Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Discuss the US Presidential Election 1912

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the end-of-the-road dept.
We made it. It's election day. Tomorrow we'll know. So for today's election discussion story, I'm throwing it wide open: let's discuss the election itself. Who are your picks and why. And also what about your actual experience voting today? Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Discuss the US Presidential Election

Comments Filter:
  • by cptnapalm (120276) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:48AM (#25625581)

    ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

    • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:49AM (#25625605) Homepage

      Psh. You know as well as I do that Palin's gonna start her 2012 bid tomorrow.

      • Shhhh... (Score:5, Funny)

        by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:05AM (#25625923) Homepage Journal

        She kicked it off last Saturday [google.com].

      • by The Assistant (1162547) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:05AM (#25625929)

        MidTerm elections would be in 2010!

        Midterms in college are probably being given right now, or maybe they're already over.

        Can't we have a break from campaigning for at least a year? I think we deserve it after having to deal with this for the past 2 years!!! Wouldn't it be nice if the news could actually contain some news? It's been a while since that has happened!

        VOTE, VOTE Quickly, and lets get on with the rest of our lives!!!!!

      • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:10AM (#25626063)

        Whether or not Palin decides to pursue a post-election career as a national-level politician, the real damage has already been dealt to the Republican party. Her meteoric rise is only a slight clue into the inner turmoil of the GOP.

        The 20+ years of neoconservative leadership has bankrupted the Republican party of its core conservative platform, and the pandering to the religious fundamentalists has turned off the moderates of the party. Those left are the ones who see Palin as more than she ever could be. She represents precisely the reasons why the Republican party is unable to attract new members and votes.

        Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

        That these pillars have been completely ignored in the actual implementation of policy is the primary reason so many are seeking answers elsewhere.

        • by demachina (71715) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:44AM (#25626813)

          "However, most people believe in... in free markets"

          I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.

          It is certainly true that a number of the economic problems we have were due to government intervention in the markets, like Fanny and Freddy. Government interventions in markets are almost always bad. The current Treasury program to secretly pump $700 billion in to the pockets of the same system where they work is HORRIBLE.

          But credit default swaps, for example, were completely unregulated and a sterling example of what happens when you let greedy people do things without any checks and balances. They are an "economic weapon of mass destruction" where people were making billions writing insurance on investment vehicles when they had no mechanism to pay them off if they ever came due. John Cassano made something like $200 million, personally, selling CDS's as a contractor at AIG, When his house of cards collapsed AIG kept paying him $1 million a month because only he knew the entire history of his screwed up division. His tiny division of a couple hundred people took down a giant company of 100,000 people, and created a gigantic gaping hole in the economy its not clear even the Fed can plug if all the CDS's they wrote, come due.

          Just ask Alan Greenspan, champion of free markets and less regulation;

          REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?

          ALAN GREENSPAN: That is -- precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

          He'd discovered that you couldn't trust people or companies to do the right thing when unregulated. He thought people and company wouldn't do stupid things, if it might end in the destruction of their company. He apparently lacked a basic understanding of human greed, in particular if people see an opportunity to make a lot of money in the near term, they don't necessarily care if what they are doing will ultimately lead to calamity, as long as they know they wont be the one paying the price for their misdeeds. They know that once they have their FU money in hand, it doesn't matter if they cause complete devastation in their wake, in fact in many instances they know the company they are intentionally destroying will give them a golden parachute as reward.

        • Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stefanlasiewski (63134) <slashdot@REDHATstefanco.com minus distro> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:47AM (#25626887) Homepage Journal

          McCain didn't change the Republican Party. The Republican Party changed him.

          Ironically, I thought McCain was going to be the one to change the party. The GOP has lost it's way, and every year the party moves to the religious right. John McCain always seemed to stand up for what was right. I'm lean left but I respect some of the core republican causes. I once donated to McCain's Senate campaign, because I thought McCain would be the leader to save the Republican Party from itself.

          And yet in the last couple years McCain completely collapsed-- it's like he lost his independence, and quickly started spewing the same vitriol that I hear coming out of the far right. John McCain, what happened to you?

          I'm not sure if he chose Palin because he liked her, or because his Masters told him too. Either way, she is not a good candidate for VP by any stretch of the imagination.

          • Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Informative)

            by dnoyeb (547705) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @12:03PM (#25627285) Homepage Journal

            I was told she was not his first choice. He had the final say, but it was his people that pushed her forward.

