|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Face it dude, your guys suck more than the Dems suck right now. Fact. GW has screwed the pooch.
That's what it's boiling down to, it seems. I can see the advertisements now: "Vote for me, I don't suck as bad as my opponent".
I don't see any of the candidates as being very popular. With approval ratings of congress being dwarfed even by Beelzebush's, it seems sucking at their jobs has become a truly bipartisan effort.
My prediction is that a democrat will win the White House and will serve only one term as a result of being a raging four year disaster.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
You know, this is starting to remind me of the last Canadian election ... many were desperate to get rid of the Liberals but leery of the Conservatives. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Well the good thing for Republicans is that there is still a little under a year til the Presidential election, if Bush doesn't do anything more stupid (like invading Iran), the GOP can at least minimize the damage, and hold onto their base, which means they can retain the South (Which won't vote Democratic, even if they resurrect Thomas Jefferson to run on the presidential ticket) and parts of the Midwest (Wyoming and Idaho).
Actually the best thing that could happen is if the Dems take both the White House and Congress, they will screw up in two years (Remember the Healthcare debacle in 1993), and the GOP can find someone decent to run in 2012.
Actually the best thing is that the Dems hold the Presidency for the next 25 years as a message to the Publicans never, ever, ever, ever to put a candidate like GW in office again. Then have the house and/or senate be Republican so we have gridlock and thus minimal damage can be done by either party.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's what it's boiling down to, it seems. I can see the advertisements now: "Vote for me, I don't suck as bad as my opponent".
.....
.....My prediction is that a democrat will win the White House and will serve only one term as a result of being a raging four year disaster.
This has been the trend for a while now. Vote for the least worst.
I only see potential disaster in democrats if Hillary doesn't win. Let's face it, Bill C. did a pretty fuckin good job compared to, well, everyone for quite a while now, back to Reagan.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I guess I'm one of the last die hard W supporters. Too bad Cheney isn't running.
And, just for fun, I predict the Republican candidate will take 48 states in the Electoral College!
Wow.
Please pass the weed. You're bogarting the doobie.
--------------------
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
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
... Let's face it, Bill C. did a pretty [redacted] good job compared to, well, everyone for quite a while now, back to Reagan.
What planet do you live on?
quote:
Wow.Please pass the weed. You're bogarting the doobie. [/QB]
Sorry, MG, can you translate this for me? Does it refer to Humphrey Bogart and marijuana?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
And Bloomberg waits.
quote:
Bloomberg loves publicity, and his recent stunt - having breakfast in a New York deli with Barack Obama - fed his ego more than his stomach. But he does understand that many Americans are truly sick of the paralysis in Washington and the game playing on the campaign trail.
He was on the money when he told CBS: "This country doesn't need somebody that's going to say, 'my party versus your party.' This country needs somebody that says, 'I'm going to get the best from both parties.'"
Instead, the debate in both parties has turned nasty and silly. The prize for the most ridiculous comment goes to Hillary Clinton, who must be freaking out over poll numbers that show Obama pulling ahead in Iowa. Her campaign attacked Obama's assertion that he had never dreamed of a White House bid. The evidence: "In kindergarten, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.'"
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?
Actually, he is probably one of the most qualified people in the country. I would not agree with all his policies, but he's better than many on both sides.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?
More than 35 years old and born in the US.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Let's face it, Bill C. did a pretty fuckin good job compared to, well, everyone for quite a while now, back to Reagan.
Yes, he did such a great job during his first two years that his party lost control of the house and senate. After that, not too bad. There's a lot to be said for one party in the WH and the other in congress unless they get bipartisan.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
How in the name of Buddha does Bloomberg think he is qualified to be President?
He has ran a city that is practically a world political state. The presumed frontrunner, Giuliani, is literally the same on that, job experience-wise. Obama is little better on that front too for that matter.
He also runs a very successful business empire. Giuliani and Obama can't claim that.
He is certainly better than Perot was experience-wise, and not nearly so fucking insane, yet......
