Obama Sure Knows How To Pick Winners

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Thanks for that and I agree! I mean about nothing coming out of these things. I keep breaking my own rule to stay out of these darn threads though. No longer I say. I have come to think that the worst place in the world to "discuss" politics is online. No one is ever persuaded away from their positions and on a board like this, where community is important, it justs divides. I am sure I'll get stupid again and chime in when I shouldnb't but I am trying not to anymore.

Do you think dmek would ever have started this thread? If this was about some great thing accomplished by Obama, you think Buster would have started the thread? Not even remotely likely.

I will give credit to dmek though, in the "how low can it go" thread he at least acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides and that it's pointless to just continue to point fingers. Props to him for that

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you think dmek would ever have started this thread? If this was about some great thing accomplished by Obama, you think Buster would have started the thread? Not even remotely likely.

I will give credit to dmek though, in the "how low can it go" thread he at least acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides and that it's pointless to just continue to point fingers. Props to him for that

The politcal environment in our country is, to me, the most dangerous threat our country is facing. Too many people in this country really have no principles. At least principles based on any real understanding of issues. I don't agree with saden almost ever but at least we know his opinions aren't just bandwagon bullcrap. He knows issues and bases his opinions on his principles. In fact a good amount of our regular politcal posters have a decent handle on issues. The fact that Obama was elected largely as back lash to Bush is damning. It had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity. That seems dangerous to me.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The politcal environment in our country is, to me, the most dangerous threat our country is facing. Too many people in this country really have no principles. At least principles based on any real understanding of issues. I don't agree with saden almost ever but at least we know his opinions aren't just bandwagon bullcrap. He knows issues and bases his opinions on his principles.

I keep it real, it's all good if I disagree with you while you're keeping it real and vice versa.

In fact a good amount of our regular politcal posters have a decent handle on issues. The fact that Obama was elected largely as back lash to Bush is damning. It had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity. That seems dangerous to me.

Since we're keeping it real the same thing could be said and have been said about my boy Ronald Reagan. I mean, Obama does have policy ideas. You may not like his policies but I refuse to believe that 8,645,538 more people voted for him just because he's cool. Even if we suppose he won by popularity, would he still have won if we eliminate all those who didn't vote based on principles on both sides?

Good
Bad

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

I keep it real, it's all good if I disagree with you while you're keeping it real and vice versa.



Since we're keeping it real the same thing could be said and have been said about my boy Ronald Reagan. I mean, Obama does have policy ideas. You may not like his policies but I refuse to believe that 8,645,538 more people voted for him just because he's cool. Even if we suppose he won by popularity, would he still have won if we eliminate all those who didn't vote based on principles on both sides?

Good
Bad

Actually, it's possible. He ran the most savvy, technologically advanced campaign ever. He mobilized massive amounts of voters (many of whom otherwise wouldn't have given a sh*t), and image-wise was so anti-Bush, that I guarantee millions of Americans voted for him "just because."

I don't think McCain was a particularly great candidate, and Palin was a disaster. But I think Obama's celebrity played a huge part in his election.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

I keep it real, it's all good if I disagree with you while you're keeping it real and vice versa.



Since we're keeping it real the same thing could be said and have been said about my boy Ronald Reagan. I mean, Obama does have policy ideas. You may not like his policies but I refuse to believe that 8,645,538 more people voted for him just because he's cool. Even if we suppose he won by popularity, would he still have won if we eliminate all those who didn't vote based on principles on both sides?

Good
Bad

Speaking only anecdotally(sp?) I think very few people in our fair nation vote with any mind to what they are doing. It is largely a bandwagon/popularity contest based on likeability and the prevailing politcal winds. It works both ways without any doubt. I am guessing there are about 20% of the electorate on both sides of the politcal aisle voting on principle or just plain ideaology. Another 20% each way who "think" they vote on principle but couldn't give you a very strong argument for what those principles are and what they mean. And then 20% in the middle who vote because they like the guy/girl or "think it'd be cool" to have a black president(just an example). Well I think it'd be cool we have a black president too if I actually agreed with him on much but I'd never vote for someone just because of some completely irrelevant factor.

