U.S. election races...

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I thought parties could only have one presidential candidate.

Oh presidential. We don't have presidential races until 08. I'm talking about state races. As far as the presidency goes it anyones guess.

[Spock]

Actually, HRH is running for Senate and the Presidency.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually, HRH is running for Senate and the Presidency.

Thats true but she's been running for presidents since 2002 so I kind of figured even Canada knew that.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Thats true but she's been running for presidents since 2002 so I kind of figured even Canada knew that.

...hey, them Hosers, eh! Have a beer

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

This is an off-year election. Presidential elections happen every four years- last one in 2004, next one in 2008.

Elections for the entire House of Representatives happen every two years; one-third of the Senate is also elected every two years (Senators serve a six-year term).

Nurv, Nurv ,Nurv- you're letting down the side- how can we Canucks indulge in our time-honoured national sport of making fun of Americans for being ignorant about Canada with counter-examples like this?

I'm fairly certain that's not true anyway. Each party can field multiple candidates, but doing so would be political suicide, since the winner is the one who gets the most electoral votes. (i.e. A 50/50 split between two parties becomes a 25/25/50 if one party fields a second candidate - basically handing the office to the other guy.)

Relevant election races to look at would be 1976 (3 Federalists, 4 Democratic Republicans), 1824 (4 Democratic Republicans), 1836 (1 Democrat, 4 Whigs), and 1860. I predict we may see some more along those lines in the near future as the Democratic and probably the Republican party fall apart.

[Nurvingiel]

That explains a lot. I knew presidential elections were every four years, and I was very confused. I forgot some of the very significant differences between the Canadian and American systems of government.

Like, you elect your president independently, while our PM is an elected Member of Parliment who is also the leader of the party who wins the most seats.

Oops.

Don't worry GreyMouser, I don't make fun of Americans that much anyway. Making fun of the Bush administration is too easy, I like to go for slightly more difficult targets like the <strike>Mighty</strike>Ducks and the Florida Panthers, as well as participants in the softwood lumber dispute. (BTW can we have our $1.2 billion dollars back? kthx bai! )

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Relevant election races to look at would be 1976 (3 Federalists, 4 Democratic Republicans), 1824 (4 Democratic Republicans), 1836 (1 Democrat, 4 Whigs), and 1860. I predict we may see some more along those lines in the near future as the Democratic and probably the Republican party fall apart.

This is a very interesting insight. Do you think this might lead to having more than two significant parties, by either the Green Party gaining more support, or a new party forming?

How would this affect the current system of government? If there were three parties, it would be possible to have a minority government, right? (Except isn't there another rule that stops Americans from electing a minority government?)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Relevant election races to look at would be 1976 (3 Federalists, 4 Democratic Republicans), 1824 (4 Democratic Republicans), 1836 (1 Democrat, 4 Whigs), and 1860. I predict we may see some more along those lines in the near future as the Democratic and probably the Republican party fall apart.

I await that day with bated breath.

Originally Posted by Nurvi

Do you think this might lead to having more than two significant parties, by either the Green Party gaining more support, or a new party forming?

The Green Party has their own particular niche of people that support them; I doubt it will gain a lot more support, but it is possible. The Libertarian party is a better candidate, I think. Maybe the Constitutionalist.

I've considered voting for all three, but it's unlikely. I don't think there's a currently existing party that supports my politics.

[hectorberlioz]

Tenn Senate Race Update: Corker ahead of Ford jr again. ...Ford is getting too desperate; he burst in on one of Corker's formal speaches and looked a fool. That never works does it? God bless Ford jr, but this race is going to Corker.

Test yourself!

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[hectorberlioz]

I hate predictions as much as anyone, but I've just got to put my two cents in...

Corker's wind is basically a given, with a ten-point lead (according to a Zogby poll).

My guess for Virginia's Senate Race? I think Allen will beat Webb by a bigger margin than is predicted.

I think the Reps are in for a swooping win. I know that sounds weird with everyone saying "the Democrats are going to win" just because they've articulated the people's disgust with Republican performance. It doesn't mean anything. Remember Bush and Kerry were supposedly tied? Bush won the popular vote by a pretty sizable margin, though the Electoral votes were pretty close...

[Nurvingiel]

Do you guys think that if the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, George Bush could be impeached?

I read somewhere that 36 seats are very competitive, and the Democrats need to win 15 to gain a majority. (These numbers imply that there's a number of seats that favour Democrats very strongly, so it's possible the Democrats would need more than 15 of the competetive seats to gain a majority.)

More on topic, what sorts of issues do you think people are basing their vote on? Local issues, or national issues like the debt of over $1 trillion? Do you think the handling of Hurricane Katrina will play any part in this?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't think there's a currently existing party that supports my politics.

I feel the same way, usually. In the last election though, I was able to find a candidate that did support my most strong beliefs, environmentalism, in very meaningful ways. He also happened to be a member of a pretty good political party. WIN!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Do you guys think that if the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, George Bush could be impeached?

*sigh*...you know what a complete waste of time impeachment would be? Huge. With Clinton at least we weren't in large scale conflicts abroad. IF THEY DARE! All my suspicions will be confirmed: all democrats care about is demonizing Gearge Bush as much as they can, bitterness about Prince Albert II's loss in 2000 being one of the factors.
Nancy Pelosi has promised it isn't on HER agenda, which would seem to imply that the House wouldn't try it. The Senate? Ya never know...

