homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread (Page 44)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  ...  109  110  111 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
One of the thigs that genuinely mystifies me is why people believe that they are being cheated by their government and catered to by people who are becoming wealthy off them.

<snip>

Perhaps the reason that people think they are getting so little for their tax dollar is that the government spends very little time and effort advertising what it is doing with our common wealth, while private industry spends vast fortunes convincing people that a brand-name aspirin is vastly more beneficial than a generic one.

My theory is that most people are idiots and most of the rest are selfish.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Then again... Congress might want to do so if only to elicit public discussion.

It's about time.

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by agrgurich:
I think the public might be a wee bit upset if the military was defunded by the Congress. It's not going to happen.

Perhaps not. Which creates the pressure to pass the bill with conditions removing funding authorization for activities in Iraq.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783

 - Posted      Profile for Loquacious beachcomber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
With the race pretty much decided, the Clinton campaign is running desperately low on funds; to make things worse, an avalanche of new new funds is now going to the Obama campaign.
A trucker, traveling late at night on a deserted freeway, was startled to see a huge, fundraising billboard which read:
BILL CLINTON'S WORLD CLASS WHORE HOUSE: 20 MILES AHEAD.

The trucker put the pedal to the metal, and raised his speed to 70 mph. Very soon, he came across a second fundraising billboard, which read:
BILL CLINTON'S WORLD CLASS WHORE HOUSE: 10 MILES AHEAD.

The trucker put the pedal to the metal, and raised his speed to 80 mph. Very soon, he came across a huge steel gate, blocking the freeway. A huge sign on the gate read:
BILL CLINTON'S WORLD CLASS WHORE HOUSE: DEPOSIT $100.00 AND DRIVE THROUGH.

Somewhat bemused, the trucker deposited five $20 bills in the slot below the sign, and the huge gate opened. At first, the trucker saw nothing but open road; however, he soon spotted yet another billboard:
YOU HAVE JUST RECEIVED ANOTHER WORLD CLASS SCREWING FROM BILL CLINTON.

--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)

Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Redolent Spilogale Putorius:
With the race pretty much decided, the Clinton campaign is running desperately low on funds; to make things worse, an avalanche of new new funds is now going to the Obama campaign.
[/b]

but Hillary is still pulling out all the "bravado" stops in her speeches in KY "It isn't over" "on to the nomination" "2210 delegates!!!" [Disappointed] [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"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
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by agrgurich:
I think the public might be a wee bit upset if the military was defunded by the Congress. It's not going to happen.

Perhaps not. Which creates the pressure to pass the bill with conditions removing funding authorization for activities in Iraq.
the old problem of the GOP painting Dems as "unpatriotic" through these measures and too many people buy it especially in an election year-it would be a gift to them when they are down.

--------------------
"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
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Listen to today's Talk of the Nation if you want some laughs as two prominent Republicans try to articulate what they must do to recapture the wavering loyalty of the electorate. Spin-spin-spin. Go back to "our core principles" [which we somehow managed to stray from, even though they're so core]: smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom, less intrusion-- but don't worry, religious right, you're an important part of the GOP constituency. And veterans, don't believe the horror stories from your comrades in arms: we're treating y'all just fine.

Are these two guests among the brightest bulbs left in the chandelier, or did the program's hosts deliberately pick a coupla duds?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
the old problem of the GOP painting Dems as "unpatriotic" through these measures and too many people buy it especially in an election year-it would be a gift to them when they are down.

But most people now want the troops to come home.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Listen to today's Talk of the Nation if you want some laughs as two prominent Republicans try to articulate what they must do to recapture the wavering loyalty of the electorate. Spin-spin-spin.
Are these two guests among the brightest bulbs left in the chandelier, or did the program's hosts deliberately pick a coupla duds?

It was the callers who interested me the most. I liked the gal who moaned about how ashamed she was that her party wasn't conservative anymore...
[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
It was the callers who interested me the most. I liked the gal who moaned about how ashamed she was that her party wasn't conservative anymore...
[Roll Eyes]

Is this the one who had a car dealership, whose heroine was Ayn Rand, and whose biggest problem was with illegal immigration? Yeah, pretty screwy-- I have to think that Ayn Rand would have repealed any and all laws against people's going where they want to go, especially when there were employers and jobs at their destination. That's just one more part of the "free market" that they like to talk about as a shining ideal on the one hand, and on the other prevent from being a reality.

For us radio listeners, here's another interesting piece: Senator Jim Webb of Virgina: "Reagan Democrat", from a family of generations of proud soldiers and sailors, former Secretary of the Navy, opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning but whose son served there even though he wasn't so sure about it either; author of both fiction and non-fiction books, concerned for the welfare of the working class. I think that he would be a wise choice for Obama's running mate. He's a southerner with management experience who should be able to unite the party by winning over those who have preferred Hillary.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Is this the one who had a car dealership, whose heroine was Ayn Rand, and whose biggest problem was with illegal immigration? Yeah, pretty screwy-- I have to think that Ayn Rand would have repealed any and all laws against people's going where they want to go, especially when there were employers and jobs at their destination. That's just one more part of the "free market" that they like to talk about as a shining ideal on the one hand, and on the other prevent from being a reality.

I suspect Rand would repeal laws against free movement, but she would also repeal the taxes that pay for the various things such as schools and free medical care that are being swamped by illegal aliens or their kids.

But then, would Rand have a problem with checking folks out at the border or ports of entry to make sure they are either physically able to work or independently wealthy and aren't carrying communicable diseases?

--------------------
"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
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yeah, that was the one - Ayn Rand indeed! Give me a break!
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Ayn Rand might quite likely have been in favour of racist immigration laws. She was a sort of despairing libertarian elitist. She seemed to think that her and her friends were better than ordinary folk, but were unable to take over and run the world the way they wanted. So in practice she was in favour of authoritarian laws on the principle that her kind of people could work round them, but the common scum she despised needed controlling.

She may or may not have thought that anarchism was the ideal society, but she didn't think of it as achieveable. The best she hoped for in real life was America as some sort of giant Hong Kong (as it then was) - minimal welfare, harsh policing, authoritarian laws administered in a reasonably impartial business-friendly manner.

[ 21. May 2008, 14:32: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, it's amazing what actual experience of Marxism will do to a person.

--------------------
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
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
So, apparently McCain has floated the idea of "Question Time" again, per a campaign promise he made in 2000. From his speech (source):
quote:
I will hold weekly press conferences. … I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.
And here's another article on it by Christopher Hitchens.

So...question time for the prezzie. Does anyone think this could work? If nothing else, I see great potential for politically oriented comedians everywhere.

--------------------
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
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's one good idea to come from McCain.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You mean ... the US doesn't have Question Time?

Are any other Canadians hearing Wayne and Shuster in their heads?

Question time, question time, everybody loves question time
There ain't no reason and there ain't no rhyme to
do de doo do doo
Question time....


Just me then? Okay...

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
America has nothing even remotely comparable to Question Time, and if Congress were to question the President as aggressively as the Commons do the PM, many Americans would be shocked at the lack of respect--our political culture is way too deferential, odd as that may seem. I suspect that McCain's people would talk him out of that idea pretty quickly if he were elected.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174

 - Posted      Profile for piers ploughman   Email piers ploughman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Question Time is easy enough to stage manage for a Government with any political savvy. Dorothy Dixers enable them to go on ad nauseam about their own magnificent policies and successes and most Opposition questions can be easily anticipated or made to disappear in a cloud of waffle, evasion and abuse.

--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.

Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That may be so, Piers, and is most of the time, but if the Opposition have their teeth in, Question Time can be a bloodbath. And unlike the US system, our leaders have to be present for the Question and accountable to the House of Commons. If the PM and cabinet ducks Question time too often, the Opposition can make that an issue of itself. Don't know how McCain's idea would work out, in practice. Media scrums can be cat fights, but more often they are a Golden Labrador wiggling as he gets his ears scratched.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Question Time is easy enough to stage manage for a Government with any political savvy. Dorothy Dixers enable them to go on ad nauseam about their own magnificent policies and successes and most Opposition questions can be easily anticipated or made to disappear in a cloud of waffle, evasion and abuse.

I do like Question Time but it is also the time where backbenchers tend to get up and ask the PM "Will my Right Honourable friend be so kind as to outline his achievements of the past week"? [Smile] This was more then exemplified with some of Blair's New Labourite (which has nothing to do with Labour) MP's in 1997-2001

--------------------
"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
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Is it my imagination or has the Clinton camp gone into a full court press on the Michigan and Florida thing?

One mouthpiece on CBC last night was bleating as if seating the Democratic delegates from Florida or not is going to be the tiping point giving the whole election to the Republicans.

I thought Dean already told them off over this?

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Is it my imagination or has the Clinton camp gone into a full court press on the Michigan and Florida thing?

quote:
A day after Senator Barack Obama gathered a majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defiantly sent out new signals Wednesday that she might take her fight for the nomination all the way to the party’s convention in August.

snip

Both need superdelegates to get over the finish line. But winning additional delegates from Florida and Michigan might be Mrs. Clinton’s last glimmer of hope in bolstering her case to superdelegates that she would be the stronger candidate in November. In her victory speech Tuesday in Kentucky, she noted that the primary race was one of the closest in history.


Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
In addition to Clinton's recent 'full-court press' to include Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention, she has finally spoken up about rampant sexism at the hands of pundits, media and others.
quote:
In an interview after church services in Bowling Green on Sunday, Clinton for the first time addressed what women have been talking about for months, what she refers to as the "sexist" treatment she has endured at the hands of the pundits, media and others. The lewd T-shirts. The man who shouted "Iron my shirt" at a campaign event. The references to her cleavage and her cackle. More here.
It's difficult to be an ignorant bigot these days, what with the difficult decision to be made between hatred of woman and African-Americans with regard to a voting decision. You would think Cecil and Bertha Hayseed have no more pressing issues than their illegal whiskey still or surviving the snake-handling tent revival this weekend. Of course, their conflict can be resolved by simply voting once again for the white guy with fundamentalist red-neck endorsements.

Darwin would be rolling in his grave if he weren't laughing so loud.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174

 - Posted      Profile for piers ploughman   Email piers ploughman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Question Time is easy enough to stage manage for a Government with any political savvy. Dorothy Dixers enable them to go on ad nauseam about their own magnificent policies and successes and most Opposition questions can be easily anticipated or made to disappear in a cloud of waffle, evasion and abuse.

I do like Question Time but it is also the time where backbenchers tend to get up and ask the PM "Will my Right Honourable friend be so kind as to outline his achievements of the past week"? [Smile] This was more then exemplified with some of Blair's New Labourite (which has nothing to do with Labour) MP's in 1997-2001
Indeed,SS. I couldn't imagine a better description of a 'Dorothy Dixer'.

--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.

Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You've been a great competitor. We've enjoyed having you. Please accept this lovely jumbo giftpak of parting gifts. And don't let the door hit you on way out, Senator Clinton.

It's not that Hillary Clinton's tasteless statement that she's staying in the race because things can change late in the game and "We all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" was tasteless enough on its own. Gaffes happen.

It's her inability to apologize -- other than the usual "I'm sorry to those who were offended" non-apology apology -- that will seal her fate.

Buh-bye.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's hard to believe someone of her political experience could make such a crass statement, especially near the 40th anniversary of RFK's death. I want to think she was referring to former Democratic campaigns extending into June, but her failure to own up to her mistake with that lame "to those who were offended" apology confirms my darkest suspicions.

Buh-bye, indeed. Go back to New York, Clinton.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Does this mean that the Kennedy support has gone over to Obama?

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It certainly makes her VP prospects a bit dimmer.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Does this mean that the Kennedy support has gone over to Obama?

Ted Kennedy and many others in the family declared their support for Obama months ago.

--------------------
"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
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Maria Schriver put an Obama sign on the lawn of the California governor's mansion (Arnie laid down the law and put a McCain sign next to it, knowing there is no such thing as winning an argument with your wife).

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Hillary Clinton's 249,000-popular-vote plurality in Kentucky, offset only partially by Barack Obama's 108,000-vote plurality in Oregon, gives her a popular-vote lead in two of realclearpolitics.com's six metrics, i.e., counting Florida and Michigan, and including those two states and the imputed popular-vote margin in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses. And it puts her within reach, depending on the result in unpredictable Puerto Rico, of a popular-vote lead in two more metrics—the two that don't include Michigan, where Obama removed himself from the ballot and Clinton didn't. All of which seems to me to make a solid case that Clinton is the choice of the people.

Yes, there's also a solid argument that Obama is ahead in the metric that, after all, determines the nomination—the delegate count. But that lead consists almost entirely of delegates won in caucuses. Obama has a pencil-thin lead among delegates chosen in primaries.

Based on the comparative closeness of the popular vote I can see why Clinton is loathe to quit: ISTM her argument is essentially the same as those who noted Gore won more popular votes but lost the electoral vote count.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Based on the comparative closeness of the popular vote I can see why Clinton is loathe to quit: ISTM her argument is essentially the same as those who noted Gore won more popular votes but lost the electoral vote count.

Not so much.

Firstly, there's the little matter of the Florida result being decided 5:4 by the supreme court. In a way that went against the popular vote in America - and made it impossible to tell what the vote in Florida really was.

Secondly there's the issue of Michigan (and the slightly lesser issue of Florida). Clinton was the only major democratic candidate (Dodd, Gravel, and Kunich) with her name on the Michigan ballot. (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards had all agreed to take their names off the ballot but Clinton didn't actually do it).

The only way Clinton can claim a lead in the popular vote involves claiming 330,000 votes from an invalid Democratic primary in which Obama wasn't on the ballot, and in which 240,000 voters cast a vote for "none of the above" (i.e. that they didn't want any of Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, or Kunich who were the only names on the ballot) despite knowing that the rules said that their ballot would be considered meaningless.

A better analogy than Bush vs Gore would have been one in which Gore could only claim a popular vote victory by including Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all four of them were many times larger than they really are. And Bush didn't run in any of them and wasn't evem on the ballot in Puerto Rico or Guam because he had an agreement with Gore not to (and despite that, 45% of the votes were against Gore in Puerto Rico and Guam).

--------------------
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      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Based on the comparative closeness of the popular vote I can see why Clinton is loathe to quit: ISTM her argument is essentially the same as those who noted Gore won more popular votes but lost the electoral vote count.

Not so much.


Generally speaking there are comparisons: both involve complicated 'political' processes which to some extent disenfranchise the popular vote.

And I don't know anyone who claimed Clinton is ahead in the popular vote; she's just closer in that arguably more democratic aspect than with delegates.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
And I don't know anyone who claimed Clinton is ahead in the popular vote; she's just closer in that arguably more democratic aspect than with delegates.

Which is a new thing - it's only fairly recently her superdelegate lead has been overturned...

But the other part of that is that she's getting thrashed on caucuses. Traditionally safe votes for Machine Politicians and Establishment Candidates (both fo which Clinton is) tend to do well here due to better knowledge of the Caucus system at grassroots level and ease of getting the time to caucus. But Obama's managed to completely overturn that one. But although a Caucus requires far more investment in person time, one caucusant is only worht one in the popular vote. But probably worht a lot more than that because someone who is prepared to caucus is likely to be prepared to campaign for the candidate rather than just willing to pull a lever.

Clinton is going for the popular vote (in which she is losing unless she spins like Bill Clinton in a washing machine) because it is the only metric she can find where she is merely losing rather than getting her ass kicked.

[ 24. May 2008, 14:02: Message edited by: Justinian ]

--------------------
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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Hillary Clinton's 249,000-popular-vote plurality in Kentucky, offset only partially by Barack Obama's 108,000-vote plurality in Oregon, gives her a popular-vote lead in two of realclearpolitics.com's six metrics, i.e., counting Florida and Michigan, and including those two states and the imputed popular-vote margin in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine caucuses. And it puts her within reach, depending on the result in unpredictable Puerto Rico, of a popular-vote lead in two more metrics—the two that don't include Michigan, where Obama removed himself from the ballot and Clinton didn't. All of which seems to me to make a solid case that Clinton is the choice of the people.

Yes, there's also a solid argument that Obama is ahead in the metric that, after all, determines the nomination—the delegate count. But that lead consists almost entirely of delegates won in caucuses. Obama has a pencil-thin lead among delegates chosen in primaries.

Based on the comparative closeness of the popular vote I can see why Clinton is loathe to quit: ISTM her argument is essentially the same as those who noted Gore won more popular votes but lost the electoral vote count.
The whole notion of a "popular vote lead" is meaningless on a lot of levels. First, of course, it has nothing to do with who gets elected, either in the primaries or in the general election.

Second, in the primaries it is especially meaningless -- we have no idea how many people showed up at the caucuses, or how they cast their ballots. Since so many of the states choose their delegates this way, saying that you want the one with the most popular votes to win the nomination is absurd on its face.

Third, the FL and MI situation is ludicrous -- not only did these states vote for the original rules and then violate them knowing what the consequences would be, but Obama and Edwards followed through on what was expected of them and removed their names from the MI ballot, while Hillary did the Clinton sleeze and "forgot" to do that. Why on earth should she be rewarded for weazeling into being the only name on the ballot, and managing to squeek out a win through Clintionian means? How she can be allowed to treat her scumminess as the high ground is more than I can imagine.

Also, with FL, every voter in the state knew that the primary wasn't going to count. The assumption that those who voted anyway are reflective of those who would have voted in a real election is laughable. The Clintons are a stench in the nostrels of honest people everywhere. Pretending that Hillary is being disrespected because she's a woman is a bit like saying that Lucrezia Borgia is reviled because of her gender. If you can say with a straight face that Hillary is taking this line of argument because she cares so much for the voters that she wants every vote to count, and would do the same if this tortuous line of argument favored Obama, I will assume that you are serious. Otherwise, give it a rest.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Otherwise, give it a rest.

I'll write what I please here, thank you very much, and unlike some I'll avoid presuming telling others what they can and can't say: I prefer to take a more liberal view.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Otherwise, give it a rest.

I'll write what I please here, thank you very much, and unlike some I'll avoid presuming telling others what they can and can't say: I prefer to take a more liberal view.
I'm very glad you are writing what you please here. When someone posts bad spin that's being pumped out on a forum that isn't entirely partisan, it gives space and time for a rebuttal to go with that opinion - whereas if such things are simply said on CNN, on partisan sites, and in private then they are much harder to rebut.

Thank you for providing the deceptive Clintonian spin to be turned into a pinata. With luck, a few more people will now know how low she and her supporters are stooping in order to try and claim she still has a chance that doesn't involve a scorched-earth policy and destroying the Democratic party.

--------------------
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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
I'll write what I please here, thank you very much, and unlike some I'll avoid presuming telling others what they can and can't say: I prefer to take a more liberal view.

I take it then that you can't say with a straight face that Hillary is taking this line of argument because she cares so much for the voters that she wants every vote to count, and would do the same if this tortuous line of argument favored Obama...

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I take it then that you can't say with a straight face that Hillary is taking this line of argument because she cares so much for the voters that she wants every vote to count, and would do the same if this tortuous line of argument favored Obama...

You've made it abundantly clear you'll 'take' what you want.

No, I don't know what motivates Hillary and whether she'd make the same argument if the roles were reversed. Nor do I know how you presume to.

What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

Couldn't be that the situations are different enough to be unparallel and thus comparisons such as yours are ill-founded? Perish the thought.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

And I've pointed out that you're trying to compare apples and oranges here. The complaint about Bush/Gore isn't the overall election totals (that's a system artefact and should probably be changed but is within the rules and so can happen). It was Florida and the various fuckups there. Including Diebold, washing the electoral lists to disproportionately exclude black people, Butterfly Ballots, and the recount being stopped by the Supreme Court.

The total popular vote was a mixture of exasperation and a red herring. And you are trying to bring it up either through faulty memory or as a red herring. And this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

--------------------
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      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

Couldn't be that the situations are different enough to be unparallel and thus comparisons such as yours are ill-founded? Perish the thought.
It could be but IMO it's not been clearly demonstrated based on what's been posted here. What has been clearly demonstrated is an attempt to quell conversation, unless it happens to meet one poster's terms, which is arguably what Clinton is railing against.

Are her motives pure? How would I know? Are her motives base? How would I know?

All I 'know' is she has every right to take this to the convention even if it upsets the sensibilities of some and I'm not the only pundit who thinks her case has some merit.


(Who'da thunk I'd ever be defending Hillary Clinton on the SoF.)

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you are trying to bring it up either through faulty memory or as a red herring. And this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

No other options then, huh?

Whatever.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335

 - Posted      Profile for SeraphimSarov   Email SeraphimSarov   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

Couldn't be that the situations are different enough to be unparallel and thus comparisons such as yours are ill-founded? Perish the thought.
It could be but IMO it's not been clearly demonstrated based on what's been posted here. What has been clearly demonstrated is an attempt to quell conversation, unless it happens to meet one poster's terms, which is arguably what Clinton is railing against.

Are her motives pure? How would I know? Are her motives base? How would I know?


(Who'da thunk I'd ever be defending Hillary Clinton on the SoF.)

Ah, but as to the Florida and Michigan situations, one can make a judgement on motives. If she was as concerned as she says she is about their "Disenfranchisement" , she would have protested the DNC ruling when it was made. But she didn't. She made the pledge as did every other candidate, to not campaign in those states without a peep or argument about the merits of the case. It was only when her own self-interest became involved, that she took up this case. One can make the judgement of motives from that chain of events.

[ 24. May 2008, 22:56: 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
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I take it then that you can't say with a straight face that Hillary is taking this line of argument because she cares so much for the voters that she wants every vote to count, and would do the same if this tortuous line of argument favored Obama...

You've made it abundantly clear you'll 'take' what you want.

No, I don't know what motivates Hillary and whether she'd make the same argument if the roles were reversed. Nor do I know how you presume to.

What I am more confident of is a lot of the same people who were crying foul about Gore and the electoral votes don't seem to have the same concern about 'disenfranchisement' when their political ox isn't being gored.

You're right about the 2000 election.

The thing about Hillary is she sure seems to be crawfishing. Do you really think it reasonably possible she would be saying diddly about Florida primary voters if she had already received the party coronation she assumed was hers by right due to the mere fact of her existence?

--------------------
"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      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Do you really think it reasonably possible she would be saying diddly about Florida primary voters if she had already received the party coronation she assumed was hers by right due to the mere fact of her existence?

There's a lot there to unpack but I admit reasonably possible is unlikely. [Biased]


I'm not the only one who thinks the way the Democratic nomination process works is problematic: Matt Taibbi is also a Hillary loving bastion of conservatism.

quote:
McGovern, who opposed the superdelegate idea in 1968, ended up supporting it after the O'Neill incident. Ironically, one of the reasons he changed his mind was to prevent a situation in which the voters chose a clearly overmatched candidate. "In the event the majority made an obviously stupid decision," he says, "you'd have these party leaders, these experienced people, to help correct that."

The superdelegate system, in other words, was ostensibly designed to create a more politically harmonious balance between the party grass roots and the party establishment. In their first outing, in 1984, the superdelegates handed the nomination to Walter Mondale over Gary Hart — hardly an auspicious debut. Since then, they haven't been called on to decide a close race, but they've kept the deciding vote in their back pockets, just in case — laying the groundwork for the hideous nomination-by-backroom-deal scenario we're threatened with today.

snip

The reality, though, is that no one really knows what the fuck is going on now over the phone lines. All we know is that D-day is May 31st and that between now and then — unless Hillary bows out — the orderly and rational process of primary season is going to give way to the clubs-and-stones Hobbesian jungle that is unregulated, raw politics, the politics of using any means necessary to fight your enemy. While we wait for this process to play itself out, we are as helpless as Chinese citizens waiting for the Politburo to hand them a new premier, or Catholics watching the chimney in St. Peter's Square for word of a new pope.

Should we wind up with another sideways, party-rigged result, a country that has already gone through hanging chads in 2000 and dark rumors in Ohio in 2004 may find itself wondering exactly where it stands in the hierarchy of world democracies. Above Belarus but below Nicaragua? Looking up at Zimbabwe but down at Pakistan? No matter what, we're likely looking at the last gasp of a superdelegate system that almost certainly will be reformed by next time around.

"It's undemocratic," says Holman. "It should be thrown in the trash."

"Yeah," agrees Tinsley. "People are probably going to want to take a look at changing it, no matter what happens."


Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
I'm not the only one who thinks the way the Democratic nomination process works is problematic:

Of course it's problematic. That doesn't mean Hillary's sudden interest in certain specific problems isn't entirely self-serving.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
I'm not the only one who thinks the way the Democratic nomination process works is problematic:

Of course it's problematic. That doesn't mean Hillary's sudden interest in certain specific problems isn't entirely self-serving.
Of course it could.

I've mentioned before my surprise at the animosity towards Hillary. I really don't understand it when a case could be made she has attributes Obama doesn't such as 'appealing to blue collar white workers in key swing states who may consider Obama something of an elitist after (for instance) his clinging to guns and religion comment and comparative lack of experience which are arguably important factors in a national race which are possibly being overlooked in a Democratic nomination contest by people who believe Obama is the Be All And End All When He Might Not Be'.

Of course, those aren't the only variables: for one example you also have to weigh in Obama's potential draw of new voters which could be important later.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The Democratic primary process is an inelegant kludge, attempting to balance the interests of three groups, all of whom are necessary to running a successful presidential election campaign. And there are serious issues with the process being exposed at present in a way that hasn't been seen since Mondale/Heart in 1984. (The same problems exist within the Republican party system but the winner takes all methodology means that it's much harder to expose).

The three groups are:

  • The Party Establishment - IMO the least important - but it also consists of people who know and work with the candidate on a professional level - and if they really detest the candidate there's probably something wrong. This is measured by the Superdelegate count.
  • The slightly interested. The standard primaries. If you can't get anywhere here you're going nowhere. It's more or less a monitoring of where the candidate is at this present time.
  • The activists. As measured by those prepared to give up a day (or more if delegated) to caucus. It's those who care about politics at the grass-roots level. And the volunteer force that can be raised. If a candidate does badly amonst this group then the candidate will be reduced to robo-callers and TV slots - and any Get Out the Vote drive is doomed to failure. This is a measure of what's in the candidate's locker rather than where they are currently standing.

The Primary system is trying to measure all three of these things. (AFAIK, Texas is the only state which does all at once - something which came as a shock to Mrs "Ready to lead from day one" Clinton, but that Mr. Obama had realised and that allowed him to win the Texas primary). And measuring all of these is a good idea - even if it does lead to a very kludgy system and the implementation is suboptimal.

So how are the three groups going:

First the non-caucus primaries. The slightly interested. As of the recent past, this is very close. The number of people on current form willing to walk into a booth and pull a leader/tick a box/mark a form/punch a hole is at present neck and neck between Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama. (This is the area that is most open to gaming by people voting in the opposition primary fwiw).

Second the activists. The people willing to give up more than an hour for the campaign. And here they barely want to know about Clinton. Obama's lead in pledged delegates comes from this group. So if there was a popularity contest now, the result would be in doubt (Real Clear Politics is saying Obama +10% and Gallup's saying Obama +8% at present IIRC). But there are many more people prepared to give up their time, energy, and money in order to help Obama win than to help Clinton win. And all other things being equal (and the popular vote pretty much is), this makes Obama a much better candidate because he will (and does) have a much better force of volunteers who want to help him win and are prepared to donate time and money to do so. It is a feature not a bug that the primaries of both American parties measure this as well as the popuar vote.

Finally we come to the Superdelegates, and for the race it's this group I find the most interesting. Clinton started with a massive lead amongst the Superdelegates (triple figures) because they have known her longer, and many of them probably owe favours to the Clintons. But the more the Superdelegates have seen of Obama the more they've liked him and the more they've seen of Clinton, the less they've liked her (with some turning their backs on her and defecting to Obama). Obama has overturned her hundred delegate lead here - and before he took the lead, Clinton was trying to say that things should be decided by the Superdelegates. It's only since she started losing in this group that she's been talking about the Popular Vote.

Or to sum up, the Primaries are an attempt to work out who the best candidate for the political party will be. And only part of that is who's currently in the lead in the popular vote. Yes, there are problems. There are also reasons - and what's being measured is complex and very hard to capture by something simple. (And Clinton isn't in the lead in the popular vote and is doing abysmally everywhere else). Also the time to change a decades old system is either before or after rather than in mid course.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  ...  109  110  111 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools