The 2008 Election Day LIVE Thread

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But KSigkid, you have to admit, the party as it stands today does not deserve the "Grand Old Party" moniker. The inmates are running the asylum and the fiscal conservatives and small-government conservatives have been lost beneath the pile of social issues and scare-tactics and name-calling the people that are now considered the "base" have been allowed to make its face. I personally don't feel anything negative toward "Republicans" because I don't even recognize them anymore, I'm just glad the hard-right-loonies didn't have their way. Unfortunately, most people equate them with "Republican". Don't get touchy that people are reacting strongly about the extreme righties, if that's not you, that's not who they're talking about. Don't take the whole burden of the failed party on your shoulders, either. The boys at the controls of the party machine need to break out the manual and get to tinkering if they want to get it back up and running. 'Cause that thing is done broke.

And this is exactly what happened to the Democrats when they lost the religious vote during the Reagan era. You're kind of being a dick here, NA - this is an awkward post-hoc analysis from a victorious group during an election that couldn't have possibly gone any other way . . . it's very similar to the Clinton mid-term elections, to be quite honest. I just don't get why you'd even post this - and this, as one of your biggest message-board fans, whatever that's worth.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You have been incredibly respectful, one of the most respectful people I have dealt with throughout the campaign. I have a ton of respect for the way you have approached things. But I do remain touchy when people equate certain Republicans with the party as a whole. I'm not disputing that there were some crazies who made their voice heard during this election. As you have probably noted from my previous comments, I'm not thrilled with the way the Republican party has turned in the past few months.

But, I am seriously concerned that there are some, on this board, and otherwise, who have so much anger towards the Republicans. It's almost like, if it's not unanimous, that there are issues.

As a Republican, I do take the burden of the party upon myself. I have tried to represent the party to my best ability, and it bothers me when some try to paint the whole party with a broad brush. The machinery is broken, but as a Republican, I take that burden upon myself as a member of the party.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

And this is exactly what happened to the Democrats when they lost the religious vote during the Reagan era. You're kind of being a dick here, NA - this is an awkward post-hoc analysis from a victorious group during an election that couldn't have possibly gone any other way . . . it's very similar to the Clinton mid-term elections, to be quite honest. I just don't get why you'd even post this - and this, as one of your biggest message-board fans, whatever that's worth.

A double-shot from the KSigs!

Ok, first, I wasn't trying to be a "dick" RC, I'm not sure why you read it that way. I was actually, in my own emotionally-exhausted-way, trying to show my support for what I think of as the "Republican" party. I grew up with the GOP and still have respect for its core principles. I was trying to say that I just don't even recognize the party that's operating right now under the "Republican" banner. And I think it's great, KSigkid, that you see it as a responsibility to take the burden on as a "Republican", but I just didn't want to see you taking people's comments about the booing, etc., so personally. I don't think anyone on this board thinks of you guys and your beliefs with the same distaste they may have for the more the extreme voices that have taken over for the Republicans, especially during the last legs of this campaign.

Sorry if I didn't articulate that well (before or now). I've been through enough wins and enough losses to understand how elated or depressed both sides feel right now. And it does seriously suck to be on the losing end.

[VAgirl18]

Still unbelievable.

[BetteDavisEyes]

AlphaGamDiva, don't be ashamed of how you voted. I have no shame in admitting that I voted for Gray Davis as the governor of California twice nor do I have shame in admitting that I signed to recall his ass. I also voted for Schwarzeneggar and have no shame in admitting it.

Take pride that you did vote and even if your candidate didn't win, you stuck to your beliefs regardless of the outcome.

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

AlphaGamDiva, don't be ashamed of how you voted. I have no shame in admitting that I voted for Gray Davis as the governor of California twice nor do I have shame in admitting that I signed to recall his ass. I also voted for Schwarzeneggar and have no shame in admitting it.

Take pride that you did vote and even if your candidate didn't win, you stuck to your beliefs regardless of the outcome.

no worries i am definitely not ashamed of how i voted at all. i am a proud supporter of McCain, a man who has gone above and beyond what his call was for this country. what i was meaning was that IF President-Elect Obama turns out to be the biggest thing to this country since George Washington, then i might feel a lil twinge of embarrassment that i did not see that from the beginning as apparently so many of my fellow Americans did. i will never feel ashamed for voting McCain/Palin, but time will tell if i will ever think, "dangit" for not thinking P.E. Obama was capable. that is all.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by epchick

Although it happens "very rarely," electors are not obligated to vote for the candidate that wins the majority.