            I agree with your take on McCain. After Bush won the 2nd term, McCain decided the only way to become president was to quit being such a maverick. Thats when he started supporting all the Bush initiatives. Thats when he lost his "base."

            The real McCain would have been strong with independents. However, I am not sure he could have won the nomination without selling out to Bush.

            McCain made his choice. Kicked his independent support to the curb to try and get ultra conservative supporters that never liked him.

          • Re:Best Post Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Paranatural (661514) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @01:20PM (#25628865)

            I'm with you on this. He totally and completely sold out everything that he had stood for for years. I can only imagine it's because he was convinced that's the only way he could win, and after he won he could go back to doing and saying the things he actually believed.

            Of course, he'd never be allowed to do that.

        • by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @12:50PM (#25628285)

          Which is not to say that the Republican party and its conservative ideals are without merit. The country at this time is severely divided, and it has been the steady hand promised by Obama that has been able to attract voters this year. However, most people believe in smaller government, in a government that is less intrusive, and in free markets. Where we may disagree is in degree, but at its core, the Republican stance has always been these three pillars.

          I have a rather conservative outlook to life -- small "c", no vast ideology involved. I believe that it's best to approach things cautiously, make sure we don't leap in feet-first and screw things up before we even understand what's going on. I believe we shouldn't fix what ain't broke but this doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things out there. Sure, maybe 9 in 10 times the new idea turns out to not be a good one so we decide to not go ahead with it but there's always that 1 in 10 chance that it's a really good idea.

          I despise what big "c" Conservatism has become in this country. Right-wing media outlets actively seek to inculcate their listeners against logic and reason, giving them predigested talking points to hurl back in forth in shouted arguments where nobody is really listening to each other. To me, conservatism is about caution, prudence, relying on wisdom won through hard experience and tough lessons. The opposite of this conservatism is flighty, mercurial indecision, mistakes made from inexperience and the best of intentions gone wrong. The non-conservative sees a drowning man and jumps in after him to save him. And as we all know, a drowning man is going to try scrambling up the body of his would-be rescuer and get them both killed. The true conservative does not immediately leap to unthinking action but looks for a life-ring to throw the two of them, preferring meaningful action that will produce results to empty actions full of symbolism and nothing more. But what would the GOP Conservative do today? He would look at the drowning man and say "Fuck him, it's his own problem. Let him save himself," and walk away.

          And what of liberalism in this country? Why, the very debate has poisoned the word. Liberal is now an insult second only to child molester. "He's a liberal," the television ads sneer, as if that one word satisfactorily sums up every reason not to vote for someone. That's bullshit.

          What is a liberal? A liberal is someone who is unsatisfied with the status quo. He worries that his conservative friend is too comfortable with the way things are and sees a better future in the way things could be. In a healthy political environment, there is give and take between both positions. Perhaps the liberal reaches too far, perhaps the conservative isn't reaching far enough. Through vigorous debate the public is informed of the issues and will decide who they agree with.

          The thing about status quos, there's always going to be someone at the top of the pyramid quite happy with the way things are and there will always be many more people at the bottom wanting to change it. In this case, the conservative will want to exert every effort to keep things the way they are while liberals will want to bring about reforms, democratize the process, make things more fair. This is the crux of the matter, the heart of the conflict. Read Roman history and this back and forth feels utterly familiar. Change the names and dates and it could be pulled from our own newspapers.

          The people are abandoning the Republican Party because they feel they're getting screwed. In other countries, sovereignty resides with the wealthy and the people have no voice as a matter of law. In America, sovereignty resides with the people, not a king, not an aristocracy, not a priesthood. This is a country by, of, and for the people. And right now what the people are seeing is a huge screw-job, marshaling the resources of this vast land to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Wall Street is screwing us over. Polit

      • by TaoPhoenix (980487) * <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:10AM (#25626069) Journal

        Is that what the Mayans forsaw, the event which caused the end of this round of civilization?

    • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:20AM (#25626311) Homepage Journal

      ... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.

      I'll miss it. I've grown up in this election, and when it's over I'll have no idea what to do. I remember when I was four or five years old, back around the time Reagan was elected and The Empire Stikes Back was drawing crowds, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had just started their campaigns. I remember coming out of the movie theater after seeing Back to the Future and seeing buses go by with competing Huckabee and Clinton banners on the side. I fondly recall during the first Gulf War and after September 11th the moving speeches by McCain and Obama.

