss the sound of a dentist drill

[willydong]

what did she just say about using nucular weapons being used?
the USA uses nukes as a deterdant, other countries would use them as enemas

[Mustard]

one candidate can say nuclear.

[CrazyCarl]

she sounds pissed about this Afghan surge business

[willydong]

one candidate can say nuclear.
hey, any candidate that says nuke-you-ler is two-term material!

[BIG PIZZLE]

Bosniack?

[willydong]

dick luger = quintessential porn name

[Mustard]

thump that podium biden.

[willydong]

Bosniack?
yeah, a lego bosniack like zach, y'know?

[Mustard]

it is pretty obvious palin isn't a washington insider...

[willydong]

anybody know when joe and sarah strip down and start mud wrestling? that will be the defining moment of this debate

[Ace Rockola]

it is pretty obvious palin isn't a washington insider...

That's the first thing I've agreed with her on/

[Mustard]

tying mccain to cheney is a good idea.

[Mustard]

john mccain knows how to win a war? which war has he won?

[willydong]

lol, everybody thinks mccains gonna drop dead the minute after he swears in

[Ace Rockola]

john mccain knows how to win a war? which war has he won?

The war of getting the nomination?