|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thanks explanatory folks.
Presumably you can stand as an independent - if you do, can you get the cash the state didn't spend on your primary as a campaign fund ? Or rather can the eqivalent spend be divided between all independent candidates in that state - if you can presnt a list of more than x proposers ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Presumably you can stand as an independent - if you do, can you get the cash the state didn't spend on your primary as a campaign fund ? Or rather can the eqivalent spend be divided between all independent candidates in that state - if you can presnt a list of more than x proposers ?
Nope. California doesn't save any money on folks choosing to run as independents, because we have the primaries for all parties on the same day, all as one election. On February 5 we'll vote on presidential candidates and a bunch of states ballot measures, and some local things have been tacked on as well here on Long Beach, such as a bond for local junior college.
[ 18. January 2008, 20:16: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Catching up, I noticed a reference to polls, and was reminded that someone asked/commented earlier on the fact that the pollsters got it so wrong predicting the New Hampshire primaries. There was lots of public jabbering on the media about this during the brief period of time it took the 'news buzzards' to fly from New Hampshire to their next political carcass (Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina).
I have the answer: Automated polling and politicking plus Caller ID and answering machines.
You know what I noticed the day after the NH primary? My phone didn't ring once all day. Not once.
Prior to that, it rang regularly and increasingly often in the build-up to the actual vote. Which is to be expected and wouldn't normally be a problem. But this year it was different.
One: If you're going to robot-call a pre-recorded message, find someone with the proper technical skills. More than half of the robot-messages on my machine started recording so far into the message that the initial blurb identifying who was calling and/or who the candidate was got lost. "[...]believes in making the best decisions about health care..." means I hit the delete button.
Two: Much as I love a real live voice when I have to listen to a campaign call, this weirded me out:
"Hi, this is Cindy!..."
(I'm thinking, who is Cindy? Her voice doesn't sound familiar - is she that new person at ...)
"... and I'm calling you from Iowa on behalf of Candidate X!" (At which point I'm thinking, I don't know you from Adam, why should I care what you think of Candidate X and why the fuck are you calling me from Iowa?)
Three: This is the real death knell for the pollsters. They're guilty of One. And they didn't do their data-base work. We've got four registered voters at this phone number (one with a different last name). Having the phone ring three times in a row, leaving the same incomplete message each time, only to ring some hours later (as they worked their way through the alphabet), all to be repeated the next day - ah, yes, this really makes me want to answer the phone and participate in a poll!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...Libertarian isn't such a good fit anymore. The more I look at it, the less I see it working in the real world. I really have moved toward Independent as of late....
I refuse to belong to any party. Picking and choosing (possibly while picking and grinning) is the only way to go, at least for me. Don't ever let anyone take your vote for granted.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I wish California would go back to open primaries. You can vote for any candidate from any party, not just your own.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wish California would go back to open primaries. You can vote for any candidate from any party, not just your own.
Isn't that what the general election is for?
And if you are not a member of, say, the America First Party, why should you have a say in choosing which losers the members of that party waste their money on supporting in elections? Isn't it up to them to choose who to put forward?
Why not open it up farther? I'm not even an American - can I get to choose who your candidates will be?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Perhaps they need some sort of rule - if you vote for a candidate in a primary you must vote for that candidate in the general election, should they win nomination.
It would be hard to enforce without tracking who voted for whom, but you could combine it with a rule that everyone who voted in the primary had to vote for that party's candidate in the general election, then all primary voters would be stricken from the electoral roll and would be considered to have voted for their party's candidate, and that many ballots would be added to the party's candidate's total.
In Australia, as I think in the UK, in order to have a say in who is preselected you must be a party member, which means paying annual dues and attending meetings at least semi-regularly. I've never been a member of any party, though I did go to a few Young Liberals (otherwise known as the Tiny Tories) meetings once.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wish California would go back to open primaries. You can vote for any candidate from any party, not just your own.
Isn't that what the general election is for?
Nope.
