If you could go back to the 2008 presidential election, would you ...
April 7, 2010 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the.
Related Video
A Question of Media Objectivity in Election 2008 | Hotsohbet.Net
The campaign of Republican John McCain has just released two web videos which highlight what the campaign feels is a national media bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. It is asking people to vote ...
Election November Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity
Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity. Since I am an advocate for diversity and equality everywhere, the USA presidential election had huge implications for our country and the rest of the world. I love this country today. ...
2008 Market Crash Should be Investigated | RedState
Almost two years after the mortgage crisis and stock market crash, no one seems to wonder about the “September surprise” that shifted the 2008 presidential election to an unknown leftist politician who had been elected to the Senate ...
Barack Obama – the Next U. S. President | Its My Forum
The 2008 presidential election is the first time in the U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for the presidency of the United States, and more importantly, it is also the first time an African American has ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE: Pimped Ad | Minnesota Financial ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE United States presidential election, 2008 The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled for Tuesday November 4, 2008, will be the 56th consecutive quadrennial United States presidential ...
UK General Election "Least Well-Kept Secret of Recent Years ...
But Kate Kaye of ClickZ News and I will be focused on how the digital strategies and tactics popularized by the 2008 U.S. presidential election will translate to the 2010 election in Britain. Will Internet marketing have an impact in ...
The White Picket Fence: The 2008 Election as an expensive morality ...
The 2008 US Presidential Election was a fairly straight-forward contest. The Democrat nominee was always likely to win, bar some sort of major stuff-up. Any remaining chance of a Republican upset faded with the tanking of the US economy ...
Population and voting trends: 2004 and 2008 Presidential election ...
I'll present the results in a three-part series, starting today with a comparison of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election. Basically, I took the county by county canvass report for the two elections from the Secretary of State ...
Research Paper Ideas for my History 102 class?
Is there a lot of political activism and focus on the heated exchanges between those seeking to replace the Republican status quo? Here's how MSNBC covered the recent rally at Mesa High School -- Their rally at Dobson was McCain's and Palin's second public appearance together since their concession speech in the 2008 presidential election. It was Palin's first Arizona appearance since signing her book at Costco in Tempe on Dec. 1. Following similar talking points they used during a rally in Tucson on Friday, the duo expressed disdain for the healthcare reform bill as they led the crowd in a chant, "Repeal and Replace." Palin began her speech by asking the crowd, '"Arizona, do you love your Freedom?" "We've come a long way since the 2008 election," Palin said. "When we add up all the votes, this guy is going to win this time. Arizonans, please, for the sake of our country and for your good state, send him back to the United States Senate." About five minutes into her speech, Palin, who was telling the crowd that McCain is a man of honor and his word, was interrupted by 19-year-old Chandler resident Ethan Elder, who stood up and screamed, "Neo-con" (neo-conservative) at McCain. Elder also shouted that McCain had sold out to big business and corporations. --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the information about the changing environment and view of how the current blend of politics and debate are going 10 points for best analysis / interpretation
Mesa, Arizona: what is area like?
University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 Time Warner $590,084 Sidley Austin LLP $588,598 Stanford University $586,557 National Amusements Inc $551,683 UBS AG $543,219 Wilmerhale Llp $542,618 Skadden, Arps et al $530,839 IBM Corp $528,822 Columbia University $528,302 Morgan Stanley $514,881 General Electric $499,130 US Government $494,820 Latham & Watkins $493,835 This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Which donors to Barack Obama's campaign have made the most off of their investments so far?
Remember that the American people elected Democrats perceived as centrists in 1976 (Jimmy Carter), 1992 and 1996 (Bill Clinton), and 2008 (Barack Obama). In each case, they moved to the left after winning the election, bringing about a backlash from the American people (Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, HillaryCare led to the Republican landslide of 1994, and Obama's arrogance is going to lead to the Republican landslide of 2010). In all these cases, the Democrat ran against a moderate Republican (Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain). When was the last time a Democrat was elected president running as a liberal. The Democrats have run candidates perceived as liberal in 1972 (George McGovern, lost to an unpopular Republican incumbent in a landslide), 1984 (Walter Mondale), 1988 (Michael Dukakis), and 2004 (John Kerry). In 2000, the Democrats ran a candidate perceived as moderate (Al Gore) and he lost to a Republican perceived as conservative (George W Bush). If I remember right, the last time a liberal Democrat was elected president was 1964 when liberal Lyndon Johnson defeated conservative Barry Goldwater. Since then, Republican nominees perceived as conservative have never lost a presidential election. Polling for decades has consistently shown the American people self describing themselves as 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. Considering these historical facts, shouldn't Democrats think twice about running too far to the left and shouldn't Republicans think twice about running moderate presidential candidates? Why does it seem that many of the pundits in the media are in denial about these fact that we are fundamentally a center-right country?
When was the last time the American people voted for a liberal Democrat for president?
In what way was the presidential election of 2008 a departure from previous presidential elections?
Have you people ever noticed that Times of India (ToI) never publishes editorials/news articles which criticize US/UK and their policies? (For example in today's editorial they instead of criticizing the US for not extraditing Headley is saying US need not to extradite him and he must be tried in US first. This is their loyalty toward the nation which made this the no. 1 English newspaper in the world. Poor and fool Indians. I feel really pity for you people that you people read without applying your non-existent brains such newspapers for whom interests of US and UK come first. Similarly they published US presidential elections 2008 covering each and every event as if the elections are being held in India. I agree that who is becoming US's president is of negligible importance to other countries but is it that important that where Obama or Clinton are going to deliver speech must be published with every detail. Similarly they run the Dubyaman series for as long as Bush was in the office.) Second thing is while on all other Indian news channels (in any language) many female news readers wear Indian attire too like a sari or salwar kameez even if its once in a while but I've never seen any Time Now news reader wearing Indian attire. Why? Are they ashamed of it? Now some may argue that its English news channel. Then does it mean that if you are an English channel so you must refrain from doing anything Indian? Third thing is do they get money from US and UK to promote the Anglo-American culture in India and hold it in high esteem? Why don't Indian people ever notice these things? If you people had paid attention you would have noticed the day when 2016 Olympics were awarded to its rightful candidate the Rio city, a Times Now newsreader said Rio de Janerio will have to host the Olympics in a grand way because Rio 2016 will be compared with London 2012 (as if Rio can;t host these games in grand way). But they never say London 2012 will be compared with Beijing 2008. Why? Have these inferior newsreaders presumed that anything hosted in USA and UK is of divine order and no other country can ever match upto their standards? Think Indians think. Being an English news channel doesn't mean that you have to refrain from Indian culture. Also the Indian govt. must look into the matter that from where this Bennet and Coleman company newspaper is getting funds because they seem to back USA and UK all the time. In short I want to say that TOi and Times now tend to behave like Anglo-American news channel rather than an Indian one. So please think. Think Indians think on these issues and if we want to become a serious major power we people must throw out such boot licking newspapers from India. And if such questions don't arise in your minds then at least think on them as soon as I post them on Yahoo Q&A. By the way how many of you think that London 2012 will be as grand as Beijing 2008?
Question for Indians and very serious one (news channel+politics) - Have you people ever noticed?
How does the winner take all system in American elections help define the American political system. I wrote this out, tell me if this makes sense to you, you can change wording for me, proofread everything, would be very helpful. The “winner-take-all system in other words means plurality voting. The one person with the most votes, all the other candidates that are running for office lose. All the people who voted throughout the election voted for this one person. On the other hand, the way this defines this American political system can be broke down in many different ways, The Electoral College is usually goes by the “winner take all” system because if the individual who gets the majority of the electoral votes gets everything (the position for which they are running for in the government) and the person who did not get a majority get's absolutely nothing and goes home. For example, the loser may have 49% of the vote, but he still goes home with nothing; State law in all the presidential elections state that electorates must vote as the popular vote did. So if McCain in the 2008 presidential election got 58% of Texas all 34 electorates must vote for McCain. The reason that someone can win majority of the electoral college but not the popular vote is simple, because of the “winner-take-all” system the candidate who lost the race may have won a high percentage of the popular vote in the states that voted for them while the winner didn't get a high (though still more then 50) percentage of the popular vote in his winning states.
Winner take all system?
During the 2008 United States Presidential Election, many young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 voted for Barack Obama because they saw him as a young Presidential candidate who would bring great changes to our nation. During the one years that Obama has been President, the unemployment rate has reached double digits, he has spent more money than all the 43 Presidents combined, he is shoving health care reform in our face when we tell him we are against it and he just Lives In Everyday Sin instead of being honest and truthful. What kind of advice do you give to young adults who voted for Barack Obama and do you believe they made the right choice for voting for him? As a young adult who is 28 (and 26 on Election Day 2008), my advice to young adults is "I hope your happy for voting a inexperience leader who is turing our nation into Europe and is making your children and future children pay for the mess he and the Democratic Party created. I hope you learned your lesson and stop voting for Democrats in 2010 since Democrats would rather Live In Everyday Sin and not speak the truth to you."
What kind of advice would you give to a young voter who voted for Obama in 2008?
What determined the outcome for the 2008 presidential election?
