Friday, November 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
Blog Archive
Search Posts by Category
- ACORN (10)
- Barack Obama (102)
- Bill Ayers (14)
- Celebrities (2)
- Conservatives (4)
- Culture War (4)
- Democratic Convention (4)
- Democrats (41)
- Economy (18)
- Electoral College (1)
- Global Warming (2)
- Hillary Clinton (4)
- Howard Dean (1)
- Iraq (9)
- Joe Biden (13)
- John McCain (29)
- Khalid al-Mansour (3)
- Lunatic Liberals (80)
- Matt Drudge (1)
- Media Bias (95)
- Michelle Obama (5)
- Money in Politics (25)
- Newt Gingrich (1)
- Polls (12)
- President Bush (8)
- Republican Convention (6)
- Rush Limbaugh (2)
- Saddam Hussein (2)
- Sarah Palin (43)
- Senate Races (3)
- Social Security (1)
- Terrorism (10)
- Tony Rezko (9)
- Voter Fraud (17)
- War on Terror (6)
- Women Voters (2)
Why this blog?
I've created this blog to give people easier access to content that I believe will help them make better-informed decisions.
Make no mistake - I don't claim to be unbiased and I have strong views on many subjects. I simply believe that more information is always better and I don't believe that the mainstream sources of information are doing their jobs and providing all sides of the issues.
You will notice that, whenever possible, I simply allow people to speak for themselves. There's rarely a need to convince someone else of an opinion when you've got YouTube and trancripts of people's own words to use.
Very little of the information you will find here is created by me and I utilize many sources including other websites to gather the content. I will do my best to properly attribute all sources. If you spot something that you believe is improperly posted or not attributed correctly, please do let me know.
Make no mistake - I don't claim to be unbiased and I have strong views on many subjects. I simply believe that more information is always better and I don't believe that the mainstream sources of information are doing their jobs and providing all sides of the issues.
You will notice that, whenever possible, I simply allow people to speak for themselves. There's rarely a need to convince someone else of an opinion when you've got YouTube and trancripts of people's own words to use.
Very little of the information you will find here is created by me and I utilize many sources including other websites to gather the content. I will do my best to properly attribute all sources. If you spot something that you believe is improperly posted or not attributed correctly, please do let me know.
Oil Prices
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Lucianne.com
The Drudge Report
5 comments:
Not entirely accurate. Bush one 51% of less than 50% of registered voters: So less than 25% of registered voters and even less of the population as a whole. Obama one 52% of 80% of registered voters, over 40% of registered voters, almost twice the "mandate" that Bush claimed in '04. Granted, 40% isn't a mandate and we certainly can't claim that the country is united.
You might want to re-check your figures on that.
Bush received 62,040,610. Obama received 63,444,462 votes. Considering the growth of the population, I think it is safe to say that Obaam received LESS of a percentage of voting age adults than Bush did.
This gave Bush 28.5% of voting age adults (there were 221,256,931 in 2004).
Obama received 27.4% of voting age adults (there were 231,229,580 in 2008)
Turnout in 2004 was 55.3% of VAP
Turnout in 2008 was 52.9% of VAP
Where did you come up with your numbers?
Mine come from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Admitted. My numbers were based on speculation and it looks like the speculation was wrong. It looks like the numbers are pretty close to what they were in 2004, the difference being that a larger percentage of Republicans sat this one out and larger percentages of Democrats showed up. So I stand corrected, though the final numbers are not in yet it doesn't look like the landfall we were expecting.
Depressing. It looks like we haven't really learned anything. Regardless of candidate. It's sad when voters in Nicaragua, under threat of death, still show up at the polls by as much as 90%, but in the US we are stuck with around 50% participation.
Another question that pops into my mind, and I don't have an answer at this point so I'm not advocating one way or the other. Why the longer than average lines this year?
I think our numbers are so low because people here realize that it really doesn't make that much difference in the end. The difference between a conservative and a liberal is large but the difference between a Republican politician and a Democrat politician is virtually non-existent.
It's mostly promises and then very little done.
Bush 43 was ablet o get more done because of 9/11 but other than the War on Terror (which I completely support), he managed to get us a pretty good tax cut and not much else.
Clinton? What did Clinton get done of his campaign promises? Middle-class tax cut? Nope, he raised 'em.
What else did he run on? Being cool, smooth, well spoken and being different than a Bush. Sound familiar?
The economy during Clinton years was in good shape but no one can ever tell me what he did to make it so. How did Bill Clinton cause the tech companies to be created? Or was he just in the right place at the right time?
I agree whole heartedly. There isn't much difference between candidates, and really hasn't been for a long time.
Of course Bush is in another league. The things he was able to do under the pretext of 9/11 was, from my philosophical perspective, pretty heinous, but with no 9/11 I think he wouldn't have had such latitude.
Clinton is nothing laudable. His economic policies were actually conservative, called neoliberal (which is really paleoliberal: The first liberals were free market advocates). On the one hand, he was in the right place at the right time with the internet bubble. On the other hand, his policies pretty much followed Reaganomics, low fed interest rates, expansive credit policies, etc. These turned out to be ultimately destructive.
I don't see Obama following a much different path. I'd like to see a demand side approach to economic policy, but Obama didn't offer that with some exception. He did suggest some retro New Deal rhetoric.
I'm taking a wait and see approach to the President Elect, just as I did with the last President Elect.
That's getting off topic, however. The FEC isn't done collecting the data, so maybe I'm wrong and voter turnout was larger than it appears to be. It will take some time for them to count all of the votes.
Here's a question for you that you might want to answer in a post. I will be doing the same in the next few weeks. What will be your criteria for assessing the effectiveness of an Obama Presidency. Obviously yours will be much different from mine.
I ask because I'd like to break away from the cult of personality style politics that is the norm. My criteria applied to Bush shows such a dismal record that I have a hard time understanding how anyone can stand up for him. Obviously, the criteria is different. So what is the criteria? Can we design a presidential report card by which to hold our candidates accountable? That's going to be my next project.
Post a Comment