U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[Mechanix]

I see no champion of liberty between Obama and McCain, which is why I will not vote for either.

[BubberMiley]

I see no champion of liberty between Obama and McCain, which is why I will not vote for either.

And which is why McCain is going to do even worse than the polls currently show, because Bob Barr has yet to be factored into their equation.

[Mechanix]

John McCain is overconfident in bitter Hillary supporters coming to his side.

He is not a uniter; he is an appeaser with poor policies.

Bob Barr or perhaps a Constitution party candidate will receive my vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's choice for Vice President in 2000, is now a source of major irritation.

The four-term Connecticut senator, who came tantalizingly close to being Al Gore's vice president in 2000, not only has been campaigning for his pal, presumed Republican nominee John McCain, now he's publicly criticizing the Democrats' standard-bearer, Barack Obama. Lieberman has strayed before, most notably switching from Democrat to independent in 2006 to hold onto his Senate seat after a Democratic primary loss.

But the latest betrayal has upset Democrats, who often answer in clipped but polite tones when asked about Lieberman. The reason: The independent still caucuses with the Democrats on most issues except the Iraq war, and he holds their slim political majority in his hands.

"There's a commonly held hope that he's not going to be transformed into an attack dog for Republicans," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080615/D91AIUPG1.html

[August1991]

Latest poll on the Obama and McCain match-up.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080612/...olitics_poll_dc

Here's a link to Real Clear Politics and its page of latest polls.

Obama leads McCain by about 3% and given the number of polls seeing this distinction, one has to say that it's statistically significant. Moreover, Intrade is giving a wide advantage to Obama. You could almost double your money between now and November if McCain wins. I'm intrigued why my own reading of the US political scene is at such variance from this data. Bubbler will like this admission: Maybe I'm wrong.

And which is why McCain is going to do even worse than the polls currently show, because Bob Barr has yet to be factored into their equation.

Who the hell is Bob Barr? Is he a passenger on this ship? Edited June 16, 2008 by August1991

[sharkman]

Here's something that will cause the poll results to fluctuate. McCain has recently said he'd like to end the ban on offshore drilling, and even the democrats can't deny the US has huge reserves they haven't even touched yet. They simply say it would take 10 years to have an affect of 2 cents a gallon.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard regarding gas prices. They, along with everyone else, could not predict this present gas price surge, could not predict the oil spikes, but have the arrogance to think they can now study the tea leaves and come up with an accurate prediction not only of where gas prices would be in 10 years, but predict the effects of new US capacities before they even know what areas offshore would be opened up, let alone ANWAR. And of course koolaid drinker environmentalists are swallowing this whopper without the slightest hesitation(Mmm, it's cherry flavour this time!).

This issue is going to have a major impact on the election, you can count on it. Nothing affects the voter's attitude like having to spend significantly more on gas, even more so when the economy is faltering and energy prices have been rising on all fronts. The Dems are foolish to trot out the same old lines when so many voters are hurting big time on this issue.

Of course, now Obama's team is calling McCain a flip flopper, since he previously opposed drilling, and they have a point. So today, not content to press their flip flop advance, Obama does one of his own. He previously promised to accept public monies for the campaign and now is opting out. Both parties are vying for the best sound bite on this one, but at the end of the day it's a flip flop.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This issue is going to have a major impact on the election, you can count on it. Nothing affects the voter's attitude like having to spend significantly more on gas, even more so when the economy is faltering and energy prices have been rising on all fronts. The Dems are foolish to trot out the same old lines when so many voters are hurting big time on this issue.

Agreed...this is something that Joe Sixpack and his family can wrap their heads around. It is not nuanced and presents stark choices. Earlier this decade, bumper stickers offered up a simple solution...."Bomb Their Ass and Steal Their Gas!". Now it's time for Phase II in the Great Petroleum Wars.

Of course, now Obama's team is calling McCain a flip flopper, since he previously opposed drilling, and they have a point. So today, not content to press their flip flop advance, Obama does one of his own. He previously promised to accept public monies for the campaign and now is opting out. Both parties are vying for the best sound bite on this one, but at the end of the day it's a flip flop.

On balance, this helps McCain because Senator Obama's "honeymoon" is coming to an end (stuff like this). He will be just another suit playing the game as it always has been played. McCain is far better off as the underdog.

