posted
I got home and turned on CNN. I�d heard the results on WHFS 105.7 on the way home from the Iowa caucuses, and watched a speech by Hillary Clinton, in which she tried to cushion her rather stunning defeat. She�s not giving up: it is far too early for that, but I can�t help but hear a residual bitterness in her voice (oh, and there�s Senator Mikulski on her right), because I think she knows what I�m sure a lot of people are thinking: she�s lost the chance for the Democractic nomination.
When you consider how many people reject her candidacy on the basis that it would mean a minimum of 24 years of a member of the Bush or Clinton families in the Executive, combined with how many people loathe her because of her husband, or how many people, when given the choice between her and Barack Obama support the Illinois senator, would choose the latter, I don�t think it is then very surprising that a loss in Iowa (and she�s really dead in the water if New Hampshire � on Tuesday! � goes this same way) means the essential end to her campaign�s viability.
I feel sorry for Chris Dodd � he�s dropping from the race, according to Wolf Blitzer � but I wonder if he honestly expected to do much better than he has? If anyone was going to be a dark horse, I�d've wagered on Gov. Richardson (or, maybe Biden).
I think I�m really surprised that Huckabee has won the Iowa caucuses. He�s an affable conservative Christian, but he�s short on knowledge of foreign current events, and he represents a hoped for restoration of dignity to the White House: sound familiar? Meanwhile, Chuck Norris is standing behind Huckabee as he�s giving his Iowa Victory Speech, and Chuck Norris�s eyes are persuading me to vote for Mike Huckabee, or Chuck Norris will reach through my television set and bash my skull in with my massive lego collection. (I will score him good points for his �not the ruling class � the serving class� comments). While Huckabee has won this early race, I think John McCain is going to wind up giving him a run for his money in New Hampshire. I don�t think Huckabee can relax yet.
And then we come back to the Democrats: Barack Obama kicked ass in Iowa. Fingers crossed for the man next Tuesday, but if he locks New Hampshire � and there�s no reason to think he won�t � I think he�ll have the Democractic nomination for the taking. I know it�s been said before, but there�s a vibrance to the guy that seems comprable to John Kennedy. I wasn�t alive when JFK was running for office, so I can�t speak from actual experience, but I know I�m excited by Obama: he seems like a different class of politician, and represents a possible real sea-change in this country�s current direction.
Now I find myself wondering who Obama�s VP might be. A bit presumptious, I�m sure. While either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton might seem to be early choices, I don�t think either will be. Edwards had his shot at being VP: he and Kerry blew it. As for Hillary, I think the big reason she won�t be offered the slot is for much of the same reasons I listed above. I think Bill Richardson or Joe Biden will be offered that position, in that order. Conversely, should either Edwards or Clinton pull ahead of Obama in New Hampshire and wind up with the party nomination, Obama will be offered the VP.
A site that has more actual information on candidates than a week of the news channels.
I'm a bit disappointed in Ron Paul's showing. He's the candidate I have the fewest reservations about supporting. I haven't counted him out yet, though. I could live with Kunich, but he seems to be effectively out of the race. Of course, this is just one of many preliminaries.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think both caucuses and the electoral college have long since outlived their usefulness. I don't think anyone should be allowed to spend money on a political campaign, short of letting people know they're running so they can look up the candidate's record. Then everyone votes on Election Day for whoever the hell they want to vote for.
I say this because the only one I would have voted for was Chris Dodd. I don't expect any of the rest of them to show more balls as president than they have as senators or representatives or governors.
*sigh*
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Not that I am really following American politics TOO closely - but isn't that Ron Paul guy some sort of crack-pot? I saw a youtube video of his... and it was spouting some weird-arse nonsense that promptly made me click else-where.
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton has nice symmetry That does open the next election to ANOTHER Bush, though (Jeb?). THEN Chelsea clinton, then one of the drunken Bush girls.
How do these 'primaries' work - they are basically to elect WHO can RUN for the presidency don't they... so then after all the states have selected their Democrat and Republican representatives... they have ANOTHER election to elect the president - or is it just whoever wins the most states win? Although - the only people voting at the moment, say for the Democrats are people "enrolled" as a Democrat?? So what happens if there is a 3rd or 4th 'party'? Can you get to vote on a 'primary' if you aren't "enrolled" to a particular party?? And what are these electrol colleges? They put Bush in power the first time didn't they? Even though Gore had more votes!?! That just seems weird and wrong?
I also don't like how only a small percentage of your population actually votes in the president.