I liked the Truly Open Primaries. We got some good candidates, instead of wingnuts who played to the extremist side of their base to get elected in their primaries. Because the candidates had to appeal to (SHOCK, HORROR) the general public. Including (SHOCK, HORROR) independent voters.
And the interest helped with turnout - important as we almost always have a raft of important initiatives on the ballot.
I have heard on our big NPR megastation that the parties have opened up their primaries to Decline to States here (this happens in plenty of other states and is a Good Thing in my opinion) but I don't think this is well known.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary the M
Shipmate
# 13167
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
I have heard on our big NPR megastation that the parties have opened up their primaries to Decline to States here
Just the Democrats and one "minor" party (I think American Independent). The Republicans, Greens, et al. do not allow it in their primaries here. Too bad for them, but I will probably infilitrate the Dems anyway. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"God is greater than religion... Faith is greater than doctrine." - Rabbi Heschel
Posts: 173 | From: Lost Angels, CA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
The Clintons are said to have won the Nevada caucus, even though Obama received one more delegate than Hillary. In fact, through the first three states of the Democrat Party primaries, Barack Obama has either received more or the same delegates as Hillary, yet it is reported she won two of them.
It seems Huckabee is about done. Since Iowa, he has picked up 8 delegates while Romney and McCain have picked up 52 and 32, respectively.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems Huckabee is about done. Since Iowa, he has picked up 8 delegates while Romney and McCain have picked up 52 and 32, respectively.
![[Frown]](frown.gif) There was some entertainment value.
Does Paul beating McCain in Nevada (which is adjacent to McCain's home state Arizona) indicate Romney will be the nominee?
(Or was it just the hooker offer that put Paul on top, so to speak? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
And I wonder how long Edwards will stick it out.
quote:
NEVADA CAUCUSES, Saturday
DEMOCRATS
Clinton, 51 percent; Obama, 45 percent; Edwards, 4 percent, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.
REPUBLICANS
Romney, 51 percent; Paul, 14 percent; McCain, 13 percent; Huckabee, 8 percent; Fred Thompson, 8 percent; Giuliani, 4 percent.
___
SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY, Saturday (Republicans only)
McCain, 33 percent; Huckabee, 30 percent; Thompson, 16 percent; Romney, 15 percent, with 93 percent of precincts reporting.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
How many Superdelegates (or party hacks) does Hillary have compared to Barack?
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
How many Superdelegates (or party hacks) does Hillary have compared to Barack?
200 to 110. I don't know if these folks can change their mind or not.
You can keep up with the body count at RealClearPolitics
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Meanwhile, there are serious reports of vote fraud in New Hampshire, with both Obama and Paul coming up short, irregularities with ballot boxes and Diebold's voting machines, and more. Here's one report on it. (I don't know this particular site, but the accusations are all over the place.)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Ross - this was brought to my attention Friday and I've done a lot of looking. so far, I'm not finding any reputable news agencies taking it seriously at all, and all the coverage seems to be of the vague "unidentified sources" variety.
All I have from the NH elections office is that Albert Howard (whozzat?) and Dennis Kucinich have requested a recount. they have no attempts to address any allegations of anything.
all other mentions are on either news pages that are strongly allied with various camps, or blogs of the same. and they all seem to have a pretty strong tinfoil hat feel to the reports.
[ 20. January 2008, 20:37: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I was trying to find A Totally Reputable Site (Buchanan? Well...), but finally just linked to one at random.
I can believe the woman who says that her family's votes weren't counted, since that happened to my parents in a Chicago suburb years ago: they took absentee ballots, but no absentee ballots were reported in their precinct.
Or maybe I just lived in Cook County too long. At any rate, I am SO taking a paper ballot for our primary!
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding the opportunity in this election to break the racial and gender barriers that have elected white men to the presidency since this country's founding. Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?
Personally, I'm gender and race neutral on the question of who should be elected, but I have a nagging suspicion that this election may be the last opportunity for decades to change the presidential stereotype. I'm sure Clinton or Obama would both be strong executive leaders for this nation and I see redeeming qualities in each. Both are articulate thinkers and that alone would bring a breath of fresh air to the oval office.
