Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Do you think the EU will eventually result in the same issue, abroad.
...
But do you think there will be a more Pan-European identity, in the future?

Oh, I have no idea. Perhaps but if so, that will take time.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I don't think you can compare the two that way. One is about electing politicians into office, the other is about adopting specified legislation.

Yeah, so? Still voting . I think you can make the comparison.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Besides, only a few countries in the EU decided to even let the populace vote about the constitution, in others the government just decided on their own.

Similar thing with the US primaries. In some states the delegate votes won't "count" in the nomination process. Like the democratic votes in Florida won't give Hillary as many delegates behind her as she would have liked.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I don't think you can compare the two that way. One is about electing politicians into office, the other is about adopting specified legislation. Besides, only a few countries in the EU decided to even let the populace vote about the constitution, in others the government just decided on their own.

I'm sure there are benefits to the current system (after all, why have it otherwise? ) but I don't know which, that's why I'm asking.

One of the benefits is that it gives more power to the localities. By strict delegate count, you really only need a region, New York, and California. But because the early primaries are geographically spread, the candidates (except idiots like Guiliani) have to touch base in a couple of regions. that gives everyone the time to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, which, after all, is what the primary season is for.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You can't force people to make their own decisions.

Of course you can, since there isn't really any free will.

Personally, I'm for partition (the Commonwealth of Greater New England ), but I don't think it'll stick.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

One of the benefits is that it gives more power to the localities. By strict delegate count, you really only need a region, New York, and California. But because the early primaries are geographically spread, the candidates (except idiots like Guiliani) have to touch base in a couple of regions. that gives everyone the time to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, which, after all, is what the primary season is for.

Maybe, but the informed voters looked into these candidates long before any primaries began and had a pretty good idea of where they stood. And, if the primaries were all at once, they would have even spent more time up front making their positions clear.

Stretching out the primaries gives too much strength to the popularity contest aspect of the process, while taking away from the issue aspect.

Also, as Al Gore found out, every state can matter, even the small ones, in a one day election. So, the smart candidate never puts his eggs all in a few baskets, no matter how long or short the process is.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Of course you can, since there isn't really any free will.

Personally, I'm for partition (the Commonwealth of Greater New England ), but I don't think it'll stick.

Hey, I'll help you guys pack. As long as I can get a tourist Visa to Boston, I'd just as soon not have to hear y'all whine about the Big Dig.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe, but the informed voters looked into these candidates long before any primaries began and had a pretty good idea of where they stood. And, if the primaries were all at once, they would have even spent more time up front making their positions clear.

Stretching out the primaries gives too much strength to the popularity contest aspect of the process, while taking away from the issue aspect.

Also, as Al Gore found out, every state can matter, even the small ones, in a one day election. So, the smart candidate never puts his eggs all in a few baskets, no matter how long or short the process is.

I knew their policies and voting records, such as they are. I wanted to know their base of appeal, and their ability to cope with attack.

[brownjenkins]

One interesting aspect that is somewhat unique this year is how voting numbers in general are much larger on the democratic side. It seems as if a lot of independents are going the democratic way. If that holds over in the general election, McCain is going to have a hard time.

Republicans seem to have forgotten that they simply can't win with just their base alone.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Republicans seem to have forgotten that they simply can't win with just their base alone.

Pride goeth before a fall, don't jinx it, BJ. Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before. I don't think I slept for the whole period of Gore's appeal.

[brownjenkins]

I agree. I was more stating it as a reason for Republican's to really back McCain, since he is the most centrist. Huckabee would fail completely in a general election, and Romney not done much better, unless he had remained the MA-Govenor Romney.

Basically, the most centrist candidate always wins, though the Bush/Gore was a tossup in that regard as they were both. Reagan was centrist, as was Bush senior, Clinton (he was if you really look at his policies) and Bush junior (also centrist policy, as opposed to rhetoric-wise).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree. I was more stating it as a reason for Republican's to really back McCain, since he is the most centrist. Huckabee would fail completely in a general election, and Romney not done much better, unless he had remained the MA-Govenor Romney.

Basically, the most centrist candidate always wins, though the Bush/Gore was a tossup in that regard as they were both. Reagan was centrist, as was Bush senior, Clinton (he was if you really look at his policies) and Bush junior (also centrist policy, as opposed to rhetoric-wise).

What are you smoking? Reagan wasn't centrist. He was a right-wing lunatic that no pundit from his party believed would make it through the primaries.

[hectorberlioz]

*yawn*

I am really out-politics-ed.

Sis, you sound like the liberal loudmouth version of Rush Limbaugh...trashing Reagan, the NRA... I thought you were more "pragmatic" and "independent", no?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What are you smoking? Reagan wasn't centrist. He was a right-wing lunatic that no pundit from his party believed would make it through the primaries.

Then how do you explain the infamous "Reagan Democrats" that gave him the presidency twice? I think he was a cross over candidate in a way. Dont get me wrong... I agree with you that he was a right wing lunatic who did more damage to the unrepresented millions than any other president up until Bush (maybe even including). But for the fiscaly conservative democrats who cared more about their stock portfolio and buying a newer Mercedes than they did about the poor and the needy he had real appeal.

[Insidious Rex]

Theres a loud mouth version of Rush Limbaugh? Thats a scary concept indeed...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

*yawn*

I am really out-politics-ed.

Sis, you sound like the liberal loudmouth version of Rush Limbaugh...trashing Reagan, the NRA... I thought you were more "pragmatic" and "independent", no?

Hector, it's just that I REMEMBER the Reagan election. I voted for John Anderson, that time.

Did you ever hear of him?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

And, in case you're wondering, I never forgave Jimmy Carter for re-instituting draft registration. That was the first great assault on domestic freedoms of the modern era.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hector, it's just that I REMEMBER the Reagan election. I voted for John Anderson, that time.

Did you ever hear of him?

I have heard of him. He was a possible VP pick.


Btw, George Will recently posed this interesting idea: you can tell who a true conservative is by asking them who they would have voted for in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, or Woodrow Wilson. (the last one isn't necessary).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What are you smoking? Reagan wasn't centrist. He was a right-wing lunatic that no pundit from his party believed would make it through the primaries.

No he wasn't. He talked the talk, but in terms of actual legislation he was only a bit right of center, much as Clinton was a bit left of center, while talking the liberal talk.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Btw, George Will recently posed this interesting idea: you can tell who a true conservative is by asking them who they would have voted for in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, or Woodrow Wilson. (the last one isn't necessary).

That all depends on how you define "true conservative". Plus, their contrasts have a lot more to do with Teddy's ego than his actual policy beliefs.

[hectorberlioz]

This is insanely hilarious
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/cc9ab...5-9250a4c92c05

set your cell phone for the ambulance just in case...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That all depends on how you define "true conservative". Plus, their contrasts have a lot more to do with Teddy's ego than his actual policy beliefs.

Well, not in the context of the modern Republican Party.

And Teddy was a "union buster", which is not a conservative position (and probably wasn't considered conservative by Taft). Personally, I don't know how I feel about breaking up companies. On one hand, it's not the governments place to intefere...on the other hand, the best aspects of the free market is driven by competition, and if that means preventing corporations from pooling together...

[Nautipus]

This is insanely hilarious
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/cc9ab...5-9250a4c92c05

set your cell phone for the ambulance just in case...

*gag*