NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/11/11/republicans/

In postmortem conferences and symposiums, in right-wing journals and Web sites, on Fox News, the overwhelming consensus among Republican analysts is that the only thing wrong with conservatism is that it isn't conservative enough. In a morning-after National Review symposium titled "How the GOP Got Here," L. Brent Bozell wrote, "The liberal wing of the GOP has caused the collapse of the Republican Party." Richard Viguerie said, "Republicans will make a comeback only after they return to their conservative roots." Other contributors echoed these sentiments. If only McCain had attacked Obama on red-meat issues like immigration or abortion or cloning. If only Bush had not betrayed Reagan's legacy by expanding Medicare. If only conservatives had let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin.



Limbaugh managed to refrain from comparing McCain to an insect, but he joined Coulter in anointing Palin the future queen of the Republican Party. Noting that a Rasmussen poll showed that 69 percent of GOP voters love Palin, Limbaugh sneered, "So all of you wizards of smart on our side, all of you intellectualoids who think that Palin was a drag, the party loves Sarah Palin. The vast majority of conservative Republicans love Sarah Palin. Twenty percent of Republicans who say she hurt the ticket, you are probably the ones that need to go and walk and join across the aisle with the others that you find so much more palatable because they are able to communicate and they are writers and they are intellectual ... The party loves her."


Right-wing ideologues are suffering from massive cognitive dissonance (not to mention a healthy helping of denial). They can't grasp why their party imploded because the vast majority of them always supported Bush and his policies and still do. A few conservative critics have blasted him for lacking fiscal discipline, but most right-wing pundits liked Bush's policies just fine -- until the public turned on him and on McCain.

The painful truth for conservatives is that the dogs aren't eating their dog food -- and every national trend indicates that they will never eat it again. Which means the GOP faces a wrenching choice: remain true to its increasingly irrelevant and rejected ideology and fade into political insignificance, or remake itself as essentially a more moderate version of the Democratic Party

The GOP faces two problems for which it has no answers. The first is that its two main branches are fundamentally incompatible. The right has always been divided between a libertarian, free-market, anti-government, no-tax wing, and a traditional-values, moral-issues wing. These are strange bedfellows. Libertarians abhor any kind of coercive policies, no matter how "moral" their aims, whether they're imposed by government or anyone else. They tend to be tolerant on social issues. Traditionalists, many of them devout Christians, regard their version of morality as the highest value and demand coercive governmental measures -- on abortion and gay marriage, for example -- to instill it.

By crying wolf, Bush weakened the right's ability to use fear as a political tool. As with the economy, Bush's overreaching ended up hastening the demise of the very "movement conservatism" of which he was so loyal and exemplary a servant. Indeed, Bush's "war on terror" opened a new set of fissures in the already-cracked GOP, this time between neoconservative interventionists and old-fashioned conservatives opposed to gratuitous foreign meddling.


The problem is that moderates are completely turned off both by the GOP's performance and by its extreme, demonizing worldview and rhetoric. And the reason they're turned off is that the country's demographics have fundamentally changed -- and changed in a way that makes it impossible for the GOP in its current form to survive.

This isn't just an ideological shift, it's a cultural and social one. The new class is steeped in the universalist, tolerant ethos promoted not just in America's schools but in its offices. Its members are liberal on social issues and free of the cultural resentment of "elites" that Palin, in particular, used to appeal to the white working class. They are the new face of America, and for them the GOP's culture war is both irrelevant and offensive.


Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean much to them. They're skeptical about governmental programs but open to them, and they strongly favor government regulation. They support progressive taxation, and are willing to vote against their own pocketbooks as long as Washington delivers.

The only thing that might allow the GOP to postpone its day of reckoning would be a failed Obama presidency -- admittedly a real possibility, considering the daunting obstacles he faces. But if Obama succeeds, the only viable path for the GOP if it wants to continue to be a mainstream political force is to reject its extreme economic libertarianism and its extreme social conservatism, lose its harsh, messianic tone, and remake itself as a moderate party that supports effective government but is wary of excessive Democratic social engineering and is slightly more traditional on social issues. It could also appeal to the center by rejecting neoconservative militarism and returning to a quasi-isolationist stance. (If Obama ends up being a liberal interventionist, this would ironically mean that the parties had reverted to their traditional foreign-policy roles.)


In the coming years we will witness a war between conservatism's pragmatists and its true believers. If the pragmatists win, America will have finally arrived at the era of broad political consensus that pundits erroneously forecast after Lyndon Johnson's demolition of Barry Goldwater in 1964. If the true believers win, we may witness a Palin candidacy in 2012 -- and a likely electoral landslide that will bury the GOP so deeply it may never dig out.

Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).

Ah. So Republicans believe that they offered the US Republican-Lite, and they need to go back to Republican Original?

They're right.

Look at the attention the right-wing media paid to Palin when she was elected veep. Utterly sickening, but they showed what they wanted from the Republican party : God-fearing candidates with a low-tax agenda. What they got was McCain, who was, by the GOP's standards, a centrist.

Ah. So Republicans believe that they offered the US Republican-Lite, and they need to go back to Republican Original?

Not even that. Republican Original was the progressive party.

They think they need to go to Republican bat shit insanity.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/11/11/republicans/
























Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).
*Sniff* The very thought brings tears of joy to my eyes.:D
Ah. So Republicans believe that they offered the US Republican-Lite, and they need to go back to Republican Original?
No. Republican original is Teddy Roosevelt, and we all loved him.;)

Noting that a Rasmussen poll showed that 69 percent of GOP voters love Palin...

69% of 45% of the voters isn't something to boast about.

History shows that ruling parties coming off damaging defeats entrench their position. It's the steps of shock and it always starts with denial.

They're right.

Look at the attention the right-wing media paid to Palin when she was elected veep. Utterly sickening, but they showed what they wanted from the Republican party : God-fearing candidates with a low-tax agenda. What they got was McCain, who was, by the GOP's standards, a centrist.

And Palin is the reason the Republicans lost.


Soooo....theyre actually wrong. Being the party of Palin will see them destroyed.

And Palin is the reason the Republicans lost.
Dunno about that. McCain being only mildly batshit insane and fairly responsible about things and the contrast to that with Palin having craziness up the arse and speaking in apocalyptic tones broke them.

It was not two-track politics, it was simply schitzophrenic.

Dunno about that.

All polls indicate that it was Palin. She really turned away moderates.


The party of Palin will appeal soley to the nutjob base. You cant win with just a fraction of the country.

All polls indicate that it was Palin. She really turned away moderates.
I dunno. She turned away a lot of moderates, but energised the GOP. If Obama's presidency is pretty weak and a lot of moderates become 'free' again, we might see a Palin/Some Centrist Chap ticket in 2012.

I dunno. She turned away a lot of moderates, but energised the GOP. If Obama's presidency is pretty weak and a lot of moderates become 'free' again, we might see a Palin/Some Centrist Chap ticket in 2012.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but...

Please don't let Obama's presidency be one of failure and humiliation...

I'd never thought I'd say this, but...

Please don't let Obama's presidency be one of failure and humiliation...
I quite agree. But with the financial shitstorm that's brewing, I'm not that optimistic.

I dunno. She turned away a lot of moderates, but energised the GOP.

She energized the nuts.


And you cant win an election when only your base voted againt you.


Moderates and independents overwhelming were turned off by Palin, and voted against McCain for that reason. This isnt a debate anymore. All evidence shows that she cost McCain the election.