And oh yes, as Nick said, he is over 35 and born an American.
New Yorker,
Clinton the 1st passed welfare reform, which is pretty much widely credited for many people going back to work, faster.
Your boy increased the socialist spending spree with his Medicare Bill. I'll never forgive him for that btw.
Bill Clinton's economy. GW's economy.
Honestly, that is all I really need to say.
If you are a True Republican™ you should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. Clinton delivered that better than Bush did, period.
The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.
--------------------
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
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
New Yorker,
Clinton the 1st passed welfare reform, which is pretty much widely credited for many people going back to work, faster.
Your boy increased the socialist spending spree with his Medicare Bill. I'll never forgive him for that btw.
Bill Clinton's economy. GW's economy.
Honestly, that is all I really need to say.
If you are a True Republican™ you should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. Clinton delivered that better than Bush did, period.
The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.
MG, you are correct that a True Republican should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. And, Bush has been disappointing on that score - with the help of a Republican Congress that acted like a drunken sailor on payday and now a "reform minded" Democratic Congress that is trying to outdo its predecessor. But, on foreign affairs, Bush has been, for the most part, spot on. Clinton signed the welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress. It's not what he wanted. On foreign affairs, he was a disaster. He gave Bin Laden a pass so often Bill should be held negligent for fighting the terrorists.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
scribbler
Shipmate
# 12268
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Clinton wins, it will get to the stage that 28-year-old Americans will have known no other President than a Clinton or a Bush.
We watched the inauguration of the first President Bush on a small black and white TV in my kindergarten class. I think it's time for a change.
[ 17. December 2007, 05:15: Message edited by: scribbler ]
Posts: 309 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.
It was a good enough phrase for Little Feat to do a tune about it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
MG, you are correct that a True Republican should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. And, Bush has been disappointing on that score - with the help of a Republican Congress that acted like a drunken sailor on payday and now a "reform minded" Democratic Congress that is trying to outdo its predecessor.
Don't be so hard on drunken sailors, dude. At least they're spending their own money.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
MG, you are correct that a True Republican should be in favor of lesser government and be fiscally conservative. And, Bush has been disappointing on that score - with the help of a Republican Congress that acted like a drunken sailor on payday
Disappointing? DISAPPOINTING? He's been a complete cluster fuck of a disaster. quote:
But, on foreign affairs, Bush has been, for the most part, spot on.
Smoking weed again are we? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
He just kinda unfucked the fuckup that is Iraq through sending the rest of our army there. Talk about a day late and a billion dollars short.....
In addition, he has no foreign affairs, unless you count the entire known world, friend or foe, hating us as "foreign affairs". quote:
Clinton signed the welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress. It's not what he wanted.
Just a wee bit of historical revision there, shall we?
He signed less. Bush signed MORE. Fuck him. quote:
On foreign affairs, he was a disaster. He gave Bin Laden a pass so often Bill should be held negligent for fighting the terrorists.
Ummm. Nice try. He was the one that tried to tomohawk strike bin Laden and hit the asprin factory or somesuch thing. Shrub has had the entire world looking for the bastard and can't find him, because he wasted our goodwill after 9-11 and then invaded Iraq when he shoulda been chasing the badguys down holes in Afghanistan.
Oh, and interestingly, Clinton advocated Iraq being invaded due to chemical weapons BEFORE Bush did, he actually just tried to deny that, ironically. So Clinton was actually was out ahead of Bush on BOTH counts. Bush is the guy that lost the best opportunities to kill bin Laden.
Anyway, your boys are going to lose in spades either way, and I'll be here to gloat. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
n9949y
Apprentice
# 12905
|
Posted
As one who’s voted Democrat since ’64, and who believes Bubba’s character and accomplishments are far superior to that of the frat boy, nevertheless…… Don’t tell Mama, I’m votin’ Obama!