I read somewhere that 36 seats are very competitive, and the Democrats need to win 15 to gain a majority. (These numbers imply that there's a number of seats that favour Democrats very strongly, so it's possible the Democrats would need more than 15 of the competetive seats to gain a majority.)

The house is hard to keep tabs on...there are a lot of people to keep track of. I suppose the dems could take the house...

More on topic, what sorts of issues do you think people are basing their vote on? Local issues, or national issues like the debt of over $1 trillion? Do you think the handling of Hurricane Katrina will play any part in this?

Katrina? Yeah right...thats an old bone by American Political standards...plenty of rejuvenation left to bring the subject back, but not right now...
The issues are definitely Iraq, with people divided over whether pulling out is a good idea. People may very well be fed up with the Democrat-like Republicans, but they aren't about to give power over to the Real Thing when it's what they hate in the first place...that's why I don't buy this "Dems Win!!!" stuff circulating. The Democrats can't exactly harp on the economy anymore...

Raising taxes is also a very big deal.

[Acalewia]

Tuesday we elect govenor, shrieff lt. Gov. and several other folks. Thee has been soooooo much mud slinging between the gov'ner candidates that I'm surprised they don't need a bath. The republian candidate is getting desperate. I say this judging by the fact he used kids in one of his ads the attack the democrat candidate. Sheesh could they at least tone down the mudslinging. It's getting pathetic.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Acalewia

Tuesday we elect govenor, shrieff lt. Gov. and several other folks. Thee has been soooooo much mud slinging between the gov'ner candidates that I'm surprised they don't need a bath. The republian candidate is getting desperate. I say this judging by the fact he used kids in one of his ads the attack the democrat candidate. Sheesh could they at least tone down the mudslinging. It's getting pathetic.

...in what state is this? Arkansas? I didn't think Huckabee was in any tight spot...

[Acalewia]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

...in what state is this? Arkansas? I didn't think Huckabee was in any tight spot...

He's not running this year. I believe he hit term limit. It's between Asa Hutchenson and Mike Beebe.

Wait a min.... when did I tell you I was from Arkansas?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Acalewia

He's not running this year. I believe he hit term limit. It's between Asa Hutchenson and Mike Beebe.

Wait a min.... when did I tell you I was from Arkansas?

I read one of your posts where you said something about Arkansas, so I assumed.


The Guv'nership is an open race? Hadn't thought of it...I suppose it bodes well for Huckabee, he can concentrate on his master plan for the White House

[Acalewia]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I read one of your posts where you said something about Arkansas, so I assumed.

Good assumption.

The Guv'nership is an open race? Hadn't thought of it...I suppose it bodes well for Huckabee, he can concentrate on his master plan for the White House

Yeah I guess it does. the amazing shrinking gov'ner will try to become the amazing shrinking prez

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Acalewia

Good assumption.

Yeah I guess it does. the amazing shrinking gov'ner will try to become the amazing shrinking prez

So exactly how much did he lose?

[GreyMouser]

Prediction : House, Democrats gain 23 (and control)

Senate, Dems pick up 4; total (if my math is right):
51 Repubs, 47 Dems, 2 Independents
- America's first socialist Senator, Bernie Sanders from Vermont,
who will vote with the Democrats
-Lieberman in Connecticut, who will vote with the highest bidder.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

-Lieberman in Connecticut, who will vote with the highest bidder.

Well thats not too nice is it?....Do the Dems feel THAT bitter about Lieberman? I mean it's not like he changed his stances on Abortion, Gay Marriage etc...he's still a liberal Democrat as far as I'm concerned. But I admire his pursuit to win without the Democrat Party's help, which shows he is truly independent. I wonder how Kerry and Hillary are going to act once he's back in the Senate with them...hard to make it up, right?

[Insidious Rex]

The House is pretty much a gimme for the Democrats. The Senate is a much tougher affair. But no matter what happens in the end we are guaranteed a much more limited role by Bush over the next two years as far as legislative impact which is a wonderful thing.

As far as impeaching Bush no I don’t think you will see that (unless something truly nefarious is discovered post election) but what you will probably see is hearings on the handling of the war and they’ll go after Cheney about his secret energy task force group that he has refused to disclose. In fact a democratically controlled congress is a nightmare situation for Cheney and Rumsfeld since the democrats will get to control all committees and what gets investigated and what doesn’t.

The republicans have pulled out all the stops in the past couple weeks in a desperate attempt to keep power what with Cheney sneering about a vote for the democrats is a vote for the terrorists. In Maryland they have used reverse race politics to try to trick blacks into voting for the republican candidate. They’ve also made deceptive campaign flyers designed to trick people into thinking certain candidates are supported when they aren’t and they have been making robo-calls to democrats late at night that seem to endorse democratic canididates but just weakly so that democrats get infuriated at being woken up and don’t vote. In Virginia they are pushing the gay marriage ban hard to increase conservative turn out. The truly sad thing is that Virginia already has a man – woman definition in its constitution already so its totally unnecessary. Nevermind that its completely discriminatory. It actually takes AWAY rights that unmarried couples already have. An unbelievably heartless and meanspirited amendment that will take us backwards a half century. But it will pass and it will help Allen of course as it is designed to. And then it will eventually be challenged in court and overturned because its clearly unconstitutional. What a waste of tax payers money…