Ah. So Republicans believe that they offered the US Republican-Lite, and they need to go back to Republican Original?

But ... but - wasn't the Republican original exemplified by Lincoln? And wasn't the Democratic original exemplified by the slave-holding Southerner? I'm so confused.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but...

Please don't let Obama's presidency be one of failure and humiliation...

It wont be a disaster. It may not be a miracle, but hes a smart man who will surround himself with other smart men, and will actually listen to those smart men.

But ... but - wasn't the Republican original exemplified by Lincoln? And wasn't the Democratic original exemplified by the slave-holding Southerner? I'm so confused.

Its a well known fact that conservatives are not good at history. It tends to disagree with their ideology.

She energized the nuts.
"69 percent of GOP voters love Palin" - your source.

By crying wolf, Bush weakened the right's ability to use fear as a political tool.

You mean like terrorists do?

You mean like terrorists do?
Correct. Also basically every government.

She energized the nuts.

And the flakes. She offended the berries though.

"69 percent of GOP voters love Palin" - your source.

......


First of all, 69% of 45% (republicans) is not a lot. Secondly Limbaugh is not a good source.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/poll.one.party/
http://www.upi.com/Related-News/Palin_costing_McCain,_poll_suggests/98861225591770/


I love when people outside this country argue with people in this country about how we feel and out political climate.

Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).

:rolleyes: I think the prop 8 vote shows that there is still viability in the appeal to religion, especially as blacks and Hispanics are a generally growing group.

But if Obama succeeds, the only viable path for the GOP if it wants to continue to be a mainstream political force is to reject its extreme economic libertarianism and its extreme social conservatism This was the only part that rang any bells with me, although it sort of depends on what you call "extreme", I'm guessing its not what you or the author thinks.

In the coming years we will witness a war between conservatism's pragmatists and its true believers. If the pragmatists win, America will have finally arrived at the era of broad political consensus that pundits erroneously forecast after Lyndon Johnson's demolition of Barry Goldwater in 1964. If the true believers win, we may witness a Palin candidacy in 2012 -- and a likely electoral landslide that will bury the GOP so deeply it may never dig out.

yup, bury them just like goldwater did in '64, a loss so devastating they'll never dig out. Same shit different day.

What all the liberal commentators don't realize is that McCain pretty much only lost because the economy tanked right before the election (there are other contributing factors, but it would have been a lot closer otherwise), and an unpopular president. There wasn't any huge shift in the political spectrum.

The problem is - apathy in the US.

If the Republicans only appeal to batshit insane voters... well, that's like 30% of the electorate (if Palin's popularity is as good a measure as it seems).

Not likely perhaps, but if votes are so splintered in 2012 that Democratic voters either defect to third parties, or just fail to vote.... we could see a batshit insane president in 2012. Because, if there's one thing you can count on with your batshit insane voter... they'll vote.

She energized the nuts.

"69 percent of GOP voters love Palin" - your source.

Sounds accurate to me.

*Sniff* The very thought brings tears of joy to my eyes.:D


It shouldn't. If there is one thing the last eight years have demonstrated, it's that having a viable loyal dissent is absolutely vital to the workings of this country. Obama has proven tempermentally beyond the dreams of avarice, but let's remember that he's inexperienced and therefore error-prone, no matter how good he is he'll make mistakes anyway, and power and time in the box is enough to make anyone sloppy. When that happens, you need someone to point out that you messed up and how you can make amends. Ideally, the Republicans should be that party. If they aren't, our country is the worse for it.

Just to be clear, I am looking forward to the emerging Democratic majority existing for the next 20 years or so, and I hope beyond hope that Obama's going to start digging us out of this hole we've dug in the last eight years. But we need to be practical now, and we also need to remember that while breaking Reaganism now is vital, it's also crucial that we not be hidebound to no Reaganism at all costs. Some day, I'll probably have to vote Republican to cure Democratic excess, maybe even to end the bloat of whatever the Democrat Party turns into after two decades. When that day comes, it'll be because conservatives now have started rebuilding in the right way using the right means. That Sarah Palin doesn't fit that is obvious; equally obvious is that such a strategy hurts the Republican's chances at digging us out of a Democrat mess in the future.

What all the liberal commentators don't realize

This isnt a "liberal commentator". Fail.

is that McCain pretty much only lost because the economy tanked right before the election (there are other contributing factors, but it would have been a lot closer otherwise), and an unpopular president. There wasn't any huge shift in the political spectrum.

All evidence indicates otherwise

......


First of all, 69% of 45% (republicans) is not a lot.
Nearly 7 of ten Republicans is a lot.
Secondly Limbaugh is not a good source.
Fair enough, then.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/poll.one.party/
Rightio. That's me sorta wrong, then.
I love when people outside this country argue with people in this country about how we feel and out political climate.
Eh "I can't believe they can read statistics and shit"?

It shouldn't. If there is one thing the last eight years have demonstrated, it's that having a viable loyal dissent is absolutely vital to the workings of this country. Obama has proven tempermentally beyond the dreams of avarice, but let's remember that he's inexperienced and therefore error-prone, no matter how good he is he'll make mistakes anyway, and power and time in the box is enough to make anyone sloppy. When that happens, you need someone to point out that you messed up and how you can make amends. Ideally, the Republicans should be that party. If they aren't, our country is the worse for it.

zyou're saying that the Libertarian party won't criticize the Democrats? Trust me, the Libertarian party will work every bit as well as the Democratic party during Bush's presidency, during Obama's presidency, if they become the other major party, and the GOP tanks.

Just to be clear, I am looking forward to the emerging Democratic majority existing for the next 20 years or so, and I hope beyond hope that Obama's going to start digging us out of this hole we've dug in the last eight years. But we need to be practical now, and we also need to remember that while breaking Reaganism now is vital, it's also crucial that we not be hidebound to no Reaganism at all costs. Some day, I'll probably have to vote Republican to cure Democratic excess, maybe even to end the bloat of whatever the Democrat Party turns into after two decades. When that day comes, it'll be because conservatives now have started rebuilding in the right way using the right means. That Sarah Palin doesn't fit that is obvious; equally obvious is that such a strategy hurts the Republican's chances at digging us out of a Democrat mess in the future.
I sincerely doubt there will be twenty years of a Democratic majority.

Nearly 7 of ten Republicans is a lot.



Seems like it, until you figure...

45% of the country is Republican.

69% of that 45% is about 31%.

So, 31% of the country approves of Sarah Palin.

If you can only get 1/3 of the country's vote, you arent going to win an election.

zyou're saying that the Libertarian party won't criticize the Democrats? Trust me, the Libertarian party will work every bit as well as the Democratic party during Bush's presidency, during Obama's presidency, if they become the other major party, and the GOP tanks.


Of course they won't, silly. Libertarians will never be given any amount of power because their ideology is built about being entirely clueless.

Any libertarian party that scores more than a handful of votes, has already compromised on something.

Of course they won't, silly. Libertarians will never be given any amount of power because their ideology is built about being entirely clueless.

Any libertarian party that scores more than a handful of votes, has already compromised on something.

If the Republican party splits, I think we have a chance of seeing a viable libertarian party. Certianly more viable than the resulting Christian Conservative party. One doesnt win elections by running on taking away rights and ignoring the first ammendment.

Palin did a great job at energizing the moderates. Unfortunately for the GOP - she energized them to vote for Obama. Major LULZ!!!!