I would say that the political aids determined the 2008 presidential election. Hillary Clinton was held back by her people, Republicans often seem to have some hiccups in that regard, and Obama's political aids are some of the best the Democrats have to offer. (i.e. David Axlerod) How much of a high profile election is won by the political aids and/or intelligent/prepared grassroots voters/supporters? Would it be too bold to say that 99% of an election is won in the trenches?I stumped Y!A? Wow.
How often are high profile elections won by political aids rather than politicians themselves?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-perspec-0314-lahood-20100314,0,3364029.story I've been a Republican all my life, when I served in the Illinois legislature, when I worked for members of Congress and when I served in Congress. During the 2008 presidential election, I supported Republican Sen. John McCain. I have always been — and still am — a fiscal conservative, an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government. For those reasons and others, most people wouldn't expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now. If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do. We do not need to look that far down the road to see the pain that failure to pass health care reform will cause. Americans of every background, class, race and political persuasion are suffering. We have the best health care system in the world, yet more than 40 million Americans lack access to it, a reality that is morally reprehensible. Health care is an essential, as important as food, water and shelter. Those who don't have it are left without the tools to survive. In the coming days, Congress has a chance to change that. The bill that will be voted on will reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. It will slow the rate of growth in health care costs and put America back on the path toward fiscal sustainability. The bill will give families and small business owners greater control over their own health care. It will expand coverage to more than 31 million Americans and will include tax credits to individuals, families and small businesses, giving them the same choices that members of Congress have to purchase private coverage. It will create state-based exchanges that will bring competition and transparency to insurance markets. And it will put in place common-sense rules of the road to hold insurance companies accountable and end some of the most outrageous practices of the insurance industry. Never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Never again will insurance companies be able to raise rates unfairly — like the 60 percent hikes expected in Illinois. While the ultimate vote on health care may not be bipartisan, the ultimate bill certainly is. There are several Republican ideas in the bill. It allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. It increases the bargaining power of small businesses by allowing them to pool together — much like large corporations or labor unions — to bargain for a better insurance rate. It gives states the flexibility to come up with an alternate health care plan, and it gives them resources to reform our tort system by developing new ways to deal with medical malpractice. I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I'm comfortable supporting this bill. There isn't one member of Congress who represents a district that is without a health care crisis. There are good, hardworking men and women in every part of this country who work for a living, but not at a business that offers the opportunity to purchase health insurance. On their own, the cost of insurance is just plain out of reach. During my time in Congress, I was known for reaching across the aisle. I did it not for the sake of bipartisanship alone, but in order to get important things done. Now, my former colleagues have the opportunity to change the lives of their friends and neighbors for the better by voting for health care reform.
A Question of Media Objectivity in Election 2008 | Hotsohbet.Net
The campaign of Republican John McCain has just released two web videos which highlight what the campaign feels is a national media bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. It is asking people to vote ...
Election November Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity
Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity. Since I am an advocate for diversity and equality everywhere, the USA presidential election had huge implications for our country and the rest of the world. I love this country today. ...
Explore Howard: Prosecutor's office hasn't pursued cases of dual ...
Nikki Trella, election reform director for the Maryland Board of Elections, said voters who cast ballots more than once were discovered in March 2009 during a routine audit of the 2008 presidential election. ...
Barack Obama – the Next U. S. President | Its My Forum
The 2008 presidential election is the first time in the U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for the presidency of the United States, and more importantly, it is also the first time an African American has ...
UK General Election "Least Well-Kept Secret of Recent Years ...
But Kate Kaye of ClickZ News and I will be focused on how the digital strategies and tactics popularized by the 2008 U.S. presidential election will translate to the 2010 election in Britain. Will Internet marketing have an impact in ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE: Pimped Ad | Minnesota Financial ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE United States presidential election, 2008 The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled for Tuesday November 4, 2008, will be the 56th consecutive quadrennial United States presidential ...
2008 Market Crash Should be Investigated | RedState
Almost two years after the mortgage crisis and stock market crash, no one seems to wonder about the “September surprise” that shifted the 2008 presidential election to an unknown leftist politician who had been elected to the Senate ...
Population and voting trends: 2004 and 2008 Presidential election ...
I'll present the results in a three-part series, starting today with a comparison of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election. Basically, I took the county by county canvass report for the two elections from the Secretary of State ...
Research Paper Ideas for my History 102 class?
