|
Post by kinsm on Aug 4, 2016 20:35:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 10, 2016 9:15:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Oct 11, 2016 1:59:57 GMT -5
^Schmidt is correct, but he's also the idiot that let McCain pick Palin as his running mate 8 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Oct 14, 2016 2:55:59 GMT -5
I voted on Wednesday - the place was packed.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 17, 2016 9:56:50 GMT -5
I don't consider people who chose Sarah Palin to be idiots, despite how bad it looked in hindsight. Someone in the campaign, whether it was Schmidt or someone else, realized that McCain's chance of victory was slim (especially with the banking collapse), and their best hope was a hail mary pass. Continuing that metaphor, Palin was a pass that was intercepted and returned for an embarrassing added touchdown that continues to hurt and embarrass the team for years. Maybe losing gracefully and quietly would've been preferable, but it's a loss either way. A boring, uninteresting VP candidate wasn't going to make McCain president.
McCain's personal preference was Democrat-turned-Independent senator Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic VP nominee. Another kind of hail mary pass. I really doubt choosing Lieberman would've helped.
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 17, 2016 10:12:58 GMT -5
I don't consider people who chose Sarah Palin to be idiots, despite how bad it looked in hindsight. Someone in the campaign, whether it was Schmidt or someone else, realized that McCain's chance of victory was slim (especially with the banking collapse), and their best hope was a hail mary pass. Continuing that metaphor, Palin was a pass that was intercepted and returned for an embarrassing added touchdown that continues to hurt and embarrass the team for years. Maybe losing gracefully and quietly would've been preferable, but it's a loss either way. A boring, uninteresting VP candidate wasn't going to make McCain president. McCain's personal preference was Democrat-turned-Independent senator Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic VP nominee. Another kind of hail mary pass. I really doubt choosing Lieberman would've helped. Its a shame to. The country likely would have been in a far better place then it is now with career campaigner Obama in there. I think McCain was the most qualified candidate in the last four or five elections.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 17, 2016 11:40:44 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree, I feel very strongly that we're much better off under Obama than we would've been under either of his challengers. Although much of the country has despised everything about Obama since the day he was elected (more like when they first heard his name), I think his time in office will be very well regarded by historians. As he approaches the end of his time in office his approval ratings are the highest they've been in years.
As far as being a career campaigner, I've seen that term being used as an insult, which is kinda silly when you think about it. The key to being a successful politician is being able to campaign and attract both money and votes. Campaigning is part of being an elected official, and a useful contributor to the party which you work with. You'd think a president would be expected to go out, speak, and support like-minded politicians to advance the agenda he was (twice) elected to carry out.
Obama has been more involved in this election than his recent predecessors - GW Bush (extremely unpopular! Toxic!), Bill Clinton (amidst sex scandal, toxic!), GHW Bush (couldn't win reelection!) - but it's the first time in recent memory that a party considered a sitting president to be a positive asset. The way I see it, isn't a weakness or flaw in Obama that keeps him campaigning, it's the almost unprecedented fact that his persona and charisma remains an asset for the Democratic Party. It now seems almost alien to think that a former president can offer some positive contributions to his party going forward.
I expect Obama's role in the Democratic Party, campaigning across the country for candidates and causes, will continue for years. The inevitable unpopularity of Hillary (or Trump, if he somehow wins) only seems likely to make people miss the happy times under Obama (he'll leave office with approval ratings over 50%), and cement his appeal to minority and female voters. Much of the country despises Obama, but he has a connection to just the sort of voters the Democrats hope to reach in the future, as demographic and social changes continue to swing their way.
Obama's remarkable ability to appeal to people makes him a generational politician and political success story unlike any we've seen in decades. Many felt that Mitt Romney lost a winnable election, but I never believed it was winnable. At least it would've taken an extremely skilled politician to win, while none even pursued the GOP nomination. Romney certainly wasn't anything special. McCain wasn't either. Nor are GW or Jeb Bush.
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 17, 2016 12:31:08 GMT -5
His role has a senator and especially has the president isn't to work on the next thing instead of doing the job.
Horrible president completely worthless. His biggest thing that he put in is a complete train wreck that has cost jobs and made medical cost for families and small businesses jump through the roof.