One thing we can all agree on - Palin is a very energetic moron :D

Seems like it, until you figure...

45% of the country is Republican.

69% of that 45% is about 31%.

So, 31% of the country approves of Sarah Palin.

If you can only get 1/3 of the country's vote, you arent going to win an election.
Aye, and I'd agree on that, but you're also forgetting that McCain was a weak candidate for both liberals and conservatives in the country. They'd probably have done better on an original Palin/McCain ticket that McCain/Palin, although I have no idea what she'd have to say about most issues tbqh.

Of course they won't, silly. Socialists will never be given any amount of power because their ideology is built about being entirely clueless.

See? I can insult ideologies with complete and utter nonsense too!

Any libertarian party that scores more than a handful of votes, has already compromised on something.
:rolleyes:

Aye, and I'd agree on that, but you're also forgetting that McCain was a weak candidate for both liberals and conservatives in the country. They'd probably have done better on an original Palin/McCain ticket that McCain/Palin, although I have no idea what she'd have to say about most issues tbqh.

McCain was well liked by moderates from both parties however. He had a fighting chance. He just blew it.


Several times.

Anyway, this thread is about the Republican infighting. There have been enough threads on the Palin effect.

If they're such staunch believers in Free Market Economics, why not let them play at Free Market Politics as well? When they push Caribou Barbie for 2012 and wonder why the more pragmatic voting populace are turned off by her, they'll either adjust or they'll collapse.

McCain was well liked by moderates from both parties however. He had a fighting chance. He just blew it.

Several times.
Probably for the best.
Anyway, this thread is about the Republican infighting. There have been enough threads on the Palin effect.
Aye, fair enough.

Before we all get happy, happy, joy, joy over this latest news, it should be noted that the death of the Democratic Party was predicted when the Dems lost control of Congress and then the presidency. We also had sections of the Dems calling to go more left as a way to gain party strength and talks about the party splitting.

In other words, happens after every election when a 'kick the bums out' mentality prevails.

Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).

If they do go more to the right, they're going to get hammered in 2010 and 2012.

Denial can be highly entertaining sometimes.

They're the far right, so of course they have no logic. That of course, explains their extremely illogical thinking that somehow, since the Democrats crushed them in these elections, for the most part, that this somehow means that they need to get more ridiculously conservative. Logic, of course, would lead to the opposite conclusion, that they alienated the moderates. And naturally, that is what happened.

They won't split, though, at least I don't see them doing so. And they'll be back. They did survive 1932, after all.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting a party for the sane. I invite all moderate Republicans and Democrats to join. The only criteria is that you use your brain for something other than processing good data into ideological crap.

This isnt a "liberal commentator". Fail.

yea, other articles by Gary:

Remember Iraq?
The drop in violence has made the war an afterthought -- and allowed McCain to claim we're "winning." Here's why we're not -- and we can't.

and

The GOP goes back to its ugly roots
McCain is resurrecting the GOP's oldest tactic: Smearing Obama as a scary black terrorist sympathizer. But he may meet the same fate as Barry Goldwater.

or

It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black
I'm voting for Obama because he's qualified, charismatic and progressive -- but his blackness seals the deal.

not liberal at all...

All evidence indicates otherwise

that being? I would say Palin might have had an effect, but it had nothing to do with her views, just her being portrayed as a ditz.

Actually, I'm thinking of starting a party for the sane. I invite all moderate Republicans and Democrats to join. The only criteria is that you use your brain for something other than processing good data into ideological crap.
So much for that party. Sane party, we hardly knew ye.

If they're such staunch believers in Free Market Economics, why not let them play at Free Market Politics as well? When they push Caribou Barbie for 2012 and wonder why the more pragmatic voting populace are turned off by her, they'll either adjust or they'll collapse.

They will adjust. As much as we like to deny it, there are some very smart people in the Republican Party.

They will adjust. As much as we like to deny it, there are some very smart people in the Republican Party.

May a pox be laid upon their houses! :tongue:

if the republican party splits, i think we have a chance of seeing a viable libertarian party. Certianly more viable than the resulting christian conservative party. One doesnt win elections by running on taking away rights and ignoring the first ammendment.

2004

May a pox be laid upon their houses! :tongue:

Hey! I'm a Republican and I didn't vote for McPalin!

I would say Palin might have had an effect, but it had nothing to do with her views, just her being portrayed as a ditz.

You would be wrong. Her ditzyness was only a part. It was her history of abusive power, her devisiveness, her far right, nut job views....

2004

2004 was won because of apathy. No one really wanted to vote for Kerry. We just kind of...had to.

Hey! I'm a Republican and I didn't vote for McPalin!

I thought you were part of the "Sane Party":p

'Sides. Your a moderate. Smart moderates don't count.

Palin did a great job at energizing the moderates. Unfortunately for the GOP - she energized them to vote for Obama. Major LULZ!!!!

One thing we can all agree on - Palin is a very energetic moron :D

Yes. The smarter of the Republican players should do everything in their power to prevent her from getting anywhere near being nominated for President in 2012. Both parties need the moderates to win. And the prospect of Palin as president terrifies them.

2004 was won because of apathy. No one really wanted to vote for Kerry. We just kind of...had to.

True. I did not vote for him. Mainly because I was 17 at the time.

You would be wrong. Her ditzyness was only a part. It was her history of abusive power, her devisiveness, her far right, nut job views....

She was far right. She was vicious. And she looked like she'd be completely incompetent.

That's a great way to turn people off.

I thought you were part of the "Sane Party":p

'Sides. Your a moderate. Smart moderates don't count.

That's the problem. The Party doesn't even admit we exist. Even though they've just discovered that we have enough clout to prevent the fools and idiots from getting elected (even if we can't keep them from being nominated).

True. I did not vote for him. Mainly because I was 17 at the time.

So was I, but the point stands:p

You would be wrong. Her ditzyness was only a part. It was her history of abusive power, her devisiveness, her far right, nut job views....

eh, I think people liked her until they got to know her, but her "far right nut job views" were the part that everyone expected before they got to know her. The fact that there was so many things wrong with her as a pick shows that it may not have been her views so much as everything else.

Told you the Republicans were fucked.

eh, I think people liked her until they got to know her, but her "far right nut job views" were the part that everyone expected before they got to know her. The fact that there was so many things wrong with her as a pick shows that it may not have been her views so much as everything else.

Far right nutjob in conjunction with completely incompetent is basically an election-losing combination.

God I hope the Republican party splinters and dies. We could use a long term realignment in US politics.

This was a fairly interesting article by William Kristol, one of the (allegedly, he denies it) main backers of Sarah Palin...

Just before midnight on Nov. 4, I wasn't that worried.

Sure, the results in the U.S. presidential election had been bad - but they weren't devastating. Barack Obama wasn't winning the popular vote by double-digit margins, as some polls had suggested he might. Republican losses in the Senate and House were substantial but not catastrophic. Obama was ahead of John McCain by about the same margin with which Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, and he would be taking over in January with similar congressional majorities to Clinton's in 1993.

Well, Newt Gingrich was able to lead a Republican takeover of Congress only two years later. And after his victory in 1976, Jimmy Carter had even larger Democratic margins in Congress. Ronald Reagan trounced him four years later, bringing with him a Republican Party-controlled Senate and an era of conservative governance.

What's more, this year's exit polls suggested a partisan shift but no ideological realignment. In 2008, self-described Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent, in contrast with a 37-37 split in 2004.