Is there a lot of political activism and focus on the heated exchanges between those seeking to replace the Republican status quo? Here's how MSNBC covered the recent rally at Mesa High School -- Their rally at Dobson was McCain's and Palin's second public appearance together since their concession speech in the 2008 presidential election. It was Palin's first Arizona appearance since signing her book at Costco in Tempe on Dec. 1. Following similar talking points they used during a rally in Tucson on Friday, the duo expressed disdain for the healthcare reform bill as they led the crowd in a chant, "Repeal and Replace." Palin began her speech by asking the crowd, '"Arizona, do you love your Freedom?" "We've come a long way since the 2008 election," Palin said. "When we add up all the votes, this guy is going to win this time. Arizonans, please, for the sake of our country and for your good state, send him back to the United States Senate." About five minutes into her speech, Palin, who was telling the crowd that McCain is a man of honor and his word, was interrupted by 19-year-old Chandler resident Ethan Elder, who stood up and screamed, "Neo-con" (neo-conservative) at McCain. Elder also shouted that McCain had sold out to big business and corporations. --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the information about the changing environment and view of how the current blend of politics and debate are going 10 points for best analysis / interpretation
Mesa, Arizona: what is area like?
University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 Time Warner $590,084 Sidley Austin LLP $588,598 Stanford University $586,557 National Amusements Inc $551,683 UBS AG $543,219 Wilmerhale Llp $542,618 Skadden, Arps et al $530,839 IBM Corp $528,822 Columbia University $528,302 Morgan Stanley $514,881 General Electric $499,130 US Government $494,820 Latham & Watkins $493,835 This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Which donors to Barack Obama's campaign have made the most off of their investments so far?
Remember that the American people elected Democrats perceived as centrists in 1976 (Jimmy Carter), 1992 and 1996 (Bill Clinton), and 2008 (Barack Obama). In each case, they moved to the left after winning the election, bringing about a backlash from the American people (Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, HillaryCare led to the Republican landslide of 1994, and Obama's arrogance is going to lead to the Republican landslide of 2010). In all these cases, the Democrat ran against a moderate Republican (Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain). When was the last time a Democrat was elected president running as a liberal. The Democrats have run candidates perceived as liberal in 1972 (George McGovern, lost to an unpopular Republican incumbent in a landslide), 1984 (Walter Mondale), 1988 (Michael Dukakis), and 2004 (John Kerry). In 2000, the Democrats ran a candidate perceived as moderate (Al Gore) and he lost to a Republican perceived as conservative (George W Bush). If I remember right, the last time a liberal Democrat was elected president was 1964 when liberal Lyndon Johnson defeated conservative Barry Goldwater. Since then, Republican nominees perceived as conservative have never lost a presidential election. Polling for decades has consistently shown the American people self describing themselves as 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. Considering these historical facts, shouldn't Democrats think twice about running too far to the left and shouldn't Republicans think twice about running moderate presidential candidates? Why does it seem that many of the pundits in the media are in denial about these fact that we are fundamentally a center-right country?
When was the last time the American people voted for a liberal Democrat for president?
In what way was the presidential election of 2008 a departure from previous presidential elections?
Have you people ever noticed that Times of India (ToI) never publishes editorials/news articles which criticize US/UK and their policies? (For example in today's editorial they instead of criticizing the US for not extraditing Headley is saying US need not to extradite him and he must be tried in US first. This is their loyalty toward the nation which made this the no. 1 English newspaper in the world. Poor and fool Indians. I feel really pity for you people that you people read without applying your non-existent brains such newspapers for whom interests of US and UK come first. Similarly they published US presidential elections 2008 covering each and every event as if the elections are being held in India. I agree that who is becoming US's president is of negligible importance to other countries but is it that important that where Obama or Clinton are going to deliver speech must be published with every detail. Similarly they run the Dubyaman series for as long as Bush was in the office.) Second thing is while on all other Indian news channels (in any language) many female news readers wear Indian attire too like a sari or salwar kameez even if its once in a while but I've never seen any Time Now news reader wearing Indian attire. Why? Are they ashamed of it? Now some may argue that its English news channel. Then does it mean that if you are an English channel so you must refrain from doing anything Indian? Third thing is do they get money from US and UK to promote the Anglo-American culture in India and hold it in high esteem? Why don't Indian people ever notice these things? If you people had paid attention you would have noticed the day when 2016 Olympics were awarded to its rightful candidate the Rio city, a Times Now newsreader said Rio de Janerio will have to host the Olympics in a grand way because Rio 2016 will be compared with London 2012 (as if Rio can;t host these games in grand way). But they never say London 2012 will be compared with Beijing 2008. Why? Have these inferior newsreaders presumed that anything hosted in USA and UK is of divine order and no other country can ever match upto their standards? Think Indians think. Being an English news channel doesn't mean that you have to refrain from Indian culture. Also the Indian govt. must look into the matter that from where this Bennet and Coleman company newspaper is getting funds because they seem to back USA and UK all the time. In short I want to say that TOi and Times now tend to behave like Anglo-American news channel rather than an Indian one. So please think. Think Indians think on these issues and if we want to become a serious major power we people must throw out such boot licking newspapers from India. And if such questions don't arise in your minds then at least think on them as soon as I post them on Yahoo Q&A. By the way how many of you think that London 2012 will be as grand as Beijing 2008?