At this point, with all other considerations set aside (such as Obama's lack of experience and Clinton's "dynasty" question) I'm leaning towards Obama. The man is quick on his feet and can express his ideas in a manner that suggests he can think clearly. But on the other hand, Clinton is no dummy in spite of her ironmaiden persona and is obviously concerned with social issues that are important. Both make Bush look like a primary school dropout.
Another simplistic factor that is influencing my consideration is the image Obama would present to the Middle East. His name alone would suggest that our nation is open to those of other cultural backgrounds (I know he is christian and completely American) but this could have more positive influence on international relations than we know.
I feel McCain will be nominated for the GOP and the Dems, with whomever they nominate, will sweep the election because of the sour idiocy of the Bush legacy. So what about it? Should we be completely gender and race neutral and if not, how much influence should it have on a decision?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
One of the reasons I did not vote for Clinton in the NH primary was that I perceived her as playing the gender card pretty heavily in the weeks preceding the election -- all that "all-us-women-together" campaigning put me off.
I'm not going to vote for someone because she's female or he's black.
Although I did cast my vote for someone who belongs to the same denomination I do, that's not why I voted for him.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding the opportunity in this election to break the racial and gender barriers that have elected white men to the presidency since this country's founding. Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?
Personally, I'm gender and race neutral on the question of who should be elected, but I have a nagging suspicion that this election may be the last opportunity for decades to change the presidential stereotype.
You and me both! quote:
At this point, with all other considerations set aside (such as Obama's lack of experience and Clinton's "dynasty" question)
Ok, this is a bit of a sideline, but whatever. The whole "dynasty" schtick bothers me as a misuse of the word: two extraordinarily talented and extraordinarily ambitious individuals meeting and marrying each other is different from "my grandfather was a Senator and my father was President". The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't (Bill, in particular, came from dirt poor nothing). If Miss Chelsea were interested in political life, we might talk, but all indicators are that she really isn't.
With that being said, I might have missed my chance to re-register, so I might be voting in the other party's primary where it's White Guys All The Way ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
(in other news, NPR seems to have finally issued a memo on how to properly pronounce "Nevada" ... just in time for them to stop talking about it.)
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't...
OK, I'll accept that but what about the gender factor? Is it historically important enough to influence your vote or should we act on our principles and ignore gender? (and race?)
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
...and in spite of the tempest over mispronunciation of Nevada, the Fox/CNN/MSNBC brigade continue to use "Nevahda" in their newscasts. It only reminds westerners of the ignorant insulated pretentiousness of "entertainment news". Reminds me of the boneheads who use "Orry-gone" for Oregon.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... The Bushes are a dynasty, the Clintons aren't...
OK, I'll accept that but what about the gender factor? Is it historically important enough to influence your vote or should we act on our principles and ignore gender? (and race?)
I'm going to give you my personal answer:
All other things being equal between two candidates, I would tip my vote towards a less-represented group. But all other things really rarely are equal.
I'm not a yella-dawg Democrat any more, but you can see it from where I am. I'm certainly not above "voting against" someone else, especially in the general. The primary is where I tend to get my druthers out of my system.
Like Ruth*, I may have voted for the white guy, 'cause he inspires me (ok, there is a woman involved in this, because I think his wife rocks with one steady roll). I was a Richardson fan, but not because he's a Latino. The fact that he is a Westerner and has substantial relevant experience carries more freight with me.
California's been majority minority since the 2000 census, but I was living in Oakland in 1990, which was ahead of the state curve . We've had two female senators since 1992. So it's a big "whatever" for me.
* Ruth may still do it, but I seem to have missed a deadline, as I said. So I'm on the Straight Talk express, baybee. I voted for him in 2000 but it didn't count .
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding the opportunity in this election to break the racial and gender barriers that have elected white men to the presidency since this country's founding. Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?
Personally, I'm gender and race neutral on the question of who should be elected, but I have a nagging suspicion that this election may be the last opportunity for decades to change the presidential stereotype.