Those were my thoughts when, a few minutes into his victory speech, just after midnight, Obama told his daughters, "And you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the new White House."

I gulped.

Not out of my deep affection for dogs, fond of them though I am. But because while we've all known that Obama is a very skillful politician, he hasn't until now been a particularly empathetic one.

Competence plus warmth is a pretty potent combination. Suddenly visions of the two great modern realigning presidents - Franklin Roosevelt (with his Scottish terrier Fala) and Ronald Reagan (with his Cavalier King Charles spaniel Rex) - flashed before my eyes. Maybe a realignment could be coming.

This is the part I agree with, people were asking why the dog was catching attention but, for me, his response at the first press gathering was fantastic.

"We have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic. On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog, but, obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So - so whether we're going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household."

Here, in a few sentences, Obama did the following: He deepened his bond with every dog lover in America. He identified with every household that's tried to figure out what kind of dog to get. He touched every parent with a kid allergic to pets. He showed compassion by preferring a dog from a shelter. And he demonstrated a dry and slightly politically incorrect wit by commenting that "a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me."

Not bad. It could be a tough four or eight years for conservatives.

It will be tougher yet if they underestimate Obama. His selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama's not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he's going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to congressional realities while not deferring to a congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both tripped up in their first two years by their Democratic Congresses. Obama intends for Emanuel to ensure that that doesn't happen

And Obama has the further advantage of inheriting a recession that will give him a very tough first year or two (for which he won't be blamed), but that should be followed by a recovery well timed for his re-election bid.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/10/news/edkristol.php)

There was another interview on MTV - of all places - where a viewer asked Barack Obama what he thought of low-riding pants. After a strong statement that any politician worrying about low-riding pants while there's issues such as recession, Iraq and inequality out there was pretty shallow, and to suggest a law about it was completely ridiculous, he then ended with...

"...though on the other hand I do sometimes think 'Seriously brothers, pull your damn pants up'", with such a fun smile you couldn't help but laugh as well.

The real problem for the Republicans is that Barack Obama is just so very like-able.

...for them the GOP's culture war is both irrelevant and offensive.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this single line sums up my stance quite nicely.

We have more important things to worry about than gays and abortions...

Interesting also that Bush criticized "nation-building" in his 2000 campaign, and then proceeded to begin naiton-building in not one, but two countries.

Until the Republicans beocme more pragmatic (and less idiotic) in regards to foreign policy, and drop the culture war in favor of issues that actually fucking matter, they will never earn this moderates vote.

Seems like it, until you figure...

45% of the country is Republican.

Actually, there are fewer Republicans than that (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans):
The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.

The problem is - apathy in the US.

If the Republicans only appeal to batshit insane voters... well, that's like 30% of the electorate (if Palin's popularity is as good a measure as it seems).

Not likely perhaps, but if votes are so splintered in 2012 that Democratic voters either defect to third parties, or just fail to vote.... we could see a batshit insane president in 2012. Because, if there's one thing you can count on with your batshit insane voter... they'll vote.

This is true. And it's why the Republican "base" is a lot more reliable than the larger Democratic "base." This is what enables the Republicans to win elections.

This is true. And it's why the Republican "base" is a lot more reliable than the larger Democratic "base." This is what enables the Republicans to win elections.

That's why the reactionary Christianist faction of the Republicans exerts so much control over the party. Instead of ending the culture war, they might end up escalating it.

Ironically, a lot of the Republicans who lost in the Democratic surge were the moderates, since they were the ones who came from swing districts. So the core of the party is still just as conservative.

If the unholy alliance of the Reagan Revolution breaks up, I think it'll be the social moderates and fiscal conservatives who get kicked out. That would represent a move to the center on most issues, but a move to the right on "social values" issues. In other words, they could choose not to engage in policy debate and instead force Democrats to defend gays and flag burning all the time.

That statistic (60-something percent of GOP voters support Palin) is just a joke. Of course the majority of people who VOTED for her (and McCain) would support her. The fact that some 30+% of people who voted for her didn't support her says a lot about party loyalty and the fear mongering done by the GOP against Obama. Moreover, a large amount of republicans who didn't support Palin likely either didn't vote, voted third party, or voted Obama, and are therefore not included in the statistic of republicans who are against Palin.

I wonder how many people who voted democrat supported Biden. Probably more than 60something%.

I dunno. She turned away a lot of moderates, but energised the GOP. If Obama's presidency is pretty weak and a lot of moderates become 'free' again, we might see a Palin/Some Centrist Chap ticket in 2012.

Palin/McCain 2012!

If Republicans want to get insane, let them, for that ought to keep them out of power. However, keep fighting them with all your might, because should they reach power by any chance that would turn America into Gilead.

That's why the reactionary Christianist faction of the Republicans exerts so much control over the party. Instead of ending the culture war, they might end up escalating it.

Ironically, a lot of the Republicans who lost in the Democratic surge were the moderates, since they were the ones who came from swing districts. So the core of the party is still just as conservative.

If the unholy alliance of the Reagan Revolution breaks up, I think it'll be the social moderates and fiscal conservatives who get kicked out. That would represent a move to the center on most issues, but a move to the right on "social values" issues. In other words, they could choose not to engage in policy debate and instead force Democrats to defend gays and flag burning all the time.

And in which case, they will be clobbered in presidential elections, because the far right doesn't decide who becomes president. The middle does.

This was a fairly interesting article by William Kristol, one of the (allegedly, he denies it) main backers of Sarah Palin...



This is the part I agree with, people were asking why the dog was catching attention but, for me, his response at the first press gathering was fantastic.


Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/10/news/edkristol.php)

There was another interview on MTV - of all places - where a viewer asked Barack Obama what he thought of low-riding pants. After a strong statement that any politician worrying about low-riding pants while there's issues such as recession, Iraq and inequality out there was pretty shallow, and to suggest a law about it was completely ridiculous, he then ended with...

"...though on the other hand I do sometimes think 'Seriously brothers, pull your damn pants up'", with such a fun smile you couldn't help but laugh as well.

The real problem for the Republicans is that Barack Obama is just so very like-able.
So, the dog. That's what it took to get Kristol to jump ship from the rightwing? :rolleyes: I can't stand that neocon sob, but whatever -- big tent, and all that. I suppose.

But yes, the dog comments, the pants comments, his ability to joke without losing the thread of serious things -- all these make Obama pretty much teflon against personal attacks, as we saw very impressively in the campaign. I look forward to having such a cool guy in the White House.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this single line sums up my stance quite nicely.

We have more important things to worry about than gays and abortions...

Interesting also that Bush criticized "nation-building" in his 2000 campaign, and then proceeded to begin naiton-building in not one, but two countries.

Until the Republicans beocme more pragmatic (and less idiotic) in regards to foreign policy, and drop the culture war in favor of issues that actually fucking matter, they will never earn this moderates vote.
I agree. The whole "culture war" is just another example of the rightwing* love for top-down control. With them, everything has to issue down to the masses from some lofty authority above, whether it's the president, the government as a vague whole, or their god.

But it's just not realistic. That's just not how things work. Obama is right -- economies are built from the bottom up. So are cultures. If there really is such a thing as a "culture war" -- and I don't think there is; I think it's just propaganda spread by religious extremists -- then it will be decided by development of the culture itself, not by fiat from on high imposed via legislation or constitutional amendments.


