J. McCain lost mainly because ...

[Jake]

Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

How do you know? All I have heard from Obama are platitudes.

One example that jumps right off the top of my head. She was asked what newspapers she read to get information. She couldn't name any newspaper. Not one.

Another example. She was asked if in an interview if she was a feminist. She said yes. In another interview she was asked about the subject and danced around the question more than Shaun Alexander at the line of scrimmage.

My point. She doesn't know how to stick to her guns. If she even had any to begin with. VERY underqualified VP candidate.

[Redskin in Canada]

I don't get it either, but every time I have a conversation and Lieberman comes up, they say something like "You know, I've just always liked him." Many of them can't articulate why, but this isn't 1 or 2 people I'm talking about here. . .it's closer to a dozen. Who knows why.

Good "image" consultants? The support of the pro-Israel lobby on both sides of the aisle? A guy so focused on single issues that he does not know what party he can belong to?

[Chris Luva Luva]

McCain lost because people are tired of Bush. They're tired of BS fear tactics and desperately wanted a fresh look on politics.

McCain lost his advantage of being experienced when he recruited Palin... What an idiot... Politicians are supposed to be able to BS and lie, she couldn't even do that.

[skinsfan#33]

Would anyone REALLY have wanted Palin as VP???

That's what I thought. She barely knows how to tie her shoe without backpeddling.

Spout the Dem party talking points all you wish. The bottom line is, day for day, her experience is every bit as valid as that of the current President elect.

Yeah, she left the town of Wassila with deficits, surrounded herself with loyalist yes-men, can tell a bald-faced lie without blinking, and was vindictive towards her political enemies after winning elections. What more experience does she need?

Are we talking about the president elect or Palin? The President elect was elected to the Illionois state Senate by default, after he had his competition elliminated on a technicallity. He knew that very few people sign every document themselves that are required to run for that office. He had the oficial check his competition and sure enough none of them had signed all of the required paper work. He was simply the last man standing.

He then avoided more votes then anyone one else in the state senate and repeated the same thing as a US Senator.

Look he may make a great president and I hope he does, but the man is simply less experience than Palin, with one exception. He had over a year to prepare for the election spot light and prepare for all of the questions the media had and he still was really bad when he didn't have a prepared answer. Palin got thrown into the spot light. Was she unprepared, sure to some extent. But so would he have been had he just been thrown into this.

However, most people voted for him based on color. He was on the blue side of the ailse and McCaine the red. And there were far too many people that didn't want four more years of the same and the left convince the masses that is exactly what would happen.

I personnally didn't like either of the choices, but I do think that everything negative people say about Palin they could have said the same (or worse) about the pres.elct.

I absolutely DO NOT want a government run health care system. I can't afford to give up another 10-15% of my paycheck for less coverage.

[crazyhorse1]

Here's the bottom line, according to me:

Obama is one of the most gifted politicians in U.S. history-- as an orator, intellect, and charismatic leader; McCain is better than average; Hillary Clinton is somewhere between Obama and McCain.

If he had started with McCain's initial handicaps, he still would have beaten him, probably by a wider margin. The country is still right of center and Obama would have successfully distanced himself from Bush enough to win, as McCain could not.

Policies aside, Obama is McCain superior in regard to:

age (McCain is too old)
intelligence
knowledge of issues and capacity to learn
Looks
Temperament
political strategy
stamina
natural skill as speaker
consistency (McCain is hasty and erratic)
honesty and straight forwardness

McCain is superior to Obama in regard to:

political tactics-- surprises, gimmicks, voter suppression, computer fraud
experience
physical bravery


In the end, Obama won because he was the better candidate of the two.
In my opinion, there was as much or more voter fraud by Republicans this election than in 2000 and 2004. The difference between exit polls and final vote counts are off the charts-- which no body has pointed out yet.

I predict that analysis will show that 3% to 5% of total vote was shaved off Obama's victory margin. Something drastic has to be done to protect vote integrity in this country.

[skinsfan#33]

Here's the bottom line, according to me:


In my opinion, there was as much or more voter fraud by Republicans this election than in 2000 and 2004. The difference between exit polls and final vote counts are off the charts-- which no body has pointed out yet.

