Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

It also bears noting that independents get turned off by all the negative crap. I watched CNN for the lines and they went way down when negative comments were made. Also independents in LA interviewed this morning expressed the desire to hear about issues.

Most pundits on CNN think the negative aspects of both campaigns could backfire. I was impressed wtih David Gergan's comments on this

Actually I was impressed with CNN's coverage. It was very balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

We have a gay marriage ban proposition here in Ca. too. I must admit that I have not researched it too much, but the ad they are running to ban these marriages is annoying. What is comes down too is if it bucks the status quo, then it's got to be bad.

I say change the definition of what marriage is. Who says it has to be between a man and a woman. In my opinion, if two people can make that commitment to each other, it should be honored and celebrated by all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Candidates spent $28 million on ads last week; McCain 100% negative

From USA Today:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/...t-obama-mc.html

The Wisconsin Advertising Project is out with some eye-popping numbers today: The two presidential campaigns and their parties spent $28 million on ads the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4. That's nearly twice as much as what was spent three weeks earlier.

It's also a lot higher than a comparable week in 2004. Back then, the group says, the two campaigns, their parties and their interest-group allies spent just over $18 million.

Democrat Barack Obama, who has bypassed the public funding system in favor of raising unlimited cash on his own, is spending a lot more than Republican John McCain and the national GOP. For the week of Sept. 28, the group says, Obama's advantage was $17.5 million to $11 million.

More than half the money spent by each side went to Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Ohio drew the most spending -- $2.2 million from Obama, $1.7 million from McCain and the GOP.

Among the observations in the detailed press release on the data: “Ten of the fifteen states where both candidates are advertising were won by (President) Bush in the 2004 election,” said Ken Goldstein, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project. “The campaign is being played on the Republican side of the field this year.”

Also from Goldstein: "Nearly 100% of the McCain campaign’s advertisements were negative" while 34% of Obama's ads were negative.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Cindy McCain thinks Obama is running a nasty campaign? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Campbell Brown is doing an interesting story about how McCain has been getting crowds riled up almost too much, and how that's kind of dangerous given Obama's race. She wasn't saying that McCain is racist at all, but just that if you get crowds really angry, it becomes a little dangerous. She also referred to people using his middle name in rallies. Obviously that story favors Obama, but our country does still have crazies in it.

Lol at Cindy McCain today. She looked like SHE could've been in the military with that outfit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brian is absoultely right regarding the fact that blacks tend to be very monolithic in how they vote: all I need to do to prove is point is to mention the fact that the Democrats always get 90% of the black vote in every single election. No other group--including gays--consistently votes for one political party 90% of the time. And, because they always vote for Democrats in such huge numbers, the Democrats completely take the black vote for granted.

Quite frankly, I'm getting upset over the suggestion that some Obama supporters are making over the fact that one must be a racist if he chooses to vote against Obama. There are plenty of reasons other than race--such as his lack of experience, his inability to confront leaders in his own party, and his left-wing economic and foreign policies--as to why somebody would choose to vote against Obama.

P.S. Regarding the issue of gay marriage, I always find it absurdly amusing how the Republicans are solely to blame for getting in the way of it. The fact of the matter is that most Democrats--including Obama and Biden--are opposed to legalizing gay marriage. Yet, when Democrats oppose gay marriage, the gays give them a free pass because "it's something they have to do to get elected." On the other hand, everytime a Republican opposes gay marriage, he's accused of hating all gay people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Have you not read that some people in this thread said that black people tend to vote for Democrats because of that party's record on civil rights? The Democrats probably take that for granted in some instances but that party is still more representative of the interests of minorities as a whole than the Republican party is at this point. A segment of the minorities that support the Republican party vote their economic interests which those voters probably see as the most prevalent of any issues that concern them.

It's a fact that racist people will vote against Obama. I think for the most part Obama supporters recognize that there are other reasons besides race that may prompt people to not vote for/vote against Obama. Just as they recognize that some people are voting for him on the basis of race.

You lose me with that left wing partisan rhetoric. People don't assume that anyone who takes a conservative position on issues of significance to that individual will want someone in office who is liberal on those issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess I must've missed in this thread where anyone accused Republicans of hating all gay people. I think there is a difference between saying that the party is not "welcoming" to gay people and suggesting that the party hates gay people. Now someone did mention that the minister at the church where Palin is a member believes in the conversion of gay people....that's still not an accusation of hatred from her but a point of concern about her beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

