The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[warren211]

I didn't know there was a political party called the Boston Tea Party. I giggled : . What's their policies? Embargo from trading with England?

 

 

 

I recently saw a McCain ad (its all over CNN now) about Obama's pick for VP. They say Clinton was clearly the better pick and Obama picked Biden because Clinton spoke againsst Obama frequently. Now, Biden has also publicly criticized Obama in the past, and Obama stated he picked him because he "didn't want a yes-man". I'm sure Republicans everywhere are calling it [cabbage] and saying he did it just to make himself look better for wanting a critic on his side to "make him a better president". Sounds reasonable, but if it was just a publicity stunt, it would be a very bad idea for Obama, his policies would undergo criticism from his own VP. Obviously him picking Biden shows he's willing to revise his plans. So is it better to have someone as president who would stick to his plans and not back down against anyone, or someone who would conform it to the suggestions of critics?

[magekillr]

I recently saw a McCain ad (its all over CNN now) about Obama's pick for VP. They say Clinton was clearly the better pick and Obama picked Biden because Clinton spoke againsst Obama frequently. Now, Biden has also publicly criticized Obama in the past, and Obama stated he picked him because he "didn't want a yes-man". I'm sure Republicans everywhere are calling it [cabbage] and saying he did it just to make himself look better for wanting a critic on his side to "make him a better president". Sounds reasonable, but if it was just a publicity stunt, it would be a very bad idea for Obama, his policies would undergo criticism from his own VP. Obviously him picking Biden shows he's willing to revise his plans. So is it better to have someone as president who would stick to his plans and not back down against anyone, or someone who would conform it to the suggestions of critics?

 

 

 

Best choice he had other than Mark Warner; who is running for Senate and did not want the job at all.

 

 

 

No matter who Obama picked, he was going to get attacked. No matter who it was, they were going to mine through their statements, dig through their past, etc. Obama knows this, it is what the vetting team was about.

 

 

 

Joe Biden is going to rip Mitt Romney to shreds when McCain picks him, I cannot wait. If Obama loses, it would almost be worth it just to watch that slime wither.

 

 

 

Anyway, McCain is not winning lol, it ain't happening. I won't let it.

 

 

 

All Obama needs is Kerry's map/Iowa (which Iowa is guaranteed to go Dem this year) + Virginia, and as a local resident of Virginia, I'm going to make that happen.

 

 

 

Obama's ground team >>>>>> McCain's. All these new registered voters are almost all for Obama. It's all about getting people energized, and Obama/Biden does that.

 

 

 

Another good thing about Biden, 1/4 voters don't know who he is, and another 1/4 don't know anything about him. Shows he has a clean record, and has kept his nose clean. Although unless someone is running for President as a major contender or has been involved in a sex scandal, I don't expect the American public to know "who they are".

[Range_This11]

Stewart/Colbert '08

[Lenticular_J]

Is it not possible to split the poll into US voters and non-US (and underaged) people? Because I read that McCain has gained on Obama; in fact according to recent polls McCain woul win with a pretty significant difference compared to Obama. I'm sure that a large part of these votes are from non-Americans or underaged people, so the poll is pretty irrelevant.

 

Yeah, that's the truth. I doubt there are more than, say, twenty voting Americans that frequent off-topic.

[jackattack]

I recently saw a McCain ad (its all over CNN now) about Obama's pick for VP. They say Clinton was clearly the better pick and Obama picked Biden because Clinton spoke againsst Obama frequently. Now, Biden has also publicly criticized Obama in the past, and Obama stated he picked him because he "didn't want a yes-man". I'm sure Republicans everywhere are calling it [cabbage] and saying he did it just to make himself look better for wanting a critic on his side to "make him a better president". Sounds reasonable, but if it was just a publicity stunt, it would be a very bad idea for Obama, his policies would undergo criticism from his own VP. Obviously him picking Biden shows he's willing to revise his plans. So is it better to have someone as president who would stick to his plans and not back down against anyone, or someone who would conform it to the suggestions of critics?