I predict that analysis will show that 3% to 5% of total vote was shaved off Obama's victory margin. Something drastic has to be done to protect vote integrity in this country.

What are you talking about! Honestly I haven't heard anything about voter fraud. Obama won the popular vote by about what the polls were predicting. Please give me an example of what you are talking about.

If you want to talk about fraud, how about the 55 electoral votes the Dems are handed every election (AKA Cali's votes) By popular vote McCain lost by about 8%, but it wasn't even close by electoral votes. The system is seriously flawed. It wouldn't have made any difference this election, but it has in the past and it will again. If your a republican in CA you might as well not vote because your vote doesn't count!

I really hope the pres. elect. does a great job, but NO ONE can say he was the best qualified for the job! He has never been in charge of anything, has very little experience, and has dodged just about every vote of substance since he has been in any office.

Put this in football terms, this is like hiring a TE coach with no HC experience at any level to be a HC of an NFL team even knowing he refused to provide any game plan inputs before their big games. It may work out, but it is a huge risk!

I think most informed voters that did not vote for McCain did it because they would rather jump off a cliff with someone who tells them everything will be OK, but gives them no reason to believe that, than stay with an experienced hunter and face a pack of wolves, because they think the hunter is the reason the wolves are there.

The country just jumped off a cliff into a blind abyss! Thrilling yes, but very dangerous!

[Deadskins]

Would anyone REALLY have wanted Palin as VP???

That's what I thought. She barely knows how to tie her shoe without backpeddling.

Spout the Dem party talking points all you wish. The bottom line is, day for day, her experience is every bit as valid as that of the current President elect.

Yeah, she left the town of Wassila with deficits, surrounded herself with loyalist yes-men, can tell a bald-faced lie without blinking, and was vindictive towards her political enemies after winning elections. What more experience does she need?

Are we talking about the president elect or Palin? The President elect was elected to the Illionois state Senate by default, after he had his competition elliminated on a technicallity. He knew that very few people sign every document themselves that are required to run for that office. He had the oficial check his competition and sure enough none of them had signed all of the required paper work. He was simply the last man standing.

He then avoided more votes then anyone one else in the state senate and repeated the same thing as a US Senator.

Look he may make a great president and I hope he does, but the man is simply less experience than Palin, with one exception. He had over a year to prepare for the election spot light and prepare for all of the questions the media had and he still was really bad when he didn't have a prepared answer. Palin got thrown into the spot light. Was she unprepared, sure to some extent. But so would he have been had he just been thrown into this.

However, most people voted for him based on color. He was on the blue side of the ailse and McCaine the red. And there were far too many people that didn't want four more years of the same and the left convince the masses that is exactly what would happen.

I personnally didn't like either of the choices, but I do think that everything negative people say about Palin they could have said the same (or worse) about the pres.elct.

I absolutely DO NOT want a government run health care system. I can't afford to give up another 10-15% of my paycheck for less coverage.

How did you wind up on health care from my post about Palin's experience qualifications as a politician?

Do you believe that requiring your opponents to follow procedural rules, is not playing fair?

Lastly, just because I want to understand your position, how could you possibly receive less coverage from a government run health care system? I'm not asking if it would be as efficient or cost effective, but how could there be LESS coverage?

[crazyhorse1]

Here's the bottom line, according to me:


In my opinion, there was as much or more voter fraud by Republicans this election than in 2000 and 2004. The difference between exit polls and final vote counts are off the charts-- which no body has pointed out yet.

I predict that analysis will show that 3% to 5% of total vote was shaved off Obama's victory margin. Something drastic has to be done to protect vote integrity in this country.

What are you talking about! Honestly I haven't heard anything about voter fraud. Obama won the popular vote by about what the polls were predicting. Please give me an example of what you are talking about.

If you want to talk about fraud, how about the 55 electoral votes the Dems are handed every election (AKA Cali's votes) By popular vote McCain lost by about 8%, but it wasn't even close by electoral votes. The system is seriously flawed. It wouldn't have made any difference this election, but it has in the past and it will again. If your a republican in CA you might as well not vote because your vote doesn't count!

