Election 2008, United States

Who would you vote for if the presidential race is held now?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 415 72.4%
  • John McCain

    Votes: 130 22.7%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 28 4.9%

  • Total voters
    573
Why is flip-flopping seen as such a bad thing? I never really understood that.

It seems to me that being willing to admit that you were wrong, or at least being willing to consider the possibility is actually vital for any leader of anything. Do people really believe that there are candidates out there who have never been wrong about anything?

Have a nice day.
I'd rather have a candidate saying "I will bring America into a new age of Nazi communist rule" than one who says "I shall reign in a new age of democracy" followed by an executive order declaring a national emergency and the full reassignment of all legislative and judicial powers to the executive branch to ensure the safety and order of the American people.

Willing to admit you are wrong has nothing to do with it, supporting something does not make you inherently wrong. Stick by your morals and beliefs, and make a note of it if you change a view, don't throw up some sham to get elected. It's the exact reason why Kerry lost, he had no balls and repeatedly changed his stances on just about everything to the point where nobody really understood wtf he stood for anymore.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I have nothing wrong with someone admitting they're wrong. The only caveat is that they have to say they were wrong. Admitting you were wrong says you were misinformed or made a bad judgment (although I point out that that last bit is a danger for Obama, because he has built his campaign on good judgment). Flip-flopping means you suddenly added a random caveat and that it wasn't really a issue of values.

When Obama was NAFTA-bashing, it sounded to everyone like Obama was showing protectionist sentiment, which was a value judgment. Some quarters would consider it a bad value, but others consider it a good value, and that's how politics is. However, suddenly he turns around and says "protectionism is bad" - and it looks like a political play. He didn't "admit he was wrong"; he just qualified his earlier position in a way that made him look centrist, because now looking centrist is preferable for a general election (timing is key here).

For an example from the other side, McCain's backing of removing the coastline drilling moratorium also looks politically expedient. Generally, one of McCain's strengths has been his (perceived) pro-environment record; but now that he needs to excite his base, he throws out the "well gas is now $4/gallon" idea and now says "yay drilling".

Can you see the problem? Flip-floppers try to have it both ways. When you admit you're wrong, you disavow the other side, even with its political advantages. When you flip-flop, you try to appeal to a new group of people, while hoping enough of the old group will stick with you to keep your polling numbers up.
 
Well, the latest Wall Street Journal has an article suggesting that McCain's idea to permit offshore oil drilling is basically infeasible nonsense that will not bring petrol prices down one iota (at least in the next decade or so). I have a hardcopy, but it's behind a subscription wall online, so damn.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I can't help but feel concerned about Obama's unwillingness to use public financing for his campaign. I feel like he weighed the positives and negatives without considering a major negative - that it would end his media honeymoon. The AP is already demonstrating displeasure with his choice, and the USA Today is already on record saying he should have taken the money, so I expect a rebuke in tomorrow's edition. While at worst I expect this to only nullify his post-nomination bump (which he can recover with a good VP choice), it still seems like a dumb decision. He should do the opposite of McCain and use his fundraising prowess to boost the DNC while keeping his reformer bona fides intact (in fact, probably more so, because it would take extreme political courage to take the public money when the advantages seem to be with not taking it).
 

Surgo

goes to eleven
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
tea and blues said:
Well, the latest Wall Street Journal has an article suggesting that McCain's idea to permit offshore oil drilling is basically infeasible nonsense that will not bring petrol prices down one iota (at least in the next decade or so). I have a hardcopy, but it's behind a subscription wall online, so damn.
factcheck.org has an awesome segment about this too.
 

Great Sage

Banned deucer.
The media is doing a pretty good job at knocking down the off-shore oil drilling myth, and Floridians will probably revert to the "not in my back yard" mindset soon enough.

According to Rasmussen, Obama actually got a slight boost after rejecting public financing; the general populace is far more opposed to public finance than reporters, apparently.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
i wonder if the boost is because of the public financing or because of something else while public financing had no impact.

(I suspect the Iowa flooding is reminding people of Katrina)
 


The Empire Strikes Barak




But seriously though, If I was old enough to vote, I would vote for McCain simply because he is a conservative. He's not really that great though...
 

Great Sage

Banned deucer.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6d876854-13d5-4f70-b17d-9ea29d0bb4d8

In other news, polls are full of bullshit. The above link is the most recent SurveyUSA poll for Oregon, which shows Barack Obama leading by 3 percentage points, which is rather low. However, on further investigation, the partisan breakdowns in the poll are 41%-42%-15% Republican-Democrat-Independent. In a time where the national partisan identification is 41.6% for Democrats and 31.4% for Republicans according to the latest Rasmussen poll, a state that leans Democratic like Oregon does not have that kind of partisan breakdown.
 
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6d876854-13d5-4f70-b17d-9ea29d0bb4d8

In other news, polls are full of bullshit. The above link is the most recent SurveyUSA poll for Oregon, which shows Barack Obama leading by 3 percentage points, which is rather low. However, on further investigation, the partisan breakdowns in the poll are 41%-42%-15% Republican-Democrat-Independent. In a time where the national partisan identification is 41.6% for Democrats and 31.4% for Republicans according to the latest Rasmussen poll, a state that leans Democratic like Oregon does not have that kind of partisan breakdown.
Oregon is Republican apart from Portland. Makes sense to me
 
would someone be lovely enough to PM me with exactly how a candidate is selected, etc - i.e. how the whole thing works? I'm taking it for politics next year..
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Each candidate is elected by the primary process. Each of the 50 states, and some territories, selects a date that is acceptable to the respective national committee for its Republican and Democratic primary or caucus (or both, although for every state except Texas, the primary is irrelevant). Generally, the committees allow some states to go before a certain date (Iowa and New Hampshire have always been first) and every other state has to go on that date or later (this year it was February 5; many states tend to go on this date, which is always a Tuesday, so it's called Super Tuesday). Each state is awarded a set of delegates, based mostly on population, but sometimes there are other factors (North Carolina got 20 extra delegates for holding its primary very late).

