|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So, will having Hillary as a VP be sufficient to draw the Reagan Democrats away from McCain?
Personally, as a post-Reagan Democrat who would consider voting for McCain (if Hillary wins, it'll be a close call) I don't think she would draw them. In spite of the albatross that is Bush, I think he's done a fair job of attracting Democrats before, and will push to do so again in the general election.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
No. As a matter of fact, voters these days are only allowed to consider media soundbites and how they relate to ones personal prejudices or special interests. At least those who can be bothered to pull themselves away from Oprah, American Idol or their Xbox.
elitist ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
1) Her presence would encourage massive far right Republican turn-out since she ranks in popularity somewhere between Eva Braun and Heather Mills McCartney.
Why do you say that? Opinion polls seem to show that she is about as popular as Obama or McCain with Americans in general. In this weeks Gallup poll on voting intentions she came out about a point ahead of Obama in the two-way questions - the three seem to be neck-and-neck in general.
The most recent poll I've found on "favourable" against "unfavourable" ratings is over a month old. She is about ten percent behind the other two but still gets 53% favourable rating - about half the American people seem to like her. Bush and Cheney would kill to be that popular again.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
So, will having Hillary as a VP be sufficient to draw the Reagan Democrats away from McCain?
Personally, as a post-Reagan Democrat who would consider voting for McCain (if Hillary wins, it'll be a close call) I don't think she would draw them. In spite of the albatross that is Bush, I think he's done a fair job of attracting Democrats before, and will push to do so again in the general election.
I'd think Obama would do better to pick a less polarizing figure. The gun-toting, non-necktie-wearing guy from Montana sounds like a good choice, as I can see the lunchbox carriers being able to identify with him. They're going with Clinton IMO as a default choice because she's familiar and they can't really identify with Obama, but I doubt they're really crazy about her.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
1) Her presence would encourage massive far right Republican turn-out since she ranks in popularity somewhere between Eva Braun and Heather Mills McCartney.
Why do you say that? Opinion polls seem to show that she is about as popular as Obama or McCain with Americans in general. In this weeks Gallup poll on voting intentions she came out about a point ahead of Obama in the two-way questions - the three seem to be neck-and-neck in general.
What's crucial is not the half of Americans that like her. The crucial people are the half that don't like her, because a lot of them don't simply not care for her or kind of dislike her -- they loathe her. And they will turn out in droves to vote against her. The middle of the road or somewhat Republican-leaning person who votes maybe half the time who can't stand Clinton and who has been reminded of that by Limbaugh & Co. for several months before the election will be sure to vote no matter how bad the weather is in November just to make sure she doesn't get back into the White House. At the same time, the somewhat Democratic-leaning person who votes maybe half the time is not going to be all fired up to slog through sleet to vote for Clinton. Turn-out is going to be everything in November -- no crystal ball necessary for that, it's always true -- and I think Obama is more likely to be able to turn out his voters than Clinton is.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
1) Her presence would encourage massive far right Republican turn-out since she ranks in popularity somewhere between Eva Braun and Heather Mills McCartney.
Why do you say that? Opinion polls seem to show that she is about as popular as Obama or McCain with Americans in general. In this weeks Gallup poll on voting intentions she came out about a point ahead of Obama in the two-way questions - the three seem to be neck-and-neck in general.
I have to agree with Presleyterian here. I'm an HRC-hater since her 1992 comment about baking cookies, though I try very hard to stay rational and fair. She's my senator and I voted for her, in spite of my visceral hatred. I only have anecdotal evidence, but those of us who hate her REALLY hate her. There are haters on the left, like me, who might resign ourselves to her or stay home if she's the nominee. Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against a Clinton. Given the way Bill is trying to defend her against Barack, I don't even imagine his shenanigans he's defending her against right-wing swiftboating. I'm not sure the anti-HRC sentiment really shows up in polls, just like Obama-mania didn't. If this election has taught us anything, it's that polls have limited utility.