And if there were a real absolute way to measure I'd bet every penny to my name that 8,645,538 people voted for Obama just cause "he was cool". I'd also bet a good several million or more voted for McCain for similarly stupid reasons.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Speaking only anecdotally(sp?) I think very few people in our fair nation vote with any mind to what they are doing. It is largely a bandwagon/popularity contest based on likeability and the prevailing politcal winds. It works both ways without any doubt. I am guessing there are about 20% of the electorate on both sides of the politcal aisle voting on principle or just plain ideaology. Another 20% each way who "think" they vote on principle but couldn't give you a very strong argument for what those principles are and what they mean. And then 20% in the middle who vote because they like the guy/girl or "think it'd be cool" to have a black president(just an example). Well I think it'd be cool we have a black president too if I actually agreed with him on much but I'd never vote for someone just because of some completely irrelevant factor.

And if there were a real absolute way to measure I'd bet every penny to my name that 8,645,538 people voted for Obama just cause "he was cool". I'd also bet a good several million or more voted for McCain for similarly stupid reasons.

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

Obama had rock-star celebrity status during his campaign. It was unprecedented, and there's no denying it. Sure every elected president has been popular, but Obama took it to a whole new level, and I'm sure it played a big part in his victory. During his campaign he represented the antithesis of the Bush Administration, of which the entire world had tired.

IMO he was elected because of his masterful campaign and celebrity status more so than his politics and principles. Since he went from campaigner in cheif to Commander in Cheif, his approval numbers have dipped quite a bit.

[saden1]

[Reagan] had rock-star celebrity status during his campaign. It was unprecedented, and there's no denying it. Sure every elected president has been popular, but [Reagan] took it to a whole new level, and I'm sure it played a big part in his victory. During his campaign he represented the antithesis of the [Carter] Administration, of which the entire [country] had tired.

IMO he was elected because of his masterful campaign and celebrity status more so than his politics and principles. Since he went from campaigner in cheif to Commander in Cheif, his approval numbers have dipped quite a bit.

Never mind that he promised to decreases taxes, increase military spending. He was the most popular president ever! Popularity wins elections!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

You can hear what you want. We all tend to. I'll grant you that popularity has always been a factor. I don't think I ever made a statement contrary. That doesn't make it right though. And I am not meaning to take a dump on Obama's election more than anyone else's. It simply is front and center right now.

Obama WAS elected because of popularity not principles. That isn't meant to deride his principles it is meant to deride the notion that this country is magiaclly leaning left all of a sudden. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but his election is neither proof nor disproof either way. Hell he ran on "Change"...basically a marketers quick and efficient way to say "I'm not Bush..that guy we all hate so much".

Obama's election is only an example. I guess my issues are far more general. I think our system is very fundamentally flawed. Is it better than others? Yeah but it isn't perfect or even close and it seems to be getting worse to me.

But now we are totally off subject.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You can hear what you want. We all tend to. I'll grant you that popularity has always been a factor. I don't think I ever made a statement contrary. That doesn't make it right though. And I am not meaning to take a dump on Obama's election more than anyone else's. It simply is front and center right now.

Obama WAS elected because of popularity not principles. That isn't meant to deride his principles it is meant to deride the notion that this country is magiaclly leaning left all of a sudden. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but his election is neither proof nor disproof either way. Hell he ran on "Change"...basically a marketers quick and efficient way to say "I'm not Bush..that guy we all hate so much".

Obama's election is only an example. I guess my issues are far more general. I think our system is very fundamentally flawed. Is it better than others? Yeah but it isn't perfect or even close and it seems to be getting worse to me.

But now we are totally off subject.

Perhaps I misunderstood, I guess we're discussing a) a utopian view of how elections should be won, b) how shift leftwards in ideology is unlikely, c) hating Bush was good enough to get elected.

I'm still confused about few things though, a) how does one become popular, b) isn't reputation of the Bush Administration the rejection of their principles and policy, and c) what constitutes a shift and does losing 51 house seats, 14 senate seats, and the presidency in 4 years qualify?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Words matter, the structure of words matter more, what words don't say even more so. When I hear "[his victory] had little to do with principle and more to do with popularity" I also hear the implicit position of "if he wasn't popular he wouldn't have been victorious" and that "his principles leave much to be desired." The argument also lends itself to criticism because it is open to universal usage on presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

There is nothing dangerous about the election of Obama, don't take a dump on his election is all I'm trying to say. VP who moved up the ladder not withstanding, have we ever had a president that wasn't elected because he was popular?

I see alot of danger in his election and the direction he is taking this counrty. He is making Goverment the answer to everything and all the Goverment does is screw up more then it has ever fixed. Every goverment programe is basically a financial failure.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

I keep it real, it's all good if I disagree with you while you're keeping it real and vice versa.