* I don't like to call them Republicans because they are so at odds with the Republican party I grew up with and because I know that, if the Republican party breaks up, these people will still be what they are even if under a different label.

If Republicans want to get insane, let them, for that ought to keep them out of power. However, keep fighting them with all your might, because should they reach power by any chance that would turn America into Gilead.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of the Scriptures. Not with your ability to form an analogy, however.

This isn't any worse that that situation faced by Republicans after Carter -- another weak Democrat elected in the wake of an unpopular Republican President.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of the Scriptures. Not with your ability to form an analogy, however.

This isn't any worse that that situation faced by Republicans after Carter -- another weak Democrat elected in the wake of an unpopular Republican President.Care to prove that this applies to Obama?

See? I can insult ideologies with complete and utter nonsense too!



It's not an insult if it's true; socialism has at least been proven to work to a degree, on the other hand, the very idea of a libertarian government is a bit of a oxymoron, the same with a anarchist country.

Because an Anarchy isn't a country, it's free land.

See? I can insult ideologies with complete and utter nonsense too!

:rolleyes:

Except it doesn't work. Structured societies need regulation, especially regulation of business practices. And complex societies require taxation. Since both those things are pretty much anathema to libertarians - there will never be a real, competitive libertarian party, and there'll never be a libertarian government - unless it quickly transitions into something else, or is libertarian in name only.

Add to that, the only redeeming feature of libertarianism is its social progressiveness... and that libertarians in the US tend, instead, towards conservatism, and you've got a basis for libertarianism that even those sympathetic to libertarianism wouldn't support.

And in which case, they will be clobbered in presidential elections, because the far right doesn't decide who becomes president. The middle does.

Only if the middle votes.

The right wing had a pretty horrible candidate in the 08 election, backed by an even more horrible VP. They ran one of the most horrendous election campaigns... well, perhaps in American history... and they only ended up a few percentage points off the pace.

And that's after an unpopular president, wars on two fronts... and campaign promises that the party THEMSELVES said they wouldn't honour.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of the Scriptures. Not with your ability to form an analogy, however.

This isn't any worse that that situation faced by Republicans after Carter -- another weak Democrat elected in the wake of an unpopular Republican President.

Given the fairly resounding performance... hosing McCain in debates, running policy circles round the opposition, consistently polling ahead, nailing an election with somewhere at least very close to supermajority...

And he's not even assumed the Oval Office yet...

Yeah. Weak Democrat. Keep telling yourself that.

Before we all get happy, happy, joy, joy over this latest news, it should be noted that the death of the Democratic Party was predicted when the Dems lost control of Congress and then the presidency. We also had sections of the Dems calling to go more left as a way to gain party strength and talks about the party splitting.

In other words, happens after every election when a 'kick the bums out' mentality prevails.

This. I remember being here after 2004, and there was a lot of posters posting the map of all them red states and howling triumphantly about Americas ideological shift to the right, and how them Dems were well and truly screwed. Four year later...

The losing party acts like this after every election.

"We lost. It's all X demographic group's fault for being [too extreme|not extreme enough|too apathetic]. We have to kick them all out and restructure the party, blah blah."

They never do. When they win the next election, it's usually because the guy they lost to fucked things up, or because of economic problems, or because of shifting cultural values, or because of rising voter apathy. So in 2012, either the Republicans will find a competent and at least mildly charismatic candidate who can unite their fractured party base, or they won't. Don't expect things to change, though. The last major political realignment in the US occurred concurrently with a civil war, and historians can tell you a lot more about the causes of that than I can -- but the circumstances were vastly different then.

Care to prove that this applies to Obama?

No. It's self-evident.

Given the fairly resounding performance... hosing McCain in debates, running policy circles round the opposition, consistently polling ahead, nailing an election with somewhere at least very close to supermajority...

And he's not even assumed the Oval Office yet...

Yeah. Weak Democrat. Keep telling yourself that.
Carter did the same thing in the race against Ford, except that he had a much more Democratic Congress after the dust settled. Obama's accomplishments are not that great.

No. It's self-evident.So basically a lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better, since it's way too early to tell?

Can we at least see how he does as president before rating his performance as low ??

Can we at least see how he does as president before rating his performance as low ??Obama could end world hunger, balance the budget, bring peace to the mideast and personally invent a car that runs on water and some people would still rate his performance as low. Why does it suprise you that some pundits are calling him a failure even before he steps up to the plate?

Seems like it, until you figure...

45% of the country is Republican.

69% of that 45% is about 31%.

So, 31% of the country approves of Sarah Palin.

If you can only get 1/3 of the country's vote, you arent going to win an election.

I'd argue with this-the US is a nation of thirds. No matter what the issue, one-third of the people are for it, one-third against, and one-third don't care as long as they are left alone. The idea a candidate has one-third of the voters in their hip pocket, so to speak, isn't bad for a start-it's the ones who don't care you have to win over.
I'd look carefully at this election before leaping to the idea the Republicans aren't right-wing enough. The Republicans ran McCain very early on-he's largely despised within the Party outside of his home state, and settling for him was the Republicans offering up a sacrifice candidate.
The economic crisis struck at a prime moment for the opposition party, and the voter turnout was adequate to be problematic for incumbants, as US citizens tend to vote only when they're upset with the status quo.
Given all these Democratic perks to the election, pulling only 51% of the popular vote indicates to me that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who need to rethink their strategy.
As far as History, it was Ronald Reagan who brought the public to the Republicans, and his policies are largely gone now, abandoned by "those who know better". The Republicans need to return to the Reagan policies and weather the media-driven assault on these same policies as they work, and they are popular.
I find it ironic that Obama's people are looking at the Reagan economy when planning their transition to power instead of any Democratic administration's, and mourn that the Republicans so roundly turned their backs on these same policies.

Obama could end world hunger, balance the budget, bring peace to the mideast and personally invent a car that runs on water and some people would still rate his performance as low. Why does it suprise you that some pundits are calling him a failure even before he steps up to the plate?

After 8 years of the Bushevik Revolution, almost anything Obama does would be a smashing success in comparison.

Only if the middle votes.

The right wing had a pretty horrible candidate in the 08 election, backed by an even more horrible VP. They ran one of the most horrendous election campaigns... well, perhaps in American history... and they only ended up a few percentage points off the pace.

And that's after an unpopular president, wars on two fronts... and campaign promises that the party THEMSELVES said they wouldn't honour.
Six percentage points is more than usual. Actually, hang on, let me cook up a few metrics for how close an election this one really was compared to the rest of them.

After 8 years of the Bushevik Revolution, almost anything Obama does would be a smashing success in comparison.

I heard the same things said about Carter after the Nixon/Ford debacle. I'm afraid Time will tell.
On the bright side, Obama was forged in the crucible of Chicago politics, which tend to be more pragmatic than liberal or conservative, and the late Richard J. Daley was one of the last conservative Democrats, and his shadow still falls over that great city.
On the dark side, it is actually the liberals who are most critical of Obama now-while Ralph Nader's "Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom?" comment was poorly phrased, it was a legitimate point, as Obama's state senator period was most notable in that he didn't vote unless a third party offered monetary inducements to him.
However, Chester A. Arthur was a machine politician out of Tammany Hall, and while he wasn't a great President, neither was he a bad one-he did introduce competancy tests for appointed positions, and was able to keep DC in hand as a social lion. It remains to be seen what the future holds, but Obama cannot live up to his party's hype and aspirations, but he is effectively bulletproof on criticism, as he could dance naked on the White House lawn in the blood of the virgins he'd just sacrificed to Satan, and anyone kicking up an eyebrow at such behavior is a racist.
Obama's reelection will be based on his performance entirely as a result, as no criticism of him will appear over the next four years.

