NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got home from the precinct caucus here in Iowa.

The precinct I caucused in is supposed be represntative of the state Dems., and here are the results:

272 people showed up.

The initial counts were Obama 119, Edwards 64, and Clinton 51, with the others from 11 to 1, and 5 undecideds.

Candidates needed 15% to be viable, so Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were the only viables.

After 30 minutes for realignment, the numbers were Obama 133, Edwards 73, and Clinton 58, with 8 people leaving.

Out of 19 delegates to the county convention (March 15), 10 went to Obama, 5 to Edwards, and 4 to Clinton.

Looks like good news for the Obama people. :D

As I type there are 247 (or thereabouts, my maths isn't great) precincts still to call:

Senator Barack Obama : 36.78%
Senator John Edwards : 30.16%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.92%

ooooo i like those results.

how long before the whole thing gets tallied up?

I was waiting for someone to make something like this, and now that you have, I have nothing to add...that sucks...

And Huckabee has won according to CNN....

I lol'd.

This will be important to me sometime later. Most likely when it's apparent how right/wrong this has been in determining the candidates.

Obama and Huckabee have been declared the winnes. Hillary and Edwards seem to be fighting for second, and it looks close

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206

Why the disparity between Republican and Democrat votes - is that a mistake or do I see 811 votes for Barack Obama and 26, 504 for Huckabee.

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Looking in the county reports, it's obvious there's way more Democrat votes than shown in overall - what's the system here?

All the Ron Paul folk were at home calling C-Span instead of caucusing...

Why the disparity between Republican and Democrat votes - is that a mistake or do I see 811 votes for Barack Obama and 26, 504 for Huckabee.

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Looking in the county reports, it's obvious there's way more Democrat votes than shown in overall - what's the system here?

I'm guessing not all the republicans have voted yet, seeing as it's only 9 o'clock over there.

Way to go Obama! Let's show the world that America wants change!

Obama and Huckabee have been declared the winnes. Hillary and Edwards seem to be fighting for second, and it looks close

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206

Score one for the Magic Negro. Pound one nail in the coffin of the Clinton dynasty.

If this continues, the GOP is certain to recapture the House and Senate as well as retain the White House :D

Score one for the Magic Negro.
Just when I thought you couldn't go any lower, you pull out a tactical nuclear weapon.

I see no surpise winner here.

Score one for the Magic Negro. Pound one nail in the coffin of the Clinton dynasty.

If this continues, the GOP is certain to recapture the House and Senate as well as retain the White House :D

Wow...just...wow...

I'm guessing not all the republicans have voted yet, seeing as it's only 9 o'clock over there.

It said about 95% of Dem votes were in and about 65% for Reps.

Yet this is a little irrelevant because the vote disparity is higher for Reps.

There's probably some reason, I just can't figure it out.

I also noticed some things looking into the stats. Unmarried people are a high percentage of voters for Obama and are blacks whereas Clinton has fairly even votes. Obama seems to have block votes in specific groups over a balanced representation of society.

I'd say the final nomination will depend on whether young people get out to vote this time, which is not always the case and may lean against Obama in the end.

Just when I thought you couldn't go any lower, you pull out a tactical nuclear weapon.

I can't claim credit for that reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

And since it was originally presented in the far-left liberal Los Angeles Democrat Times, in a column written by a black columnist, it is clearly an acceptable moniker. After all, everyone knows that far-left liberals and blacks can't possibly be "racists".

Now get back to your house at R'lyeh and go back to dreaming.

Candidates in bold eventually won their party's nomination. Candidates in italics subsequently won the general election.

Democrats

* January 3, 2008 - Barak Obama (37%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Rchardson (2%) and Joe Biden (1%)
* January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
* February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
* February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
* February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
* January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[9]

Republicans

* 2004- George W. Bush (unopposed)
* 2000- George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
* 1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
* 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
* 1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
* 1984- Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
* 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
* 1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan


(wiki)

Obviously, not always right when it comes to who will win. As happy as I am with Obamarama's showing, I don't necessarily trust the outcome.

Why the disparity between Republican and Democrat votes - is that a mistake or do I see 811 votes for Barack Obama and 26, 504 for Huckabee.

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Looking in the county reports, it's obvious there's way more Democrat votes than shown in overall - what's the system here?

It's the difference in the way the caucuses are done. Republicans are doing more or less a straight vote, so you're seeing straight vote numbers. The Democratic caucus is more complicated. They gather, count the support, whoever doesn't have 15% is deemed unviable and those people are allowed to gather where they want and then delegates are assigned, but individual votes aren't 'counted' per se. So what you're seeing on the Democratic side are delegate counts, and vote counts on the Republican side.

I can't claim credit for that reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

And since it was originally presented in the far-left liberal Los Angeles Democrat Times, in a column written by a black columnist, it is clearly an acceptable moniker. After all, everyone knows that far-left liberals and blacks can't possibly be "racists".

Not surprising that you either entirely miss, or wilfully ignore the actual POINT of that article. More to point, your contention that it somehow becomes "acceptable" because some leftist used it (again, not surprising you miss the context) is laughable.

Martin Luther King on more than one occassion used the word "******", to suggest that because he used that word it's now acceptable to use it in polite society in reference to someone is so bizarre that anyone with any sense of rationality and intellectual honesty would never even attempt to make that argument.

Fortunatly, it's you we're dealing with, so neither of those conditions are present.

I can't claim credit for that reference:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

And since it was originally presented in the far-left liberal Los Angeles Democrat Times, in a column written by a black columnist, it is clearly an acceptable moniker. After all, everyone knows that far-left liberals and blacks can't possibly be "racists".

That was the stupidest defense of a racist comment I've ever seen. I don't know where to begin - the strawman fallacy, the gross assumption that a "black columnist" can now be said to speak for "blacks," or this apparent need you have for holding up your poop and proudly proclaiming that it is food.

Now get back to your house at R'lyeh and go back to dreaming.

Don't you have an internet forum to troll? I mean, besides this one.

Why the disparity between Republican and Democrat votes - is that a mistake or do I see 811 votes for Barack Obama and 26, 504 for Huckabee.

What am I missing here?

EDIT: Looking in the county reports, it's obvious there's way more Democrat votes than shown in overall - what's the system here?

The Dem numbers are the number of state convention delegates while the GOP numbers are votes. (The Dems don't release the actual vote counts.)

These things while often somewhat accurate can sometimes not reflect reality, or come close.

In 1992 the Iowa caucus had one candidate do so poorly that he polled almost below the margin of error..

He, Bill Clinton, later went on to win the democratic nomination and was elected to two terms.

:D

Tis a good day.

Obama on one hand, Huckabee on the other, if things hold up, easy win for the DP!

The Dem numbers are the number of state convention delegates while the GOP numbers are votes. (The Dems don't release the actual vote counts.)

I totally beat you to it...;p


The first causality-Sen. Dodd is out of the race.

Obama and Huckabee.

Not bad...

These things while often somewhat accurate can sometimes not reflect reality, or come close.

In 1992 the Iowa caucus had one candidate do so poorly that he polled almost below the margin of error..

He, Bill Clinton, later went on to win the democratic nomination and was elected to two terms.

in '92 iowa went for favorite son tom harkin.

iowa was irrelevant for democrats that year.

I'm happy on Obama and things are looking up for McCain. All good news as far as I am concerned.

And Huckabee has won according to CNN....

I lol'd.