I remember back in the early primaries and caucuses, undecided people would be interviewed on TV and they would say they were trying to decide between Obama and McCain. It makes no sense ideologically, but it makes sense on a gut level, or at least it did when McCain was still trying to differentiate himself from Mitt Romney, before he got the nomination and started pandering to his base. I wonder how McCain is going to play this, and whether the McCain we'd see running against Clinton is different from the McCain we'd see running against Obama. It has never seemed like McCain does all that well censoring himself and projecting an image.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
One SuperD just switched sides from Clinton to Obie.
--------------------
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
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Other intriguing choices: <snip> Virginia former Governor Mark Warner (although his abrupt withdrawal from the Presidential Derby early on makes one wonder...), or Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
Mark Warner is currently running hard for the Senate to replace the retiring GOP Sen John Warner (no relation). As much as I like both Mark Warner and Jim Webb*, the next President is going to need a reliably Democratic Senate.
*I have voted for both of them in the past and see no reason not to in the future.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
article
quote:
When political historians assess what went wrong with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign - now teetering towards defeat - they will point to a combination of overconfidence and ill-conceived strategy.
"I think Clinton operated under the assumption that she would win all - or most of - the early contests and would steamroll easily to the nomination," says Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Missouri.
"Clinton's biggest strategic mistake was to assume that the race would be decided by the Feb. 5 contests. That left them unprepared for a longer campaign."
snip
"Hillary Clinton and her campaign underestimated the desire, even among Democrats, to turn the page on the Clinton years," says Sabato. "It's not that they dislike the Clintons. It's just that they didn't want to go back . . . They didn't want to bring back all those all old problems."
Based on comments here there are more than a few for whom 'dislike' barely begins to express the antipathy.
Anyway, assuming Obama doesn't self-destruct somehow in the next few months it's remarkable the Clintons messed up this badly; I thought their history of successful campaigning over nearly three decades would have precluded it.
Pride goes before a fall, I guess, or Hillary just doesn't have Bill's charisma, or maybe Obama is really that good. (insert shrug emoticon)
And I was trying to remember: didn't Romney set the precedent of merely 'suspending' rather than 'ending' his campaign? Hmmmm... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Hillary sealed her fate last February when she lashed out at Obama over mailings to voters in Ohio. Personally, the image of an angry Hillary in the oval office is repellant. Same goes for McCain popping his cork whenever something rankles him.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think that on general principles electing two members of the same family as head of state is a mistake - unless of course you want a monarchy.
But then I think having any career soldier as a the locus of power is a mistake too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Doublethink, do you think career soldiers are to gun shy to be president? I think ivory tower types are jingoistic myself.
Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush II come to mind.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
I love how an Ivy League degree automatically equals "ivory tower". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
Truman didn't go to college, LBJ went to a small state college in Texas. I think it's a branch of Texas State University now. Hardly Ivy League, regardless.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agrgurich
Shipmate
# 5724
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Other intriguing choices: <snip> Virginia former Governor Mark Warner (although his abrupt withdrawal from the Presidential Derby early on makes one wonder...), or Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
Mark Warner is currently running hard for the Senate to replace the retiring GOP Sen John Warner (no relation). As much as I like both Mark Warner and Jim Webb*, the next President is going to need a reliably Democratic Senate.
*I have voted for both of them in the past and see no reason not to in the future.
I don't think President McCain will need or want a "reliably Democratic Senate". ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Life is a comedy to those who think & a tragedy to those who feel.-Horace Walpole
AJG
Posts: 4478 | From: Michigan's Copper Country | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agrgurich:
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Other intriguing choices: <snip> Virginia former Governor Mark Warner (although his abrupt withdrawal from the Presidential Derby early on makes one wonder...), or Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
Mark Warner is currently running hard for the Senate to replace the retiring GOP Sen John Warner (no relation). As much as I like both Mark Warner and Jim Webb*, the next President is going to need a reliably Democratic Senate.