 

 

 

Best choice he had other than Mark Warner; who is running for Senate and did not want the job at all.

 

 

 

No matter who Obama picked, he was going to get attacked. No matter who it was, they were going to mine through their statements, dig through their past, etc. Obama knows this, it is what the vetting team was about.

 

 

 

Joe Biden is going to rip Mitt Romney to shreds when McCain picks him, I cannot wait. If Obama loses, it would almost be worth it just to watch that slime wither.

 

 

 

Anyway, McCain is not winning lol, it ain't happening. I won't let it.

 

 

 

All Obama needs is Kerry's map/Iowa (which Iowa is guaranteed to go Dem this year) + Virginia, and as a local resident of Virginia, I'm going to make that happen.

 

 

 

Obama's ground team >>>>>> McCain's. All these new registered voters are almost all for Obama. It's all about getting people energized, and Obama/Biden does that.

 

 

 

Another good thing about Biden, 1/4 voters don't know who he is, and another 1/4 don't know anything about him. Shows he has a clean record, and has kept his nose clean. Although unless someone is running for President as a major contender or has been involved in a sex scandal, I don't expect the American public to know "who they are".

 

 

 

Obama is not winning Virginia. Probably a better chance at Indiana or another state. If McCain picks Romney He'll win Michigan, and if he picks Lieberman he'll win Florida. Ridge would probably give him Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

The text message thing is genius though. All you gotta do is text everyone the day of.

[Kenshinjapan]

I don't want Obama to win, that's all we need is more taxes and further debt. :x

[Agunimon979]

I don't want Obama to win, that's all we need is more taxes and further debt. :x

 

 

 

Obama wants to end the war, which war costs MORE taxes and generates more debt (ololol look out irak our airplaenz cost milionz of dolars ololol), problem is a lot of people won't vote for him because he's freakin' black, I mean what the hell, having a black president should make America look even better, it would literally destroy the line between white and black people, not to mention he is aiming to fix the economy, blah blah basically fix all of Bush's screw-ups.

[BlueLancer]

I mean what the hell, having a black president should make America look even better, it would literally destroy the line between white and black people, not to mention he is aiming to fix the economy, blah blah basically fix all of Bush's screw-ups.

 

 

 

Racists and neo-nazis would still find some excuse like "he's only half black", but you're right it would do a LOT to improve equality in the entire world as well, seeing a person from a minority group can actually become the leader of a free country (not sure how free the US is anymore, but it's just an icon).

 

 

 

I don't quite understand the McCain voters though. Do they vote for him, just because they don't like Obama?

 

 

 

If you are voting for McCain.. You're basically saying "bring on Bush's 3rd term". His voting record in 2008 is 100% with Bush (and 95% in 2007).

 

 

 

I'm not a huge Obama fan, but it escapes my mind what rationale anyone would have for electing a carbon copy of a failure, with the exception that he's even more agressive/war-minded and has been tortured as a prisoner of war..

[magekillr]

I don't want Obama to win, that's all we need is more taxes and further debt. :x

 

 

 

Increasing taxes is how we are going to end the debt.

 

 

 

It's funny, people want to cut programs to end the debt, when the US really doesn't have that many programs as it is. We are pretty damned capitalist, in a major war, have little programs, and you want to CUT taxes??!!?

 

 

 

Jesus crickey, talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't want Obama to win, that's all we need is more taxes and further debt. :x

 

He only wants to increase taxes for the quite wealthy, lowering them for us middle-classmen. However, it's been said that this will leave us with more debt or no obvious change.

 

 

 

I mean what the hell, having a black president should make America look even better, it would literally destroy the line between white and black people, not to mention he is aiming to fix the economy, blah blah basically fix all of Bush's screw-ups.

 

 

 

Racists and neo-nazis would still find some excuse like "he's only half black", but you're right it would do a LOT to improve equality in the entire world as well, seeing a person from a minority group can actually become the leader of a free country (not sure how free the US is anymore, but it's just an icon).

 

 

 

I don't quite understand the McCain voters though. Do they vote for him, just because they don't like Obama?

 

 

 

If you are voting for McCain.. You're basically saying "bring on Bush's 3rd term". His voting record in 2008 is 100% with Bush (and 95% in 2007).

 

 

 

I'm not a huge Obama fan, but it escapes my mind what rationale anyone would have for electing a carbon copy of a failure, with the exception that he's even more agressive/war-minded and has been tortured as a prisoner of war..

 

 

 

Do people not listen to the policies of either damn candidate? >_<

 

McCain has a plan for pulling out of Iraq slowly, with easy access in case things fall to hell over there. Obama has said he's wanted to end the war, but I've never seen an actual military plan. Why do people say McCain's another Bush? If he got a good domestic vice president, he'd be good.

 

 

 

That being said, Obama needs an experienced vice president that can handle foreign policy, as well as a good cabinet. Obama may be charismatic, but that's a long shot from diplomatic (meaning handling foreign policy).

 

 

 

They're both quite good candidates, I believe, although I disagree with more of Obama's foreign policy and some of McCain's domestics.

[jackattack]

I mean what the hell, having a black president should make America look even better, it would literally destroy the line between white and black people, not to mention he is aiming to fix the economy, blah blah basically fix all of Bush's screw-ups.

 

 

 

Racists and neo-nazis would still find some excuse like "he's only half black", but you're right it would do a LOT to improve equality in the entire world as well, seeing a person from a minority group can actually become the leader of a free country (not sure how free the US is anymore, but it's just an icon).

 

 

 

I don't quite understand the McCain voters though. Do they vote for him, just because they don't like Obama?

 

 

 

If you are voting for McCain.. You're basically saying "bring on Bush's 3rd term". His voting record in 2008 is 100% with Bush (and 95% in 2007).

 

 

 

 

McCain's not really like Bush. Obama voted with Bush something like almost 50% of the time. And he votes with Senate democrats 97% of the time. And for McCain's career he's got a very very low percentage of voting with Bush for a Republican. They've fully agreed on almost no major issue completely. Even on the war McCain was the one to call out the administration early on. On taxes, immigration, the environment, energy, detainee treatment and other things they have been different.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want Obama to win, that's all we need is more taxes and further debt. :x

 

 

 

Increasing taxes is how we are going to end the debt.

 

 

 

It's funny, people want to cut programs to end the debt, when the US really doesn't have that many programs as it is. We are pretty damned capitalist, in a major war, have little programs, and you want to CUT taxes??!!?

 

 

 

Jesus crickey, talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

 

 

 

Were in a recession and you want to RAISE taxes??!!?

[magekillr]

No other person in US history has lowered taxes during war, ever. It is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I thought we were in a Mental Recession? FDR brought us out of the largest depression we have ever seen... :roll:

 

 

 

Furthermore, McCain is following Bush's failed policies, which, erm, led to the recession?

[Kenshinjapan]

No other person in US history has lowered taxes during war, ever. It is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I thought we were in a Mental Recession? FDR brought us out of the largest Depression the US has ever seen... :roll:

 

 

 

Furthermore, McCain is following Bush's failed policies, which, erm, led to the recession?

 

 

 

I'm tired of being taxed and fined for everything I need to do in life. The suits in DC need to quit making changes for equality and pay back the over 3 trillion dollars we owe.

[jackattack]

No other person in US history has lowered taxes during war, ever. It is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I thought we were in a Mental Recession? FDR brought us out of the largest depression we have ever seen... :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fdr didn't bring us out of the depression. World War Two did. If anything the new deal prolonged it by getting the country so dependent on federal spending that when even he decided to take some of it away the country went into a mini depression. Fdr also destroyed 10 million acres of crops and killed 6 million piglets just to raise the food prices even though people were going hungry. He prolonged the double digit unemployment which was the most important factor of the depression.

