U.S. election races...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The longer you serve as a Senator, the worse your chances. I don't know why they even run.

That seems to be the case...and even before Nixon, there was LBJ, former Texas Guv'ner...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Maybe. A lot of liberals miss Paul Wellstone. And this is the state that elected Jesse Ventura.

You know, whenever someone mentions Jesse Ventura, I automatically think of Jim Carrey's "Ace Ventura" movies...was he that radical?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm surprised Joe Lieberman got the most votes in that primary...I wasn't aware that he had been such a strong Dem contender in '04...

Kerry ran at 50%, followed by Edwards and Lieberman, virtually tied, at 11% and then Dean, Clarke, and the rest of the pack.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That seems to be the case...and even before Nixon, there was LBJ, former Texas Guv'ner...

LBJ served in Congress before the War, and spent from 1948 to 1960 as an influential Senator. Even at that, he lost the top spot to another Congressman/Senator. But that's before the real importance of TV. I believe that has changed the electoral map considerably, as the web is changing it now.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

YOS I think refers to the "non-conservative" votes, and LIFE means their overall score since they were elected.

So this is a measure of conservatism then?

*hearts Hilary Clinton*

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think we are about to see the evidence for Satayana's dictim that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Having just read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood, I am very quick to agree.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

*sigh* You used to need to be a landowner (and white male) to vote. I don't like that criteria, but having merely existed for 18 years without a felony conviction may be setting the bar too low.

Why shouldn't criminals get to vote, come to think of it? By committing a crime, they lose some rights like freedom of mobility, but why should they lose the right to vote?

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

McCarthy was mis-understood???

How exactly?

McCarthy was misunderstood you know. He had a slight lisp, and had the hardest time placing an order in a crowded restaurant. His biographers theorise that this is what led to his bitterness at those crisply enunciating Communists. He was also upset that red was just not his colour.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You know, I've been wondering "why did anyone suggest that Barack Obama run for Prez?"

I'm not trying to be mean, and I'm not saying he shouldn't try to run for president... but why did his name suddenly become so big when he isn't famous for anything? I can swear to you that he was not a household name before 2006 at least. You don't see either of Tenn's senators trying to run, nor either of say, Hawaii's, and god forbid Massachussetts...but thats another story

You know, the Dems may have chosen him because he's not famous for anything. He hasn't been in the spotlight enough to do something dumb.

Look how John Kerry, the Dan Cloutier of the Democrats*, worked out. What was he famous for, being a rich, Ivy League white guy? There wasn't that much to differentiate him from the rich, Ivy League white guy President.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I say the Media, for a very racist reason, chose him.

Any thoughts?

Do you think that people figured that the USA us "due" for a black President?

I don't know enough about the political climate in the states to say whether I agree or not, but it does seem possible. Race seems very important in American politics. I don't know if that's good or bad.

Or maybe they want to capture the "24" vote. Anyone who watches that show might vote for Obama, since the President on the show is also black. The fact that they look absolutely nothing like each other is entirely not the point. :shifty: :shifty:

However, I think Barack Obama is running, and has support from the Democrats, because he's intelligent and fiscally responsible, with strong environmental policy. He is, in my opinion, exactly what America needs.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

EDIT: also I may be having a turnaround here...I'm asking myself if our next president should be a "foreign policy" president, to wrap up this war...Romney may or may not be the man for that.

I would like to a President who doesn't spend like a little kid printing his own Monopoly money.

Or like someone who simply loses $12 billion of cold, hard cash. Has it ever come up that I really can't stand George Dubya? Did I mention that, maybe once or twice?

*this is a reference to the goal playing abilities, which are poor, of the former Canucks goalie, Dan Cloutier.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I would like to a President who doesn't spend like a little kid printing his own Monopoly money.

Ironic that "conservatives" have been the most profligate:

[Nurvingiel]

That graph needs to be updated to reflect the USA's current debt of $8 trillion [link]!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That graph needs to be updated to reflect the USA's current debt of $8 trillion [link]!

Who needs to deal with THAT reality on a nice weekend?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why shouldn't criminals get to vote, come to think of it? By committing a crime, they lose some rights like freedom of mobility, but why should they lose the right to vote?

They don't lose the right only while incarcerated, but for life.

The idea being, I suppose, that if you have a demonstrated inability to follow existing rules, no one wants your help in making more.

[rohirrim TR]

Heres an interesting piece...from a Canadian no less http://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...6/3195708.html

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

They don't lose the right only while incarcerated, but for life.

The idea being, I suppose, that if you have a demonstrated inability to follow existing rules, no one wants your help in making more.

Is it all criminals? or just felons?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Who needs to deal with THAT reality on a nice weekend?

Haha.

George Bush ruined your day!!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Ironic that "conservatives" have been the most profligate:

Oh, I am ashamed of their stupid spending...indeed. But just imagine whats going to happen when the Dems REALLY rev up their machine....

btw, the deficit is slowly, steadily, and surely being shrunk.

Our debt? To other countries? 12 trillion? Maybe Bono should petition other countries to forgive us since we donate the most money to other countries when disaster hits...

[rohirrim TR]

Majority leader Bill Clinton???? http://www.examiner.com/a-573127~Som...l_Clinton.html

[elven dragonrider]

awesone chart! I wish Bush would spend a little more, but he has to make up for Clinton.
Objection to earlier post, though. Criminals should NOT get to vote! What right do they have? They have violated the law, done something they Know is wrong, and unless they are totally out of their mind, have very little excuses. If they are out of their minds they probably shouldn't be voting anyway. You don't want organized crime groups to start voting for the person who might be under their sway or even just unconciously do something to help them. That may start out just as something that woouldn't matter, because naybe both guys your voting for are okay and perfectly sane, but you don't want somebody who might do something foolish to be given that option by being President.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Is it all criminals? or just felons?

Depends on the state. Maine and Vermont even permit inmates doing time to vote; Florida, Kentucky and Virginia have lifetime bans. Other states fall in between.

I'd allow voting by anyone who has finished their sentence and anyone on probation. Inmates and parolees, no.

Once you've paid your penalty, your rights should be restored.

[hectorberlioz]

Ahem....

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Once you've paid your penalty, your rights should be restored.

Yes. As far as I know, the sentence for a crime ought to be decided by a judge on the basis of the evidence, rather than as a blanket penalty. It clearly implies that there is no such thing as rehabilitation.

Seemingly many Florida felons couldn't vote in 2000 because they had convictions stemming from the civil rights protests in the 60s.

[hectorberlioz]

I just want to announce that I am supporting Dick Cheney for President in 2008.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I know he'll be relieved to hear that.