Again, this is an overstatement. Laws regarding electors vary from state to state. Some states (I can't tell you whether it is a majority of states or not) have laws that prohibit an elector from voting for a candidate other than the one who won the polular vote in that state. For example, technically in North Carolina, if you voted for Obama and Biden, you were not voting for them per se, you were voting for the 15 electors nominated by the NC Democratic Party. Likewise with McCain/Palin and the 15 electors nominated by the NCGOP. The electors nominated by the party of the candidate that wins the popular vote are themselves elected as NC's electors. NC law says that "[a]ny presidential elector . . . who fails to attend and vote for the candidate of the political party which nominated such elector . . . shall forfeit and pay to the State five hundred dollars . . . . In addition to such forfeiture, refusal or failure to vote for the candidates of the political party which nominated such elector shall constitute a resignation from the office of elector, his vote shall not be recorded, and the remaining electors shall forthwith fill such vacancy" as provided by law.

In the 2000 election, Cheney had to change his "home state" from Texas to Wyoming because of the electoral college. Something about electors can't vote for two people from the same state, so either Bush wouldn't have gotten Texas' electoral votes or Cheney wouldn't have gotten the votes.

The US Constitution says electors cannot vote for more than one candidate (President or VP) from their own state.

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

They Joes will look at their paychecks and realize their $250,000 salary is missing a zero, and will then get a refund based on the Obama plan that McCain's tax plan would have reserved for the rich.

According to an article in the NYTimes, exit polls showed that voters with median incomes of $40+ thousand (the average for plumbers and pipefitters) and voters with median incomes >$200,000 both broke for Obama.

Feel free to question the source and to question exit polls.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The US Constitution says electors cannot vote for more than one candidate (President or VP) from their own state.

Which section please? And also, what about Alaska and Maine, who split up their votes. Or do they have different electors? Sorry for all the questions.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, this is an overstatement. Laws regarding electors vary from state to state. Some states (I can't tell you whether it is a majority of states or not) have laws that prohibit an elector from voting for a candidate other than the one who won the polular vote in that state. For example, technically in North Carolina, if you voted for Obama and Biden, you were not voting for them per se, you were voting for the 15 electors nominated by the NC Democratic Party. Likewise with McCain/Palin and the 15 electors nominated by the NCGOP. The electors nominated by the party of the candidate that wins the popular vote are themselves elected as NC's electors. NC law says that "[a]ny presidential elector . . . who fails to attend and vote for the candidate of the political party which nominated such elector . . . shall forfeit and pay to the State five hundred dollars . . . . In addition to such forfeiture, refusal or failure to vote for the candidates of the political party which nominated such elector shall constitute a resignation from the office of elector, his vote shall not be recorded, and the remaining electors shall forthwith fill such vacancy" as provided by law.

I totally understand what you are talking about. And I know that we aren't voting for the candidates. But if what I quoted was an "overstatement" it wasn't mine, but the government's overstatement because I quoted them directly.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

A double-shot from the KSigs!

Ok, first, I wasn't trying to be a "dick" RC, I'm not sure why you read it that way. I was actually, in my own emotionally-exhausted-way, trying to show my support for what I think of as the "Republican" party. I grew up with the GOP and still have respect for its core principles. I was trying to say that I just don't even recognize the party that's operating right now under the "Republican" banner. And I think it's great, KSigkid, that you see it as a responsibility to take the burden on as a "Republican", but I just didn't want to see you taking people's comments about the booing, etc., so personally. I don't think anyone on this board thinks of you guys and your beliefs with the same distaste they may have for the more the extreme voices that have taken over for the Republicans, especially during the last legs of this campaign.

Sorry if I didn't articulate that well (before or now). I've been through enough wins and enough losses to understand how elated or depressed both sides feel right now. And it does seriously suck to be on the losing end.

I respect your viewpoint - but I honestly think there are people, on this board and beyond, who have imputed the beliefs of Bush, McCain and Palin, across the party. I honestly think that some members of this board have taken the beliefs of the party and imputed them to every individual member. And, I think it's evident from the comments by some members of the board.

There are some people, like you, who have been extremely accepting of the opposite viewpoint. But, that's not universal, unfrortuntately.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I respect your viewpoint - but I honestly think there are people, on this board and beyond, who have imputed the beliefs of Bush, McCain and Palin, across the party. I honestly think that some members of this board have taken the beliefs of the party and imputed them to every individual member. And, I think it's evident from the comments by some members of the board.

There are some people, like you, who have been extremely accepting of the opposite viewpoint. But, that's not universal, unfrortuntately.

I hear you.

My Dad has raised me with some great one-liners I still rely on to this day, one springs to mind: "Consider the source."

It's kept me from throttling more than one person along the way.

[DaemonSeid]

CBS News projects that voters in South Dakota voted down Measure 11, which would have prohibited abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest. If it had passed, it would likely have triggered a legal challenge which could have lead to the U.S. Supreme Court and a reconsideration of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established the right to abortion.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...rColumnContent