[BubberMiley]

Earlier this decade, bumper stickers offered up a simple solution...."Bomb Their Ass and Steal Their Gas!".

Now that gas has quadrupled in price, I wonder if those people are smart enough to figure out how "simple" their solution was?

[BubberMiley]

Obama leads McCain by about 3% and given the number of polls seeing this distinction, one has to say that it's statistically significant.

Last month, when Hillary was still in it, a Newsweek poll had Obama and McCain neck and neck. I always figured that with Hillary out, Obama's numbers would take a dramatic leap. Today, Newsweek has him 15 points ahead of McCain. Hopefully, the Republicans will continue talking about spending 100 years in Iraq and deluding themselves that it could somehow be a peaceful occupation like South Korea and Germany.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

[bush_cheney2004]

Now that gas has quadrupled in price, I wonder if those people are smart enough to figure out how "simple" their solution was?

Well, technical considerations aside (gas prices have not quadrupled for Americans), they are satisfied with a new bumper sticker: "Support Our Troops".

Edited June 21, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

Last month, when Hillary was still in it, a Newsweek poll had Obama and McCain neck and neck. I always figured that with Hillary out, Obama's numbers would take a dramatic leap. Today, Newsweek has him 15 points ahead of McCain. Hopefully, the Republicans will continue talking about spending 100 years in Iraq and deluding themselves that it could somehow be a peaceful occupation like South Korea and Germany.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

Wow, 15 points is twice the 7 point spread I was hearing, McCain's got some work to do. Any thoughts on whether climbing gas prices will benefit Obama, who doesn't want to drill anywhere?

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow, 15 points is twice the 7 point spread I was hearing, McCain's got some work to do. Any thoughts on whether climbing gas prices will benefit Obama, who doesn't want to drill anywhere?

Means absolutely nothing at this stage...remember when Hillary Clinton was most favored too by the "polls"?

The only poll that counts is in November.

[jbg]

Wow, 15 points is twice the 7 point spread I was hearing, McCain's got some work to do.

The equivalent of the post-convention bounce. Also, given the wish of interviewees to appear "enlightened" in this election they will not tell pollsters the truth. It would take a greater than 10 point lead in mid-October for Obama to have any real advantage.

[sharkman]

And as usual, it will be two against one, the Dems with the media covering their backs. I still think though, that gas prices are going to have an affect on the outcome.

[jbg]

And as usual, it will be two against one, the Dems with the media covering their backs. I still think though, that gas prices are going to have an affect on the outcome.

I am not as worried about gas prices.

In 1975, when I graduated high school, unleaded regular went for $0.639 or so, or about $3.20 in today's money. Cars get about double mileage. That is why despite the abundant publicity, people are not focusing unduly on gas prices. Today's $4.49 or so per gallon still represents far cheaper driving than exactly 33 years ago.

Remember, 1975 was after one shortage and before another. The prices had dropped about 10% or so from their prior peak in or around May 1974.

[BubberMiley]

And as usual, it will be two against one, the Dems with the media covering their backs. I still think though, that gas prices are going to have an affect on the outcome.

Always with the persecution complex that the big bad corporate media is opposed to right wingers.

Even though they have yet to mention many of the McCain's numerous shortcomings. They even attack Obama for playing by the rules and refusing the $85 million of public money while McCain spends willy-niily far above what he's legally entitled to do, takes the public money, and acts all holier-than-thou about it. Talk about hypocrites.

Edited June 24, 2008 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

Today's $4.49 or so per gallon still represents far cheaper driving than exactly 33 years ago.

I guess you can defend your Republican administration's total failure with regard to its foreign policy, conservation, and gas prices by qualifying unsubstantiated information with "or so." If you measure 1975 gas prices against relevant indicators like the CPI or the average wage of unskilled workers, it was more like $2.50 a gallon in today's money.

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

Edited June 24, 2008 by BubberMiley

[jbg]

I guess you can defend your Republican administration's total failure with regard to its foreign policy, conservation, and gas prices by qualifying unsubstantiated information with "or so." If you measure 1975 gas prices against relevant indicators like the CPI or the average wage of unskilled workers, it was more like $2.50 a gallon in today's money.