History will look back on him as a joke that was only elected because it was the PC thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 17, 2016 12:33:09 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree, I feel very strongly that we're much better off under Obama than we would've been under either of his challengers. Although much of the country has despised everything about Obama since the day he was elected (more like when they first heard his name), I think his time in office will be very well regarded by historians. As he approaches the end of his time in office his approval ratings are the highest they've been in years. As far as being a career campaigner, I've seen that term being used as an insult, which is kinda silly when you think about it. The key to being a successful politician is being able to campaign and attract both money and votes. Campaigning is part of being an elected official, and a useful contributor to the party which you work with. You'd think a president would be expected to go out, speak, and support like-minded politicians to advance the agenda he was (twice) elected to carry out. Obama has been more involved in this election than his recent predecessors - GW Bush (extremely unpopular! Toxic!), Bill Clinton (amidst sex scandal, toxic!), GHW Bush (couldn't win reelection!) - but it's the first time in recent memory that a party considered a sitting president to be a positive asset. The way I see it, isn't a weakness or flaw in Obama that keeps him campaigning, it's the almost unprecedented fact that his persona and charisma remains an asset for the Democratic Party. It now seems almost alien to think that a former president can offer some positive contributions to his party going forward. I expect Obama's role in the Democratic Party, campaigning across the country for candidates and causes, will continue for years. The inevitable unpopularity of Hillary (or Trump, if he somehow wins) only seems likely to make people miss the happy times under Obama (he'll leave office with approval ratings over 50%), and cement his appeal to minority and female voters. Much of the country despises Obama, but he has a connection to just the sort of voters the Democrats hope to reach in the future, as demographic and social changes continue to swing their way. Obama's remarkable ability to appeal to people makes him a generational politician and political success story unlike any we've seen in decades. Many felt that Mitt Romney lost a winnable election, but I never believed it was winnable. At least it would've taken an extremely skilled politician to win, while none even pursued the GOP nomination. Romney certainly wasn't anything special. McCain wasn't either. Nor are GW or Jeb Bush. Happy times under Obama. What in the heck are you on.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 17, 2016 12:57:38 GMT -5
His role has a senator and especially has the president isn't to work on the next thing instead of doing the job. Horrible president completely worthless. His biggest thing that he put in is a complete train wreck that has cost jobs and made medical cost for families and small businesses jump through the roof. History will look back on him as a joke that was only elected because it was the PC thing to do. The size of the divide in this country amazes me. I'm not sure it's ever been bigger.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Oct 17, 2016 13:10:34 GMT -5
His role has a senator and especially has the president isn't to work on the next thing instead of doing the job. Horrible president completely worthless. His biggest thing that he put in is a complete train wreck that has cost jobs and made medical cost for families and small businesses jump through the roof. History will look back on him as a joke that was only elected because it was the PC thing to do. The size of the divide in this country amazes me. I'm not sure it's ever been bigger. the country has always been divided, Jefferson vs. Adams vs. Hamilton, South vs. North, etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Oct 17, 2016 13:11:37 GMT -5
The biggest difference is the amount of money the haves have vs. the amount the have nots have - never been this great of a divide and the way the HOR can be gerrymandered.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 17, 2016 13:20:56 GMT -5
The size of the divide in this country amazes me. I'm not sure it's ever been bigger. the country has always been divided, Jefferson vs. Adams vs. Hamilton, South vs. North, etc., etc. Yeah, I left out the "in modern times" portion of my post. It's certainly difficult to get more divided than the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 17, 2016 13:37:47 GMT -5
"His role has a senator and especially has the president isn't to work on the next thing instead of doing the job." -- The president (or a senator)'s job isn't to sit in the Oval Office for 1440 days per term (2160 for senator), a big part of the job as a figure in that political party is to campaign for that party, and its goals. Parties invest money and other resources in candidates, and candidates (before Trump) are expected to return the favor. Part of the job is to be visible, give speeches.
Reaching out to voters through a public campaign is a much wiser formula than betting on McConnell and Ryan (or Boehner) to break congressional gridlock for the first time since 2010.
The Affordable Care Act is extremely controversial. Half the country hates it, the other half generally likes it, or at least wants to see it improved rather than scrapped. Polls asking about 'Obamacare' are often negative, while polls about the individual aspects of the ACA are overwhelmingly supportive. Heck, polls asking about 'Obamacare' and the 'Affordable Care Act' provide radically different results, showing how controversial it is for reasons completely unrelated to substance. I, for one, was an ACA beneficiary, I was the right age to return to my parents' excellent health insurance plan and have it cover some surgery years ago. It's certainly worked for me. A huge problem that has kept it from working for others is GOP efforts to block, sabotage, and thwart it in every conceivable way. Mitt Romney largely ran his campaign on opposition to the Affordable Care Act. He lost.
"Happy times under Obama. What in the heck are you on." I'm a normal guy living in a normal city, Cincinnati, surrounded by college educated people who are mostly socially progressive and anti-Trump. I don't watch FoxNews. I do monitor polling, and Obama now seems likely to leave office with the highest approval ratings of any president since Reagan.
"The size of the divide in this country amazes me. I'm not sure it's ever been bigger." - Never has the mainstream one of party been so hostile towards the leader of another. In my opinion too many Republicans feel like if they can get enough people to hate someone nobody should support them, and anyone hated by some people is undeserving of holding a political office. Although that's essentially a formula to eliminate everyone everywhere who stands for anything. Half the country passionately hates Obama, fine, but the other half generally likes him, as seen by polls.
I agree there's a big divide between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', but it's not like either party really wants to DO anything about that. Hillary wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% and boost public programs to help the have-nots, but is hated for it. In my opinion the 'have-nots' want someone blamed for their failures, struggle, and misery, not someone to do something.
If you think Obama is terrible, fine, but I think that opinion will eventually put you in a minority, if it hasn't already. Maybe your whole community feels that way, but few communities are representative of the whole country. Many people and communities love Donald Trump, but polls clearly show that isn't the case with the majority of US voters.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 17, 2016 14:07:57 GMT -5
I'm originally from the northeast, not Cincinnati. Obviously Ohio isn't like some devoted bastion of Obama or Democratic support, like some other states. Obama won Ohio twice, with 50.7% and 51.5% of the vote, barely over half. The Cincinnati Reds broadcast area consists of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia.... three solid Republican and one swing states. Reds country isn't particularly representative of the overall US population. So, I'm not at all surprised if Reds fans, and everyone in their communities, hate Obama.
|
|