View Full Version : We're close to having a third party in the debates
georgia_tech_swagger
07-08-2008, 01:06 AM
In the first comprehensive general election poll (a sample of over 46,000 likely voters by Zogby), Bob Barr is now at six percent nationally.
What does this mean?
Before he's even raised his first million or obtained even a smidgen of media comparable to Obama or McCain, Bob Barr is already polling at six percent. David Beiler, a political analyst who worked with Ross Perot during his '92 and '96 campaigns is a current analyst for the Barr campaign. When he saw the poll, David's immediate reaction was, "WOW! This is fantastic!" David was there in 1992 when Ross Perot, then polling at seven percent nationally, was included in the debates with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
Two words came to my mind immediately: four points.
Four percentage points are all that is needed to get Bob Barr into the Google/YouTube presidential debate that is scheduled for September 18th.
According to the debate rules Barr needs to break ten percent in at least three polls before the debate starts in New Orleans.
phatlip12
07-08-2008, 01:18 AM
What does this mean?
Nothing. He wont win.
:P
georgia_tech_swagger
07-08-2008, 01:51 AM
I consider getting:
- Barr into the debates
- Federal Funds for the LP
- Automatic ballot access in some areas for the LP
- Reaching people who have written off the two parties or who always push the lever for somebody they hate only somewhat less
- Bullying the Republicans by showing how neoconservative (fiscally liberal, socially conservative) they have become
To be FAR more productive than anything that will come out of an Obama or McCain administration.
Vive la R[evol]ution!
It sounds like great news to me. He won't win, but I'm someone who thinks that letting more people speak their piece in the debates is always a positive. My hope is that Barr will attract enough Republican support to pull the party back from the dangerous precipice that neo-conservatism has lead it and the country towards. I'm a liberal, but at the same time the discourse needs prominent voices who are in favor of small government and right now we lack that.
tokenuser
07-08-2008, 12:06 PM
In the first comprehensive general election poll (a sample of over 46,000 likely voters by Zogby), Bob Barr is now at six percent nationally.
What does this mean?
<snip>
According to the debate rules Barr needs to break ten percent in at least three polls before the debate starts in New Orleans.Good luck with that. 6%? Thats not a result ... its a statistical anomoly.
bigshotprof
07-08-2008, 02:02 PM
It's the "Colbert Bump." I personally hope he makes some noise. He will be the Republican Ralph Nader and bleed almost all of his support from McCain.
Oh, and since GTU swaggers is a definite engineering school throwdown, I am changing my avatar.
Good luck with that. 6%? Thats not a result ... its a statistical anomoly.
Normally I'd agree, but given that McCain is still struggling to shore up his base I think it may be plausible.
georgia_tech_swagger
07-09-2008, 04:24 AM
Oh, and since GTU swaggers is a definite engineering school throwdown, I am changing my avatar.
Bringing the heat! :cool: We don't need no stinkin' liberal arts!
guytheninja
07-09-2008, 05:00 AM
Normally I'd agree, but given that McCain is still struggling to shore up his base I think it may be plausible.
Thats because the Republican party is pretty much handing the presidential victory to Obama. McCain is not a conservative; there really is not a small-government conservative in this race..
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Barr's success is because he's a classic conservative as opposed to the neo-conservative that McCain has fashioned himself into.
kirk89
07-09-2008, 04:02 PM
no matter who wins, we lose.
no matter who wins, we lose.
funny how it works out that way isn't it (not ha ha funny)
are we not very good at this democracy thing or is it a conspiracy
is it us or is it them
bigshotprof
07-09-2008, 04:40 PM
Thats because the Republican party is pretty much handing the presidential victory to Obama. McCain is not a conservative; there really is not a small-government conservative in this race..
Would that be small government conservatives like Reagan and Bush? Just checking.
gimpbully
07-09-2008, 04:41 PM
If we were a democracy, you'd be voting far more often.
funny how it works out that way isn't it (not ha ha funny)
are we not very good at this democracy thing or is it a conspiracy
is it us or is it them
bigshotprof
07-09-2008, 04:44 PM
funny how it works out that way isn't it (not ha ha funny)
are we not very good at this democracy thing or is it a conspiracy
is it us or is it them
It seems as though we are an organic democracy, or as I like to call it "Chaos Communitarians." We seem to find generally informal ways to take care of "us and ours" with the government when it works and in spite of it when it doesn't. It ain't pretty, but all told since the Civil War we've been a pretty stable society.
georgia_tech_swagger
07-09-2008, 11:36 PM
FISA Ammendments passed today with supermajority votes.
Not a single Republican voted against it. Halfish of the Democrats didn't vote against it.