In a primary, voters go to voting booths and vote like in a normal election. The tricky part is how delegates are allocated based on the vote, which is determined by each state. California, for instance, gives a chunk of delegates to the statewide winner, plus 3 delegates for winning each county. In the Republicans' system, some states are winner-take-all, meaning, if you win the state, you get every delegate (John McCain got every delegate from New York due to this rule, which helped put him on top). Democrats don't do this, though - which largely explains why neither Obama nor Clinton was ever able to put the other away.

Then there are caucuses... those are variable, so I'll just link to Wikipedia's explanation of the Iowa caucuses, the most well-known.

There are also superdelegates - generally, these are anyone the national committees see fit to give a vote at the convention, and they can vote at the convention for whoever they want. In reality, these tend to be elected officials and well-known party names (Bill Clinton and Al Gore are superdelegates).

In the end, all of these votes are tallied up at the convention and, whoever gets a majority (there are revotes until someone gets a majority; pluralities are not enough) is the party's nominee.
 

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
In short, the electoral college is absolute shite and our presidential election system is outdated and convoluted and, in all seriousness, pretty retarded.
 
In short, the electoral college is absolute shite and our presidential election system is outdated and convoluted and, in all seriousness, pretty retarded.
Except that's not even the electoral college. That's what's used in the general election and its closer to the Republican primary, where each state is winner take all. And that's all I know on the situation, so I'll wait for Great Sage or Misty to explain it better.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
The electoral college is easy. Every state and Washington, D.C. votes on the same day - Election Day. Whoever gets the most votes from a state gets all the electoral votes for that state - which is equal to the number of senators (2) + the number of representatives (depends on population), and 3 for DC. There are 538 electoral votes; whoever gets 270 wins. (Incidentally, a tie could happen this year. If that happens, the House of Representatives votes with each state's delegation getting one vote. Democrats control a majority of the House delegations (27-21 with two ties), so they win in this instance._
 
So, to clarify, votes voted by the people themselves result in the popular vote, and the votes voted by the electoral college result in the actual person winning the presidency?

That's bull.
 
it's not complete bullshit. there's a very strong historical reason behind it, and without the electoral college, the constitution, and by extension the country, would never have gotten off the ground.

it was part of a compromise that gave the small states in the north as much of a voice as the larger states in the south. the map, the math, and the issues have changed, but the weighted power of the electoral college has not.

incidentally, it should also be noted that most states don't actually have laws dictating that the electors must vote for the candidate that's chosen. what happens is the winning party chooses its electors, and the elector votes however they feel. usually this is with the winning candidate, but not always. there have been occasions in the past where electors will go renegade and vote for the other candidate.
 
Well, obviously it's shit, as I understand it the actual elections are FPTP and that is the stupidest system in the world. ever.

but thankyou misty and dm for being lovely :)
 

Great Sage

Banned deucer.
Oregon is Republican apart from Portland. Makes sense to me
1. Oregon is more Democratic than the national average. That's not debatable.
2. The national average party identification is 31.4% for Republicans.
3. SurveyUSA says Republican identification in Oregon is 41%. That's about 10% higher than the national average.
4. Oregon is more Democratic than the national average.
How does that make sense?
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
So, to clarify, votes voted by the people themselves result in the popular vote, and the votes voted by the electoral college result in the actual person winning the presidency?

That's bull.
It's called compromise. If the EU ever becomes anything, expect to see a lot of it.
 
The electoral college is easy. Every state and Washington, D.C. votes on the same day - Election Day. Whoever gets the most votes from a state gets all the electoral votes for that state - which is equal to the number of senators (2) + the number of representatives (depends on population), and 3 for DC. There are 538 electoral votes; whoever gets 270 wins. (Incidentally, a tie could happen this year. If that happens, the House of Representatives votes with each state's delegation getting one vote. Democrats control a majority of the House delegations (27-21 with two ties), so they win in this instance._
Don't forget Nebraska and Maine send their electors semi-proportionally by congressional district. While Maine is as blue as the sky this election cycle, NE could feasibly be split 2-1 McCain this election if Obama makes a reasonable play for it.

Also, Urza's obviously right, but for the nuance that small states get a little more power than large states with the electoral college. It's fair in the sense that big states dominate the House, all states are equal in the Senate; small states need power somewhere. Proportionally, Wyoming has more electoral votes per person than say, California, because the minimum amount of electors a state can have is 3.

Oregon is Republican apart from Portland. Makes sense to me
Oregon's been blue since Bush Sr. And while Kerry won it by 4 points and McCain will be making a play for it, I'd be surprised if it went red if conditions stay moderately similar.
 

Misty

oh
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
This is the first poll in months where McCain is remotely close, so it's either an outlier or an indication of a major trend (which no national polling has picked up, so I doubt this - in fact, according to Rasmussen, Obama has been pulling AHEAD in the last few days).
 
The thing about McCain is that (besides the offshore drilling nonsense), his energy proposals make sense; he wants to stop corn ethanol subsidies and drop the sugar tariff, allowing the US to import cheap, efficient Brazillian sugar cane ethanol.

I don't support him on anything except for that, but I wish Obama would pick something up from that policy.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top