Nope. I said that given the US should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, the corruption of the UN is irrelevant. And you keep making the same stupid argument as if the US was forced to invade Iraq because of the UN. That's not true. They may have been on their own because of the UN, but they should never have invaded AT ALL.



Yes. But I would argue that the extent of your actually caring if they're corrupt is rather limited to the political hay you can make against France and Russia. Given your support of the Bush administration, your animosity toward corruption clearly has its limits.



Well considering how you keep missing the point, I'd withhold the comments about daftness. WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED. You're trying to blame the UN for the failure in Iraq because the US had to go it alone. But since the policy itself is the problem, shifting the blame to the UN is ludicrous (although certainly not the first time Republicans have tried to avoid responsibility for their own stupid decisions). The reasons behind why the UN opposed an action that should never have happened is irrelevant, even if they are corrupt.



No I didn't avoid this. I said you're a hypocrite. It's okay for YOU and Republicans to advocate throwing billions of dollars at problems, but not for Democrats to do it. I'm not sure how to make that point more clear.

It's laughable enough when they try to argue that they are for less spending or smaller government. But the idea that they are for laissez-faire is a total non-starter. And even that would be one thing as long as they were consistent. But these guys are for less spending...for the poor. They are for smaller government when it comes to their wallets and their guns. But there's not a single civil liberty beyond that that Republicans haven't decimated in the last eight years. They've even made torture into a Republican family value. So that "less government" dog, as Fred Thompson might say, won't hunt.

First of all, for you to try and school anyone on logical fallacies is like Al Sharpton complaining when someone plays the race card.

Second, it was not a red herring because I was addressing what Eagle had offered up as a principle on his attitude toward corruption. I had already argued that his criticisms of the UN were irrelevant.

The thing is, we are in the midst of a fundamentally conservative tax system. It is silly to run for office promising continued decreases in tax rates. Kennedy recognized this folly as much, on the other end of the spectrum, when he decided to cut taxes against political opposition from liberals.

That's a good one. The less-government dog won't hunt, and the less-spending gun won't shoot. It's a sign of the times that I am even having this discussion. It is less from agreement with liberal economic policy and more from bewildered amazement at the fiscal travesty the Bush administration has bequeathed to us.

The great irony is that the Bush administration's fiscal insanity, which Eagle defends, has made a tax increase all but inevitable.

The difference is that Republicans think the increases should come from the middle class and the poor, as Huckabee advocates and as Reagan himself actually did in the 1980s by cutting the marginal tax rate for the rich while increasing payroll taxes. By contrast, the Democrats want to put the burden on those who can most afford it while cutting taxes or giving tax credits to the poor and middle class.

Upon closer examination, FairTax appears to be one of the greater travesties in circulation. I had initially supported the concept until I decided to crunch some numbers. It would take a national sales tax well above 35% to compensate for widespread tax evasion. A 23% FairTax would be about as effective as Prohibition.

One theoretical effect of increasing taxes on the wealthy would be on housing prices. This is based on my own feel for economics. Having wealth be disproportionately located towards a few would tend to make average home prices less affordable for the median home buyer.

The first state general election poll has been published.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

Hiallry still wins...

Colorado:

Obama 46
McCain 39

Clinton 35
McCain 49

Yep. I think McCain stands a chance if Hillary is the nominee because no matter what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck try to say, I think many people in the Republican party would vote for McCain to keep Hillary out of office. Barack's charisma and inexperience makes him a less polarizing figure amongst Republicans than Hillary. He could theoretically sneak under the radar, at which point it becomes a slaughter in my opinion. Democrats are energized, Republicans aren't. Independents appear to like Obama even more than they like McCain. It spells disaster for McCain.

Missouri

McCain 42
Obama 40

McCain 43
Clinton 42

I have to agree, though, that at this point general election polls are pretty meaningless.

More General Election State Polls.

Quinnipiac
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1142

Florida
McCain 41
Obama 39

McCain 44
Clinton 42

Ohio
McCain 42
Obama 40

McCain 44
Clinton 43

Pennsylvania
McCain 41
Obama 42

McCain 40
Clinton 46

If Michael Bloomberg were to run as independent:

FL
Clinton 40
McCain 38
Bloomberg 7

McCain 37
Obama 35
Bloomberg 9

OH
Clinton 40
McCain 40
Bloomberg 6

McCain 39
Obama 38
Bloomberg 6

PA
Clinton 42
McCain 36
Bloomberg 7

Obama 38
McCain 38
Bloomberg 7

So as I said earlier, Obama might have a better shot of winning in a general election in certain states, but he trails Clinton by quite a bit in others, as PA shows. (And if you are to take these polls seriously)

He hasn't campaigned much in Pennsylvania. She was leading him by 20 in the likes of Virginia not too long ago as well. It's when he actually goes to those states and starts campaigning that he's turning it around on her. When it's left up to name brand, she has a huge advantage. Likewise with McCain. He also holds a huge name brand advantage over Obama.

Let's just say PA's demographics don't shake out well for Obama.

Sad, but true: I know many people who voted Democrat in both 2000 and 2004, and who are registered Democrat, who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black. Wait, this can't be true, Democrats aren't racist remember?

You know... the chances are so low but does anyone think it's actually possible Texas could go blue?

2004: 61% vs. 37.8%
2000: 59% vs. 40%

Keep in mind, the Republican candidate during those years was from Texas!

Now look at 1996 results...

Dole: 48.7%
Clinton: 43.8%
Perot: 6.7%

The difference was 4.9% and Perot took 6.7% of the votes.

1992:
Bush: 40.5%
Clinton: 37%
Perot: 22%

Had Ross Perot not run, Clinton would probably have been guaranteed the popular vote in Texas.

In 2004, 2.8 million Democrats voted in Texas.

Tonight, almost the same exact amount (of Dems) will have voted in the primaries alone (2.8 million).

One can dream, no?

Let's say the ticket is Clinton/Obama...

Its known that Perot detracted more from the Republican than Democrat base. The gap between Bush/Clinton and Dole/Clinton would have actually been in greater favor of Bush/Dole had Perot not run. Texas won't swing.

Also, I love it when people say Hillary only wins a state because racists won't vote for Obama, but don't say Obama only wins states because sexist pigs won't vote for Hillary.

I agree with Eagle that many people (even Democrats) end up not voting for a candidate based on their race and sex, and also that systematic exclusion is rarely explicit, especially in the act of voting where publicity and 'personality' of a candidate mean so much. However, I don't agree that this only benefits Clinton and not Obama.

Polls this early in previous elections had Kerry ahead by like 12 points overall, Dukakis ahead by 17, and so on...

A week is a lifetime in politics, and anything and everything can change in the next 8 months. After all, 3 weeks ago Hillary was ahead of Obama by 20 points in Texas and Ohio, and she just barely scraped out a victory.

So why does everyone keep pointing to polls from pre-January, or even pre-Feb to point to Obama's come from behind? "Just think a few weeks ago he was behind. Yet don't look at last week and say "Just last week, and even among early voters, Hillary was behind and made up the difference."

You just turned on your own arguements.

Point is, polls are silly. A week does change everything, and I no longer look at polls from even two weeks ago to gage sentiment today or what potential each candidate has. Its changes every day.

Has anyone ever done the math to see if Gore would have won in 2000 with a proportionate electoral vote situation rather than winner-take-all for each state? Bush would have only gotten like 1 extra electoral vote from Florida for instance. The Democratic primaries are so much more democratic than the electoral college or Republican primaries. Winner-take-all when it's 50-49 with record-breaking turnout. What a joke.

EDIT: I did the math and Bush still wins, though neither one of them gets the required 270 votes to be President.

Bush: 262
Gore: 257

SurveyUSA (which has been pretty accurate with their polls so far this primary season) just released polls for all 50 states for the general election.

Nationwide
Obama 46
McCain 46

Clinton 48
McCain 46

And state-by-state:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008 ... nterviews/

It's interesting to note that while Obama takes more states overall, he fails to carry New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In addition, West Virginia and (more importantly) Florida are two states that go blue if Clinton is the nominee, but not if it's Obama. Those 4 states combined have 68 (!) electoral votes.

Either way I can't see a Democrat losing the election if they win both Ohio and Florida. Right not Clinton seems like the most capable of taking those two states.

P.S. Arkansas also goes to Clinton but not Obama. But that's not too big of a surprise...

^^^^ That's how the nominee should be chosen, regardless of delegates.

As I've said elsewhere, if Hillary can take Pennsylvania with as large a mragin as she took Ohio, I'm pretty sure she'll be the nominee.

But the map also shows west coast states other than CA will be in play for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. And Obama could take Virginia.

Basically as I mentioned in another thread, if Clinton is the nominee, the electoral map will look very much the same as before, and the battle will be fought among the same set of states as we did 4 and 8 years ago. If Obama is, more states will be in play, and it could be a bad or good thing. It means he could lose by a big margin, but also means he has more flexibility and afford to lose "key" states we have always had identified, so could indicate a better chance at winning. For myself, I prefer a 50-state strategy than having to camp in Ohio for 2 months before the Nov election.

And your point was? They both beat him and Obama actually wins by a slightly bigger margin.