*I have voted for both of them in the past and see no reason not to in the future.
I don't think President McCain will need or want a "reliably Democratic Senate".
But Senator McCain will enjoy seeing some new Democratic colleagues come Jan ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agrgurich:
I don't think President McCain will need or want a "reliably Democratic Senate".
But I, and from my discussions more than one other person, prefer to have the president and the congress in opposite parties. What gets done is marginally more likely to be more what the constituents would like, rather than what the party bosses prefer (which at times are very far apart).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
I completely agree that ideally, the majority in Congress is one party and the President is the other. Until he got the nomination and started pandering, McCain alienated a lot of Republicans. He might actually be happier to see a democratic Congress, should he be elected President.
There was some talk this morning on the punditry shows about the possibility of a really congenial, issues-based campaign season if it's McCain and Obama. They might even do fora together. Anyone think this could actually happen? I'd like to think so, but it's hard to imagine. What about McCain's and Obama's pledge to take public financing if they're the nominees. The last I heard about it was months ago. Obama seemed reluctant to commit then, and tens of millions of dollars later, it's hard to believe he'd be any more willing.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agrgurich
Shipmate
# 5724
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
I completely agree that ideally, the majority in Congress is one party and the President is the other. Until he got the nomination and started pandering, McCain alienated a lot of Republicans. He might actually be happier to see a democratic Congress, should he be elected President.
There was some talk this morning on the punditry shows about the possibility of a really congenial, issues-based campaign season if it's McCain and Obama. They might even do fora together. Anyone think this could actually happen? I'd like to think so, but it's hard to imagine. What about McCain's and Obama's pledge to take public financing if they're the nominees. The last I heard about it was months ago. Obama seemed reluctant to commit then, and tens of millions of dollars later, it's hard to believe he'd be any more willing.
Sen. Obama won't take public financing. He'll raise much more money privately. Everyone claims to want an "issue-based" campaign. It never happens.
The plain truth is 7/8 of us voters have already made up our minds. Who knows what causes the last 1/8 to vote the way they do. I doubt if "issues" have much to do with it
--------------------
Life is a comedy to those who think & a tragedy to those who feel.-Horace Walpole
AJG
Posts: 4478 | From: Michigan's Copper Country | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
You're probably right. Sigh. I'm not quite that cynical, or I'd like not to be. I think the war is an issue, if it can come out from behind the shadows of the economy, and the war was arguably responsible for some upset in the 2006 elections.
Two more questions on the democratic side:
1. Has anyone else noticed that Clinton changes her speech patterns when she's somewhere like West Virginia, or rural parts of Indiana, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina? Going to and want to become gonna and wanna. Trying becomes tryin', things like that. In the clip I saw from West Virginia today, she nearly had a twang. I don't think she talked like that when she was running for Senator from NY, nor when she's on Meet the Press or some such program.
2. I'm not perpetuating the claim that Obama is Muslim. I hate to even mention it. I read an op-ed piece in the NY Times today claiming he's a Muslim under Muslim law since his father was a Muslim, so he's an apostate, and this will complicate his visits to and relationships with Muslim countries, and he's unlikely to improve US relations with the Islamic world. I'm going to try to paste in a link, but it doesn't seem to be working. The piece is called "President Apostate?" Try here
I don't know enough about Islam to know if this is accurate or a speculative overreaction. Should this be a new, non-POTUS thread?
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Yes, Islamic tradition says the children of a Muslim are Muslim. My understanding of Obama's experience is that he's never practiced the faith. His father abandoned the family when Obama was 2.5 yrs (?) old and he was raised Christian.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
1. Has anyone else noticed that Clinton changes her speech patterns when she's somewhere like West Virginia, or rural parts of Indiana, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina? Going to and want to become gonna and wanna. Trying becomes tryin', things like that. In the clip I saw from West Virginia today, she nearly had a twang. I don't think she talked like that when she was running for Senator from NY, nor when she's on Meet the Press or some such program.
Actually, that is something that I catch myself doing. I think it's a result of growing up in the Midwest plus some early exposure to other accents, followed by moving to other regions of the country.
Many decades of living overseas plus moving around the US have left me with a long list of words and phrases that give me that momentary frisson: "Oh dear, how should I pronounce this?". The ones I still haven't resolved (despite the decades) are Aunt (ant/awnt) and vase (vace/vahz). Neither option sounds right to me anymore.
Being of an age with Hilary and having a similar background in terms of when and where she lived, I'm going to defend her on this one. I truly don't think she is affecting the local accents, but simply responding to them, since most of the sounds are already in her brain, ready to be triggered when she hears them.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Sigh: another one of my predictions apparently bites the dust. The Fat Lady is warming up.
quote:
Speaking to voters in the Appalachian state on Sunday evening, she said: “All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it.”
Realising her faux pas, she added: “More likely if she cares about it!”
(Unless... unless... she could have been talking about McCain. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Yes, Islamic tradition says the children of a Muslim are Muslim. My understanding of Obama's experience is that he's never practiced the faith. His father abandoned the family when Obama was 2.5 yrs (?) old and he was raised Christian.
Yes, that's my understanding, too. I've read one of his books, I've read his speeches. My question was about how this would play in the Muslim world, and whether the op-ed piece was correct in asserting that it would make a big difference to Muslim countries, he'd have to have special security, things like that.
As for Clinton's video and her use of the masculine pronoun, I'll defend her on that one. At least she didn't use they when the antecedent was singular. It's hard not to refer to the President as he, when it has been a he for centuries. I've had to go back and add "or she" about the next President several times. When it comes to her shifting accent, however. she's making a speech! I don't hear her just chatting with people. I'd think she'd be conscious of how she's speaking when she's up in front of a crowd using a microphone.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I, and from my discussions more than one other person, prefer to have the president and the congress in opposite parties. What gets done is marginally more likely to be more what the constituents would like, rather than what the party bosses prefer (which at times are very far apart).
The prescription of opposite parties in the various branches of government works well if you want nothing to happen, but then that would be an endorsement of the status quo. Since we need rather positive action in the opposite direction from the last 8 years, I'm rather hoping for significant Democratic gains on all fronts.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
The prescription of opposite parties in the various branches of government works well if you want nothing to happen, but then that would be an endorsement of the status quo.
Not quite. All one needs to believe is that any action that the government takes is likely to make things worse. One may believe that even if you believe we're in a mess now, which most of the country readily acknowleges.
I share your hope that we can elect people who can find it within themselves to act in the country's interest instead of just their own, but I confess that my expectations run more toward those of MT. Nonetheless, I expect to vote based on my hopes rather than my fears.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
There was some talk this morning on the punditry shows about the possibility of a really congenial, issues-based campaign season if it's McCain and Obama. They might even do fora together. Anyone think this could actually happen? I'd like to think so, but it's hard to imagine. What about McCain's and Obama's pledge to take public financing if they're the nominees. The last I heard about it was months ago. Obama seemed reluctant to commit then, and tens of millions of dollars later, it's hard to believe he'd be any more willing.
Both have already raised much more money than the cap that public financing would restrict them to, meaning that Obama isn't opting in and McCain is trying to opt out. And the reason he's trying to opt out is that he took out a loan to be underwritten by public financing if his campaign imploded and used the public system to get his name on the ballot. And therefore he has materially benefited from the public financing system and is thus in it.
(Obama isn't, and only said he would seek an agreement that both sides accepted public funding if he won. He's got just enough breathing room here to not break his word - and the longer the Clinton/Obama primary goes on, the greater the chance McCain is going to escape and hence not leave Obama with this problem).
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Since we need rather positive action in the opposite direction from the last 8 years, I'm rather hoping for significant Democratic gains on all fronts.
You should be hoping for a third party to win if you want significant change. The Democrats are just as beholden to special interests as the Republicans, just not usually the same ones.
Have fun with even more bureaucracy and centralisation of power.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
You should be hoping for a third party to win if you want significant change.
Amen and amen.
Have I mentioned that God votes Libertarian?
(Although I have it on good authority Bob Barr is testing its resolve... another johnny come lately convert who not long ago was a strong proponent of the 'War On Drugs'. Now that he's lost his seat in Congress he sees the libertarian light... oh well: he who is no longer against me is for me.)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Have I mentioned that God votes Libertarian?
The Lord is known to love children. And the concept of the Holy Fool has a long history.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by Ps118:
1. Has anyone else noticed that Clinton changes her speech patterns when she's somewhere like West Virginia, or rural parts of Indiana, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina? Going to and want to become gonna and wanna. Trying becomes tryin', things like that. In the clip I saw from West Virginia today, she nearly had a twang. I don't think she talked like that when she was running for Senator from NY, nor when she's on Meet the Press or some such program.
Actually, that is something that I catch myself doing. I think it's a result of growing up in the Midwest plus some early exposure to other accents, followed by moving to other regions of the country.
Many decades of living overseas plus moving around the US have left me with a long list of words and phrases that give me that momentary frisson: "Oh dear, how should I pronounce this?". The ones I still haven't resolved (despite the decades) are Aunt (ant/awnt) and vase (vace/vahz). Neither option sounds right to me anymore.
Being of an age with Hilary and having a similar background in terms of when and where she lived, I'm going to defend her on this one. I truly don't think she is affecting the local accents, but simply responding to them, since most of the sounds are already in her brain, ready to be triggered when she hears them.
Same here. I grew up in Western Maryland, but was mildly amused when, as talking to a college friend, I slipped into a Chicago accent. I've also been told that I speak with an English accent (which probably meant I spoke like I was educated, or maybe the guy was trying to flatter me).
And while I honestly don't know if I had one when I was growing up, I definitely pick up a twang when I go to my parents' house. While I'm happy to accuse Hillary of pandering in many cases, I don't think the accent is something I'd blame her for. quote:
Originally Posted by tclune:
I share your hope that we can elect people who can find it within themselves to act in the country's interest instead of just their own, but I confess that my expectations run more toward those of MT. Nonetheless, I expect to vote based on my hopes rather than my fears.
I think one reason we're a vaguely democratic government is to try to minimize the degree to which there is a gap between the president's interest and the nation's interest. Because he or she, of all elected officials, is the most directly accountable to the people (electoral college notwithstanding), there shouldn't be such a massive difference between the presidential interest and the national interest. Speaking ideally, of course... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
All one needs to believe is that any action that the government takes is likely to make things worse. One may believe that even if you believe we're in a mess now, which most of the country readily acknowleges.
Well, that's certainly been true when the GOP has been running the show.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
My apologies for my last comment. Such a direct attack was out of bounds for the board.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
All one needs to believe is that any action that the government takes is likely to make things worse. One may believe that even if you believe we're in a mess now, which most of the country readily acknowleges.
Well, that's certainly been true when the GOP has been running the show.
I think P.J. O'Rourke does the best summaries there:
quote:
Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and they get elected and prove it.
...
The Democrats said, "We don't know what's wrong with America, but we can fix it." The Republicans said, "There's nothing wrong with America, and we can fix that."
...
The Democrats planned to fiddle while Rome burned. The Republicans were going to burn Rome, then fiddle.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
My apologies for my last comment. Such a direct attack was out of bounds for the board.
No problem: we humble libertarian types understand people who feel the need to suggest we don't love children are as fucked up as we are.
It's one of the reasons we don't trust anybody all that much.
And quoting P.J. is more than adequate penance for your momentary humor impairment.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just an aside here, about the idea of having the opposing parties of roughly equal strength:
This may be part of the difference between the US and Canada, because we have often had the most productive sessions of Parliament when the majority party was not in an absolute majority - IOW, when they had to get at least one of the other parties on side for any major action.
Pearson's era, for instance, established Medicare as a national concept, cleaned up the national pensions progrma, and even got us to accept a new flag! All while he was in a minority government.
Even the present US-leaning Harper has had quite a good session, relatively speaking, despite being in a minority situation. He has to get "the people" on side, or he has no hope of majority status, ever.
Of course, it helps to have more than two parties, but that would never work in the Land of the Free, I guess.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Let's assume that Hillary drops out and Obama does not choose her as VP. Further that Obama wins the election. What does the Congress look like? I'll bet it still almost a fifty fifty split but perhaps with the Dems holding a slim majoity.
Where would Hillary be most effective in such a situation? ISTM that her position could be as Majority Leader in the Senate and a real player in getting some action out of the moribund bunch we now have.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Let's assume that Hillary drops out and Obama does not choose her as VP. Further that Obama wins the election. What does the Congress look like? I'll bet it still almost a fifty fifty split but perhaps with the Dems holding a slim majoity.
Where would Hillary be most effective in such a situation? ISTM that her position could be as Majority Leader in the Senate and a real player in getting some action out of the moribund bunch we now have.
with many more GOP open seats and vulnerable incumbants, this is a definite Democratic year for the Senate.
I don't think President Barack would stand Hillary as Majority Leader. Appoint her Ambassador to Kenya or special envoy to Zimbabwe.
[ 14. May 2008, 01:01: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
I think Ambassador to Bosnia would be more fitting.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ps118
Shipmate
# 13655
|
Posted
Thanks, Gort. I needed a good laugh. I bet Sinbad's available to serve as her deputy, too.
Posts: 185 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Let's assume that Hillary drops out and Obama does not choose her as VP. Further that Obama wins the election. What does the Congress look like? I'll bet it still almost a fifty fifty split but perhaps with the Dems holding a slim majoity.
Where would Hillary be most effective in such a situation? ISTM that her position could be as Majority Leader in the Senate and a real player in getting some action out of the moribund bunch we now have.
Awesome, she can get on with the real work of banning non-"family friendly" computer games, books and movies. We know the proles are too stupid to choose what they and their children watch, but luckily they have Aunty Hil to look after them. Plus just think of how much richer America will be with all those enhanced Imaginary Property laws being passed.
You do realise her "social values" platform consists of more then welfare and health care right?
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Awesome, she can get on with the real work of banning non-"family friendly" computer games, books and movies. We know the proles are too stupid to choose what they and their children watch, but luckily they have Aunty Hil to look after them. Plus just think of how much richer America will be with all those enhanced Imaginary Property laws being passed.
You do realise her "social values" platform consists of more then welfare and health care right?
Book banning? gimme a citation, that is a serious accusation.
--------------------
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
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Awesome, she can get on with the real work of banning non-"family friendly" computer games, books and movies. We know the proles are too stupid to choose what they and their children watch, but luckily they have Aunty Hil to look after them. Plus just think of how much richer America will be with all those enhanced Imaginary Property laws being passed.
You do realise her "social values" platform consists of more then welfare and health care right?
Book banning? gimme a citation, that is a serious accusation.
I think he may have Hillary mixed up with Tipper Gore who was big on banning cd's with explicit lyrics.
--------------------
"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
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I think he may have Hillary mixed up with Tipper Gore who was big on banning cd's with explicit lyrics.
No, I don't have her mixed up. Hillary is well known among the computer gaming community as being one of the "CD burners", just do a quick Google. I just don't trust people with her attitude, as history generally shows them to go for extreme measures like banning, when they get real power.
I also really don't like politicians who remove the requirement for personal responsibility.