      Remember the Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" ads where McCain was enjoying a big square burger next to Clara Peller with her miniscule competing burger? Remember Hillary Clinton's break dancing extravaganza? Or when Seattle Grunge Artists for Obama did their tour in the early 90s and Kurt Cobain called Obama "the real spokesman for our generation?" My whole life was shaped by these campaigns. Tomorrow I may have to get a hobby.

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:21AM (#25626329) Homepage Journal

      I agree but I still think we should get to slap the Slashdot admins every time they stick a Politics story under News.
      They have a Politics category for a reason and I have it turned off for a reason!

    • by PinkyDead (862370) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:23AM (#25626367) Journal

      How about curtailing it a little next time lads?

      (Speaking from an outside-US position) I've been following this whole thing with great interest since the Obama/Clinton things started - and going back a bit I stayed up all night watching the Gore/Bush thing - so I'm not knocking it.

      But do you not think it's a bit long in the tooth at this stage? It's been pretty much going for two years and when you think about it, all you are doing is selecting one individual from a list of 30 or so - surely you don't need 2 years to make that decision.

      Maybe some work needs to be done on limiting the scale of the thing - both in terms of time and of money, which is verging on the ridiculous too.

      See you in 2 years time...

  • FiveThirtyEight (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:48AM (#25625585) Homepage

    FiveThirtyEight.com jacked up Obama's odds of winning to 98.1%

    I like those odds.

    • by jgtg32a (1173373) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:57AM (#25625757)
      While I don't want Obama to be president.

      The internet would be so annoying if he lost. All the people whining about it.
  • Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:50AM (#25625609) Homepage Journal
    Obama- He's my pick. He might seem socialist- but I don't think anybody can top ol' G.W. these days. I personally want what's good for society. After the past 8 years of crapping on society, killing the economy, and ruining our constitution- it's time for a change. I don't see that change in McCain.
    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#25625739) Homepage
      I personally hope he is a socialist. It would be nice to see my friends and family back in the US brought up to the quality of life I've found after moving to the Nordic countries.
      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LSD-OBS (183415) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:22AM (#25626343)

        Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means. Some of the highest tax rates in the world, yet everybody is looked after so well. Education is of an exceptional standard, and every person from every background is given equal opportunity to do and become whatever they choose. It's basically social capitalism, by which I am implying that raw capitalism *in practice* is one of the most anti-social and dehumanising concepts on earth.

    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scubamage (727538) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:02AM (#25625849)
      Obama only seems socialist if you ignore the 700 billion dollar bailout we handed to businesses - easily the largest act of socialism ever in US history. Oh, it was penned by republicans, too.
    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by griffjon (14945) <GriffJon&gmail,com> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:10AM (#25626075) Homepage Journal

      I don't get this socialist BS.

      Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.

      If you want socialism, vote for the big-government republicans.

      (Does anyone else miss small-gov't, pro-personal-liberties republicans? I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but man am I ready for the neocon/religious right section of the GOP to dry up.)

  • by Marx_Mrvelous (532372) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:50AM (#25625623) Homepage
    I'm voting for Obama and proud of it. How often do you get a chance to support a candidate that not only uses technology to its fullest potential, but also runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?
    • FWIW, the reason Obama wasn't that directly critical of the Republicans was because their failures are so manifest after 8 years of a Bush presidency. If things were as bad as they are, Obama like any merely human politician would probably have done a fair amount of mudslinging himself to rally people to his side.
    • by Lord Apathy (584315) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:19AM (#25626283)

      Good luck with that. I really hope that Obama's presidency comes out as good a people think it will. I'm not so sure myself. I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.

      I remember Jimmy Carter. He came in with pretty much the same promises that Obama has. Problem with him, like Obama, is he didn't have the political clout to pull it off. What we had was pretty much a lame duck in the Whitehouse for 4 years. That is what I see Obama's presidency is going to be about.

      For the record I'm throwing my vote in with the libertarian party this time around.

  • No problem (Score:5, Informative)

    by Verteiron (224042) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:50AM (#25625627) Homepage

    Voted in western IL about 20 minutes ago. No lines (but lots of people), 8 polling booths, paper ballots filled out with a marker. A rather menacing-looking Diebold machine increased its displayed tally when I fed it my ballot.

    All in all I hope everyone's voting experience was as painless as mine.