[Guest timthebrave]

I won't be voting.

 

 

 

 

 

"Don't vote. Play the lottery instead."

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

[Necromagus]

Paraphrasing from McCain's appearance on Jay Leno's show:

 

 

 

Leno (joking): For one million dollars, how many houses do you have?

 

McCain: I was a POW!

 

 

 

Is this the answer McCain is going to give whenever he gets asked a hard question? It would make for some interesting debates...

[magekillr]

Paraphrasing from McCain's appearance on Jay Leno's show:

 

 

 

Leno (joking): For one million dollars, how many houses do you have?

 

McCain: I was a POW!

 

 

 

Is this the answer McCain is going to give whenever he gets asked a hard question? It would make for some interesting debates...

 

 

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

It's always worked for Sean Hannity, so why not? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3aaOyVU5A

[ThurinEthir]

Paraphrasing from McCain's appearance on Jay Leno's show:

 

 

 

Leno (joking): For one million dollars, how many houses do you have?

 

McCain: I was a POW!

 

 

 

Is this the answer McCain is going to give whenever he gets asked a hard question? It would make for some interesting debates...

 

And Obama's answer will always be "Yes we can!" or "We can change!"

 

Mmm.

 

"I was a POW!"

 

"Yes we can."

 

"I was a POW!"

 

"Yes we can."

 

"I was a POW!"

 

"We can change!"

 

 

 

Dang. Obama did change. :|

[MootSAGE]

Would have been Ron Paul but now it's McCain.

[magekillr]

What do these article show?

 

 

 

1. Presidential greatness is more about what happens during the presidency and much less about political experience.

 

2. 66% of the variance in Presidential effectiveness (a huge proportion by social science standards) is predicted by motives, charisma, crises and length of time since George Washington. This is regardless of the power of the media, tradition, and public opinion.

 

3. Proactivity as a personality trait and charisma as a leadership behavior are highly related, and strongly predictive of presidential performance.

 

4. In elections, peoples perception of charismatic and transformational leadership is very predictive of the winnerbut only when mediated by trust in the nominee.

 

 

 

NO RESEARCH shows that amount of experience in politics prior to election predicts any sort of presidential performance.

 

------------

 

ARTICLES AND ABSTRACTS ARE BELOW, in case you are curious.

 

 

 

Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House? Journal of Personality, 49, 306-322.

 

 

 

Two related questions regarding presidential leadership are addressed. First, what are the principal determinants of the rated greatness of American presidents? Second, can presidential performance be predicted using preelection biographical variables? Reliable measures of greatness and performance were operationalized for the 38 presidents of the United States, along with numerous potential predictors suggested by past literature on leadership, achieved eminence, and presidential popularity and greatness. About 75% of the variance in presidential greatness can be predicted using administration duration, number of war years, unsuccessful assassination attempts, scandals, and prepresidential publication record. Family background, personal characteristics, education, occupation, and political experiences provided few if any viable predictors of presidential performance, although succession to office through the vice-presidency exerted a rather general negative impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 394-396.

 

 

 

 

 

A study of U.S. presidents tested the hypothesis that presidential effectiveness depends on personality and charisma and not solely on control over bureaucratic structures. The general model of leader effectiveness utilized included personality characteristics, charisma, crises, age of the institution of the presidency, and leader effectiveness. The final sample size was 31 presidents, and the data were restricted to presidential first terms of office. The results indicate that as much as 66 percent of the variability in a measure of direct presidential action may be explained by motives, behavioral charisma, institutional age, and crises. This is surprising, given the number of constraints on American presidents such as checks and balances, party realities, public opinion, the power of the media, and tradition. Thus, the study demonstrates that personality and charisma do make a difference in U.S. presidents. The implications are discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deluga R.J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265-291.