[ 17. December 2007, 05:57: Message edited by: n9949y ]
Posts: 4 | From: Eugene Oregon | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The weed/doobie/bogarting reference was a (lame) joke. I was saying you must be smoking something with your earlier assertions and not sharing with the crowd.
Thank you for the translation of the personal attack. Not in Purgatory please.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Eeek.
Apologies to Mr. New Yorker if that came off as a Personal Attack. Absolutely NO intent of one whatsoever was intended, translation or otherwise. I was teasing (or trying to anyway).
--------------------
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
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eeek.
Apologies to Mr. New Yorker if that came off as a Personal Attack. Absolutely NO intent of one whatsoever was intended, translation or otherwise. I was teasing (or trying to anyway).
Mad Geo -
Now you tell me. I've already spent thousands in therapy to recover from this mental assault. I've even considered voting for Edwards so I can have a great trial lawyer on my side!
Just kidding.
No offense taken.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:
We watched the inauguration of the first President Bush on a small black and white TV in my kindergarten class. I think it's time for a change.
Oh you dear child!
I watched the inauguration of President Kennedy on a small black and white TV in my kindergarten class!
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
You were in kindergarden for Kennedy. Bloody hell.
As an non-US national, it's entirely up to you what you do (no chance of a war crimes tribunal for Cheney is there?) My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.
Is there a reason to think the Americans are that different from us?
Its clearly the other way round in Britain. Women candidates typically do slightly better than men. (I'd need to do some stats to confirm that but I suspect that I can) I think that Black Labour candidates tend to do slightly worse than expected in many constituencies and Tories and Liberals usually far worse. Tthough I don't know if we have a big enough sample of them to be sure of that. One of the more poignant late-night ordeals of the last few general elections on TV has been watching the handful of black candidates selected for winnable Tory seats go down to defeat..
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is there a reason to think the Americans are that different from us?
Britain has had female Heads of State on and off, but particularly for a) all of this century b) half of the last c) most of the one before. Irrespective of what their actual powers were, I think they created an acceptance, even expectation, of a woman ruler.
I don't think it impossible that the US could have a female president, I just don't know that Hillary is the one to break the boom - just as Dukkakis wasn't the one to be the first non-'Anglo'. But OTOH, Obama could be acceptable as the first black.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
just as Dukkakis wasn't the one to be the first non-'Anglo'.
Well, technically, the Roosevelts weren't "Anglo", being proudly Dutch... even Presbyterians...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I was using 'Anglo' to equal either from the British Isles or northern Europe, as opposed to the 'Latin' southern Europeans and all points east and south.
You must admit, that US pressies have traditionally come from a narrow spectrum - never mind black, or Greek, there's yet to be an Italian, or even a French one.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.
Based on limited data, I have to agree with Firenze. My personal experience (got that, everyone? personal experience) has been that money and privilege and education can in some ways protect against racism, but not sexism. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
My own saddish conviction is that mysogyny is a stronger force than racism and that a man - any man - will still be favoured over a woman.
I think this is too general to be a true statement, if not actually false.
We are seeing women being elected all over the world, and in countries arguably more "macho" than the U.S. Chile for example.
Liberia. Germany.
In one way I hope that Hillary is elected so that I can jump up and down on your statement there and give it the proper burial it deserves.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Giuliani and Romeny are Tied
Clinton in lead.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Bloomberg continues saber-rattling. Man will I be happy if he makes a run for it.
--------------------
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
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
If I were Emperor of the US, I'd make a law abolishing primary elections and forbidding any campaigning until after Labor Day. The Brits can conduct an election in about 6-7 wks. Why can't we.
If I hear anymore election coverage on the TV I'm going to set my hair on fire and leap, screaming, from a first floor window. I just want to make statement, I don't want to hurt myself!
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Sorry to hear that Organmeister. I always thought from the other side of the atlantic that the primary system had some merit, as here the general public has no real say in who the candidates for prime minister will be, the party leaders are chosen by the parties. We effectively just get to pick between them.
But why they can't hold all the primaries on the same day I don't know.