Since we're keeping it real the same thing could be said and have been said about my boy Ronald Reagan. I mean, Obama does have policy ideas. You may not like his policies but I refuse to believe that 8,645,538 more people voted for him just because he's cool. Even if we suppose he won by popularity, would he still have won if we eliminate all those who didn't vote based on principles on both sides?

Good
Bad

yeah but if you take away the dead people from Illinois he only won by 7,645,539

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you think dmek would ever have started this thread? If this was about some great thing accomplished by Obama, you think Buster would have started the thread? Not even remotely likely.

I will give credit to dmek though, in the "how low can it go" thread he at least acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides and that it's pointless to just continue to point fingers. Props to him for that

Yeah. The How Low Can It Go thread is more of a model of what we need around here. It even got three stars. I'm not sure who started it, but you guys should check it out.

I just realized I'm missing Cramer and Liebowitz, but they will re-run it later.

Anyhoo, I think that the political junkies around here of both persuasions have been fairly restrained. I did start the thread taunting Olbermann for losing in the ratings to the hideously awful and insufferable Nancy Grace which bothered people for some reason. I thought Olbermann was despised by all but the damnedest of damned Lefties, but you would have thought I had taken a dump on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with the negative reaction I got. At any rate, I think the Liberals are having fun being in charge again and most of the Conservatives are exhausted from defending Bush for all those years. So, short of a straight ban on political talk, I don't think you could really expect much more if political talk irritates you.

The story that started this thread is really a D.C. government corruption story more than an Obama story as far as I can tell. Although this Kundra that works at the White House has taken a leave of absence so who knows. I'm not sure if the D.C. government is the first place I would look for computer talent if I were Team Obama. Surely with all the excitement their campaign ginned up among tech savvy twenty somethings, there was some young guy or gal they could have lured from Silicon Valley.

BTW, as someone with a penchant for offending people without realizing it, I expect to be using the phrase, "You would have thought I had taken a dump on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial" quite a bit from now on. I'm pretty proud of it.

Speaking of the deft turn of phrase. 70Chip III came up with a good one last night. He was describing the panicked hunched over run-walk one performs when one is all alone in the house and realizes way too late that the toilet tissue dispenser is empty and the backup supply is all the way out in the garage: 'The Toilet Paper Shuffle". I just thought I'd share that.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Yeah. The How Low Can It Go thread is more of a model of what we need around here. It even got three stars. I'm not sure who started it, but you guys should check it out.

I just realized I'm missing Cramer and Liebowitz, but they will re-run it later.

Anyhoo, I think that the political junkies around here of both persuasions have been fairly restrained. I did start the thread taunting Olbermann for losing in the ratings to the hideously awful and insufferable Nancy Grace which bothered people for some reason. I thought Olbermann was despised by all but the damnedest of damned Lefties, but you would have thought I had taken a dump on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with the negative reaction I got. At any rate, I think the Liberals are having fun being in charge again and most of the Conservatives are exhausted from defending Bush for all those years. So, short of a straight ban on political talk, I don't think you could really expect much more if political talk irritates you.

The story that started this thread is really a D.C. government corruption story more than an Obama story as far as I can tell. Although this Kundra that works at the White House has taken a leave of absence so who knows. I'm not sure if the D.C. government is the first place I would look for computer talent if I were Team Obama. Surely with all the excitement their campaign ginned up among tech savvy twenty somethings, there was some young guy or gal they could have lured from Silicon Valley.

BTW, as someone with a penchant for offending people without realizing it, I expect to be using the phrase, "You would have thought I had taken a dump on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial" quite a bit from now on. I'm pretty proud of it.

That's a classic right there.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Yeah. The How Low Can It Go thread is more of a model of what we need around here. It even got three stars. I'm not sure who started it, but you guys should check it out.

Yeah, the thread got off to a strong start, turned into the usual "it's your fault, no it's your fault" but seems to have gotten back on track. Credit to you on starting that thread

At any rate, I think the Liberals are having fun being in charge again and most of the Conservatives are exhausted from defending Bush for all those years. So, short of a straight ban on political talk, I don't think you could really expect much more if political talk irritates you.

I guess that's what it is really. It's never really about let's discuss what's going on. It's more about "now it's our turn to bash" and maybe in 2012 it will go back to the other side.