When the left gets Limbaugh off the air...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

You're playing sportscaster; "Oh, no! He shouldn't be taking this shot! It's too far! He should have waited! Dumb play...it's gooooooood!!! Great shot there!! He knew what he had to do and did it! That's an all pro for you, there, boys and girls!"

You are saying the result is defacto evidence of your point. You are saying the turtle MUST have climbed up on that post because he's there.

If you don't believe excitement FOR Obama was critical in his win coupled with nothing less than widespread nose holding for McCain, we just lived through different worlds since last summer and fall.

I fully believe the excitement around Obama was widespread, critical, and caused the win.

What was that excitement? Was it FOR Obama excitement, or AGAINST "McBUSH" excitement? This is my point (not that there was no excitement).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I fully believe the excitement around Obama was widespread, critical, and caused the win.

What was that excitement? Was it FOR Obama excitement, or AGAINST "McBUSH" excitement? This is my point (not that there was no excitement).

This is what you said that we've been arguing about;

This is not true. Take our most recent election - people either voted against what they perceived as "McBush", voting against all of the policies of the Bush administration because McCain was also a Republican who voted most of the time with other Republicans, or they voted against having a socialist in the White House, or they voted against either of those in favor of someone else with whom they had some disagreement, but not as much as with the two who could win.

No one who voted for Obama, who said they were voting for Obama, could tell you why they were voting for Obama other than that he was not Bush, or was for "change" (change from what, since the outgoing administration was going to be outgoing regardless of who won the presidential election?).

I see it as for Obama. You see it as against Bush. Who wasn't even running.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This is what you said that we've been arguing about;




I see it as for Obama. You see it as against Bush. Who wasn't even running.

Bush wasn't running, and you and I and many people on here know that (not all, I think).

But, Obama's message was never "I'm this, I'm that, and I believe this, and I believe that". It was always "Change from Bush on this, change from Bush on that, and McCain voted with Bush almost half again as much as I did".

Obama was running against Bush, not HRC in the primaries, and not McCain in the election. Again, ask Obama voters what Obama stood for, and the answer inevitably was a comment about how he wouldn't be Bush. Not what he WOULD be, but just that he wouldn't be Bush.

Obama won by voters voting against Bush. Vast majority.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Bush wasn't running, and you and I and many people on here know that (not all, I think).

But, Obama's message was never "I'm this, I'm that, and I believe this, and I believe that". It was always "Change from Bush on this, change from Bush on that, and McCain voted with Bush almost half again as much as I did".

Obama was running against Bush, not HRC in the primaries, and not McCain in the election. Again, ask Obama voters what Obama stood for, and the answer inevitably was a comment about how he wouldn't be Bush. Not what he WOULD be, but just that he wouldn't be Bush.

Obama won by voters voting against Bush. Vast majority.

OK. I get it. We disagree. I say people tend to win when people are voting FOR them and people tend to lose when people give them a vote because they are against the other guy.

You disagree. We disagree. OK. Got it!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

OK. I get it. We disagree. I say people tend to win when people are voting FOR them and people tend to lose when people give them a vote because they are against the other guy.

You disagree. We disagree. OK. Got it!

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Sam, I don't appreciate the insult. I avoid insulting you and I'd appreciate it in return.

I'm not. Smart people can still not get it, but they can also try to be snarky when they do get it.

I guess when it comes down to it, I saw a MUCH bigger difference between the two candidates than you did. And on a few issues that you disagree with McCain on, I agree with him. There's a lot about the guy that I've always absolutely liked. Most of the issues that turned him off to you are completely irrelevant to me, and one or two of them, you and I already disagree on them. So to me, there was a huge difference, and honestly, I couldn't in my wildest nightmares believe McCain would do what this man is doing.

I never said you should always vote your party. But I don't care for Ron Raul - not even a little. I don't agree with him on many issues. On some things, I even think he's a little nutty. I would have preferred about three or four Republicans before McCain, but I'd always pick McCain over Paul. Period. That's not voting R. As a general rule, I don't bother with third parties (I did vote for Perot, though) unless there's a chance they can accomplish something, and that includes get elected. Otherwise, I might as well write in my Dad every four years.

The reason why parties merge is what people already see - if one party can get 40% of the vote, and three others can get 20 each, it makes sense for them to overlook their differences, merge, and get SOME of their agenda across, rather than stick to their guns, always lose and get none of their agenda.

This past election, I really think the Democrats could have won with a dead cat and a wino on the ticket - Bush was THAT unpopular. It really didn't matter who the GOP ran.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I'm not. Smart people can still not get it, but they can also try to be snarky when they do get it.

I guess when it comes down to it, I saw a MUCH bigger difference between the two candidates than you did.

That's fine. I accept that. I never did NOT accept that as a rationale. I'm all for people voting for someone they may not largely support yet do see a significant difference with the other choice.

However, I'd gotten into endless spats with people who I know damn well have the same basic differences with McCain that I do or are just being as pedantic as any Kerry or Gore supporter ever was, ie, yellow dogs, ie, being hypocrites. These are also people who tend to agree that we've gotten into this mess by moving to the left yet don't see or acknowledge that the first thing you do when digging yourself into a hole is stop digging.

These are people who saw in McCain much that is wrong with our nation yet, suddenly, found enough attraction to hold their nose and vote for him rather than reject him and help push the party back to the right.

These are also the people who say things like "It doesn't matter anyway. The media is in control anyway. People are stupid, except for me. Nothing will ever change" and act like they just voted for Ronald Reagan as opposed to being MORE of the problem which, in my view, is what they did.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

This past election, I really think the Democrats could have won with a dead cat and a wino on the ticket - Bush was THAT unpopular. It really didn't matter who the GOP ran.

No way (my opinion). McCain got 60 million votes AND Obama is a terrible candidate on qualifications. Only 5,000,000 voters changing their minds separated the two and with some 70-80 % of Americans livid over TARP I, I think a no vote, after suspending his campaign, a chance to distance himself from Bush WHILE OBAMA stood with Bush, AND being able to spend the last month of the campaign saying "I told you so" would have been, in my view, the difference for McCain.