I really hope the pres. elect. does a great job, but NO ONE can say he was the best qualified for the job! He has never been in charge of anything, has very little experience, and has dodged just about every vote of substance since he has been in any office.

Put this in football terms, this is like hiring a TE coach with no HC experience at any level to be a HC of an NFL team even knowing he refused to provide any game plan inputs before their big games. It may work out, but it is a huge risk!

I think most informed voters that did not vote for McCain did it because they would rather jump off a cliff with someone who tells them everything will be OK, but gives them no reason to believe that, than stay with an experienced hunter and face a pack of wolves, because they think the hunter is the reason the wolves are there.

The country just jumped off a cliff into a blind abyss! Thrilling yes, but very dangerous!

National exit polls show Obama won by 1% among men and 13% among woman. The total exit poll tally combining the two stats shows a 7% exit poll win by Obama.

The actual poll gave Obama a 4% win, 3% lower that the exit polls.

Supporting the position that the exit poll is correct and the actual poll fraudulent is the fact that the national poll of the average of all polls showed an approximate 7% Obama lead going into the election.

Three recounts are already scheduled-- Georgia, Alaska, and Minnesota.
Early on, the most obvious fraud occurred in Alaska, where the voting numbers reported were 11% lower than in the last election. The chance that fewer Alaskans voted this year are approximately zero.

The scandal is just starting-- so keep in touch.

[Deadskins]

I think most informed voters that did not vote for McCain did it because they would rather jump off a cliff with someone who tells them everything will be OK, but gives them no reason to believe that, than stay with an experienced hunter and face a pack of wolves, because they think the hunter is the reason the wolves are there.

It's obvious from your posts that you are a very informed voter.

[Cappster]

Amount spent per vote:

Obama: 8.81 per person who voted for him.

McCain: 5.12 per person who voted for him.

Keep in mind that Obama had almost 8 million more votes so if we take

The Obama campaign spent 4.69 on each vote cast for McCain and Obama while the McCain campaign spent .41 on each vote cast.

I just think it is interesting to that money very well could have influenced a lot of people to vote the other way. Too bad for the both of them that they wasted a total of 13.93 on me.

[Irn-Bru]

Do you believe that requiring your opponents to follow procedural rules, is not playing fair?

In our current system it's not.

Did you happen to see John Stossel's piece on the election? The whole thing is OK, but there was one part in particular that was eye-opening for me (having to do with "procedural rules" for elections).

Do I think it's fair to sue people for huge sums of money because they put signs in their yard or print T-shirts? No, but that's part of what "requiring your opponnets to follow procedural rules" means. The vast majority of it—including something stupid like requiring a specific person to sign absolutely everything (why not allowing someone else to sign with the person's consent?)—is simply bullying.

Lastly, just because I want to understand your position, how could you possibly receive less coverage from a government run health care system? I'm not asking if it would be as efficient or cost effective, but how could there be LESS coverage?

If there are shortages caused by a crisis in economic calculation. Our government can say that it can do anything, but actually doing it is another matter.

[Countertrey]

Lastly, just because I want to understand your position, how could you possibly receive less coverage from a government run health care system? I'm not asking if it would be as efficient or cost effective, but how could there be LESS coverage?

Tell me you are joking.

[PulpExposure]

Lastly, just because I want to understand your position, how could you possibly receive less coverage from a government run health care system? I'm not asking if it would be as efficient or cost effective, but how could there be LESS coverage?

Just relating to cancer:

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Fewer than 20 percent of American men with prostate cancer will die from it, against 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men. Even in Canada, prostate cancer kills a quarter of men diagnosed with the disease.

A big part of the reason is that, in most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is . . . nothing.

Prostate cancer is a slow-moving disease. Most patients are older and will live for several years after diagnosis. Therefore it is not cost-effective in a world of socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. The approach saves money - but at a high human cost.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer. For instance, only 30 percent of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to fully 74 percent in Britain, 62 percent in New Zealand, 58 percent in France, 57 percent in Germany, 53 percent in Australia and 36 percent in Canada.