I think the exact opposite is true--this is the first real chance to break out of having being a WASP (or WASC in Kennedy's case) as the inescapable condition of the presidency. As we move further away from the racism and sexism of the past, the population will only grow more open to female, black, asian, indian, or whatever candidates.
(There's still plenty of racism and sexism to fight, unfortunately, but we've come a long way in the last sixty years.)
That being said, I think it's a mistake to vote for anyone based simply on their various identities. If I had lived in Britain in the late seventies to the eighties, I would rather have slashed my own throat with a razor than voted for Margaret Thatcher because of what she stood for, revolutionary as it was for a woman to be in a position to become Prime Minister.
And that being said, I'm a white guy backing Obama. I just hope that by the time my stupid state votes (We're stuck in March and it may all be effectively over by then) that my primary vote will actually matter.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wombat
Shipmate
# 5180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Going back on the gold standard would be a good curb on inflation.
The gold standard did nothing at all to save us from the last big nasty attack of inflation, the stagflation of the seventies. But historically speaking, the gold standard has deflationary effects which favor creditors over debtors. Given that Americans are massively in debt, going on the gold standard would bend most Americans over a barrel.
--------------------
John Walter Biles
Historian in Training
Posts: 363 | From: Maryland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I shall be voting for Obama on Super Tuesday. The fact that Obama is an African-American is absolutely integral to my voting for him. The election of a Black potus would, I believe, constitute a sort of redemption of America from its original sin of slavery and the legacy of slavery. I've no doubt that Hillary would be competent and effective. Obama, however, could change America's understanding of itself and indeed radically rehabilitate the world's image of America.
[ 21. January 2008, 01:45: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
... I was a Richardson fan, but not because he's a Latino. The fact that he is a Westerner and has substantial relevant experience carries more freight with me...
I was also a Richardson fan early on for the same reasons. His diplomatic record is impressive but alas, big money is still the 20-ton gorilla during the campaigns. quote:
So I'm on the Straight Talk express, baybee. I voted for him in 2000 but it didn't count.
McCain is still attractive but his age up against the like of Obama is a limiting factor. The poor guy looks like he has to pound down energy drinks before each speach just to look alive. Speaking of wives, Mrs. Giuliani is the main reason I don't take Rudy's candidacy seriously. Sad, huh?
LSK and wombat: Hear! hear!
quote:
..Obama, however, could change America's understanding of itself and indeed radically rehabilitate the world's image of America.
This is becoming an increasingly important factor for me. Lord knows we need a radically different approach on the world stage.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
..Obama, however, could change America's understanding of itself and indeed radically rehabilitate the world's image of America.
This is becoming an increasingly important factor for me. Lord knows we need a radically different approach on the world stage.
Amen. I couldn't agree more with you on this.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
The gold standard did nothing at all to save us from the last big nasty attack of inflation, the stagflation of the seventies. But historically speaking, the gold standard has deflationary effects which favor creditors over debtors. Given that Americans are massively in debt, going on the gold standard would bend most Americans over a barrel.
And you can always print more paper money.
Somehow that does not fill me with confidence.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I plan to vote for Hillary in the primary. In the fall, I'll vote for whoever the Democrats run...but I really want to send a message that it's time for a woman president.
I don't think Obama has enough experience, and he seems to have been given a messiah's mantle by the crowds. That's a really heavy mantle to wear. He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.
[ 21. January 2008, 05:52: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
The Americans on the Ship tend to be Democrats with a smidgen of Libertarians! So, from the Conservative side of things, I'm just not sure what to do. I was a Thompson supporter, although lukewarm. He's gone nowhere. It looks like Romney, McCain or maybe Giuliani can comeback. I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard. Still anyone but Hillary or Obama. Maybe we'll have a hung convention and convince Cheney to run. That would be fun!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Does the fact Clinton and Obama represent the first viable candidates with a strong possibility of ending the white male monopoly on the White House outweigh their other qualities?
Impossible question but I'll try.
ISTM this situation is 'affirmative action' being applied to the presidential election. IMO the analogy applies much more to Obama: would someone with his experience have gotten a fraction of the traction he has, if he was 'white'?
Clinton has much more experience having been associated with a POTUS for all those years and IMO her candidacy is stronger for it.
I can see why some people would vote for them because of their race or sex feeling a desire to rectify past injustices, or to send a message to the world. In the overall scheme of things, I believe those can be legitimate reasons but in a better world they wouldn't be given inordinate weight.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bush baptist
Shipmate
# 12306
|
Posted
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say: quote:
I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.
Why would McCain be hard for a Republican?
Posts: 1784 | From: drought-stricken land | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bush baptist:
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say: quote:
I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.
Why would McCain be hard for a Republican?
First, the question should not be why would McCain be hard for a Republican, but why would he be hard for a Conservative. The factions within both parties are mini parties in their own right. I often think that US politics would be better served if we dissolved Republican and Democrat and formed Conservative and Liberal or whatever they would be called.
To answer your question, McCain betrayed me on two key issues: immigration and campaign finance reform. I cannot support amnesty for illegals - who are criminals simply by being here - when untold numbers of immigrants have complied with our laws and followed the rules to come to this country. Campaign finance reform is nothing more than the first step in restricting or ending free speech. Finally, I think McCain is just arrogant. That said, if he is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. Anyone but Hillary or Obama.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
ISTM this situation is 'affirmative action' being applied to the presidential election. IMO the analogy applies much more to Obama: would someone with his experience have gotten a fraction of the traction he has, if he was 'white'?
Clinton has much more experience having been associated with a POTUS for all those years and IMO her candidacy is stronger for it.
As to the first question, even a cursory examination of our history reveals many Presidents with no more experience than Obama has. As to Hillary having a lot more experience because she was married to a POTUS, ISTM that your notion of "experience' is quite a broad one. Perhaps we should nominate Monica...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by bush baptist:
New Yorker, I'm total outsider, when it comes to American politics, though I get the general outlines of the difference between Democrat and Republican. But why would you say: quote:
I could vote for Romney or even Giuliani, but McCain will be hard.
Why would McCain be hard for a Republican?
First, the question should not be why would McCain be hard for a Republican, but why would he be hard for a Conservative. The factions within both parties are mini parties in their own right. I often think that US politics would be better served if we dissolved Republican and Democrat and formed Conservative and Liberal or whatever they would be called.
To answer your question, McCain betrayed me on two key issues: immigration and campaign finance reform. I cannot support amnesty for illegals - who are criminals simply by being here - when untold numbers of immigrants have complied with our laws and followed the rules to come to this country. Campaign finance reform is nothing more than the first step in restricting or ending free speech. Finally, I think McCain is just arrogant. That said, if he is the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. Anyone but Hillary or Obama.
Well, there, there New Yorker -- McCain's seeming quite dottery these days anyway. Just a little too old to be prez, even though I think he's the best you guys have got. Not to worry though, we're going to beat your pants off at the general election anyway.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
As to Hillary having a lot more experience because she was married to a POTUS, ISTM that your notion of "experience' is quite a broad one. Perhaps we should nominate Monica...
In addition to being the wife of a governor for multiple terms, Hillary was unquestionably significantly involved in policy issues (sometimes to Bill's detriment: RE the health care debacle) in addition to participating in the day to day life of a president for eight years - meeting foreign dignitaries, etc.
I'm no fan of Hillary but ISTM obvious she has much more political experience than Obama.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
This Chuck Norris thing just gets weirder and wierder. Huckabee is a tinfoil hat wearing loon. I feel like he's channeling Perot.
I think McCain is showing an amazing comeback. Romney may have a real fight on his hands. February is going to get interesting...
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Huckabee's dying on his feet.
Republicans who respect the rights of women, who dislike adultery, who think that public officials should not use public money to pursue their sexual adventures, or who oppose abortion, won't vote for Giuliani.
The brain-dead authoritarian nationalist conservatives won't vote for McCain, but maybe there aren't enough of them to lose him the nomination.