/sarcasm
It isn't your fault that your kid buys a $50USD violent computer game, and plays it on their several thousand USD worth of computer/tv equipment, it is those damn game retailers. Sure, we will ignore the fact that most of them don't carry AO games in the first place, and that plenty of violent games bought for minors are done so by their parents.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
SeraphimSarov wrote: I think he may have Hillary mixed up with Tipper Gore who was big on banning cd's with explicit lyrics.
That characterization of Tipper Gore's position is simply untrue. What she pushed for were labels on records with adult content. In a pre-Internet time, there was no way parents could tell if the CD their 10-year-old wanted to buy was of the moon/June/croon variety or included demeaning references to women, pernicious racial epithets, or a glorification of violence. Tipper Gore asked for voluntary labeling. Never did she call for "banning cd's with explicit lyrics." I'm not saying I agree with her position, but at least let's accurately recount what her position was.
As for the_raptor's statement that: quote:
Awesome, she can get on with the real work of banning non-"family friendly" computer games, books and movies. We know the proles are too stupid to choose what they and their children watch, but luckily they have Aunty Hil to look after them.
Well, that's just plain wrong, too -- and goodness knows I'm no Hillary fan. Her primary beef was with a videogame manufacturer that hid adult content in their product and failed to disclose it to the voluntary industry ratings board in an effort to hoodwink the board and avoid an "Adults Only" rating. Her point was that parents should be able to rely on industry ratings in choosing what's appropriate for their kids.
Again, I'm not defending her position, but please get the facts straight.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Awesome, she can get on with the real work of banning non-"family friendly" computer games, books and movies. We know the proles are too stupid to choose what they and their children watch, but luckily they have Aunty Hil to look after them. Plus just think of how much richer America will be with all those enhanced Imaginary Property laws being passed.
You do realise her "social values" platform consists of more then welfare and health care right?
Book banning? gimme a citation, that is a serious accusation.
I think he may have Hillary mixed up with Tipper Gore who was big on banning cd's with explicit lyrics.
I hope so because "the prole" crack was contemptuous, talk about The Liberal Elitist.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
"prole"?
as for Hillary's "well known" stand point - 80 bazillion paranoid gamers do not in fact equal one fact. if you're going to make an allegation that huge, gimme a citation I can actually believe.
otherwise, shaddap.
And I'm not a Hillary person either - but she's trippy enough without adding fiction to the mix.
I'm fine with voluntary labeling, but censorship is one of those topics that makes me turn funny colors while my head spins around and I breath fire.
--------------------
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
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Perhaps the_raptor and his 80 bazillion gamer buddies (who really do need to get out a bit more, don't you think?) should be a little less concerned about the threat to free expression posed by Hillary Clinton and voluntary industry self-regulation and a bit more concerned about government-mandated classification systems of which Australia's is just one.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
The prescription of opposite parties in the various branches of government works well if you want nothing to happen, but then that would be an endorsement of the status quo.
Not quite. All one needs to believe is that any action that the government takes is likely to make things worse.
I suppose it depends on how much people miss their civil liberties. Nothing short of direct legislative action will bring them back, and this will not happen if there is significant Republican voice involved. Heck, it will take some pushing even if the Democrats have a veto-proof majority, but at least it will be a possibility.
As to third parties, for good or for ill, it's more practical to put your hopes in the parousia ahead of the Bull Moose. We had a third party governor here in Minnesota. He couldn't do jack without allied members of the legislature and was basically a non-entity for four years.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Let's assume that Hillary drops out and Obama does not choose her as VP. Further that Obama wins the election. What does the Congress look like? I'll bet it still almost a fifty fifty split but perhaps with the Dems holding a slim majoity.
Here's a good take regarding the Republicans' down-ticket chances in November. It ain't pretty (if you're a Republican). As mentioned in the link, the Dems have already picked up three House seats in special elections in blood-red Republican districts that normally vote solid GOP.
Considering that everything Bush has touched over the past 7 years has turned to absolute shit (economy, Iraq, foreign relations, disaster relief, civil liberties, etc., etc.), why should the Republican brand be any different?
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