And less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.

Even when there is a desire to offer treatment, national health-care systems often lack the resources to provide it. In Britain, for example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment under Britain's national health service are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.

Those are some shocking statistics.

[Deadskins]

That is why I included the final sentence. Universal coverage means just that. Even though those other systems are less efficient, they still cover the illness

[Deadskins]

Do you believe that requiring your opponents to follow procedural rules, is not playing fair?

In our current system it's not.

Did you happen to see John Stossel's piece on the election? The whole thing is OK, but there was one part in particular that was eye-opening for me (having to do with "procedural rules" for elections).

Do I think it's fair to sue people for huge sums of money because they put signs in their yard or print T-shirts? No, but that's part of what "requiring your opponnets to follow procedural rules" means. The vast majority of it—including something stupid like requiring a specific person to sign absolutely everything (why not allowing someone else to sign with the person's consent?)—is simply bullying.

Obama didn't make the procedural rules, he simply followed them, where his opponents did not. I never made the case that the rules, themselves, were fair.

[crazyhorse1]

Lastly, just because I want to understand your position, how could you possibly receive less coverage from a government run health care system? I'm not asking if it would be as efficient or cost effective, but how could there be LESS coverage?

Just relating to cancer:

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Fewer than 20 percent of American men with prostate cancer will die from it, against 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men. Even in Canada, prostate cancer kills a quarter of men diagnosed with the disease.

A big part of the reason is that, in most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is . . . nothing.

Prostate cancer is a slow-moving disease. Most patients are older and will live for several years after diagnosis. Therefore it is not cost-effective in a world of socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. The approach saves money - but at a high human cost.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer. For instance, only 30 percent of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to fully 74 percent in Britain, 62 percent in New Zealand, 58 percent in France, 57 percent in Germany, 53 percent in Australia and 36 percent in Canada.

And less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.

Even when there is a desire to offer treatment, national health-care systems often lack the resources to provide it. In Britain, for example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment under Britain's national health service are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.

Those are some shocking statistics.

There is a logical error implicit in your argument. The existence of a foreign country's underfunded and/or inefficient and/or heartless national health program has nothing at all to do with our national health program. Our health program will be as good or bad as we make it. Even so, it will not stop anyone found receiving traditional care if they so choose. It's a win-win deal. except for those who don't mind seeing the uninsured poor dying in droves.

[PulpExposure]

That is why I included the final sentence. Universal coverage means just that. Even though those other systems are less efficient, they still cover the illness

To me, having 40% of cancer patients not be seen by an oncologist means they aren't sufficiently covering the illness.

[Countertrey]

That is why I included the final sentence. Universal coverage means just that. Even though those other systems are less efficient, they still cover the illness

To me, having 40% of cancer patients not be seen by an oncologist means they aren't sufficiently covering the illness.

The first thing they do when they need to bring the budget in line is consolidate services... which, inevitably, means make do with less. That increases wait times. Do it enough times, and you get to a point where your survival becomes a lottery.

It happens wherever there is socialized medicine. If it happens here, well... you get what you pay for. Hope you don't get sick.

Hey, I don't have a horse in this race... I am a military retiree, so I'm good as long as the government doesn't collapse... you , on the other hand...

[PulpExposure]

Hey, I don't have a horse in this race... I am a military retiree, so I'm good as long as the government doesn't collapse... you , on the other hand...

Really, me either. I earn enough as a soulless paper-pusher that I'll be able to afford private health care in this future world of health care quotas....

[Countertrey]

Hey, I don't have a horse in this race... I am a military retiree, so I'm good as long as the government doesn't collapse... you , on the other hand...

Really, me either. I earn enough as a soulless paper-pusher that I'll be able to afford private health care in this future world of health care quotas....

That was actually aimed at another... I know you are rich!

[Irn-Bru]

Really, me either. I earn enough as a soulless paper-pusher that I'll be able to afford private health care in this future world of health care quotas....

That's assuming it will be legal.