I think your process is bound to take longer though, due to the size of the country and federal nature of the government. Many of your candidates come from being state governors, who people at the other end of the country won't know much about without a lengthy campaign.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
....I always thought from the other side of the atlantic that the primary system had some merit, as here the general public has no real say in who the candidates for prime minister will be, the party leaders are chosen by the parties. We effectively just get to pick between them.....
And this, Organmeister, is why we have our excellent Primary system. There are things we can learn from other countries (multiple party coalitions for example, IMO) but abandoning the Primary tisn't one of them, again, IMO.
--------------------
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
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Moonlit, Theoretically the primary system is a good thing. It was instituted during the colonial period after the spring planting season. The electorate presumably had the summer and autumn to mull over their vote come the General Election in November (after the fall harvest). Given the state of 18th century American communications, it probably did take that long to spread the word concerning the spring elections. What it has done, in fact, is to lengthen the electoral process so candidates now start campaigning two years prior to the General Election. It requires huge sums of $$$ to conduct that long of a campaign. We are constantly being told that $$$ is the scourge of the American political process, and I do agree. If the period during which one could campaign were shortened, again at least in theory, the amount of $$$ that could be spent in that period of time would be less.
The American media, because they have to have something to write about or talk about because we now have "news" 24/7, jumps on the tiniest details of every candidate's utterance or appearance. Ah HA!!!! Hilary is wearing a pink suit today so that must mean that she's tailoring her campaign to appeal to middle class female voters and she's worried that she's losing that particular demographic to candidate so-and-so when in fact it really means that her campaign's Director of Candidate Attire forgot to pick up the dry-cleaning on time and that was all she had in the closet to wear.
The primary process here in the States is so varied that any particular primary may mean a great deal or it may mean absolutely noting more than a popularity poll. There is nothing that approaches uniformity. I some states that primary will select delegates to the national conventions who are legally bound to vote for a particular candidate. In others, it my elect delegates to the national convention buy without any obligation to vote for a particular candidate....and there are other varieties of primaries that I can't remember just what it is they do. In some states only registered Reps my vote in the Rep. primary and only registered Dem my vote in the Dem primary. In other states, regardless of ones registration, one may choose which primary in which one will cast a ballot. Again, at least in theory, if a party or particular individual campaign could organize it, in these states, for example, all the Dems could be instructed to vote for the weakest Rep. candidate so that the weakest Rep. candidate would face the strongest Dem candidate in the General Election. It's a terrible way to manipulate the vote, but I've seen it done on smaller scales in elections for City Council, for example.
The Iowa Caucuses are virtually meaningless. It is merely a popularity contest in a small relatively inconsequential agrarian state that in no way is representative of the general US population. However, there will be almost as many media people in Iowa this week as there were corn stalks last summer and at the end the pundits will announce that the vote has deduced some profound insite into hearts of American voters. Hogwash!!!!
If we are going to have a system of primaries that make sense they should all be held on the same day and I would suggest that that day be in July. Let both parties have their national conventions in August. (Although I'm not sure why one should even have a national convention other than it would be the final nail in the coffin of American Political parties as meaningful institutions of organizing the body politic. As it stands now, political parties in the US, as contrasted with those in the UK, have been reduced to fund raising apparatuses with no meaningful control of policy. American parties will adopt a platform and then promptly ignore any or all of the things it may have proposed. British parties have traditionally used the platform as a guide and actually intend to enact the legislation it proposes. You Brits have a much better system of functioning parties. This is not a revelation new to the world of US political discourse. Woodrow Wilson, in his circa 1890 (?) classic "Party Government", discussed this same issue and argued for a system of parties that more resembled British political parties.
What a rant!!!! I knew I should not have visited this thread.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I don't know how much faith can really be put into polls, but I thought this one was interesting. It's supposedly spam-proof.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
The Iowa Caucuses are virtually meaningless. It is merely a popularity contest in a small relatively inconsequential agrarian state . . .