 

 

 

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of American presidential proactivity (i.e., a sta- ble disposition to influence the environment) with charismatic leadership and rated performance. Using historiometric procedures, raters measured proactivity in unidentified profiles describing 39 American presidents. Archival sources were exploited for two presidential charisma and five performance assess- ments. Hierarchical regression analyses generally supported the predictions that presidential proactivity would be positively associated with charismatic leadership and rated performance. Limited support was observed for the idea that proactive behaviors are an essential, yet partial explanation for the effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The results are discussed in terms of how proactive features such as actively identifying opportunities and functioning as a powerful force for change facilitate the understanding of presidential charismatic leadership and effectiveness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajnandini Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161-192.

 

 

 

This study of the 2000 U.S. presidential election replicates and extends Pillai and Williams' [Leadersh. Q. 9 (1998) 397] study of the 1996 presidential election. Data were collected at two periods from respondents across three regions of the United States to yield 342 matched sets of preelection variables and postelection measures. Transformational leadership and attributed charisma were strongly associated with reported voting behavior for candidates Bush and Gore beyond party affiliation. Important extensions to earlier findings are that perceptions of candidate proactive behavior, empathy, and need for achievement were shown to be related to transformational leadership and attributed charisma, with trust in the leader an important mediating variable between leadership perceptions and voting behavior. Implications of the findings for future research are discussed

[Latinoking]

Where is Ron Paul? :lol:

[fatbill]

Theres more than 2 parties?

 

 

 

None of the other parties get on the news over here in the UK, if I could vote I would for Obama.

 

 

 

Seems that he would do some much good for your country and the world, although I really dont know much about it all.

[Lenticular_J]

Theres more than 2 parties?

 

 

 

None of the other parties get on the news over here in the UK, if I could vote I would for Obama.

 

 

 

Seems that he would do some much good for your country and the world, although I really dont know much about it all.

 

I hate American voters that think along these lines. You have to put in information. I personally don't think I'd vote (if I could) for either of them, but that currently depends on McCain's VP choice. They're both weak on very important points.

 

 

 

mage, just because a piece of research doesn't show it, does it mean it's true? If you could hire your boss, would you choose someone who's had decades (I believe?) less experience than another candidate? I'm talking sheer experience. Charisma and the like are a major factor, but experience is still an important part.

[magekillr]

mage, just because a piece of research doesn't show it, does it mean it's true? If you could hire your boss, would you choose someone who's had decades (I believe?) less experience than another candidate? I'm talking sheer experience. Charisma and the like are a major factor, but experience is still an important part.

 

 

 

I'd choose someone who showed that they had good judgment and leadership because that's what they do, they lead. Furthermore, no one "owns" a company (I know you didn't say that, just saying). It's owned by a Board of Directors. People surround themselves with people who also show good judgment, and are perhaps more experienced than you.

 

 

 

I hardly view this as leading a company, but I digress.

 

 

 

I mean, the research has shown it, history has shown it...I don't understand what's not to get here, or why experience is more important than judgment and ideas, especially when you have the ability to lead your people.

 

 

 

We are the change we have been waiting for, we just need someone to lead us that way. I wrote a keynote address for a group of 600,000+ people on facebook sort of hitting why there needs to be support for him, not sure if anyone would read it. My first speech, and it was like 1600 words.

[Celt23]

Theres more than 2 parties?

 

 

 

None of the other parties get on the news over here in the UK, if I could vote I would for Obama.

 

 

 

Seems that he would do some much good for your country and the world, although I really dont know much about it all.

 

 

 

The Republican and Democratic parties are the most popular and the strongest parties in the US. The other parties (like the Green and Libertarian parties) are called 3rd Parties. The third parties and independent candidates are not at all likely to win a presidential election any time soon, but they can have an important role of bringing out issues into the presidential election that the two main candidates don't regard as important. They can also take large chunks of voters from the two main candidates and become an important factor in the outcome of the election.

 

 

 

I hope that explains it. ^_^