[Irn-Bru]

Do you believe that requiring your opponents to follow procedural rules, is not playing fair?

In our current system it's not.

Did you happen to see John Stossel's piece on the election? The whole thing is OK, but there was one part in particular that was eye-opening for me (having to do with "procedural rules" for elections).

Do I think it's fair to sue people for huge sums of money because they put signs in their yard or print T-shirts? No, but that's part of what "requiring your opponnets to follow procedural rules" means. The vast majority of it—including something stupid like requiring a specific person to sign absolutely everything (why not allowing someone else to sign with the person's consent?)—is simply bullying.

Obama didn't make the procedural rules, he simply followed them, where his opponents did not. I never made the case that the rules, themselves, were fair.

, OK, Obama's not a bully, he's just used the bullying rules in a bullying way. But he didn't write them, so it's not his fault!

I don't buy it. But, I would accept your argument if, assuming there was an R after the guy's name instead of a D, you wouldn't have made a similar complaint. Also, if you've never complained about how the big-wigs seems to be in control, how there's a rigid two-party system that functions more like a one-party system and keeps challengers from getting a fair shot. On those conditions I could agree that at least you're being consistent, but somehow I doubt that you're looking at this the same way regardless of political party.

It's easy to be OK with boxing out when your guy is the one who comes out on top, isn't it?

[Deadskins]

Do you believe that requiring your opponents to follow procedural rules, is not playing fair?

In our current system it's not.

Did you happen to see John Stossel's piece on the election? The whole thing is OK, but there was one part in particular that was eye-opening for me (having to do with "procedural rules" for elections).

Do I think it's fair to sue people for huge sums of money because they put signs in their yard or print T-shirts? No, but that's part of what "requiring your opponnets to follow procedural rules" means. The vast majority of it—including something stupid like requiring a specific person to sign absolutely everything (why not allowing someone else to sign with the person's consent?)—is simply bullying.

Obama didn't make the procedural rules, he simply followed them, where his opponents did not. I never made the case that the rules, themselves, were fair.

, OK, Obama's not a bully, he's just used the bullying rules in a bullying way. But he didn't write them, so it's not his fault!

I don't buy it. But, I would accept your argument if, assuming there was an R after the guy's name instead of a D, you wouldn't have made a similar complaint. Also, if you've never complained about how the big-wigs seems to be in control, how there's a rigid two-party system that functions more like a one-party system and keeps challengers from getting a fair shot. On those conditions I could agree that at least you're being consistent, but somehow I doubt that you're looking at this the same way regardless of political party.

It's easy to be OK with boxing out when your guy is the one who comes out on top, isn't it?

I've complained before about the lack of legitimate third party candidates, and have often pointed out that both the Ds and Rs are pretty much the same, working for their corporate overlords instead of the people who put them in power. I do find the Ds more palatable than the Rs, but I recognize that is part of the divide and conquer mentality that pervades in DC. I thought it was criminal that Ralph Nader was not allowed to debate Gore and Bush in 2000. I'd like to think I've been pretty consistent.

[Irn-Bru]

It isn't consistent to be against bullying regulations that keep honest people out of elections and then defend Obama for his sleazy State Senate tactics. You don't have to abandon your support for the guy or even necessarily admit that he was wrong to do so (seems clear to me, though). . .but defending his tactics as legitimate seems over the top and condoning to the way things are.

[Deadskins]

It isn't consistent to be against bullying regulations that keep honest people out of elections and then defend Obama for his sleazy State Senate tactics. You don't have to abandon your support for the guy or even necessarily admit that he was wrong to do so (seems clear to me, though). . .but defending his tactics as legitimate seems over the top and condoning to the way things are.

Well, I haven't had a chance to review your link about those "bullying tactics" yet; the proxy server at work won't allow me to open the page. But I will check it out from my home computer when I get a chance. I can logically see, though, how playing inside the rules can be deemed unfair, because the rules themselves are unfair (Jim Crow laws come to mind), so I'm not ruling it out off-hand. BTW, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a huge Obama supporter; there's still plenty about him that scares the hell out of me. I prefer to be cautiously optimistic, though.