Carter did the same thing in the race against Ford, except that he had a much more Democratic Congress after the dust settled. Obama's accomplishments are not that great.

And Carter left office immediately after the election, didn't he?

No... that's right, he didn't. He's judged as a good or bad president, a weak or strong president, based on his service, not the job interview.

Which is why your parallel is paralleln't.

I understand you're bitter, but get over it already. He was the only good candidate running, let's move on.

Six percentage points is more than usual. Actually, hang on, let me cook up a few metrics for how close an election this one really was compared to the rest of them.

Clinton won election by 7 points and reelection by 9 points. (given this was with perot in the midst making things weird)
bush senior won by 9 points.
Reagan won election by 9 points and reelection by 18 points.(number error here now corrected)
Nixon won reelection by 13 points.
LBJ won by 24 points.
IKE won by 11 points and won reelection by 15 points.

6 points is not a wide margin. most certainly not uncommon.

mmm....

My instincts say that the next election will have an even further right republican party that continues to lose seats. Eventually they'll either be replaced by a new, centrist party or have a liberal/conservative schism.

mmm....

My instincts say that the next election will have an even further right republican party that continues to lose seats. Eventually they'll either be replaced by a new, centrist party or have a liberal/conservative schism.

My instincts tell me that there'll be a few more 'moderate' Republican candidates by 2012. And that election will hinge on Obama, being a referendum on his first four years. If hes been strong for 3 of the four years, he'll get another term, if he hasn't, Democratic apathy will allow a turnover.

My instincts tell me that there'll be a few more 'moderate' Republican candidates by 2012. And that election will hinge on Obama, being a referendum on his first four years. If hes been strong for 3 of the four years, he'll get another term, if he hasn't, Democratic apathy will allow a turnover.

As long as the Republicans don't repeat the mistake of putting up a Caribou Barbie-grade nutcake as their candidate. Otherwise Obama could fall short of expectations and still manage to secure a second term.

Obama could end world hunger, balance the budget, bring peace to the mideast and personally invent a car that runs on water and some people would still rate his performance as low. Why does it suprise you that some pundits are calling him a failure even before he steps up to the plate?

Don't be a revisionist Reagan already did all those things.

She energized the nuts of Rush, Hannity, and other far-right fanatics fapping furiously, fondling her photo.

Fixed.

There was another interview on MTV - of all places - where a viewer asked Barack Obama what he thought of low-riding pants. After a strong statement that any politician worrying about low-riding pants while there's issues such as recession, Iraq and inequality out there was pretty shallow, and to suggest a law about it was completely ridiculous, he then ended with...

"...though on the other hand I do sometimes think 'Seriously brothers, pull your damn pants up'", with such a fun smile you couldn't help but laugh as well.

The real problem for the Republicans is that Barack Obama is just so very like-able.

Right the hell on. He wins my vote in 2012 based on that statement alone.

My instincts tell me that there'll be a few more 'moderate' Republican candidates by 2012. And that election will hinge on Obama, being a referendum on his first four years. If hes been strong for 3 of the four years, he'll get another term, if he hasn't, Democratic apathy will allow a turnover.

I wouldn't trust my "instincts" -- they tell me Obama's got a good chance of not surviving his first term, they suggest the numbers of American fundamentalist nutjobs will only increase, they tell me both parties will wind up being controlled mostly by special interest groups and a populist elite that cements its power through sustaining apathy, anti-intellectualism and blind patriotism; they suggest that ultimately the US will wind up as a tyranny in all but name that is only sustained because its inhabitants genuinely believe they are the freest in the world and don't care enough to change things as long as only a few minority groups are affected. Oh, and that despite this all the US will remain the cultural and economic benchmark of the world, so if those special interest groups cause the US economy to implode through their lack of perspective, most of the world suffers.

Oh wait, that's exactly what's already happening. Except for the part about Obama. I'd be surprised if someone didn't at least attempt to shoot him.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).

I wouldn't make that bet. alot can happen in 4 to 8 years.

So basically a lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better, since it's way too early to tell?

Much like every other "arguement" Myrmi makes. It has no basis in fact. Its like Colbert's "going with his gut" and "truthiness" vs truth

I wouldn't make that bet. alot can happen in 4 to 8 years.

Yes, but I like make unlikely predictions. Plus, Im noticing a trend thats been going on for the greater part of 8 years now.

Clinton won election by 7 points and reelection by 9 points. (given this was with perot in the midst making things weird)
bush senior won by 9 points.
Reagan won election by 9 points and reelection by 28 points.
Nixon won reelection by 13 points.
LBJ won by 24 points.
IKE won by 11 points and won reelection by 15 points.

6 points is not a wide margin. most certainly not uncommon.

Bush "won" his election by -0.5 points
Bush won his re-election by 2.4 points

As long as the Republicans don't repeat the mistake of putting up a Caribou Barbie-grade nutcake as their candidate. Otherwise Obama could fall short of expectations and still manage to secure a second term.
They will put up Huckabee and Palin, mark my words. You heard it hear first.

Yes, the Republican leadership is that dumb.

They will put up Huckabee and Palin, mark my words. You heard it hear first.

Yes, the Republican leadership is that dumb.

You really think so? That's pretty damn stupid.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).
I don't think they'll split. These power shifts (if it's an actual shift, and not just a fortunate anomaly) happen about every thirty years, and the other party always hangs out in the background. It may ideologically change, but I don't see it breaking up.
And while becoming I question the sincerity of even someone like Limbaugh when they say Republicans will succeed if they become more "conservative," it's also a mistake to think Americans have rejected everything about the Republican Party. If the economy weren't the major issue I think Obama still would have won, but not by as large a margin as he did and with fewer Democrats winning seats in Congress. In four years, who knows what could happen.

You really think so? That's pretty damn stupid.
Yes and Yes.

She energized the nuts.

And you cant win an election when only your base voted againt you.

Moderates and independents overwhelming were turned off by Palin, and voted against McCain for that reason. This isnt a debate anymore. All evidence shows that she cost McCain the election.

Not true, most say the "October Supprise" by the economy eventually dragged McCain under, the polling data from Galloup shows that as soon as the crisis hit, McCains approval tanked, even after picking Palin.

Its a well known fact that conservatives are not good at history. It tends to disagree with their ideology.

Teddy Roosevelt? Ronald Regan? Abraham Lincoln? GOP (Grand Old Party?)
obvious hints that Republicans are tied with the past.


What all the liberal commentators don't realize is that McCain pretty much only lost because the economy tanked right before the election (there are other contributing factors, but it would have been a lot closer otherwise), and an unpopular president. There wasn't any huge shift in the political spectrum.

The "October Supprise" turned out to work for Obama, before that in fact McCains popularity soared when he picked Palin because most were delighted to see a odd and new face in politcs, unlike "Joe put me to sleep Biden".

Because, if there's one thing you can count on with your batshit insane voter... they'll vote.

That is how the Democrats won...see how fun it is to use your brain!*applause* ;)


Seems like it, until you figure...

45% of the country is Republican.

69% of that 45% is about 31%.

So, 31% of the country approves of Sarah Palin.

If you can only get 1/3 of the country's vote, you arent going to win an election.