  • Voted!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sporkinum (655143) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:52AM (#25625657)

    Small town in Iowa. Polls opened at 7am and I was there at 7:15. Polls were only 3 blocks away at local library, so walked. Seemed like everyone in line was excited to vote. Wait in line took about 15 minutes, voting took about 5. Used paper optically scanned ballot, though there was one electronic voting machine for people who felt like gambling.

  • Cthulhu! (Score:5, Funny)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:53AM (#25625673)

    Why pick the lesser evil?

  • No secret ballot? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by characterZer0 (138196) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:54AM (#25625695)

    I voted today in New York State. The poll workers recorded each voter's name and the number the voting machine assigned to his vote. I asked them why and they replied that the board of elections told them to.

    What is going on? The board of elections can now see who everybody voted for. I thought we had the right to a secret ballot.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:54AM (#25625701)
    One thing the democratic party has brought is a sense that the solutions to ou rproblems is something we have to bring forward as we accept responsability for our mistakes. You can't fix your problems until you accept they exist. All the while, a constant line from republican speeches has been to blame others for the problems. Blame the democrats, blame big foreign oil, blame Osama, blame Obama. Blame other republicans, too.

    We're getting sick of the buck getting passed.

  • 1 hour lines @ 7am (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:58AM (#25625773) Homepage Journal

    Who are your picks and why.

    Third party, since I don't like either main candidate. This happened to be Barr, since I figured he probably has the best (but unfortunately still very small) chance of getting enough votes to scare some sense into the duopoly.

    And also what about your actual experience voting today?

    I got there at almost exactly 7am (when the polls opened), and the line was almost exactly 1 hour (I finished voting and left at 8:05). There were 10 Diebold voting machines lined up along one wall with no privacy screens, just little flaps on the sides.

    Did Diebold eat your vote or did everything go off without flaw?

    Well, that's kinda hard to know, isn't it? (Some might say that's kinda the point of buying from Diebold.)

  • In Illinois... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @10:58AM (#25625781) Homepage Journal

    ...I had the option of either voting by electronic machine or paper ballot. As you might imagine, I chose paper ballot for the simple reason that it leaves unchangeable records. Electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate or are far too likely to have glitches. (Especially the Diebold machines based on Microsoft Access.)

    The downside is that the Illinois ballots are *bleep*ing insane! First, there's no simple checkbox. Instead, you have these bizarre arrows you have to fill in. i.e.:

    Bob &lt; D
    Larry &lt; D

    You are supposed to draw a line for the vote you want to cast. e.g.:

    Bob &lt;----D
    Larry &lt; D

    Which is then complicated by a list of about a bazillion judges to vote in or out of office. No judge runs against another judge, so you simply fill out the arrow or you don't. Incumbent judges have a "Yes/No" option to possibly vote them out of office.

    I got up pretty early this morning, so it ended up taking more time to fill out these super-ballots than it did to wait in line. I then went home and listened to WGN ponder why it was taking Obama so long to vote for himself. Perhaps someone should show them one of these ballots! :-P

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:03AM (#25625869) Homepage

    Called my dad this morning and he said they were in and out in an hour. About 35 people in line but it went fast. He said the poll workers were really helpful and seemed well organized. I'm sure it's not going that well everywhere but the news isn't all bad.

    If the Republicans get crushed and lose Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I wonder if they're going to clean house or keep on with same failed people and platform that put them in the tank? Or if they'll blame Palin and minority turn out?

  • Election? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Subm (79417) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:03AM (#25625875)

    Election? What election?

    I pride myself on keeping apprised of current events, but I wasn't aware of an election today.

    Who is running and for what position?

    Srsly, whoever this CmdrTaco is who posted the story should at least give us this basic information in the summary.

  • by armada (553343) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:04AM (#25625909)
    I was amazed by the wording of some of the proposed amendments to the Florida constitution. One example was the marriage "keep the gays from marrying" proposal. First off, I happen to believe that marriage is a personal issue and has no need for government intervention but that is not my point here. The language was worded very biased, in that it started by stating that passing this amendment would "Protect marriage". As if I voted not my wife would someone stop loving me tomorrow or something. Second, it was the only amendment that ended with an entire paragraph dedicated to informing us voters that if we pass this the economic effect on the budget is "unknown at this time but likely minimal". This was on no other initiative. Holy bias Batman!
  • dixville notch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:04AM (#25625919) Homepage Journal

    most of us know it as the tiny hamlet clser to montreal than anything else in far northern new hampshire that releases its election results shortly after midnight on election day (since there is only 21 people voting there)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire#Midnight_voting_tradition [wikipedia.org]

    quaint and pointless mostly. this year, they landslided for obama (15 for obama to 6 for mccain)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7707667.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    why is that notable?

    in all previous elections, back to 1968, they landslided republican

    so that's an interesting changeup, north country new hampshire, solidly republican, giving us a glimpse of a new trend?

    portent of things to come later this evening for the rest of us perhaps?