And Obama supported the FISA ammendments. There's your real change folks. *rolleyes*
RIP US Constitution. September 17, 1787 - July 9th, 2008
I take solace in knowing that a large chunk of Europe have taken big government to the extremes and are starting to run back in the opposite direction know. It's sad when France could quickly become more fiscally conservative, more respectful of civil liberties, and have a smaller gov't size.
FISA Ammendments passed today with supermajority votes.
And Obama supported the FISA ammendments. There's your real change folks. *rolleyes*
RIP US Constitution. September 17, 1787 - July 9th, 2008
I take solstice in knowing that a large chunk of Europe have taken big government to the extremes and are starting to run back in the opposite direction know. It's sad when France could quickly become more fiscally conservative, more respectful of civil liberties, and have a smaller gov't size.
i think you mean solace
and btw the 'monster with the fat thighs in the pantsuit' stood her ground and voted against it
georgia_tech_swagger
07-10-2008, 01:32 AM
i think you mean solace
and btw the 'monster with the fat thighs in the pantsuit' stood her ground and voted against it
Did indeed. Edited ftw. Been watching Top Gear Season 11 this afternoon and have cars and petrol on the brain. :D
no matter who wins, we lose.
Obama will probably be more receptive to pressure from groups like the ACLU and possibly the EFF which could lead to him doing what he should know the Constitution mandates.
FISA Ammendments passed today with supermajority votes.
Not a single Republican voted against it. Halfish of the Democrats didn't vote against it.
And Obama supported the FISA ammendments. There's your real change folks. *rolleyes*
RIP US Constitution. September 17, 1787 - July 9th, 2008
Yep. One of my Senators did and one didn't, so I know how I'll be voting. Thankfully, Feingold seems like he'll pressure a President Obama to correct this great error if he's elected.
Speaking of Obama, he really ought to know better. I could see some Senators being scared into supporting it but, a Constitutional lawyer really should know better than that. The only justification I can see that might get more of his supporters to shift to his side on this issue is(at least according to John Dean) there's a loophole in the bill which makes it so that the bill will immunize the telecoms to civil lawsuits but not criminal ones. Of course, that still doesn't excuse it because the rule of law and the Constitution should supersede strategy.
Edit: Of course, Senator McCain decided to not show up for the bill which is horrible as well.
kahunablair
07-10-2008, 05:32 PM
Obama gave in to the pressure. We all know that if he voted No to the FISA bill the other side would have painted him as Pro-Terrorists. Sure we would have seen through that, but sadly most americans wouldn't.
I have no doubt if he wasn't in the run for President that he would have voted no. This bill was a pretty big catch 22 for him. Either way he's going to screw up.
Obama gave in to the pressure. We all know that if he voted No to the FISA bill the other side would have painted him as Pro-Terrorists. Sure we would have seen through that, but sadly most americans wouldn't.
I have no doubt if he wasn't in the run for President that he would have voted no. This bill was a pretty big catch 22 for him. Either way he's going to screw up.
i still feel 'collateral damaged'
phatlip12
07-10-2008, 07:43 PM
Obama gave in to the pressure. We all know that if he voted No to the FISA bill the other side would have painted him as Pro-Terrorists. Sure we would have seen through that, but sadly most americans wouldn't.
I have no doubt if he wasn't in the run for President that he would have voted no. This bill was a pretty big catch 22 for him. Either way he's going to screw up.
No, this just proves that he's a liar like every other politician. First him "rethinking Iraq" and now this.
I'm still voting for him but not because I think he's great. It's now unfortunately a lesser of two evils vote. He sure blew his "I'm different from other politicians" innocent image in my eyes.
bigshotprof
07-10-2008, 08:14 PM
No, this just proves that he's a liar like every other politician. First him "rethinking Iraq" and now this.
I'm still voting for him but not because I think he's great. It's now unfortunately a lesser of two evils vote. He sure blew his "I'm different from other politicians" innocent image in my eyes.
Sadly, yes. Just another "brand" gaming the system. This wasn't one of those wedge issues that only have emotional impact and little chance of meaningful implementation like Bill Clinton's cave-in on Gays in the military. This was fundamental. This was Congressional capitulation on broad based American spying on thousands and potentially millions of its own citizens. There is no turning back from this; the box is open. This was no more a "compromise" than the Dred Scott decision. Obama was a coward to vote with the majority.
i told you guys this before but you dissed me
hillary would have been the better choice i knew it then i still think so
not ideal but better
ideal is almost always an illusion
but people 'love' illusions especially we in the usa
i feel like crying i' m so disheartened and disenchanted
i love my contrary we have so much going for us but......
it is not the enemy without that is hurting us but the enemy within
that's how rome died they weren't conquered they imploded
phatlip12
07-10-2008, 08:41 PM
i told you guys this before but you dissed me
hillary would have been the better choice i knew it then i still think so
not ideal but better
ideal is almost always an illusion
but people 'love' illusions especially we in the usa
i feel like crying i' m so disheartened and disenchanted
i love my contrary we have so much going for us but......
it is not the enemy without that is hurting us but the enemy within
that's how rome died they weren't conquered they imploded
Don't blame me, I was routing for Kucinich. ;)
Obama gave in to the pressure. We all know that if he voted No to the FISA bill the other side would have painted him as Pro-Terrorists. Sure we would have seen through that, but sadly most americans wouldn't.
I have no doubt if he wasn't in the run for President that he would have voted no. This bill was a pretty big catch 22 for him. Either way he's going to screw up.
I agree and that's why I do understand his motivation. However, it seems like it may have been better for him to stick to his principals given that voters seem to respond to that even when they disagree with the candidate.
georgia_tech_swagger
07-10-2008, 09:48 PM
Principle should trump all. It should come before party. It should come before self.
Also -- Barr is now polling in double digits in some states.
http://digg.com/politics/Zogby_Barr_polling_in_double_digits_in_some_states
tokenuser
07-10-2008, 09:56 PM
Principle should trump all. It should come before party. It should come before self.
Also -- Barr is now polling in double digits in some states.
http://digg.com/politics/Zogby_Barr_polling_in_double_digits_in_some_states Lets just be clear on this. "Some states" is "one state" (NH). "Most" states are 6% or less (or not even mentioned), but there are a couple of 9%s in there. National average ... he is a blip on the radar .. and little more than an anomoly that will pull voters away from McCain.
Principle should trump all. It should come before party. It should come before self.
agreed
no one sets out to be great
greatness is visited on those whose principles are tested and who do not falter
tokenuser
07-10-2008, 10:05 PM
agreed
no one sets out to be great
greatness is visited on those whose principles are tested and who do not falter
In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.
Next Kennedy?
No, this just proves that he's a liar like every other politician. First him "rethinking Iraq" and now this.
I'm still voting for him but not because I think he's great. It's now unfortunately a lesser of two evils vote. He sure blew his "I'm different from other politicians" innocent image in my eyes.
Refining(which was his wording) his position on Iraq =/= A change in position. He's said from the beginning that he reserved the right to shift aspects based on the situation on the ground. In all likelihood it will simply be a refinement of aspects like the number of brigades a month and or where the remaining troops will be during the withdrawal.
Next Kennedy?
better the next shakespeare :cool:
phatlip12
07-11-2008, 03:24 AM
Refining(which was his wording) his position on Iraq =/= A change in position. He's said from the beginning that he reserved the right to shift aspects based on the situation on the ground. In all likelihood it will simply be a refinement of aspects like the number of brigades a month and or where the remaining troops will be during the withdrawal.
"Reserved the right to shift aspects"? The issue isn't entitlement. He also reserves the right to suddenly decide he wants to drop the whole universal health care deal and even drop out of the race if he chooses. He reserves the right to do whatever he wants.
Thats not the issue though. The issue is he's running for president. He said he would do one thing and now he's doing another. Word it anyway you want but the man ALREADY isn't living up to his promises. It sucks, but it seems it's come down to choosing the lesser of two evils AS IT ALWAYS DOES.
phatlip12
07-11-2008, 04:10 AM
But damn it guys. This country is falling apart. We need another Boston tea party. We need to re-assemble groups like the sons of liberty. I want my country back. Back the way our forefathers intended it to be. Our government is corrupt and its going to remain that way until we get off of our asses, turn off American Idol, put down our new iPods and do something about it. We're in for some rough times and the time to take action is NOW.
*Gets off soapbox*
guytheninja
07-11-2008, 04:14 AM
"Reserved the right to shift aspects"? The issue isn't entitlement. He also reserves the right to suddenly decide he wants to drop the whole universal health care deal and even drop out of the race if he chooses. He reserves the right to do whatever he wants.
Thats not the issue though. The issue is he's running for president. He said he would do one thing and now he's doing another. Word it anyway you want but the man ALREADY isn't living up to his promises. It sucks, but it seems it's come down to choosing the lesser of two evils AS IT ALWAYS DOES.
Lets just vote Homey D Clown in as president... I mean, at least he would smack those liberty-stealing bureaucrats around with a sock full of tennis balls.
Homey: "NSA wiretapping program.... <WHAP> <WHAP> .... I don't think so!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0
"Reserved the right to shift aspects"? The issue isn't entitlement. He also reserves the right to suddenly decide he wants to drop the whole universal health care deal and even drop out of the race if he chooses. He reserves the right to do whatever he wants.
Thats not the issue though. The issue is he's running for president. He said he would do one thing and now he's doing another. Word it anyway you want but the man ALREADY isn't living up to his promises. It sucks, but it seems it's come down to choosing the lesser of two evils AS IT ALWAYS DOES.