Romney bends in the wind, and the evangelicals won't vote for him. And I still can't remember what he looks like when he's not actually oin-screen. Maybe that's just me.
So right now I stick my neck out and very tentatively guess McCain to lose to whoever the Democrat is going to be. If they are going to nominate someone who is bound to lose, why not nominate a war hero who is actually intelligent, honest, and consistent? He'll talk a good speech, fight a good campaign, give a little boost to the odd candidate for senator or representative here and there, and concede with dignity. It doesn't matter how old he is as he's never going to be elected.
If not him, then maybe the Convention chooses a candidate not yet on the ballot (when did that last happen?)
[ 21. January 2008, 18:13: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.
Isn't being inspirational a good thing?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Ken,
I'm with you except I would wager a Hillary win. Obama's too liberal, too inexperienced.
Now here's the question, what happens if Bloomberg gets in? I'm thinking he will kill off McCain even faster for Hillary. But will he have the ability to take it all?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Clinton would have fun campaigning against McCain. We'd hear a lot more about the (in)famous joke.
An old man who shoots his mouth off and is cruel to young women? That'll be a gift to the PR people.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Huckabee's dying on his feet.
From your lips to God's ears...
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He also seems to be much more inspirational than practical.
Isn't being inspirational a good thing?
It is...but he also has to be able to do the actual job of being president. He needs to be practical, too. Maybe he would be, once he was in office.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Maybe we'll have a hung convention and convince Cheney to run. That would be fun!
That would make baby Jesus cry.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wombat:
If I had lived in Britain in the late seventies to the eighties, I would rather have slashed my own throat with a razor than voted for Margaret Thatcher because of what she stood for, revolutionary as it was for a woman to be in a position to become Prime Minister.
Possibly more so in the UK than it would be in the US, at least in the eyes of many Brits. America generally is seen as a country where women can Go Places if they choose. Women in the UK haven't really felt that for very long and even now, in certain professions or areas of life, they feel limited or inhibited by structures that go back forever (or so it seems).
Margaret Thatcher wasn't taken at all seriously by the media and many pundits here when she was first running for Prime Minister. Not only was she a woman, but a grocer's daughter (outside of socialism, being working class wasn't seen as a particular benefit) and she was a very strong woman. Just like Hilary Clinton of course (though Hilary Clinton, it has to be said, is a whole lot better on the style front than ole Mags!). The UK had been so thoroughly male dominated and hierarchical for so long that it really came as a shock to many people's systems that we could - and would - actually elect a woman, no less, to run our country. And it cannot be denied, she changed it.
Unless you lived here before Thatcher was elected I think it must be difficult to understand why she sailed on in. But we were in a mess in so many ways (although I just know ken will disagree with me!). When a country is in a mess, or enough people believe it is in a mess, watch out for very strong characters! Especially very strong women!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Clinton would have fun campaigning against McCain. We'd hear a lot more about the (in)famous joke.
An old man who shoots his mouth off and is cruel to young women? That'll be a gift to the PR people.
Yikes. McCain certainly has got a humor problem (or lack thereof). Of course so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.
{Watching for hornets nest that just got poked}
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary the M
Shipmate
# 13167
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.
One word - Reaganomics. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"God is greater than religion... Faith is greater than doctrine." - Rabbi Heschel
Posts: 173 | From: Lost Angels, CA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bush baptist
Shipmate
# 12306
|
Posted
Thanks, New Yorker, for your quick answer (I'm slow to say it, but I've been asleep!).
Now I follow that bit, at least, of the debate.
Posts: 1784 | From: drought-stricken land | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary the M:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
so did Reagan and he was the best president in the last 40 years.
One word - Reaganomics.
Two words: Soviet Union.
Another two words: Berlin Wall.
More seriously, Look at this. Reagonomics looks like a recovery plan from all four presidents before him!
He doesn't look as good as Clinton does, but then Clinton was benefitting from the Cold War being removed under Reagan's watch....I believe they called it "The Peace Dividend" at the time....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