Again, major third party canidate slides in and the election shapes up....same way Lincoln did it, and same way with Clinton and his 42% of the voters.

And there are more than 45% of the countries people that are conservative, however, not all of the conservatives are Republican.

You would be wrong. Her ditzyness was only a part. It was her history of abusive power, her devisiveness, her far right, nut job views....

Wanting to fire a man who tazzered a young boy and also threatned murdur?...she' in here 'Alaskan Constitutional Right'. As for devisiveness, what is wrong with eliminating corrpution within her own party, in the oil companies (and granted, the bridge to nowhere should not be overlooked) and across Alaska, really, you aren't making strong arguments. Here views, pro-gun, pro-life, unsure environmentalist, anti-trust, lazzie faire economic policy....here views may not match yours, but calling her a "nut-job" is like me calling Obama "a socalistic terrorist who is the anti-christ" you know that both are not true.

God I hope the Republican party splinters and dies. We could use a long term realignment in US politics.

The Republicans said the same thing about the Democrats when Bush won...not supprising that they were wrong.


Obama could end world hunger, balance the budget, bring peace to the mideast and personally invent a car that runs on water and some people would still rate his performance as low. Why does it suprise you that some pundits are calling him a failure even before he steps up to the plate?

The Key word is could, Carter said he would cut taxes, achieve energy independence and stabilize the modern middle eastern world. None happened......

So untill I see him in action...I still have doubts, if he had a record, I would be more optimistic.

After 8 years of the Bushevik Revolution, almost anything Obama does would be a smashing success in comparison.

Oh so Bush commitied socalistic policies and slaughtered millions of innocent American civilians and suspended the freedom of the press. And banned religion, and science, and abolished opposition, as well as control all of the bussinesses and corporations, massacre a Royal Family (okay we don't have one of those....:() Started a massive arms race, and follow the ideals of Carl Marx?

Seriously....what country have you been living in...because the U.S. wouldn't be one of them.

I wouldn't trust my "instincts" -- they tell me Obama's got a good chance of not surviving his first term, they suggest the numbers of American fundamentalist nutjobs will only increase, they tell me both parties will wind up being controlled mostly by special interest groups and a populist elite that cements its power through sustaining apathy, anti-intellectualism and blind patriotism; they suggest that ultimately the US will wind up as a tyranny in all but name that is only sustained because its inhabitants genuinely believe they are the freest in the world and don't care enough to change things as long as only a few minority groups are affected. Oh, and that despite this all the US will remain the cultural and economic benchmark of the world, so if those special interest groups cause the US economy to implode through their lack of perspective, most of the world suffers.

Oh wait, that's exactly what's already happening. Except for the part about Obama. I'd be surprised if someone didn't at least attempt to shoot him.

Here Here! Although I don't think someone is going to shoot Obama.....

Bush "won" his election by -0.5 points
Bush won his re-election by 2.4 points

A general trend....Bush is an exempt from the rule :)

They will put up Huckabee and Palin, mark my words. You heard it hear first.

Yes, the Republican leadership is that dumb.

They are that smart, who else could they put....they have a core Republican and a more moderate Republican, speaks to both bases.

Not true, most say the "October Supprise" by the economy eventually dragged McCain under, the polling data from Galloup shows that as soon as the crisis hit, McCains approval tanked, even after picking Palin.


Except Palin went from being the most liked to the least liked candidate in abot a week.


Teddy Roosevelt? Ronald Regan? Abraham Lincoln? GOP (Grand Old Party?)
obvious hints that Republicans are tied with the past.

Al-Quada calls themselves "freedom fighters". Doesnt mean they care about freedom.


The "October Supprise" turned out to work for Obama, before that in fact McCains popularity soared when he picked Palin because most were delighted to see a odd and new face in politcs, unlike "Joe put me to sleep Biden".

It was a convention bounce, nothing more. Obama was up again a week after the convention.


That is how the Democrats won...see how fun it is to use your brain!*applause* ;)

Than start using yours.


Again, major third party canidate slides in and the election shapes up....same way Lincoln did it, and same way with Clinton and his 42% of the voters.


It would have to be against a dying party (Lincoln) or against a weak candidate (Clinton).

And there are more than 45% of the countries people that are conservative, however, not all of the conservatives are Republican.

*sigh* Source?


Wanting to fire a man who tazzered a young boy and also threatned murdur?...she' in here 'Alaskan Constitutional Right'. As for devisiveness, what is wrong with eliminating corrpution within her own party, in the oil companies (and granted, the bridge to nowhere should not be overlooked) and across Alaska, really, you aren't making strong arguments. Here views, pro-gun, pro-life, unsure environmentalist, anti-trust, lazzie faire economic policy....here views may not match yours, but calling her a "nut-job" is like me calling Obama "a socalistic terrorist who is the anti-christ" you know that both are not true.

1. I have yet to see credible evidence he tazzered a young boy and also threatened murder, but thats besides the point. She allowed her personal feelings to influence the decision. That violates Alaska's Ethics laws. The Republican led senate found unanimously that she abused her powers. Read the damn report yourself. The only people who say otherwise was the committee made up of her friends and supporters. Conflict of interest much?

2. Here views are inconsistnt, stupid, and false. She is a nut job. Charging women for rap kits isnt nuts? I know you'll have some bullshit defens, because I can tell youre one of the people who worships the ground the saint walks on.


Oh so Bush commitied socalistic policies and slaughtered millions of innocent American civilians and suspended the freedom of the press. And banned religion, and science, and abolished opposition, as well as control all of the bussinesses and corporations, massacre a Royal Family (okay we don't have one of those....:() Started a massive arms race, and follow the ideals of Carl Marx?

Seriously....what country have you been living in...because the U.S. wouldn't be one of them.


Bush did or tried to do some of them. Oh, and its Karl.


They are that smart, who else could they put....they have a core Republican and a more moderate Republican, speaks to both bases.

HAH!

Which one of the two is the moderate?

Yes and Yes.

I kinda hope it happens. Just because it would be funny and they'd get pulverized.

Except Palin went from being the most liked to the least liked candidate in abot a week.?

After places like CNN, MSNBC, and NBC compleately trashed her, and it was not a week, more so a month due to the left ranting about how she was a "small town mayor".


Al-Quada calls themselves "freedom fighters". Doesnt mean they care about freedom.
Still didn't answer my question, how are Republicans "out of touch with history?"


It was a convention bounce, nothing more. Obama was up again a week after the convention.

A Month, and by occurence, that is when the stock market slumped.


Than start using yours.

I have already started using mine...yours is just used to get people to get down on their knees and say you are an "all knowing god".


It would have to be against a dying party (Lincoln) or against a weak candidate (Clinton).


Not dead, split would be the correct term. And as for a weak canidate, then how come Clinton didn't achive his over 50% mark.


*sigh* Source?


Ill sight mine when you sight yours :wink:


1. I have yet to see credible evidence he tazzered a young boy and also threatened murder, but thats besides the point. She allowed her personal feelings to influence the decision. That violates Alaska's Ethics laws. The Republican led senate found unanimously that she abused her powers. Read the damn report yourself. The only people who say otherwise was the committee made up of her friends and supporters. Conflict of interest much?

2. Here views are inconsistnt, stupid, and false. She is a nut job. Charging women for rap kits isnt nuts? I know you'll have some bullshit defens, because I can tell youre one of the people who worships the ground the saint walks on.