Oh, he definitely isn't living up to some of his promises(see: FISA), I just don't know that Iraq is one of them. He has always said he's going to withdraw as carefully as we were careless getting in. This logically leaves some refinement on the table.
But damn it guys. This country is falling apart. We need another Boston tea party. We need to re-assemble groups like the sons of liberty. I want my country back. Back the way our forefathers intended it to be. Our government is corrupt and its going to remain that way until we get off of our asses, turn off American Idol, put down our new iPods and do something about it. We're in for some rough times and the time to take action is NOW.
*Gets off soapbox*
That would be one method, but if a sufficient amount of voters are educated the same can be accomplished without bloodshed. All that we need is for voters to hold their representatives to account by not voting them in if they are furious about what their doing. Democracy only gives us the leaders we deserve.
phatlip12
07-11-2008, 06:31 AM
That would be one method, but if a sufficient amount of voters are educated the same can be accomplished without bloodshed. All that we need is for voters to hold their representatives to account by not voting them in if they are furious about what their doing. Democracy only gives us the leaders we deserve.
There lies the problem. Education. Our countries public education system is a failure. Do you know why so many people don't care about loosing civil liberties? Because such a large percentage of our population DOESN'T EVEN KNOW their rights. Why care if you don't even know what your rights are? You see no loss if you never knew such rights truly existed to begin with.
So many people are completely and utterly oblivious to whats going on. It's really scary to be honest with you.
There lies the problem. Education. Our countries public education system is a failure. Do you know why so many people don't care about loosing civil liberties? Because such a large percentage of our population DOESN'T EVEN KNOW their rights. Why care if you don't even know what your rights are? You see no loss if you never knew such rights truly existed to begin with.
So many people are completely and utterly oblivious to whats going on. It's really scary to be honest with you.
Oh, I agree completely on that and it's definitely scary. We basically lost the 4th amendment yesterday and yet there's been hardly a peep.
There lies the problem. Education. Our countries public education system is a failure. Do you know why so many people don't care about loosing civil liberties? Because such a large percentage of our population DOESN'T EVEN KNOW their rights. Why care if you don't even know what your rights are? You see no loss if you never knew such rights truly existed to begin with.
So many people are completely and utterly oblivious to whats going on. It's really scary to be honest with you.
in 2000 when the supeme court stepped in and gave the presidency to gwb i was shocked
i knew it was wrong
i know someone who worked with the clinton gore white house is very upper middle class and thinks obama is great
he wouldn't even admit that obama was a heavy smoker which obama has openly referred to
even the well educated are into hero worship and want to shine by reflected light
Oh, I agree completely on that and it's definitely scary. We basically lost the 4th amendment yesterday and yet there's been hardly a peep.
i was just watching an old movie on netflix and one of the charcters said 'unless we've lost the fourth amedment you either have to read me my rights or let me go'
they let her go
that was then
that is no longer the case
it makes me very sad like something beautiful has died
It's even more tragic when you think about the fact that many parts of the 4th amendment have been dead since 2001.
It's even more tragic when you think about the fact that many parts of the 4th amendment have been dead since 2001.
tragic
that's the right word
like greek tragedy
we have some fatal flaw
sigh
oh well inner freedom no one can take away from you
and we have the immemse power of the internet
we might could fix some things
i'm writing in hillary
i don't care abot how awful she may or may not be i think she has the most likely ability to actually get something done
she was denied the presidency but she stood her ground in the senate
I'm still going to vote for Obama because his positions on the other issues are better than McCain's and he'll be far more responsive to pressure from groups like the ACLU.
tokenuser
07-11-2008, 09:10 PM
I'm still going to vote for Obama because his positions on the other issues are better than McCain's and he'll be far more responsive to pressure from groups like the ACLU.I'd prefer someone that is more responsive to groups like the ACLU than ones like the MPAA, RIAA, and Pharma and Oil "lobbiests" as well.
I'd prefer someone that is more responsive to groups like the ACLU than ones like the MPAA, RIAA, and Pharma and Oil "lobbiests" as well.
so who do you envision standing up to phrama and oil
mpaa riaa are dying anyway
because new artists like me would never sign one of those contracts with the big 5
so their artist pool will dry up or they'll just get the dregs
they are dead men walking
tokenuser
07-11-2008, 11:50 PM
so who do you envision standing up to phrama and oilWell, it wouldn't be a GOP member. Lobbiests are their life blood.
so who do you envision standing up to phrama and oil
mpaa riaa are dying anyway
because new artists like me would never sign one of those contracts with the big 5
so their artist pool will dry up or they'll just get the dregs
they are dead men walking
Of the plausible candidates, Obama.