The timing of the Iowa Caucuses is probably the main reason the US is pouring so much money into ethanol. Ethanol is more of a political fuel than an economic fuel, uscsmewiw.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Moonlit, Theoretically the primary system is a good thing. It was instituted during the colonial period after the spring planting season. The electorate presumably had the summer and autumn to mull over their vote come the General Election in November (after the fall harvest). Given the state of 18th century American communications, it probably did take that long to spread the word concerning the spring elections. What it has done, in fact, is to lengthen the electoral process so candidates now start campaigning two years prior to the General Election.
I dunno, two years might be a bit long, I will admit, but I would point out that a lot of culling has gone one as a result of the process. Given a rabid media looking for something new to report, we learn all kinds of things and candidates suffer or improve accordingly. Giuliani is taking a beating right now because of it, right? Works for me.... quote:
It requires huge sums of $$$ to conduct that long of a campaign. We are constantly being told that $$$ is the scourge of the American political process, and I do agree.
I am not so sure about this $$$ being the scourge that the media makes it out to be. What other method would you use? How does one decide what is "best" with regards to this? All of the candidates have plenty of money to make it, that deserve to make it. They have assembled the best teams. Even Ron Paul is making a great showing financially, while simultaneously being near the bottom in terms of likelihood.
quote:
If the period during which one could campaign were shortened, again at least in theory, the amount of $$$ that could be spent in that period of time would be less.
On this you are probably right. I simply do not see we can have a free state and stop them from campaigning early. If you want to get right down to it, politicians are always camplainging from the moment they start, till the moment they leave office. Hell, Bill is still capmaigning and he is out of office!
quote:
The Iowa Caucuses are virtually meaningless. It is merely a popularity contest in a small relatively inconsequential agrarian state that in no way is representative of the general US population. However, there will be almost as many media people in Iowa this week as there were corn stalks last summer and at the end the pundits will announce that the vote has deduced some profound insite into hearts of American voters. Hogwash!!!!
If we are going to have a system of primaries that make sense they should all be held on the same day and I would suggest that that day be in July. Let both parties have their national conventions in August. (Although I'm not sure why one should even have a national convention other than it would be the final nail in the coffin of American Political parties as meaningful institutions of organizing the body politic.
I disagree. I was listening to an NPR podcast the other day and they were discussing how the momentum is built by the promaries. This is one part media, one part process. Even though the primary is held in the daftest of places like Iowa, it serves as a useful point at which to build momentum and eventually the candidacy. We have to start somewhere and it might as well be statest that are on the small side. Part of this is stamina too. To see which candidate can literally physically/psychologically bear it and come out on top. Ultimately the media helps us to decide by showing us the weeds through the process. Or at least ideally.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
There's merit in having the primaries spread out so that candidates without money to run national campaigns can run state-wide campaigns, get some media exposure, and if they're any good get the money to go on to the rest of the primaries. Having so many primaries close together eliminates that scenario because there simply isn't time for candidates to pick up momentum and thus money.
But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front. I think we should be doing this on a rotating basis so people get a turn at having their primary vote matter, and I think it shouldn't be done on a state-wide winner-takes-all basis. If you win a congressional district, then you should get the vote for that district.
Just once I'd like to see presidential candidates holding town meetings in my town, taking awkward questions from the locals (what about security for the Long Beach & Los Angeles ports, for instance), instead of jetting into Hollywood, collecting money from the wealthy, and jetting out again. Every four years we hear on the news about candidates having lunch in little cafes and going to rallies in high school gymnasiums in Iowa and New Hampshire -- just once I'd like to see that happen in other places. Let the candidates go door to door in the poorer parts of the LA metroplex and look people in the eye and explain just exactly how their brand of "change" is going to help.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front. I think we should be doing this on a rotating basis so people get a turn at having their primary vote matter, and I think it shouldn't be done on a state-wide winner-takes-all basis. If you win a congressional district, then you should get the vote for that district. ...
I agree completely, on both counts. Time and time again, an interesting candidate pops up -- but drops out before the primary in my state.
I also think the congressional district rule should apply to the Electoral College. Too many voters are effectively disenfranchised by the present system.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I am sure there is room for improvement, but California certainly gets its share of monies after the election, or at least when there is a democrat in office. Dontcha think?
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am sure there is room for improvement, but California certainly gets its share of monies after the election, or at least when there is a democrat in office. Dontcha think?
Last time I saw any figures on it, California's return on money paid in federal taxes was at or below average. And in 2003 Wyoming got $61 per person in federal homeland security grants, Alaska got $58, New York got less than $25, and California got $14. If the Rand Corporation has half a clue, I'm toast if somebody explodes a nuclear bomb at the port (pdf file).
So no, I don't think so.
Edit: And the point of having our votes matter is not to see how much money we can get out of the federal government, but to have a say in where all the money goes in general.
[ 31. December 2007, 22:35: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
further on what RuthW said - the electoral college means my vote is worth more than a Californian vote, too.
ain't that nice?
completely screwy system.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am sure there is room for improvement, but California certainly gets its share of monies after the election, or at least when there is a democrat in office. Dontcha think?
Last time I saw any figures on it, California's return on money paid in federal taxes was at or below average. And in 2003 Wyoming got $61 per person in federal homeland security grants, Alaska got $58, New York got less than $25, and California got $14. If the Rand Corporation has half a clue, I'm toast if somebody explodes a nuclear bomb at the port (pdf file).
So no, I don't think so.
Edit: And the point of having our votes matter is not to see how much money we can get out of the federal government, but to have a say in where all the money goes in general.
That's why I made the reference to a Dem being in office. Bush has had 8 years to gut us for being a leftist state. Did that apply when Clinton was president?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Humorous prediction aired on NPR Sunday morning:
Monica Lewinsky will announce her candidacy for President, as an alternative to Hillary. Her slogan will be, "it worked last time."
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front.
Someone's got to go first. Surely its better if its a relatively small state? If it was California and New York that would be that and everyone else could just go home.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Wow. So the American election is about politics.
My prediction is that whatever goes on for real in the primaries and election proper, reportage this side of the pond will make it look 20% about issues and 80% circus.
This probably says more about the British press than about American politicians.
I'm hoping that whoever gets in, their foreign policy is more consistant, and less like a knee jerk reaction to circumstances beyond their control.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
I don't live in a state with a January primary (although my Nevadan neighbors are basking in unaccustomed attention)* and it doesn't seem like 80% circus is too high a number to me.
* We expect to hear a lot more in, oh, about a week though as we're a Big Tuesday state as well as a cash cow.
Must remember to re-register as my own party seems to have a genuine horse race goin' on. Mind you, at the rate things are going, things could be very different by then. (I switched registration to vote in the other party's primary a bit back and have enjoyed not getting as many phone calls.)
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to be up front.
Someone's got to go first. Surely its better if its a relatively small state? If it was California and New York that would be that and everyone else could just go home.
Read the rest of my post. I also think it shouldn't be done on a state by state basis. Having all of California's electoral votes go to one candidate is ridiculous. It's a federal election, so it should be done by congressional district, and it should be done on a rotating basis so one area doesn't always go first.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
personally, I'd like it to go vote-by-vote. Alaska has one vote in the electoral college (really, we only qualify for half of a congressman, so we have more than we should in a sense) which makes my usually minority vote pretty much pointless.
that's in the general, of course. we dont have primaries like you lucky ducks do. the party bigwigs just get together over a beer and decide who they'll support. and from what i can tell, it's whoever the national party office tells them to support.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
so I just sit here and cross my fingers that the eejit dems don't make such a stupid mistake as they did last time around.
(and it would be lovely if the repubs did! )
--------------------
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
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
Actually, Comet, you have three.
Electoral votes equal your total Congressional Representation. In Alaska's case, that would be one Rep and two Senators. That is, of course, the minimum any state can have.
FWIW, the population of Wyoming is less than yours.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