      I got to agree. The show was a mess.  The stories that are not working were the ones featured in today's episode. That was a red flag indicating how bad the episode was going to be.
    • Thanks as always @alwaysAMC The remote was panned in the soap press at the time, especially Philip wandering around in the costume as well as some of the comedy.  I have to admit it didn't bother me, even though I knew how ludicrous the idea was of the Spauldings having a wedding at a theme park. I thought there were some fun moments and I did like the scene where Lucy got to cry and grieve over what Brent had done to her.  I think I was just glad to get away from the stories in Springfield, which were bad and getting worse.  There are a number of attempts at revamping the opening music in 1996. I'll be interested in what you think of them. I remember being glad they updated the photos but also noticing how cheap they looked. The show did need a new opening. Sadly, Rauch would instead just not even have an opening for over 5 years.
    • BTG: - Shelley Curtis first listed as Director on May 19   Another FOJulie director. 
    • It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a good soap cat fight so this was highly satisfying. Loved the Drew/Curtis scenes. Drew may not end up murdered but someone is going to try and kill him and it feels like it’s going to be much sooner than later. Who thought Dante ranting and raving for weeks on end would be good writing just to create angst between him and Gio. I really don’t think you needed to make Dante this fuc.king annoying.
    • I get what you're saying, in that this is what allows you to accept what you are watching, and that works for you. But for me, changing the traits of a character that much with a recast and new writing, then they are no longer the same character.  I am unable to accept that a villain is now just a nice dude because the show wants me to, I just cannot.  If they want a grey character, then they should write off the villain and *create* a new character who is grey.  I'll never accept that Sonny Corinthos is a nice guy, despite what GH wants me to think.  Same goes for the villains on DAYS. It's frustrating for me, and not enjoyable.  It occurs to me that I watch soaps to be entertained, and the current show is just making me angry and irritated. It's not fun for me.  I want to honor Drake to see John's story conclude, but there isn't much of interest to me anymore at all, so I'll probably stop following the show in a few weeks.
    • The wikipedia article doesn't explain much. I watched the Party of Five reboot, it was on Freeform in 2020.  It was five years ago, but I'll tell you what I remember: In the original Party of Five series , the parents died, and the five sibling orphans worked together to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility. In the 2020 reboot: The family were Mexican, the parents were undocumented, and the oldest child is an adult who could stay in the US for DACA.  In the reboot, instead of the parents dying -- in the first episode the parents were arrested by ICE and sent back to Mexico.   The five children were left in the U.S. to raise themselves with the older ones looking out for the younger, while managing the family restaurant.  The oldest child wants to have fun but ends up assuming the responsibility.  The teens go through teen stuff and the older ones explore careers.  The child daughter feels sad without her parents, and there is also a baby.  But the children were able to have periodic phonecalls with their parents in Mexico, which were very emotional.  The children hire an attorney to try to get their parents returned to the U.S.  The dad phones them to check on the management of the restaurant.  The younger children crave talking to the mom on the phone. The viewers also see how the parents are coping with the strain in Mexico:  the mom works as a nanny and the dad gets odd jobs-- they almost divorce, and the mom wants to stay in Mexico.  I think a few of the children got to take the bus to Mexico to visit their parents. The youngest child was a baby and the next-youngest missed the parents very much.  In the season one finale, it was decided that the youngest two would remain Mexico and live with their parents.  The older children remained in the USA and were following their dreams.  Season One finished airing just as the COVID epidemic began and everything shut down. The show was not renewed for Season Two.   That's all I remember.  It was good but very different from the original. Edit to add: Amazing how the world has changed in five years.  The reboot was filmed in 2019 during the first Tr*mp presidency, and aired in 2020.  The immigration situation was tense then, and that was explored in the series.  But it seems carefree in comparison to the real world today in 2025. Edit to add more thoughts.  I have no idea what would have happened in future seasons, since the five siblings were no longer a "party of five" at the end of Season One.   Supposedly the cancellation wasn't even announced until after the Season One finale aired.  But the season one finale was 90 minutes and wrapped up some lose ends, so maybe the producers anticipated a cancellation, and did that just in case? Perhaps if it there had been future seasons, the younger children would age and then return to the USA and the five would reunite? I don't know.
    • Probably not. Then again, if any character defined the final 25 years of GL it was Reva.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      The roles of Martin and Kat will now be played by Andre and Eva
    • Nope, we had taste, even in the 90s, and the richest family in town throwing a wedding at an amusement park was never cool. But, isn't funny that they're all back in Florida, but nobody mentions this is where Reva went nuts and drove off a bridge.  It seems like it might trigger some memories.
    • My rationalization (for whatever its worth) is that I'll give a pass to a character who has both been recast and is now written by a different staff (again, I'm under the assumptive that we all know right from wrong). One doubts the current writers want EJ to be a rapist, Julie to be prejudice, Philip to have one leg, or Xander to be a kidnapper.  But, that's what they inherited.  These are characters that resonate with the demo.  And, by soap justice standards, all evildoers receive justice, but doesn't always mean jail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy