Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hector, why do you think the yoputh won't vote? Registration is insanely up. they're excited.

I said nothing about the yoputh.

My theory is that while Barack is getting large crowds, the phenomenon is largely non-political. Barack's popularity has nothing to do with him being the next president, it has to do with "magic". An Obama rally is like a rock concert.

Clinton has a firm and steady base.

We'll see

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I said nothing about the yoputh.

My theory is that while Barack is getting large crowds, the phenomenon is largely non-political. Barack's popularity has nothing to do with him being the next president, it has to do with "magic". An Obama rally is like a rock concert.

Clinton has a firm and steady base.

We'll see

Indeed. The question is, is America really interested in policy, or is it interested in celebrity, and feeling good. McCain's message to Michigan was the truth. Those big manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and they need retraining. But they rejected him in favor of Romney's pretty stories. If the 'hope and pretty stories' vote shows up, we'll look at Romney and Obama. If the 'get it done' vote shows up, we'll look at McCain and Clinton. If the optimism splits by party, well, we'll have a good contrast in November, at least.

I'm predicting evangelicals and women will both get dumped until the conventions. if it isn't settled today, those groups will control the conventions, and I think women will call this election.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Indeed. The question is, is America really interested in policy, or is it interested in celebrity, and feeling good. McCain's message to Michigan was the truth. Those big manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and they need retraining. But they rejected him in favor of Romney's pretty stories. If the 'hope and pretty stories' vote shows up, we'll look at Romney and Obama. If the 'get it done' vote shows up, we'll look at McCain and Clinton. If the optimism splits by party, well, we'll have a good contrast in November, at least.

I'm predicting evangelicals and women will both get dumped until the conventions. if it isn't settled today, those groups will control the conventions, and I think women will call this election.

Even though McCain is the one sounding the "reach across the aisle" rhetoric? Mac has some pretty slurpy panders himself. Notice his sudden tough talk on the border fence...meanwhile, back at the ranch, he was cursing...""I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

Hey, that sounds like...pandering?

[Mari]

Thanks! Is it actually possible to vote blanc by the way? Here it is.

[Mari]

So Mitt Romney is out eh? *shakes head* I don't understand the American system.
What do you suppose he does with the money he has left from his campaign? Or is that a stupid question?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Mari

So Mitt Romney is out eh? *shakes head* I don't understand the American system.
What do you suppose he does with the money he has left from his campaign? Or is that a stupid question?

BWAHAHAHA Sorta. He had a half self-funded campaign. He's extremely rich, so I doubt he's limping to the bank.

Ironically what held back McCain's fundraising was his own stupid piece of legislation.

[hectorberlioz]

Video of Mitt's speech:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...UxZmU5ZThlNzg=

[brownjenkins]

So many twisted truths in that speech, I don't know where to begin!

Lots of fear-mongering as well. He reminds me of Greg Stillson.

Thank the gods he's out, though I'm sure he'll return.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So many twisted truths in that speech, I don't know where to begin!

Lots of fear-mongering as well. He reminds me of Greg Stillson.

Thank the gods he's out, though I'm sure he'll return.

Yeah he'll be back. He's the next president after Barack or Hillary screwball the country (and world) for four years.

Again, 4 million to McCain's 4.7...that's hardly a crushing defeat, vote-wise. It also shows that the anti-McCain movement is more than just hyperbole. He's going to have a tough time getting back in the good graces of the Republican party.

[Jonathan]

Why not? The member states of EU didn't go to the ballots on the same day when they voted on the new constitution. I guess there are some benefits of not having caucuses at the same time, at least in the smaller states.

I think there's a law in Iowa that strictly reads that Iowa should vote first, before all the other states. That means the candidates have time to let the relatively small populace get to know them quite well. If every state had voted on the same day, the people of Iowa wouldn't have been able to "socialise" with the candidates that way at all.

[brownjenkins]

I'd rather see everyone vote at once so people would be forced to make their own decisions, as opposed to following trends. We spend much too much time on the election process as it is, as opposed to governing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd rather see everyone vote at once so people would be forced to make their own decisions,

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

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Why not? The member states of EU didn't go to the ballots on the same day when they voted on the new constitution. I guess there are some benefits of not having caucuses at the same time, at least in the smaller states.

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.

[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.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Why not? The member states of EU didn't go to the ballots on the same day when they voted on the new constitution. I guess there are some benefits of not having caucuses at the same time, at least in the smaller states.

I think there's a law in Iowa that strictly reads that Iowa should vote first, before all the other states. That means the candidates have time to let the relatively small populace get to know them quite well. If every state had voted on the same day, the people of Iowa wouldn't have been able to "socialise" with the candidates that way at all.

And they don't bother.

Obama's trip here was big partly because NO candidates ever visit before the primaries, and darn few before the general election. The caucuses tomorrow are the first step in deciding who goes to the state convention in April, where we winnow it down further to pick the delegates for the national. Our district will send a few, each other district will send a few. They'll be proportional to the vote in the district. Prospective delegates have to declare before the voting.

The voting business is also with the national committees of each party. That's why no Dems ran in Florida...because they had no permission to move their primary up, and no one really knows if their delegates will be seated at the convention. No Candidate wants to risk PO ing the national committee.

I think it's hard for most people (in the US and out of it) to appreciate how important Federalism is, here. Everything looks like "The USA" from a distance, but state and regional identity is still VERY strong.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think it's hard for most people (in the US and out of it) to appreciate how important Federalism is, here. Everything looks like "The USA" from a distance, but state and regional identity is still VERY strong.

Oh, that's very true. People over here are aware that every state has their own laws but they still forget about it and considers the US to be "just one country" rather than a federation of states.

Often I'm kind enough to remind them

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Do you think the EU will eventually result in the same issue, abroad.

Okay, many US citizens just have "here there be dragons" outside their city limits, but that's true everywhere.

But do you think there will be a more Pan-European identity, in the future? I know I have NO idea where the currency adoption issue is, for example. I'd have a pocket full of play money in every port, as it stands now.

Oh, I wanted to add. A few years ago, I was chatting with some folks on-line and one woman asked if we'd decided if we would vote for Hillary, or not. I said, "Don't you live in, like, Arizona? Hillary is running for the Senate in New York. Only people who live in New York have her on the ballot." Then I searched her out her OWN ballot.

Sometimes even people here are confused.

[Tessar]

Rush Limbaugh is confusing . That's all there is to it.