Question for Indians and very serious one (news channel+politics) - Have you people ever noticed?
How does the winner take all system in American elections help define the American political system. I wrote this out, tell me if this makes sense to you, you can change wording for me, proofread everything, would be very helpful. The “winner-take-all system in other words means plurality voting. The one person with the most votes, all the other candidates that are running for office lose. All the people who voted throughout the election voted for this one person. On the other hand, the way this defines this American political system can be broke down in many different ways, The Electoral College is usually goes by the “winner take all” system because if the individual who gets the majority of the electoral votes gets everything (the position for which they are running for in the government) and the person who did not get a majority get's absolutely nothing and goes home. For example, the loser may have 49% of the vote, but he still goes home with nothing; State law in all the presidential elections state that electorates must vote as the popular vote did. So if McCain in the 2008 presidential election got 58% of Texas all 34 electorates must vote for McCain. The reason that someone can win majority of the electoral college but not the popular vote is simple, because of the “winner-take-all” system the candidate who lost the race may have won a high percentage of the popular vote in the states that voted for them while the winner didn't get a high (though still more then 50) percentage of the popular vote in his winning states.
Winner take all system?
During the 2008 United States Presidential Election, many young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 voted for Barack Obama because they saw him as a young Presidential candidate who would bring great changes to our nation. During the one years that Obama has been President, the unemployment rate has reached double digits, he has spent more money than all the 43 Presidents combined, he is shoving health care reform in our face when we tell him we are against it and he just Lives In Everyday Sin instead of being honest and truthful. What kind of advice do you give to young adults who voted for Barack Obama and do you believe they made the right choice for voting for him? As a young adult who is 28 (and 26 on Election Day 2008), my advice to young adults is "I hope your happy for voting a inexperience leader who is turing our nation into Europe and is making your children and future children pay for the mess he and the Democratic Party created. I hope you learned your lesson and stop voting for Democrats in 2010 since Democrats would rather Live In Everyday Sin and not speak the truth to you."
What kind of advice would you give to a young voter who voted for Obama in 2008?
What determined the outcome for the 2008 presidential election?
I would say that the political aids determined the 2008 presidential election. Hillary Clinton was held back by her people, Republicans often seem to have some hiccups in that regard, and Obama's political aids are some of the best the Democrats have to offer. (i.e. David Axlerod) How much of a high profile election is won by the political aids and/or intelligent/prepared grassroots voters/supporters? Would it be too bold to say that 99% of an election is won in the trenches?I stumped Y!A? Wow.
How often are high profile elections won by political aids rather than politicians themselves?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-perspec-0314-lahood-20100314,0,3364029.story I've been a Republican all my life, when I served in the Illinois legislature, when I worked for members of Congress and when I served in Congress. During the 2008 presidential election, I supported Republican Sen. John McCain. I have always been — and still am — a fiscal conservative, an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government. For those reasons and others, most people wouldn't expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now. If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do. We do not need to look that far down the road to see the pain that failure to pass health care reform will cause. Americans of every background, class, race and political persuasion are suffering. We have the best health care system in the world, yet more than 40 million Americans lack access to it, a reality that is morally reprehensible. Health care is an essential, as important as food, water and shelter. Those who don't have it are left without the tools to survive. In the coming days, Congress has a chance to change that. The bill that will be voted on will reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. It will slow the rate of growth in health care costs and put America back on the path toward fiscal sustainability. The bill will give families and small business owners greater control over their own health care. It will expand coverage to more than 31 million Americans and will include tax credits to individuals, families and small businesses, giving them the same choices that members of Congress have to purchase private coverage. It will create state-based exchanges that will bring competition and transparency to insurance markets. And it will put in place common-sense rules of the road to hold insurance companies accountable and end some of the most outrageous practices of the insurance industry. Never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. Never again will insurance companies be able to raise rates unfairly — like the 60 percent hikes expected in Illinois. While the ultimate vote on health care may not be bipartisan, the ultimate bill certainly is. There are several Republican ideas in the bill. It allows Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. It increases the bargaining power of small businesses by allowing them to pool together — much like large corporations or labor unions — to bargain for a better insurance rate. It gives states the flexibility to come up with an alternate health care plan, and it gives them resources to reform our tort system by developing new ways to deal with medical malpractice. I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I'm comfortable supporting this bill. There isn't one member of Congress who represents a district that is without a health care crisis. There are good, hardworking men and women in every part of this country who work for a living, but not at a business that offers the opportunity to purchase health insurance. On their own, the cost of insurance is just plain out of reach. During my time in Congress, I was known for reaching across the aisle. I did it not for the sake of bipartisanship alone, but in order to get important things done. Now, my former colleagues have the opportunity to change the lives of their friends and neighbors for the better by voting for health care reform.