  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:05AM (#25625925) Journal
    The USA is simply doomed. I live outside the USA, and I can assure you, the rest of the world is }{ close to pulling the plug on the USA, economically, diplomatically, socially, the whole works.

    If McCain is the next president, the world will say "Ya know what? We're done here. Game over. Thanks for playing" and it will hurt (a lot) in the short run, but once the American Empire's wings are clipped, the rest of the planet can set about building a future that works.

    Economic? Send the dollars back home. How? Buy up the assets. Devalue the currency. Don't loan them money.

    Diplomatic? The USA as a pariah state, sim. N Korea today or Libya back in the day. Turn off the WTO and IMF. Look elsewhere for partnership.

    Socially? Don't let Americans out of America. Make travel difficult. Strict Visa reqs, limited visas, etc. Let them know that when they visit, they know they are thought of as ASSHOLES.

    The Americans would bitch and moan and threaten and swagger, but since they're basically bankrupt and have dumped a substantial amount of their wealth into non-wealth generating assets (the military, first and foremost) the USA is really at the mercy of the rest of the planet and some. And if some swaggering third rate imperialist like McCain or, godferbid, his delusional retard of a VP, Palin, comes around acting like a dork, the simple and obvious reply is to shun them.

    Now, before you think I'm some sort of Obama supporter, you're wrong. Obama is every bit the imperialist that McCain is - it's just that his focus is not on global domination, but on the much more realistic goal of regional domination. In other words, McCain is a unipolar imperialist and Obama is a multipolar imperialist. The multipolar option is the ONLY realistic option for the USA right now.

    So, if the USA has ANY sense of self preservation, it will put Obama in as president. If it wants to drive itself off the cliff of history and explode on the rocks of self-inflicted stupidity, then it should vote for McCain.

    The reality that is going to come crashing in is simple: energy. You either have it and use it wisely and with great thrift, or you act like Americans and permit atrocities like Las Vegas and the Cadillac Escalade to exist. Get with the program, or die off. It's a simple choice.

    Now, go vote, and vote wisely.

    RS

  • by Thelasko (1196535) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:07AM (#25625963) Journal
    Snopes has some good articles about myths and urban legends about each candidate.
    McCain [snopes.com]
    Obama [snopes.com]
    Joe Biden [snopes.com]
    Sarah Palin [snopes.com]
  • Slot machines... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0WaitState (231806) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:07AM (#25625983)

    Just a thought, from a guy who used to work on gambling ("gaming") systems back in the 90s--your average 20-year-old slot machine is light years ahead of a current voting terminal, in terms of the independent multiple party audit capability, internal logging requirements, tamper detection, and ruggedness.

    Me, I'll be demanding a paper ballot at my polling place.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:08AM (#25625997) Journal
    The presidential election is OVER. Has been for a long time. Obama has won this in a big way. The question is the senate seats. The pubs pulled all their dollars on McCain nearly a month ago, as well as a number of seats such as Colorado's Schaffers and Musgrave. Instead, they targeted seats that are on the edge such as Coleman (vs. franken) in minn. If there is any cheating going on, it is doubtful that it will be systemic. But if the polls, and exit polls match up with results in most areas, BUT do not match up with those contested seats, then it will be time to consider what is going on. And I fully expect that neo-cons will pull garbage in those areas IFF they have the capability.
  • by rlp (11898) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:08AM (#25626021)

    I voted for Kodos.

  • by br00tus (528477) on Tuesday November 04, 2008 @11:53AM (#25627025)

    Why do Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett endorse Obama? Because he is for growth-oriented, social democratic capitalism. Growth through innovation, educating your populace, with a safety net, and did I say education?

    McCain's capitalism revolves around military contractors and, what I am not unafraid to call plain old imperialism. It is also based on monopoly capitalism - like the monopoly Verizon has over the local loop. Exploiting low-educated workers to the last penny.

    The choice of Obama is obvious, unless you're of the worse-is-better school.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...