Have fun with that.

And Huckabee has won according to CNN....

I lol'd.

This guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1y-X0kIrI&feature=related) is the Republican nominee for President? If he wins we will welcome President Huckabee to Canada's National Igloo.

Just throwing something out there:

Ron Paul Vote by Income:

Under 15K - 12%
15K - 30K - 18%
30K - 50K - 12%
50K - 75K - 10%
75K - 100K - 8%
100% or more - 5%

Something interesting I noticed looking at CNN:

Of the voters who caucused for the democrats, 3% listed themselves as "republican" and 20% listed as "independant", while 76% listed themselves as "democrat".

Whereas in the republican caucus, 1% said they were "democrat" while 13% said they were "independant".

Now alone that means nothing since we don't have relative populations, 13% of the republican caucus votes may well be larger than 20% of the democrat caucus voters.

What IS interesting is this: of the independants that voted in the democratic caucus, 41% of them voted for Obama, and he received more support from independants than any other democratic candidate. Additionally, while "republicans' made up only 3% of the voters in the democratic caucus, 44% of people described as republicans who voted in the democratic caucus voted for Obama.

On the other hand, of the independants who voted in the republican caucus, only 17% of them voted for Huckabee (Paul received the most independant support). Additionally, people defined as democrats voted in the republican caucus in such small numbers as to not be counted for any candidate.

So, what's this mean? It means that while republicans might support huckabee, and democrats support Obama, independants support Obama FAAAAR more than they support Huckabee (again, we don't know the ratio for numbers, but we know that 41% of the independants hwo voted in the democratic caucus voted for Obama, and 17% of the independants who voted in the republican caucus voted for Huckabee).

And since Paul is the biggest republican draw for independants, if he loses the nomination, those independants will either write him in, or vote for a major candidate. Of the two, Obama seems more likely to draw ex Paul supporters. And as we have learned, independants are crucial these days.

Not surprising that you either entirely miss, or wilfully ignore the actual POINT of that article. More to point, your contention that it somehow becomes "acceptable" because some leftist used it (again, not surprising you miss the context) is laughable.


I just love it when lefties fume when their own hypocrisy is exposed.

The point YOU either entirely miss, or wilfully ignore is that the term in question was used without apparent protest in the original article, and that this lack of protest is attributable to the source of the term rather than the term itself. Had, say, Don Imus, or even more, Bill O'Reilly, authored that article, you can bet your bottom dollar that CBSNBCABCCNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and the rest of the dishonest liberal media, not to mention you and your fellow-travelers, would have screamed bloody murder.

As for the "context" of the article, it's beside the point. It wouldn't have mattered to the loud-mouth left what the "context" was if the article had been written by someone on the right.

And if you find my contention "laughable," well, I'm just reminded of the weasels in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Martin Luther King on more than one occassion used the word "******", to suggest that because he used that word it's now acceptable to use it in polite society in reference to someone is so bizarre that anyone with any sense of rationality and intellectual honesty would never even attempt to make that argument.

Nor, for that matter, would many rappers and hip-hop "artists." Er . . . never mind.

But while we're speaking of intellectual honesty, the next time I see that quality in any of your posts will be the first.

Something interesting I noticed looking at CNN:

Of the voters who caucused for the democrats, 3% listed themselves as "republican" and 20% listed as "independant", while 76% listed themselves as "democrat".

Whereas in the republican caucus, 1% said they were "democrat" while 13% said they were "independant".

Now alone that means nothing since we don't have relative populations, 13% of the republican caucus votes may well be larger than 20% of the democrat caucus voters.

What IS interesting is this: of the independants that voted in the democratic caucus, 41% of them voted for Obama, and he received more support from independants than any other democratic candidate. Additionally, while "republicans' made up only 3% of the voters in the democratic caucus, 44% of people described as republicans who voted in the democratic caucus voted for Obama.

On the other hand, of the independants who voted in the republican caucus, only 17% of them voted for Huckabee (Paul received the most independant support). Additionally, people defined as democrats voted in the republican caucus in such small numbers as to not be counted for any candidate.

So, what's this mean? It means that while republicans might support huckabee, and democrats support Obama, independants support Obama FAAAAR more than they support Huckabee (again, we don't know the ratio for numbers, but we know that 41% of the independants hwo voted in the democratic caucus voted for Obama, and 17% of the independants who voted in the republican caucus voted for Huckabee).

And since Paul is the biggest republican draw for independants, if he loses the nomination, those independants will either write him in, or vote for a major candidate. Of the two, Obama seems more likely to draw ex Paul supporters. And as we have learned, independants are crucial these days.Obama Republicans. Sounds weird.

I just love it when lefties fume

Because you're a troll and your main point in posting is to piss off any rational-thinking people, who you universally assume are "lefties." The only people who aren't at the least bit outraged through your comments are people who are too busy reading Stormfront on another tab to pay any real attention anyway.

The point YOU either entirely miss, or wilfully ignore is that the term in question was used without apparent protest in the original article, and that this lack of protest is attributable to the source of the term rather than the term itself.

Why yes, this is because it's possible for me, a Jew to (for example) joke about the Holocaust. When someone like you, on the other hand, does it, it has a different context.

This is because you are not a Jew, nor in fact, a black man. Racism isn't about a simple choice of vocabulary taken completely outside of all other context.

Now you know the differences you had previously ignored, you will no longer have an excuse to play too dumb to know better.

if the article had been written by someone on the right.

The "right" and the "left" have nothing to do with your rather obvious racism. I'm glad you refuse to back down, even on points as obvious as this, because it shows your intractable lack of reason. And it turns you into what you apparently want to be most on this forum - a punching bag who thinks it's winning.

This is why you're irrelevant as anything but a troll on this forum. Not because you're a disgusting troll, but because you think you're much more clever than you are about it.

And since Paul is the biggest republican draw for independants, if he loses the nomination, those independants will either write him in, or vote for a major candidate. Of the two, Obama seems more likely to draw ex Paul supporters. And as we have learned, independants are crucial these days.

I can't speak for other Dr. Ron Paul Supporters but if he doesn't get the nomination or isn't on the actual Presidential ballot my vote will probably go to Huckabee if Huckabee doesn't make it well I do know I won't be voting for Romney.......uh...Disregard the above cause I have no clues what i'm gonna do now.

Damn it, our Country is in big trouble that's all I know for 100% sure...I don't think it matters, it's gonna be like always...Screw the American People especially the Middle Class.

But I notice, New Mitanni, that when someone deconstructs the stupidity of your "arguments" (LOL), you deftly ignore them and bravely run away. Could it be, perhaps, because while you have some minor stamina in terms of sticking obstinately to the same defeated point, you can't really cope for more than 17 seconds without hurting yourself? I think it might be. ;)

But I notice, New Mitanni, that when someone deconstructs the stupidity of your "arguments" (LOL), you deftly ignore them and bravely run away. Could it be, perhaps, because while you have some minor stamina in terms of sticking obstinately to the same defeated point, you can't really cope for more than 17 seconds without hurting yourself? I think it might be. ;)

Shush, it's only been about 5 minutes, he'll be here in a moment with a response that thinks it's a lot smarter and more insulting than it really is. And maybe use some big words, because we all know that only smart people use big words and the devil can't cite scripture for any purpose but to mock it.

But I notice, New Mitanni, that when someone deconstructs the stupidity of your "arguments" (LOL), you deftly ignore them and bravely run away. Could it be, perhaps, because while you have some minor stamina in terms of sticking obstinately to the same defeated point, you can't really cope for more than 17 seconds without hurting yourself? I think it might be. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Replace "Sir Robin" with " New Mitanni" and you get the idea.

New Mitanni wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't so damned bad at trolling.

I know, it's almost like watching a little girl try on her mother's makeup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Replace "Sir Robin" with " New Mitanni" and you get the idea.

I always liked that song, thanks for finding it for me.

New Mitanni wouldn't bother me so much if he weren't so damned bad at trolling.

Score one for the Magic Negro.
Are you for real?

...

Naaaaah.

Causality number two, there goes Biden...

And Gravel makes it three...

Good. Hillary must be owned thoroughly.

And Gravel makes it three...
Dammit. I liked that guy.

Huckabee and Obama take Iowa wins (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7170954.stm)

I totally beat you to it...;p


The first causality-Sen. Dodd is out of the race.

As is Biden.

Score one for the Magic Negro.
That's so 1950s.:rolleyes:

Dammit. I liked that guy.
I didn't think you'd be one for universal healthcare. Perhaps beneath that frosty libertarian exterior lies a lefty wanting to be loved?

Good. Hillary must be owned thoroughly.
Not according to her. She's going to carry the momentum into New Hampshire.

Read that she's got a whole new bunch of dirty tricks ready and watch the mud fly!

I cannot believe Huckabee got it. That's like my dream come true.

Please, I thought to myself, please please please let the GOP be stupid enough to make all the same mistakes they've been making for the last decade. Please let them nominate another corrupt, blatantly dishonest, sex-crazed God-babbling moron. Pretty please with sprinkles on top.

For the first time ever, it looks like the GOP might do something I want.

I cannot believe Huckabee got it. That's like my dream come true.

Please, I thought to myself, please please please let the GOP be stupid enough to make all the same mistakes they've been making for the last decade. Please let them nominate another corrupt, blatantly dishonest, sex-crazed God-babbling moron. Pretty please with sprinkles on top.

For the first time ever, it looks like the GOP might do something I want.
And please, please, don't let it backfire...

Way to go Obama! Let's show the world that America wants change!

It's unlikely Obama will bring meaningfull change of any kind. It will be more of the same: More welfare, more statism, more warfare.

That was the stupidest defense of a racist comment I've ever seen. I don't know where to begin - the strawman fallacy, the gross assumption that a "black columnist" can now be said to speak for "blacks," or this apparent need you have for holding up your poop and proudly proclaiming that it is food.

There goes my appetite. :eek:

Score one for the Magic Negro. Pound one nail in the coffin of the Clinton dynasty.

If this continues, the GOP is certain to recapture the House and Senate as well as retain the White House :D

EDIT: New Mitanni's remark is not racist. I apologise for so ruling it. Following up the Wikipedia link and its sub-links make clear that it's a reasonable debating point. So don't "cut it out" at all. I am sorry you were the victim of my hastiness, New Mitanni.

Hillary finished third. That's great news now if the people of New Hampshire will just wear my shirt I'll be very happy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

I cannot believe Huckabee got it. That's like my dream come true.

Please, I thought to myself, please please please let the GOP be stupid enough to make all the same mistakes they've been making for the last decade. Please let them nominate another corrupt, blatantly dishonest, sex-crazed God-babbling moron. Pretty please with sprinkles on top.

For the first time ever, it looks like the GOP might do something I want.

You're not going to like this..... but he could very well win the general. :P

The Iowa turnout proved that. Twice as many voters turned out to caucus for the democratic candidates as did for the repubicans.

Obama got a record number of young people involved in the political process which is good for our country. My candidate has dropped out, my grandson's candidate won. I will shift my support to Obama as he represents the future.

Yay Obama! *dances*

Hang on a sec... didn't you at some point on this forum state you were a member of the Republican Party? :confused:

Yay Obama! *dances*

I am registered republican. I am not a republican.

Huh? I think I need that part explained, sorry...

Hang on a sec... didn't you at some point on this forum state you were a member of the Republican Party? :confused:

I am registered republican. I am not a republican. Hillary is way too authoritarian for me, Obama and I disagree on much, but he doesn't scare the crap out of me.

Huckabee on the other hand does, and Obama might stand a chance of beating him.

Huh? I think I need that part explained, sorry...

we have closed primaries so you can't vote unless someone in your party is running, nobody in my party runs because it's such a hassle to get on here. So, effectively to vote in the primary I had to choose dem or republican, the last few times I have registered it was easier to vote against the republicans that I didn't want making it past the primary than to try to find someone to vote for. In local (well, and national) elections here for the past 10 years or so it's been very much finding the person who makes me puke the least.

we have closed primaries so you can't vote unless someone in your party is running, nobody in my party runs because it's such a hassle to get on here. So, effectively to vote in the primary I had to choose dem or republican, the last few times I have registered it was easier to vote against the republicans that I didn't want making it past the primary than to try to find someone to vote for. In local (well, and national) elections here for the past 10 years or so it's been very much finding the person who makes me puke the least.

Sorry, Smunkee, you'll have to start from the begining with me here... why on earth would you only be able to vote if someone in your party is running?

Sorry, Smunkee, you'll have to start from the begining with me here... why on earth would you only be able to vote if someone in your party is running?

only in the primaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_primary

in the general election I can vote for whomever I want......but it doesn't matter due to the electoral college.

I made a dumb ruling back here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343470&postcount=57). It was unfair. I have changed it to what it should have been and, once again, apologise to New Mittani.

I'm a registered Republican and would vote for Obama

EDIT: New Mitanni's remark is not racist. I apologise for so ruling it. Following up the Wikipedia link and its sub-links make clear that it's a reasonable debating point.

Oh yeah. "Wah, black people can say "negro," but if I do it people think I'm racist. Wah. Wah." Good point.

Maybe you can "rule" on whether he was breaking a rule or not.... But NW *was* being racist, is a racist, and will continue to be.

"Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go, Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!"

Yay for Obama. I was hoping he would win over Clinton. And I hope he'll win the nomination.

As for the Republicans...Bolol scared. I said it before, and I'll say it again: the very fact that Huckabee is even being considered, and that people are actually consistently voting for him, frightens me.

I am registered republican. I am not a republican.
Can't you change party registration?

Can't you change party registration?

I can, but it would be lying again, since I am not a democrat. To change it to what I actually am would make it impossible for me to participate in the primary elections, and I need to be able to especially for local elections.

I can, but it would be lying again, since I am not a democrat. To change it to what I actually am would make it impossible for me to participate in the primary elections, and I need to be able to especially for local elections.
Bit of a bummer, really.

"Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go, Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!"

Dude, it's one state, and she came in a close third. They haven't counted Guliani out on the Republican side and he got beat by freakin' Ron Paul...it's good news (for entirely separate reasons, reasons in fact that make it seem like we're talking about two different people...) but it's a bit early to start dancing on graves.

Oh yeah. "Wah, black people can say "negro," but if I do it people think I'm racist. Wah. Wah." Good point.

Maybe you can "rule" on whether he was breaking a rule or not.... But NW *was* being racist, is a racist, and will continue to be.

The point isn't whether New Mitanni is or isn't racist, and it's not my business to "rule" on that. The point is that that particular comment wasn't. [EDIT: and even if it had been, racist opinions are not necessarily against forum rules.]

He was drawing a parallel between an American presidential candidate and an archetypal figure. When I followed up, first the article to which he linked, and then the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro) reference in it and Wiki's subsequent links, that became clear. Therefore he was debating, not flamebaiting or trolling -- which is something I can rule on.

I know this has been quoted ad nauseam, but here it is again: Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held.

The point isn't whether New Mitanni is or isn't racist

It was as far as I'm concerned. Also, your post seems to be ruling that it isn't, leading me to wonder what it is exactly you're ruling on.

, and it's not my business to "rule" on that. The point is that that particular comment wasn't. [EDIT: and even if it had been, racist opinions are not necessarily against forum rules.]

The latter is certainly true...

He was drawing a parallel between an American presidential candidate and an archetypal figure.

Well, he was really whining because he can't be as racist as he'd like, and he believes that evil black people and evil "leftists" can. It's an unjustness because he isn't allowed to, as he sees it, freely express his hatred and bigotry as much.

That, and he loves to piss people off.

Therefore he was debating, not flamebaiting or trolling

Interesting conclusion. I think it's perfectly possible to do both. It doesn't take much to "debate."

You're not going to like this..... but he could very well win the general. :P
All part of my master plan.

If, as I believe will happen, the American people state that they are categorically sick and fucking tired of the Republican God Squad fucking up the joint, then the GOP is out on their ears.

If, on the other hand, the general election sees yet another racist, sexist, corrupt, superstitious blathering GOP yahoo elected to office, then we can all finally quit worrying about whether or not America is doomed because we will have received an unmistakable and resounding "YES." I plan to set up shop in a quaint pub on the Canadian border and spend my days buying drinks for the droves of refugees fleeing the USA.

I am registered republican. I am not a republican. Hillary is way too authoritarian for me, Obama and I disagree on much, but he doesn't scare the crap out of me.

Huckabee on the other hand does, and Obama might stand a chance of beating him.

Huckabee is not going to get the Republican nomination. He's trailing in New Hampshire.

And Iowa is important in the grand scheme of things, how again?

Oh right. It's not really. More of an interesting appetiser going into the election year.

Bar any huge balls up, it'll probably still be between Obama + Clinton, and then Rudy and.... Rudy?

Huckabee is not going to get the Republican nomination. He's trailing in New Hampshire.

There aren't really any republicans running that don't freak me out, so it doesn't matter who gets the nomination.....unless the dem nomination is moar evil than whomever the republicans pick.

It's another election year of "who gives me less nightmares?"

Okay, GT. It is my opinion that the use of the term "Magic Negro" in New Mitanni's comment wasn't racist. Despite the fact that Rush Limbaugh has used the term in his parody, and that its inventor, an African-American film producer, was well aware of its provocation value, it appears to me to be still an accepted form of shorthand used by critics in discussing a stereotype that appears in American literature and film.

It is also my opinion that to evoke the stereotype, one may use the term, because it has currency. Perhaps "an African-American deus ex machina" may have had less shock value, but it would have been less precise.

I'd draw a parallel with the "Ding-dong, the witch is dead" post earlier. That links Hillary Clinton to the Wicked Witch stereotype, rather than to the Glinda the Good Witch or the "naughty but nice" Charmed witch or all the other witch stereotypes. Whether used by someone who believes witches should not be suffered to live, or by a broomcloseted Wiccan or a full-on, self-identified witch, it's still referencing a stereotype.

So I'm stating the opinion that the term used by Neo Mittani in this comment is not racist. You're stating your opinion that it is. Fair enough.

What I'm ruling, however, is that it's not breaking forum rules, and that by telling New Mittani earlier to knock it off, I was making a mistake (for which I apologised, but that's not a ruling).

And now, it being 5am here, I'm off to bed, having spent another night NSing when my brain tells me I should have been asleep. Damn the game (that's an opinion). (EDIT: And thank you for forcing me to clarify my thoughts on this.)

All part of my master plan.

If, as I believe will happen, the American people state that they are categorically sick and fucking tired of the Republican God Squad fucking up the joint, then the GOP is out on their ears.

If, on the other hand, the general election sees yet another racist, sexist, corrupt, superstitious blathering GOP yahoo elected to office, then we can all finally quit worrying about whether or not America is doomed because we will have received an unmistakable and resounding "YES." I plan to set up shop in a quaint pub on the Canadian border and spend my days buying drinks for the droves of refugees fleeing the USA.

We could be business partners.

I'm finding it really interesting how this has played out. So far the strongest Democratic candidates are both people that it has been said would never be elected: a woman and an African-American. It'll be really telling to see if Dubya and his goonies have screwed it up for the GOP enough that we'll drop idiotic prejudices in order to prevent another Republican getting in.

Of course, in the end they'll probably just nominate Edwards...

It was as far as I'm concerned. Also, your post seems to be ruling that it isn't(Racism), leading me to wonder what it is exactly you're ruling on.my 2 cents.


1# He is probably racist. -His post is prejudiced against Black people- (as far as I am concerned)
2# regardless (of being Racist or not), he has not broken any rules in these posts (as far as Ardchoille is concerned)
3# Ardchoille decision belong to Ardchoile.

I have just only one "comment" on the her approach to retracting her action.. One cheese "I am sorry" was too much.. two of them is overkill. IMO.

If I was a mod I would post something like this:
"upon further review, I hereby lift/retract the warning/stop-it/comment/intervention.. If you have any further questions dont hesitate to come and ask at the Moderation thread " This message is going to self destruct in 15 second, you are advised to keep a safe distance ;-)

but like I said in #3, its her approach, and it belongs to her.
and I very much consider her one of the best Mods ever.

I have just only one "comment" on the her approach to retracting her action.. One cheese "I am sorry" was too much.. two of them is overkill. IMO.
As much as it pains me to see anyone apologise to New Mitanni and his ilk, it was the right decision. I'd expect as much if I was wrongly ruled to be trolling/flaming.

... if I was wrongly ruled to be trolling/flaming.public notice to all mods, If you ever change your mind about a ruling you made against me. I rather you do not post public apologies.

If you feel you should retract it, that is good enough for me.

public notice to all mods, If you ever change your mind about a ruling you made against me. I rather you do not post public apologies.

If you feel you should retract it, that is good enough for me.
Each to his/her own, I suppose.

As much as it pains me to see anyone apologise to New Mitanni and his ilk,..yes indeed, I think I felt the same way.

Maybe we should start forming a third party... get all the indies in there and organize it like one of the big two.

Maybe we should start forming a third party... get all the indies in there and organize it like one of the big two.

In order to be viable it'd have to encompass a lot of them, which would mean it would have to become a 'big tent' party, which would mean that ultimately it would resemble the existing big two...

In order to be viable it'd have to encompass a lot of them, which would mean it would have to become a 'big tent' party, which would mean that ultimately it would resemble the existing big two...

and that would be bad... in what way. "resembling the big two" is not the same as "being the same as the big two".

and that would be bad... in what way. "resembling the big two" is not the same as "being the same as the big two".

It will be.

It will be.

how so?

how so?

I kind of already told you and I'm too lazy to explain it again.

Hillary finished third. That's great news now if the people of New Hampshire will just wear my shirt I'll be very happy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Not this one?

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8381/tbdavw3.jpg

All you said was that it would 'resemble' the big two. Resembling is not the same as being.

however inorder to break the hold of the big two, the indies need to get organized. people complain of only having a two party system yet no one wants to organize another party to take on the big two.

"all you'll do is muddle the feild." that will happen if you get a big enough dog to play with the other big dogs.
"all you'll do is take away votes from [name of political party]" that is the idea
"you'll just be throwing your vote away" so is voting for someone you don't believe in.

I kind of already told you and I'm too lazy to explain it again.

all that is just excuses as to why we should keep a two party system. too lazy to make a change, especially if it's a change that takes more than one month to make.

All you said was that it would 'resemble' the big two. Resembling is not the same as being.

however inorder to break the hold of the big two, the indies need to get organized. people complain of only having a two party system yet no one wants to organize another party to take on the big two.

"all you'll do is muddle the feild." that will happen if you get a big enough dog to play with the other big dogs.
"all you'll do is take away votes from [name of political party]" that is the idea
"you'll just be throwing your vote away" so is voting for someone you don't believe in.



all that is just excuses as to why we should keep a two party system. too lazy to make a change, especially if it's a change that takes more than one month to make.

No, you're not getting it. The key lies in the 'big tent' part. If you organize 'all' the independents into one party the tent is so big that it is a marshmallow like the two current parties who keep moving their ice cream stands to the middle of the beach. The problem with 'third party' is that the number is too small.

Not this one?

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8381/tbdavw3.jpg

:eek:

Mein Gott im Himmel! (That's how you say My God in Heaven in Deutsch, right?)

You have GOT to be kidding me! There is no way anyone with any sense could actually THINK that! Not anyone in this modern day of politics, at least. (Perhaps back at the beginning of the twentieth century, but not today.)

Wasn't there like twice as much voter turnout to the caucus this year then the last highest? And I think the voter turnout for the democrats was really high this year too, wasn't it?

Way to go Obama! Let's show the world that America wants change!

I have to say, I'm kind of getting sick of hearing the word "change." All of the candidates promise it, and all will deliver it, albeit in different ways.
But I'm glad Obama won the caucus. He wasn't my first choice, but my first choice really had no chance of winning anyway. The only thing that bothers me about Obama is that he seems a little too willing to accept the image of a messianic figure that people have thrust on him, and unwilling to admit to any real flaws. But as long as the benefits exceed those flaws, I'm game.

I cannot believe Huckabee got it. That's like my dream come true.

Please, I thought to myself, please please please let the GOP be stupid enough to make all the same mistakes they've been making for the last decade. Please let them nominate another corrupt, blatantly dishonest, sex-crazed God-babbling moron. Pretty please with sprinkles on top.

For the first time ever, it looks like the GOP might do something I want.

There's still the rest of the country. Actually, the same is true with Obama, just winning Iowa doesn't guarantee he will win any other election. I believe George W. Bush lost in New Hampshire, and Bob Dole won in Iowa in 1988.
My personal hope is that Huckabee will not win the nomination, for obvious reasons, but that he'll come close enough to divide the party, maybe even making a third-party candidate possible.

all that is just excuses as to why we should keep a two party system. too lazy to make a change, especially if it's a change that takes more than one month to make.

Totally eviscerating the Constitutional electoral process, replacing it with one oriented toward multi-party proportional representation (what is typically necessary to get more than two viable parties), and getting the necessary number of states to agree to the whole thing, is going to take a lot more than a month. It's not so much a matter of "lazy" as it is recognition of the virtually impossible.

The United States has had a successful third party exactly once in it's existence. It is now the Republican Party, and the Whigs did not survive the process.

I have to say, I'm kind of getting sick of hearing the word "change." All of the candidates promise it, and all will deliver it, albeit in different ways.
But I'm glad Obama won the caucus. He wasn't my first choice, but my first choice really had no chance of winning anyway. The only thing that bothers me about Obama is that he seems a little too willing to accept the image of a messianic figure that people have thrust on him, and unwilling to admit to any real flaws. But as long as the benefits exceed those flaws, I'm game.

Kucinich? Gravel?

:eek:

Mein Gott im Himmel! (That's how you say My God in Heaven in Deutsch, right?)

You have GOT to be kidding me! There is no way anyone with any sense could actually THINK that! Not anyone in this modern day of politics, at least. (Perhaps back at the beginning of the twentieth century, but not today.)

Neoconservatism shares many positions and other characteristics with certain elements of the political left. Former association with Trotskyist and other revolutionary leftist ideologies is not uncommon among core neoconservatives. Indeed, the idea of active military intervention aimed at spreading "democracy" and the capitalist "market" reflect a similar approach to perpetual worldwide revolution asserted by many socialists/communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Left-wing_past_of_neoconservatives).

These people are new ("neo") conservatives exactly because they used to be not conservatives; they still brought much of their previous ideological baggage with them when they converted to their new faith.

I don't think that George W. Bush is himself a neoconservative; he's too stupid to understand any kind of complicated political ideology. The people in the background telling him what to do, however, fit the bill quite nicely, obviously.

EDIT: In fact, see also this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546712

There aren't really any republicans running that don't freak me out, so it doesn't matter who gets the nomination.....unless the dem nomination is moar evil than whomever the republicans pick.

It's another election year of "who gives me less nightmares?"
I've been claiming for months now that the Democrats will lose if they select any candidate that isn't Edwards, unless the Republicans select Huckabee, in which case the Democrats will win regardless of whom they choose.

Well we all know by now Huckabee and Obama won. Really I don't know how Huckabee one. He doesn't seem like a bright person. I could be wrong, judging a book by its cover. But seriously he was uninformed about the writers strike and Jay Leno. Whats the deal, I mean all the Evangelicals really pushed him in Iowa. New Hampshire will be a better judge of whos popular.

I've been claiming for months now that the Democrats will lose if they select any candidate that isn't Edwards, unless the Republicans select Huckabee, in which case the Democrats will win regardless of whom they choose.

I'm looking towards an Obama Edwards tandem.

:eek:

Mein Gott im Himmel! (That's how you say My God in Heaven in Deutsch, right?)

You have GOT to be kidding me! There is no way anyone with any sense could actually THINK that! Not anyone in this modern day of politics, at least. (Perhaps back at the beginning of the twentieth century, but not today.)
One of his first actions as President was to impose a significant tariff on steel, one of Marx's "commanding heights" of the economy.

Arguing that Bush is a socialist is a credible position. He hasn't been a particularly market-friendly economic steward.

Kucinich? Gravel?

Kucinich. I don't know how electable he would be, but in a primary or caucus one might as well vote for their favorite, and then compromise in the general election.

Well we all know by now Huckabee and Obama won. Really I don't know how Huckabee one. He doesn't seem like a bright person. I could be wrong, judging a book by its cover. But seriously he was uninformed about the righters strike and Jay Leno. Whats the deal, I mean all the Evangelicals really pushed him in Iowa. New Hampshire will be a better judge of whos popular.
It is Iowa. Huckabee shouldn't do nearly as well in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire.

Kucinich. I don't know how electable he would be, but in a primary or caucus one might as well vote for their favorite, and then compromise in the general election.

I personally like Kucinich more than all the other candidates, but I don't have much confidence in him winning, so I'm going with Obama.

Well we all know by now Huckabee and Obama won. Really I don't know how Huckabee one. He doesn't seem like a bright person. I could be wrong, judging a book by its cover. But seriously he was uninformed about the righters strike and Jay Leno. Whats the deal, I mean all the Evangelicals really pushed him in Iowa. New Hampshire will be a better judge of whos popular.

It's a homonym disaster area...

It is Iowa. Huckabee shouldn't do nearly as well in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire.

If that's really their motto, I don't see any of the Republican candidates doing well there.

Of course, phrases like that often are meant to apply only to white, male, heterosexual Christians and "freedom" often includes the ability to keep any other category from doing so.

I'm looking towards an Obama Edwards tandem.
Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

If that's really their motto, I don't see any of the Republican candidates doing well there.
Paul and Thompson should be the top Republicans in New Hampshire, based solely on the motto. Paul's the closest thing to a libertarian we've seen in a Presidential race in quite a while, and Thompson is a federalist.

Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

You are either paranoid or just stuck in the 60's, AMERICA MIGHT, NOT WON'T. We are turning "Latino" anyway I'll bet you within 3 elections only Hispanics or blacks will be able to become president.

Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

ORLY?

I hope you are proved wrong this year.

ORLY?

I hope you are proved wrong this year.
So do I. I think Obama would be a refreshing change - he's far more idealistic than most serious candidates (much like Paul and Thompson).

Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

of course they will

anyone who would not vote for a black man because he is a black man is so firmly in the conservative republican camp that he would never vote for a democrat.

the rest of us will vote for the best candidate.

You are either paranoid or just stuck in the 60's, AMERICA MIGHT, NOT WON'T. We are turning "Latino" anyway I'll bet you within 3 elections only Hispanics or blacks will be able to become president.
82% of Americans are white.

of course they will

anyone who would not vote for a black man because he is a black man is so firmly in the conservative republican camp that he would never vote for a democrat.

the rest of us will vote for the best candidate.
People vote for candidates with whom they identify. Most voters don't think it through any farther than that.

82% of Americans are white.

More like 70%, but that is going to change rapidly considering a lot of whites are not having kids and blacks and hispanics are, it's mainly hispanics though. If you add the illegals it's even more "non-white" and if they are given the right to vote like some lefties want my predictions will come true in that time frame, if not I say maybe 5 to 7 elections.

More like 70%, but that is going to change rapidly considering a lot of whites are not having kids and blacks and hispanics are, it's mainly hispanics though. If you add the illegals it's even more "non-white" and if they are given the right to vote like some lefties want my predictions will come true in that time frame, if not I say maybe 5 to 7 elections.

You can't be a righty and not support amnesty. If you were a righty, then you'd want the cheapest and most economically beneficial choice. By deporting these immigrants, you'd spend tons of government money (which is against non-lefty philosophy) and you'd lose a lot of labor.

I think this discussion should stop soon though, it's quite off topic.

Of course I was refering to non-hispanic whites, the combined "culture" of all non-hispanic whites in americasuch as those with german or english ancestry for example will be gone soon. HISPANIC-whites will still be a majority by 2050 but the entire culture built up by combing the other types of white will be gone, as well as most of the different racial white groups themselves.

Huckabee is not going to get the Republican nomination. He's trailing in New Hampshire.Huckleberry is going to overtake Giuliano in New Hampshire. ;)

Because you're a troll and your main point in posting is to piss off any rational-thinking people, who you universally assume are "lefties." The only people who aren't at the least bit outraged through your comments are people who are too busy reading Stormfront on another tab to pay any real attention anyway.
I'd like to point out that I don't read Stormfront yet am not in the less bit outraged by New Mitani's comments. Mainly because I view NM as sad troll-like substance desperately yelling inflammatory comments in the hope he'll be noticed. The word, "insignificant" springs to mind.

Back to the OP:
what I found worrying in the msn article (link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/)) was this bit:
more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals
Oh crap, are we going to see yet another, "a vote for me is a vote for God" election? I had hoped that after the last debacle USA had evolved from there.

Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

Doubtful. Iowa is pretty dang white - 95%, and he won handily here.

anyone who would not vote for a black man because he is a black man is so firmly in the conservative republican camp that he would never vote for a democrat.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The Dems can be racist as well. Don't forget Biden's lovely comments like "(in Delaware y)ou cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking" and "(Obama is) the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy".

I view NM as sad troll-like substance desperately yelling inflammatory comments in the hope he'll be noticed. The word, "insignificant" springs to mind.

I've ignored the silly BS he posted here up til now and will continue to do so. You are absolutely correct.

Totally eviscerating the Constitutional electoral process, replacing it with one oriented toward multi-party proportional representation (what is typically necessary to get more than two viable parties), and getting the necessary number of states to agree to the whole thing, is going to take a lot more than a month. It's not so much a matter of "lazy" as it is recognition of the virtually impossible.

The United States has had a successful third party exactly once in it's existence. It is now the Republican Party, and the Whigs did not survive the process.

That's because 1) The dems themselves were not totally united and 2) Neither were the whigs. On top of that, the slavery issue (which both the dems and the whigs pretty much ignored) brought about the shift in politics thus allowing for the Republicans to become a major party in less than 6 years.

Obama can't win. America will not elect a black President.

I actually disagree with that statement. If we are going by that then Hillary can't win because she's a female.

82% of Americans are white.

And your point?

Totally eviscerating the Constitutional electoral process, replacing it with one oriented toward multi-party proportional representation (what is typically necessary to get more than two viable parties), and getting the necessary number of states to agree to the whole thing, is going to take a lot more than a month. It's not so much a matter of "lazy" as it is recognition of the virtually impossible.

The United States has had a successful third party exactly once in it's existence. It is now the Republican Party, and the Whigs did not survive the process.

I missed this one - thanks Corny for quoting it and bringing it to my attention.

The current congressional single-member district system is not constitutionally mandated, but statutory. This is specified in Article I, Section 2 "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." (modified as below) , Section 4 "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." and Section 5 "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.", as well as the 14th Amendment "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

As should be clear there, congress specifies the statutes that require single-member districs. Before 1842, multi-member districts appear to have been OK... http://rangevoting.org/CongHistory.html

I missed this one - thanks Corny for quoting it and bringing it to my attention.

Not a problem :)

Paul and Thompson should be the top Republicans in New Hampshire, based solely on the motto. Paul's the closest thing to a libertarian we've seen in a Presidential race in quite a while, and Thompson is a federalist.

If Paul is the closest thing you've seen to a libertarian, you may as well give up on trying to find a libertarian. He is distinctly authoritarian on a number of issues - all of them in the realm of individual liberty. The fact that he thinks the decision to control your life should rest with the state doesn't make him any less authoritarian than someone who thinks it should rest with the federal government.

People vote for candidates with whom they identify. Most voters don't think it through any farther than that.

And yet, the majority white population of Iowa gave him more votes at caucus time than any other candidate in the race.

Interestingly enough, voting for Obama did decrease with age. I'd say this suggests (although it does not prove) that young white voters are more likely to see past color and identify with a black man than older voters. If the trend of large numbers of young and first-time voters participating continues, it seems that "ZOMG, HE'S BLACK!" will be less of an issue.

Oh crap, are we going to see yet another, "a vote for me is a vote for God" election? I had hoped that after the last debacle USA had evolved from there.

Are you mad, you atheist heathen? We don't believe in that evolution garbage, remember? So we can't evolve.

You can't be a righty and not support amnesty. If you were a righty, then you'd want the cheapest and most economically beneficial choice.
That's only true in the absence of a welfare system upon which the uneducated illegals can become a burden.

Also, uneducated people have more children, which increases the burden over time.

As long as there is a welfare system, I want as little immigration as possible to keep the population down. Plus, I don't like people, so having fewer of them around is a good thing.

More like 70%, but that is going to change rapidly considering a lot of whites are not having kids and blacks and hispanics are, it's mainly hispanics though. If you add the illegals it's even more "non-white" and if they are given the right to vote like some lefties want my predictions will come true in that time frame, if not I say maybe 5 to 7 elections.
They have kids because they're uneducated people. The best way to reduce the birth rate is to educate women.

But, as I said, 82% of Americans are white. It's current census data.

Doubtful. Iowa is pretty dang white - 95%, and he won handily here.
He won the democratic caucus with a plurality of exercised democratic support. I wouldn't call that indicative of future support.

Plus, Iowa was a red state last election. How well Obama does in blue states is much more relevant.

The current congressional single-member district system is not constitutionally mandated, but statutory...


The fact that control over this issue belongs to the States per the Constitution is the exact problem. In order for multi-party proportional representation to stand a chance of ever occurring, the Constitution will have to be changed in order to provide explicitly for a parliamentary multi-party proportional system (which means that the Executive branch will also require a heavy makeover, if not elimination). Of course, the states have no incentive to enact the change on their own (per the present Constitution) as the already established major parties are too great an asset in terms of exerting influence at the federal level. This is essentially the same problem preventing a new Constitutional convention, as well.

No, nothing in the Constitution makes multi-party proportional representation impossible de jure. But by providing for a massive case of collective action problem, by leaving it up to the individual states, the Constitution does effectively prevent any meaningful movement in that direction, even if technically allowed. Short of forcing the states to adopt PR by changing the Constitution to place federal elections under the direct control of the federal constitution (:eek:), it just won't happen.

A century passed before the concept of proportional representation was developed, but the "Founding Fathers" did display impressive foresight in making their Constitution as hostile to that concept as possible. Considering the general attitude toward political faction and parties at the time, this actually isn't that surprising. Never mind that the United States hasn't be a loose confederation of otherwise independent states for at least 143 years, if not 221.

That's only true in the absence of a welfare system upon which the uneducated illegals can become a burden.

Also, uneducated people have more children, which increases the burden over time.

As long as there is a welfare system, I want as little immigration as possible to keep the population down. Plus, I don't like people, so having fewer of them around is a good thing.

Ah, the ironies of those who proclaim to love freedom but will happily deny it to anyone they don't like.

Furthermore, you live in Alberta. Why the hell do you care? You're a Canadian.

The fact that control over this issue belongs to the States per the Constitution is the exact problem. In order for multi-party proportional representation to stand a chance of ever occurring, the Constitution will have to be changed in order to provide explicitly for a parliamentary multi-party proportional system (which means that the Executive branch will also require a heavy makeover, if not elimination). Of course, the states have no incentive to enact the change on their own (per the present Constitution) as the already established major parties are too great an asset in terms of exerting influence at the federal level. This is essentially the same problem preventing a new Constitutional convention, as well.

No, nothing in the Constitution makes multi-party proportional representation impossible de jure. But by providing for a massive case of collective action problem, by leaving it up to the individual states, the Constitution does effectively prevent any meaningful movement in that direction, even if technically allowed. Short of forcing the states to adopt PR by changing the Constitution to place federal elections under the direct control of the federal constitution (:eek:), it just won't happen.

A century passed before the concept of proportional representation was developed, but the "Founding Fathers" did display impressive foresight in making their Constitution as hostile to that concept as possible. Considering the general attitude toward political faction and parties at the time, this actually isn't that surprising. Never mind that the United States hasn't be a loose confederation of otherwise independent states for at least 143 years, if not 221.
I've got an idea. What if we had World War III, where the Chinese, Russians, and Indians team up and invade the Pacific coast of North America thus forcing Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. to form the North American Union in order to be powerful enough to repel them? We could write up a whole new Constitution for the new government and this time get it right, and as a bonus, it'll apply to Mexico and Canada too!

I've got an idea. What if we had World War III, where the Chinese, Russians, and Indians team up and invade the Pacific coast of North America thus forcing Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. to form the North American Union in order to be powerful enough to repel them? We could write up a whole new Constitution for the new government and this time get it right, and as a bonus, it'll apply to Mexico and Canada too!

I'm not a fan of World Wars, but a chance to annoy Ron Paul is almost too good to pass up.

(if the larger point is that quickly accepting a broken Constitution was necessary in order to prevent annihilation at the hands of the English, French, and Spanish...well, of course. But now that the danger has passed, it would probably be best to have a not broken Constitution)

If Paul is the closest thing you've seen to a libertarian, you may as well give up on trying to find a libertarian. He is distinctly authoritarian on a number of issues - all of them in the realm of individual liberty. The fact that he thinks the decision to control your life should rest with the state doesn't make him any less authoritarian than someone who thinks it should rest with the federal government.



And yet, the majority white population of Iowa gave him more votes at caucus time than any other candidate in the race.

Interestingly enough, voting for Obama did decrease with age. I'd say this suggests (although it does not prove) that young white voters are more likely to see past color and identify with a black man than older voters. If the trend of large numbers of young and first-time voters participating continues, it seems that "ZOMG, HE'S BLACK!" will be less of an issue.
Young voters bailed on the last election, though I don't know if they turned up for primaries...

He won the democratic caucus with a plurality of exercised democratic support. I wouldn't call that indicative of future support.

Seeing as almost twica as many Dems caucused, if the actuall election had been Thursday night, the numbers would have given Obama a solid win.

Plus, Iowa was a red state last election. How well Obama does in blue states is much more relevant.

Iowa is a purple swing state (one of the reasons the caucus is important). In 2000 the electors were Gore's by .31% and in 2004 Bush won by .67%. Those are razor thin margins.

Anywho, the important point is made IMHO, and if you actually have any further reason to claim a ethnic non-white still can't win, I'm sure we'll be happy to pop those figments as well.

The fact that control over this issue belongs to the States per the Constitution is the exact problem. In order for multi-party proportional representation to stand a chance of ever occurring, the Constitution will have to be changed in order to provide explicitly for a parliamentary multi-party proportional system (which means that the Executive branch will also require a heavy makeover, if not elimination). Of course, the states have no incentive to enact the change on their own (per the present Constitution) as the already established major parties are too great an asset in terms of exerting influence at the federal level. This is essentially the same problem preventing a new Constitutional convention, as well.

No, nothing in the Constitution makes multi-party proportional representation impossible de jure. But by providing for a massive case of collective action problem, by leaving it up to the individual states, the Constitution does effectively prevent any meaningful movement in that direction, even if technically allowed. Short of forcing the states to adopt PR by changing the Constitution to place federal elections under the direct control of the federal constitution (:eek:), it just won't happen.

A century passed before the concept of proportional representation was developed, but the "Founding Fathers" did display impressive foresight in making their Constitution as hostile to that concept as possible. Considering the general attitude toward political faction and parties at the time, this actually isn't that surprising. Never mind that the United States hasn't be a loose confederation of otherwise independent states for at least 143 years, if not 221.

Note that it is congress, and not the states, that did away with the multi-member districts. At-large representatives were also legal at different times, until congress also did away with them.

Oh, and Lew, here's the list of presidential candidates who've won the Iowa caucus over the last thirty-six years: 1972 - McGovern, 1976, 1980 - Carter, 1984 - Mondale, 1988 - Dukakis, 1992, 1996 - Clinton, 2000 - Gore, and 2004 Kerry. Sound familiar? The GOP caucus has been equally effective.

Okay, GT. It is my opinion that the use of the term "Magic Negro" in New Mitanni's comment wasn't racist. Despite the fact that Rush Limbaugh has used the term in his parody, and that its inventor, an African-American film producer, was well aware of its provocation value, it appears to me to be still an accepted form of shorthand used by critics in discussing a stereotype that appears in American literature and film.


And I do respect your opinion, I just don't agree. People like Limbaugh, or New Mitanni, will use that term for the sheer naughty pleasure of being able to be "making a valid point regarding stereotypes" while spitting out an ethnic slur.

Outside of this thread I've never seen anyone use that term, so it's not like it's some well-known cultural thing.


It is also my opinion that to evoke the stereotype, one may use the term, because it has currency. Perhaps "an African-American deus ex machina" may have had less shock value, but it would have been less precise.

I think it would have been more precise, but the lack of shock value is precisely why that term was not used. Evoking stereotypes - what you might call "currency" - I call negative attention seeking. More or less the same thing I've done when I've been penalized for trolling.

I'd draw a parallel with the "Ding-dong, the witch is dead" post earlier. That links Hillary Clinton to the Wicked Witch stereotype, rather than to the Glinda the Good Witch or the "naughty but nice" Charmed witch or all the other witch stereotypes. Whether used by someone who believes witches should not be suffered to live, or by a broomcloseted Wiccan or a full-on, self-identified witch, it's still referencing a stereotype.


It may be referencing a stereotype ... it's also still calling her a witch.


So I'm stating the opinion that the term used by Neo Mittani in this comment is not racist. You're stating your opinion that it is. Fair enough.

What I'm ruling, however, is that it's not breaking forum rules, and that by telling New Mittani earlier to knock it off, I was making a mistake (for which I apologised, but that's not a ruling).

And now, it being 5am here, I'm off to bed, having spent another night NSing when my brain tells me I should have been asleep. Damn the game (that's an opinion). (EDIT: And thank you for forcing me to clarify my thoughts on this.)

Heh no problem. It's been enjoyable.

Just throwing something out there:

Ron Paul Vote by Income:

Under 15K - 12%
15K - 30K - 18%
30K - 50K - 12%
50K - 75K - 10%
75K - 100K - 8%
100% or more - 5%

Interesting statistic, but unfortunately meaningless without detail of the overall percentage of voters in each income bracket. For all we know Paul's 5% vote from over 100k could account for 95% of those who voted in that income bracket.

@ GT: insert "having a beer together" smilie here. [/threadjack]

@ learned panel: Is there any primary that is the bellwether primary for each party? As in, "As X goes, so goes the nation"? I'm not talking about statistics, I mean the sort of superstition that builds up among pollies when a particular place/electorate/state has always, or for the past 50 years, or some such thing, coincidentally chosen the person who eventually ends up as candidate?

I made a dumb ruling back here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343470&postcount=57). It was unfair. I have changed it to what it should have been and, once again, apologise to New Mittani.

Apology humbly accepted, and thanks.

As for the imputations of "racism", they ring hollow in view of, inter alia, my long and frequently-posted support for Condi Rice (who, last time I checked, happened to be black) for Vice-President on a Giuliani-Rice GOP ticket. Clearly those mouthing off either don't know what they're talking about or are mere poseurs who like to post their own self-righteousness.

My use of the term in question and citation to the original article remain apt. The original article is not only appropriate, but prophetic.

And btw: if I don't post extensive answers, it's usually because (1) I have other things to do than appear daily and stay on-line for hours at a time or (2) I make extensive use of my ignore list.

Young voters bailed on the last election, though I don't know if they turned up for primaries...

From what I understand, young voters usually show up for the primaries even less than the general election. Hence the reason that seeing so many at the Iowa caucus was exciting. If that trend continues, it suggests that young voters will be a major force in this election.

@ GT: insert "having a beer together" smilie here. [/threadjack]

@ learned panel: Is there any primary that is the bellwether primary for each party? As in, "As X goes, so goes the nation"? I'm not talking about statistics, I mean the sort of superstition that builds up among pollies when a particular place/electorate/state has always, or for the past 50 years, or some such thing, coincidentally chosen the person who eventually ends up as candidate?

The Iowa caucuses are it.

Anywho, the important point is made IMHO, and if you actually have any further reason to claim a ethnic non-white still can't win, I'm sure we'll be happy to pop those figments as well.
I didn't say non-white. I said black.

I think there are still too many racist voters. Come election day, they won't vote for him. I might go so far as to further assert that a large portion of those racist voters are traditionally non-voters, but having a black candidate with a real shot at winning could well mobilise those voters (and the GOP would be fools not to find them and get them to polling stations).

I think there are still too many racist voters. Come election day, they won't vote for him. I might go so far as to further assert that a large portion of those racist voters are traditionally non-voters, but having a black candidate with a real shot at winning could well mobilise those voters (and the GOP would be fools not to find them and get them to polling stations).

...unless, of course, they ever wanted to win an election again. Not only would becoming so blatantly the racist party lose the majority of the independent and moderate voters who vote Republican, it would also lose them some of their core voters. I don't think that even the Republican party leaders would be *that* stupid.

...unless, of course, they ever wanted to win an election again. Not only would becoming so blatantly the racist party lose the majority of the independent and moderate voters who vote Republican, it would also lose them some of their core voters. I don't think that even the Republican party leaders would be *that* stupid.
Not all Get-Out-The-Vote campaigns are made public.

Apology humbly accepted, and thanks.

As for the imputations of "racism", they ring hollow in view of, inter alia, my long and frequently-posted support for Condi Rice (who, last time I checked, happened to be black)

Did you really just use the "I'm not a racist, I like a black person!" defense? Yes you did. As if supporting a black person politically somehow means you can't be racist...

Fail, New Mitanni. I can show dozens of posts that clearly demonstrate your bigoted, hate-filled views. So can anyone who has had the distinct displeasure of reading them. So could you, if you were intellectually honest.

Clearly those mouthing off either don't know what they're talking about or are mere poseurs who like to post their own self-righteousness.

I can show dozens of posts that clearly demonstrate your bigoted, hate-filled views. So can anyone who has had the distinct displeasure of reading them. But why bother? The only reason you even pretend not to be what you are is so that people don't immediately dismiss your views, and this just comes across as a pathetic sham. Much like you.

You are either paranoid or just stuck in the 60's, AMERICA MIGHT, NOT WON'T. We are turning "Latino" anyway I'll bet you within 3 elections only Hispanics or blacks will be able to become president.

Orly? Then explain the 221,331,507 whites in the US and growing? You know that blacks are 3rd in population and asians are growing at a faster rate than them...Of course you must assume all hispanics and blacks would never vote for a white person, you calling them racist?

More like 70%, but that is going to change rapidly considering a lot of whites are not having kids and blacks and hispanics are, it's mainly hispanics though. If you add the illegals it's even more "non-white" and if they are given the right to vote like some lefties want my predictions will come true in that time frame, if not I say maybe 5 to 7 elections.


False. 74% are white which I doubt as unlike you seem to think a large part of hispanics are white...HOLY SHAT A WHITE HISPANIC!!! You seem to label them all non-white which is untrue.