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

Here's the range of figures from that site, using 1975 and 2007;

$2.46 using the Consumer Price Index

$2.02 using the GDP deflator

$2.93 using the value of consumer bundle *

$2.40 using the unskilled wage *

$3.87 using the nominal GDP per capita

$5.41 using the relative share of GDP

The amount ranges all the way to $5.41, so I find your reasoning questionable. Still, gas mileage is double, and incomes are far higher. That's why you don't see a particularly strong reaction to gas prices. Similarly, I remember the reaction to gas prices in 1975 to be minimal.

I will admit that you are right and I am surprised that the movement of prices has been about quadruple, not quintuple.

[Guest American Woman]

....you don't see a particularly strong reaction to gas prices.

?? Of course there's been a strong reaction to gas prices-- Can't even begin to imagine how you can try to say otherwise.

[bush_cheney2004]

What was the Obama camp thinking when they hoisted a "presidential seal" look-alike for the podium?

After days of media mockery, Barack Obama has decided to stop using a presidential-looking seal that his campaign designed and affixed to his podium on Friday.

Journalists said the seal, which features an eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, smacks of arrogance. John McCain's camp had a field day, calling the seal “laughable, ridiculous, preposterous and revealing - all at the same time.”

...“The press corps adopts a subtext for each candidate,” Sabato told The Examiner. “Daddy Bush was 'a nice guy but out of touch.' Bill Clinton was 'smart but randy.' Bob Dole was 'heroic but too old.' Gore was 'brilliant but a fibber and a bore.' Dubya was 'pleasant but dumb.'”

He added: “Obama's subtext is rapidly becoming 'charismatic but arrogant.'”

http://www.examiner.com/a-1455131~Obama_ca..._on_podium.html

...and it's only June!

[BubberMiley]

The amount ranges all the way to $5.41, so I find your reasoning questionable.

No, relative share of GDP went to $5.41. That has little bearing on the average person's ability to afford to fill their tank. True, the top 2 percentile of the population may be able to afford more gas than they could in 1975, but that shouldn't matter much to a "progressive left-winger" like yourself.

As I said, CPI and unskilled workers' wages are the relevantindicators in terms of gas affordability. In those terms, it's way, way more expensive than ever.

[jbg]

No, relative share of GDP went to $5.41. That has little bearing on the average person's ability to afford to fill their tank. True, the top 2 percentile of the population may be able to afford more gas than they could in 1975, but that shouldn't matter much to a "progressive left-winger" like yourself.

As I said, CPI and unskilled workers' wages are the relevantindicators in terms of gas affordability. In those terms, it's way, way more expensive than ever.

What about cars' increased gas mileage? Even if gas, in real terms, would cost $2.50 if adjusted for inflation from 1975, cars are getting about double mileage. What about that?

[bush_cheney2004]

What about cars' increased gas mileage? Even if gas, in real terms, would cost $2.50 if adjusted for inflation from 1975, cars are getting about double mileage. What about that?

Indeed....there are other factors at play when considering "affordability" in real terms:

- more multiple car households

- transition to unleaded and oxygenated fuels

- taxes

- motor vehicle applications (beyond simple transportation)

- devalued US dollar

- passenger miles driven

- other vehicle ownership costs

- other transportation options

In the end, we can see that only now has consumption begun to decline for non-commercial users, and some of that is not related to fuel prices at all. North Americans still pay far less than many others in the world.

[BubberMiley]

What about cars' increased gas mileage? Even if gas, in real terms, would cost $2.50 if adjusted for inflation from 1975, cars are getting about double mileage. What about that?

You haven’t noticed that when new houses get built, they are farther and farther from the city centre? As communities are designed more and more around the automobile, people are forced to use their cars more than ever. People drive nearly twice as much now as they did in 1975, offsetting any gains in fuel economy that haven’t been absorbed by their larger SUVs. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Spreadsheets/Table8_02.xls

This increase in dependence only furthers the catastrophic economic calamity that the end of cheap oil is only just starting to bring. It's not like the Republicans weren't warned this would happen. They just chose to do nothing over the past eight years.

[sharkman]

The republicans have an answer for oil: drill some more. Between offshore and Alaska, they could be adding several billion barrels to the inventory. Speaking of which, if our federal government would open up drilling off the west coast as they did the east, and further allow gas refineries, the equation would change dramatically.