A Question of Media Objectivity in Election 2008 | Hotsohbet.Net
The campaign of Republican John McCain has just released two web videos which highlight what the campaign feels is a national media bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. It is asking people to vote ...
Election November Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity
Election Day 2008: A Time For Diversity. Since I am an advocate for diversity and equality everywhere, the USA presidential election had huge implications for our country and the rest of the world. I love this country today. ...
Explore Howard: Prosecutor's office hasn't pursued cases of dual ...
Nikki Trella, election reform director for the Maryland Board of Elections, said voters who cast ballots more than once were discovered in March 2009 during a routine audit of the 2008 presidential election. ...
Barack Obama – the Next U. S. President | Its My Forum
The 2008 presidential election is the first time in the U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for the presidency of the United States, and more importantly, it is also the first time an African American has ...
UK General Election "Least Well-Kept Secret of Recent Years ...
But Kate Kaye of ClickZ News and I will be focused on how the digital strategies and tactics popularized by the 2008 U.S. presidential election will translate to the 2010 election in Britain. Will Internet marketing have an impact in ...
2008 Market Crash Should be Investigated | RedState
Almost two years after the mortgage crisis and stock market crash, no one seems to wonder about the “September surprise” that shifted the 2008 presidential election to an unknown leftist politician who had been elected to the Senate ...
Population and voting trends: 2004 and 2008 Presidential election ...
I'll present the results in a three-part series, starting today with a comparison of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election. Basically, I took the county by county canvass report for the two elections from the Secretary of State ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE: Pimped Ad | Minnesota Financial ...
ELECTION 2008 – VOTE FOR CHANGE United States presidential election, 2008 The United States presidential election of 2008, scheduled for Tuesday November 4, 2008, will be the 56th consecutive quadrennial United States presidential ...
Are the tea partiers full of "dangerous ideas"?
I think it is about THIS: In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama's election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry's kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president's address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot. If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from. They can't. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded. If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that's their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that's their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can't emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can't pretend that we're talking about “isolated incidents” or a “fringe” utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin's “reload” rhetoric. Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that's the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?scp=2&sq=Frank%20Rich&st=cse What do you think?To Les: I want to post an excerpt from your response: "Right wing politicians who use sound judgment and compromise are considered too liberal and labeled as RINOs for working with their fellow politicians. Any form of pragmatism or compromise is considered an affront to the right wing ideology and is the subject for violent action." That thud I just heard was you hitting the nail on the head. Thanks.
If this "outrage" is not about the Healthcare Bill - what is it about?
I have to do a short 2-3 page history research paper. It has to be on something that is important to history and why. It has to be something that has happened from 1877 to present day. That does give me a lot of options but I just don't know what to do. I was thinking about the Women's Suffrage but it looks like that started BEFORE 1877 so I changed my topic to The 2008 Presidential Election. I think I might go with that but I would like a few more ideas before committing to that. Any ideas would be appreciated!Wow radar. I never even thought about that as something in history. Good one. And yes, simple is how I am trying to keep it. It's only 2-3 pages so I dont want toooo much detail but not too little either. Thanks.
Research Paper Ideas for my History 102 class?
Is there a lot of political activism and focus on the heated exchanges between those seeking to replace the Republican status quo? Here's how MSNBC covered the recent rally at Mesa High School -- Their rally at Dobson was McCain's and Palin's second public appearance together since their concession speech in the 2008 presidential election. It was Palin's first Arizona appearance since signing her book at Costco in Tempe on Dec. 1. Following similar talking points they used during a rally in Tucson on Friday, the duo expressed disdain for the healthcare reform bill as they led the crowd in a chant, "Repeal and Replace." Palin began her speech by asking the crowd, '"Arizona, do you love your Freedom?" "We've come a long way since the 2008 election," Palin said. "When we add up all the votes, this guy is going to win this time. Arizonans, please, for the sake of our country and for your good state, send him back to the United States Senate." About five minutes into her speech, Palin, who was telling the crowd that McCain is a man of honor and his word, was interrupted by 19-year-old Chandler resident Ethan Elder, who stood up and screamed, "Neo-con" (neo-conservative) at McCain. Elder also shouted that McCain had sold out to big business and corporations. --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the information about the changing environment and view of how the current blend of politics and debate are going 10 points for best analysis / interpretation
Mesa, Arizona: what is area like?
University of California $1,591,395 Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Microsoft Corp $833,617 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 Time Warner $590,084 Sidley Austin LLP $588,598 Stanford University $586,557 National Amusements Inc $551,683 UBS AG $543,219 Wilmerhale Llp $542,618 Skadden, Arps et al $530,839 IBM Corp $528,822 Columbia University $528,302 Morgan Stanley $514,881 General Electric $499,130 US Government $494,820 Latham & Watkins $493,835 This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Which donors to Barack Obama's campaign have made the most off of their investments so far?
Remember that the American people elected Democrats perceived as centrists in 1976 (Jimmy Carter), 1992 and 1996 (Bill Clinton), and 2008 (Barack Obama). In each case, they moved to the left after winning the election, bringing about a backlash from the American people (Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, HillaryCare led to the Republican landslide of 1994, and Obama's arrogance is going to lead to the Republican landslide of 2010). In all these cases, the Democrat ran against a moderate Republican (Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain). When was the last time a Democrat was elected president running as a liberal. The Democrats have run candidates perceived as liberal in 1972 (George McGovern, lost to an unpopular Republican incumbent in a landslide), 1984 (Walter Mondale), 1988 (Michael Dukakis), and 2004 (John Kerry). In 2000, the Democrats ran a candidate perceived as moderate (Al Gore) and he lost to a Republican perceived as conservative (George W Bush). If I remember right, the last time a liberal Democrat was elected president was 1964 when liberal Lyndon Johnson defeated conservative Barry Goldwater. Since then, Republican nominees perceived as conservative have never lost a presidential election. Polling for decades has consistently shown the American people self describing themselves as 20% liberal, 40% moderate, 40% conservative. Considering these historical facts, shouldn't Democrats think twice about running too far to the left and shouldn't Republicans think twice about running moderate presidential candidates? Why does it seem that many of the pundits in the media are in denial about these fact that we are fundamentally a center-right country?
When was the last time the American people voted for a liberal Democrat for president?
In what way was the presidential election of 2008 a departure from previous presidential elections?
Have you people ever noticed that Times of India (ToI) never publishes editorials/news articles which criticize US/UK and their policies? (For example in today's editorial they instead of criticizing the US for not extraditing Headley is saying US need not to extradite him and he must be tried in US first. This is their loyalty toward the nation which made this the no. 1 English newspaper in the world. Poor and fool Indians. I feel really pity for you people that you people read without applying your non-existent brains such newspapers for whom interests of US and UK come first. Similarly they published US presidential elections 2008 covering each and every event as if the elections are being held in India. I agree that who is becoming US's president is of negligible importance to other countries but is it that important that where Obama or Clinton are going to deliver speech must be published with every detail. Similarly they run the Dubyaman series for as long as Bush was in the office.) Second thing is while on all other Indian news channels (in any language) many female news readers wear Indian attire too like a sari or salwar kameez even if its once in a while but I've never seen any Time Now news reader wearing Indian attire. Why? Are they ashamed of it? Now some may argue that its English news channel. Then does it mean that if you are an English channel so you must refrain from doing anything Indian? Third thing is do they get money from US and UK to promote the Anglo-American culture in India and hold it in high esteem? Why don't Indian people ever notice these things? If you people had paid attention you would have noticed the day when 2016 Olympics were awarded to its rightful candidate the Rio city, a Times Now newsreader said Rio de Janerio will have to host the Olympics in a grand way because Rio 2016 will be compared with London 2012 (as if Rio can;t host these games in grand way). But they never say London 2012 will be compared with Beijing 2008. Why? Have these inferior newsreaders presumed that anything hosted in USA and UK is of divine order and no other country can ever match upto their standards? Think Indians think. Being an English news channel doesn't mean that you have to refrain from Indian culture. Also the Indian govt. must look into the matter that from where this Bennet and Coleman company newspaper is getting funds because they seem to back USA and UK all the time. In short I want to say that TOi and Times now tend to behave like Anglo-American news channel rather than an Indian one. So please think. Think Indians think on these issues and if we want to become a serious major power we people must throw out such boot licking newspapers from India. And if such questions don't arise in your minds then at least think on them as soon as I post them on Yahoo Q&A. By the way how many of you think that London 2012 will be as grand as Beijing 2008?
Question for Indians and very serious one (news channel+politics) - Have you people ever noticed?
How does the winner take all system in American elections help define the American political system. I wrote this out, tell me if this makes sense to you, you can change wording for me, proofread everything, would be very helpful. The “winner-take-all system in other words means plurality voting. The one person with the most votes, all the other candidates that are running for office lose. All the people who voted throughout the election voted for this one person. On the other hand, the way this defines this American political system can be broke down in many different ways, The Electoral College is usually goes by the “winner take all” system because if the individual who gets the majority of the electoral votes gets everything (the position for which they are running for in the government) and the person who did not get a majority get's absolutely nothing and goes home. For example, the loser may have 49% of the vote, but he still goes home with nothing; State law in all the presidential elections state that electorates must vote as the popular vote did. So if McCain in the 2008 presidential election got 58% of Texas all 34 electorates must vote for McCain. The reason that someone can win majority of the electoral college but not the popular vote is simple, because of the “winner-take-all” system the candidate who lost the race may have won a high percentage of the popular vote in the states that voted for them while the winner didn't get a high (though still more then 50) percentage of the popular vote in his winning states.