I like how in Australia - EVERYONE has to vote - I mean if you don't give a shit you can just invalidate your vote, but at least having EVERYONE vote means everyone can have their say, or at least are made to THINK about who is running the country. I think we are only one of two countries that do this. (Oh and in the future, Mars will have this style of election written into their constitution - well as according to Kim Stanley Robinson )
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
According to that chart, Kunich opposes the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, the use of torture. All those are among my major issues this election. Of course, I oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and I like the idea of a border fence, but the only one that agrees with me on all those issues is... Ron Paul.
A lot of other things, while I may disagree with Kunich, aren't really under the power of the president. Those, since Bush caused most of them, are. For example, say a candidate supports Roe v. Wade, and you oppose it, or vice versa. Sure, it's an ideological difference, but functionally it doesn't matter, because that's not the President's decision to make.
As for the electoral college, yes, they have outlived their usefulness. They started out as a theoretically independent body, akin to congress in some ways. The states chose the electors however they pleased, and the electors chose the President. (This was back when the President wasn't seen as some sort of messianic figure who could save us from all our troubles.) Then at some point someone got the great idea that the people should vote for presidential candidates instead, and most states ended up changing their laws such that whoever got the majority of votes in a given state got ALL the electoral votes. Technically, you're voting between two groups of electors, one of whom will all vote for one party's candidate, the other of whom will all vote for the other party. In some states that's not binding, and an elector could still vote for whoever they wanted, but that almost never happens.
Obviously, this system is completely screwed up. One of the few points in Hillary's favor for me is that she apparently sponsored an amendment to change it. In theory, someone could win an election with as little as 30% of the popular vote, if they won the right states.
I favor direct election with instant runoff voting. Or perhaps just switching to the Westminster system entirely, but nobody would ever go for that. It would require people actually understanding the proposal.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: How do these 'primaries' work - they are basically to elect WHO can RUN for the presidency don't they... so then after all the states have selected their Democrat and Republican representatives... they have ANOTHER election to elect the president
Exactly.
quote:the only people voting at the moment, say for the Democrats are people "enrolled" as a Democrat??
That's right; in most states, anyway, only people who are registered as members of a given party will vote in the primary.
quote:So what happens if there is a 3rd or 4th 'party'?
Haha! Andrew made a funny! ...Except it's not that funny. In fact, it's depressingly not funny. Sigh. Suffice to say, the process has been effectively rigged so that we're stuck with a two-party system.
quote:I also don't like how only a small percentage of your population actually votes in the president.
You and me both.
quote:I like how in Australia - EVERYONE has to vote
I would agree to that on pragmatic grounds. However, on principle, I find that concept completely contrary to the concept of a "free," liberal democracy. Democracy (in the modern context) means having the right to vote or not vote however you choose. Besides, in today's vapid, nonsense-filled media environment, forcing people to show up at the polling stations doesn't force them to think in the slightest. It just forces them to be at a certain place on a certain day to push a few buttons or pull a lever or whatever. And how would something like non-voting be enforceably punished, anyway?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
My mother and I discussed the pros and cons of Hillary and Obama. My mother says she will for vote for Hillary because she feels Hillary has more experience that Obama in the world of politics and in fact is a big fan of Bill. On the other hand she did vote for the war in Iraq and doesn't want to admit that it was a mistake on her part. In fact I believe I heard on the Colbert Report(a reliable source)that she tried to essentially have the records edited to make it seem like she never voted for the war. Furthermore she supports that stupid concept of a border fence. Even if she is trying to convince some conservatives to vote for her, she gives the impression she would do little to change the sorry state our country is in. Obama does have that JFK-esque air of seeming sincere when he says he wants to change things(I too wasn't alive when JFK was around, but my mother was so I'm making this comparison based on her thoughts of JFK). According to the chart he too supports the border fence, but I'm willing to bet he'd flexble on the issue.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Dodd dropped out? Aww. Breaks my heart a little. Guess the days where there can be a dark horse candidate on the national level are over.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I'd drop out too, with zero votes. Bit embarrassing, really.
Meh. Border fence, space race, Iraq war, it's all the same - big giant money-sucking funnel with little if any practical benefit. Mostly just for show. Big big waste of resources on something that's just for show, and if it happens to harm innocent people - whether through economic damage or bombing hospitals in other countries - well, that's the price of good politics.
IOW, I don't care who wins. No matter how important they look, they're still only one person in a larger administration, within a larger executive branch, within a larger government. Even if the next president is sincerely a good guy (or gal), not much is going to change until everybody wants it to.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
"A site that has more actual information on candidates than a week of the news channels."
Interesting. I've been planning to vote for Edwards, though I didn't realize he supports executions. Then again, it also says he "supports" NCLB, even though his Web site says he wants to overhaul pretty much every aspect of it. I'm thinking a simple "yes or no" isn't the best way to represent all the issues.
And, Omega, it's "Kucinich". There's a whole other syllable in there.
"For example, say a candidate supports Roe v. Wade, and you oppose it, or vice versa. Sure, it's an ideological difference, but functionally it doesn't matter, because that's not the President's decision to make."
The reason it's considered important is because Roe v. Wade is a product of the Supreme Court, and the president picks who's on the Supreme Court. (Assuming a vacancy occurs. And the Senate can be convinced to go along with the choice.)
"No matter how important they look, they're still only one person in a larger administration, within a larger executive branch, within a larger government."
And who do you think picks the people who make up the executive branch? After all, Bush is only one guy in a larger executive branch. An executive branch made up of his people (q.v. Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Gonzales, Chertoff, Brown...).
And, as far as the larger government goes, the president can veto anything the legislature sends over. The congress can only override that under very unlikely circumstances.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I like how in Australia - EVERYONE has to vote
I would agree to that on pragmatic grounds. However, on principle, I find that concept completely contrary to the concept of a "free," liberal democracy. Democracy (in the modern context) means having the right to vote or not vote however you choose. Besides, in today's vapid, nonsense-filled media environment, forcing people to show up at the polling stations doesn't force them to think in the slightest. It just forces them to be at a certain place on a certain day to push a few buttons or pull a lever or whatever. And how would something like non-voting be enforceably punished, anyway? [/QB]
Well, yes you have to turn up at a place and a day (or absentee/postal vote before hand). At least it makes those people realise that they do play SOME sort of part in the electoral process, and it does not descriminate between rich/poor, educated/uneducated, young/old (18 = voting age), left/right, black/white etc. Everyone has to at least get their name marked off - and mostly people who make THAT effort end up voting... and if they want to 'not vote' then just make the vote invalid. There are no levers/pullies/buttons/hole-punches here - paper and a pencil (supplied in the voting booth) you mark from 1 to say 6 (if there are 6 candidates) in order of preference. Then it's a preferential voting system not just a first-past-the-post system.
There are of course facilities for the seeing impaired or the illiterate or non-english-speaking citizens (although I would expect that most citizens would have had to have at least past an english-test to gain their citizenship).
So yes it's not democracy whether you abstain or vote - but you still do the same when you 'turn up on the day' - i.e. make your vote invalid - then you remove your vote from the voting system.
The "punishment" for not turning up to vote on the day is a monetary fine.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I like how in Australia - EVERYONE has to vote
I would agree to that on pragmatic grounds. However, on principle, I find that concept completely contrary to the concept of a "free," liberal democracy. Democracy (in the modern context) means having the right to vote or not vote however you choose. Besides, in today's vapid, nonsense-filled media environment, forcing people to show up at the polling stations doesn't force them to think in the slightest. It just forces them to be at a certain place on a certain day to push a few buttons or pull a lever or whatever. And how would something like non-voting be enforceably punished, anyway? [/QB]
Well, yes you have to turn up at a place and a day (or absentee/postal vote before hand). At least it makes those people realise that they do play SOME sort of part in the electoral process, and it does not descriminate between rich/poor, educated/uneducated, young/old (18 = voting age), left/right, black/white etc. Everyone has to at least get their name marked off - and mostly people who make THAT effort end up voting... and if they want to 'not vote' then just make the vote invalid. There are no levers/pullies/buttons/hole-punches here - paper and a pencil (supplied in the voting booth) you mark from 1 to say 6 (if there are 6 candidates) in order of preference. Then it's a preferential voting system not just a first-past-the-post system.
There are of course facilities for the seeing impaired or the illiterate or non-english-speaking citizens (although I would expect that most citizens would have had to have at least past an english-test to gain their citizenship).
So yes it's not democracy whether you abstain or vote - but you still do the same when you 'turn up on the day' - i.e. make your vote invalid - then you remove your vote from the voting system.
The "punishment" for not turning up to vote on the day is a monetary fine.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That does open the next election to ANOTHER Bush, though (Jeb?). THEN Chelsea clinton, then one of the drunken Bush girls. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