Winner take all system?
During the 2008 United States Presidential Election, many young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 voted for Barack Obama because they saw him as a young Presidential candidate who would bring great changes to our nation. During the one years that Obama has been President, the unemployment rate has reached double digits, he has spent more money than all the 43 Presidents combined, he is shoving health care reform in our face when we tell him we are against it and he just Lives In Everyday Sin instead of being honest and truthful. What kind of advice do you give to young adults who voted for Barack Obama and do you believe they made the right choice for voting for him? As a young adult who is 28 (and 26 on Election Day 2008), my advice to young adults is "I hope your happy for voting a inexperience leader who is turing our nation into Europe and is making your children and future children pay for the mess he and the Democratic Party created. I hope you learned your lesson and stop voting for Democrats in 2010 since Democrats would rather Live In Everyday Sin and not speak the truth to you."
What kind of advice would you give to a young voter who voted for Obama in 2008?
A New Era of Hope: Numerology for the Presidential Race 2008 ...
Right now I am looking at the sticker I have on my desk that I kept from Election Day. I'm saving it to commemorate this historic event. On.
2008 Market Crash Should Be Investigated - The Right Reasons
Almost two years after the mortgage crisis and stock market crash, no one seems to wonder about the “September surprise” that shifted the 2008 presidential election to an unknown leftist politician who had been elected to the Senate ...
Population and voting trends: 2004 and 2008 Presidential election ...
I'll present the results in a three-part series, starting today with a comparison of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election. Basically, I took the county by county canvass report for the two elections from the Secretary of State ...
MO senate poll: Liberal Carnahan struggling mightily, in low 40s ...
John McCain squeaked by Obama 50% to 49% to win Missouri in the 2008 presidential election. Forty percent (40%) of voters in the state now approve of the job Obama is doing as president, including 22% who strongly approve. ...
UK General Election "Least Well-Kept Secret of Recent Years ...
But Kate Kaye of ClickZ News and I will be focused on how the digital strategies and tactics popularized by the 2008 U.S. presidential election will translate to the 2010 election in Britain. Will Internet marketing have an impact in ...
Explore Howard: Prosecutor's office hasn't pursued cases of dual ...
Nikki Trella, election reform director for the Maryland Board of Elections, said voters who cast ballots more than once were discovered in March 2009 during a routine audit of the 2008 presidential election. ...
Barack Obama – the Next U. S. President | Its My Forum
The 2008 presidential election is the first time in the U.S. history that two sitting senators will run against each other for the presidency of the United States, and more importantly, it is also the first time an African American has ...
The White Picket Fence: The 2008 Election as an expensive morality ...
The 2008 US Presidential Election was a fairly straight-forward contest. The Democrat nominee was always likely to win, bar some sort of major stuff-up. Any remaining chance of a Republican upset faded with the tanking of the US economy ...
anyy helppp ??????????
i have a essay to write however i am kind of confused on the topic. the topic is: discuss how TV and other media can affect the outcome of elections. Use the results of the 1960 and 2008 presidential elections to justify your answer. ANY HELP?
how did TV and other media affect the outcome of elections in the 1960's?
"Craig Varoga, a longtime Democratic political operative, has formed a group -- known as Patriot Majority PAC -- with the specific goal of keeping tea party candidates out of office. "Americans need to confront the dangerous ideas of the tea party movement head on, without any fear, before they gain any additional traction in the legislative process or the 2010 elections," said Varoga, who managed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack's 2008 presidential run." Which dangerous ideas might they be? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/20100329-democratic-group-targets-tea-party.html
Are the tea partiers full of "dangerous ideas"?
I think it is about THIS: In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama's election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry's kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president's address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot. If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from. They can't. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded. If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that's their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that's their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can't emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can't pretend that we're talking about “isolated incidents” or a “fringe” utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin's “reload” rhetoric. Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that's the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?scp=2&sq=Frank%20Rich&st=cse What do you think?To Les: I want to post an excerpt from your response: "Right wing politicians who use sound judgment and compromise are considered too liberal and labeled as RINOs for working with their fellow politicians. Any form of pragmatism or compromise is considered an affront to the right wing ideology and is the subject for violent action." That thud I just heard was you hitting the nail on the head. Thanks.
If this "outrage" is not about the Healthcare Bill - what is it about?
I have to do a sho