1. You must have then been blind and could not read a newspaper or turn on the TV. Granted, she may have influenced the decision with here feelings, but he did violate the law. And if Im right..isn't it a Democratics that eventually found here not guilty? So saying that the Republicans let here slide is a stupid excuse.

2. I could say the same thing about Obama, first he was for drilling, then against it, then he was against nuclear power, then for it. He flip-floped on taxes and spending, as well as public financing...his views have been inconsistent too..and you don't take that into account. Yet when Palin walks up you immediately critize her to shreads.

What is wrong with being religious? What is wrong with saying that you care about one of the founding principles of America? How am a a nut by practicing religion.....Im not forcing it on you....preaching, or ranting about a "God vs. Evolution" debate.

If it is about politics by meaning "saints", McCain and Palin are no saints, but the unfair attack on them both can be seen with anyone that has common sense. Obama and Biden slid pass the bias, and McCain and Palin both have had an uphill battle with people like you KoL, who ignore looking at both sides of the spectrum.


Bush did or tried to do some of them. Oh, and its Karl.


Thank you for correcting a slight keaboard error....and may you please back up your statements. Saying that "he did or tried to do some of those things" doesn't tell anyone much. What exactly did Bush do that is related to Lenin and USSR?


HAH!

Which one of the two is the moderate?

You tell me...you know all. :p

Reagan won election by 9 points and reelection by 28 points.

Not to contest your general point, but it was 18%, not 28%.

Teddy Roosevelt? Ronald Regan? Abraham Lincoln? GOP (Grand Old Party?)
obvious hints that Republicans are tied with the past.


I still think it's odd that they call themselves the Grand Old Party, when the Democratic Party is actually the older of the two.

Teddy Roosevelt would probably be more in line with the Democrats today, or be a very moderate Republican. Especially because of the environmental stuff he was for, and also the anti-big business economic policies he put in motion.

The issues in Abraham Lincoln's day were so different from the ones we face now that his party affiliation isn't really relevant to party affiliation today, as the platforms are completely different.

After places like CNN, MSNBC, and NBC compleately trashed her, and it was not a week, more so a month due to the left ranting about how she was a "small town mayor".

Yep, ebil libruhl media. Eastern elitists. Damn intellectuals.

No, it was a week. This is well documented. It directly coincides with her opening her mouth.

Is this the rights new tactic? Rewrite the history of the election?

Still didn't answer my question, how are Republicans "out of touch with history?"

Considering how often they ignore it or say inaccurate things...


A Month, and by occurence, that is when the stock market slumped.

A week. I watched this election like a hawk.

Not dead, split would be the correct term. And as for a weak canidate, then how come Clinton didn't achive his over 50% mark.

Because Ross "I will blow up your countryz" Perot was a billionare and got good media coverage.

1. You must have then been blind and could not read a newspaper or turn on the TV. Granted, she may have influenced the decision with here feelings, but he did violate the law. And if Im right..isn't it a Democratics that eventually found here not guilty? So saying that the Republicans let here slide is a stupid excuse.

She was found guilty first. Read the damn report. Then about a month later she was found not guilty by a committee of people she appointed. Whether they were Republican or democrat they were her friends and owed their job to her.

2. I could say the same thing about Obama, first he was for drilling, then against it, then he was against nuclear power, then for it. He flip-floped on taxes and spending.


See, if you actually read his policies he never really "flip-flopped". Besides, whats wrong with changing your mind when knew facts present themselves? Whats wrong with comprimise? Are you saying that this is just as insane and morally repugnant as charging rape victims for their rape kits?


You tell me...you know all. :p

Neither of them. Theyre both far right and are both fucking nuts.

The issues in Abraham Lincoln's day were so different from the ones we face now that his party affiliation isn't really relevant to party affiliation today, as the platforms are completely different.

pfft, come on. It's perfectly legitimate for modern republicans to try to compare themselves to Lincoln. After all, who here HASN'T at least once in their life tried to avoid a civil war and weighed the decision of whether to end slavery?

Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.

So, what does everyone think? How is ths going to end? I personally think that by 2016 (Im calling it here and now) we will have seen the Republican party fracture, and what will emerge will be a Libertarian party and a sort of Christian far right party (with the Democrats and Libertarians being the two, viable parties. A party that runs on merging church and state wont win many elections).

That is actually a very realistic theory... Political parties have fractured several times throughout American history anytime there's a great divide in ideology within the party.

Personally, I am a Christian, but I detest the boarder line heretical evengelicals who head up the GOP... I'd love to see Libertarianism take center stage. Then again, I am a Libertarian, so I have a bit of a bias. ;)

Not to contest your general point, but it was 18%, not 28%.

opps my bad. don't know why i messed up the math. I might have looking for most one sided election in history (minus George Washington of course) and flipped those numbers in by mistake.

That is actually a very realistic theory... Political parties have fractured several times throughout American history anytime there's a great divide in ideology within the party.

Personally, I am a Christian, but I detest the boarder line heretical evengelicals who head up the GOP... I'd love to see Libertarianism take center stage. Then again, I am a Libertarian, so I have a bit of a bias. ;)

thus far when their is a fracture it is the larger party. this case the democrats.

pfft, come on. It's perfectly legitimate for modern republicans to try to compare themselves to Lincoln. After all, who here HASN'T at least once in their life tried to avoid a civil war and weighed the decision of whether to end slavery?
Also, what kind of a commie-pinko-godless-loser would want to stop the Republicans from taking credit for Lincoln as if they were there to advise him? I mean, if they can't brag about Lincoln, what will they have left to brag about?

A Month, and by occurence, that is when the stock market slumped.

no, a week. McCain didn't take the lead until after the republican convention had already ended on the 4th. By 9/11 they were essentially tied, with Obama regaining, and keeping, the lead. By the time Lehman Brothers folded on the 16th, which sort of unofficially started the slump, Obama was already ahead again.

Also, what kind of a commie-pinko-godless-loser would want to stop the Republicans from taking credit for Lincoln as if they were there to advise him? I mean, if they can't brag about Lincoln, what will they have left to brag about?

Reagan?

Reagan?

a president whom, by all reasonable measure, spent the last half of his second term suffering from severe dimensia.

Reagan?
Like I said. ;)

Also, what kind of a commie-pinko-godless-loser would want to stop the Republicans from taking credit for Lincoln as if they were there to advise him? I mean, if they can't brag about Lincoln, what will they have left to brag about?

I recall Bush saying in 2004 that African-Americans should vote for "the party of Lincoln," just to keep the Democrats guessing. Apparently Lincoln was the last Republican to do anything for the black community.

a president whom, by all reasonable measure, spent the last half of his second term suffering from severe dimensia.

Hey, I wont disagree that the GOP has nothing to brag about, but given the option, who are they most likely to brag about?

I still think it's odd that they call themselves the Grand Old Party, when the Democratic Party is actually the older of the two.

Teddy Roosevelt would probably be more in line with the Democrats today, or be a very moderate Republican. Especially because of the environmental stuff he was for, and also the anti-big business economic policies he put in motion.

The issues in Abraham Lincoln's day were so different from the ones we face now that his party affiliation isn't really relevant to party affiliation today, as the platforms are completely different.

Weird how that seems to be left out...I wonder why the democrats didn't take on the name GOP.....

Yep, ebil libruhl media. Eastern elitists. Damn intellectuals.
No, it was a week. This is well documented. It directly coincides with her opening her mouth.
Is this the rights new tactic? Rewrite the history of the election?

The same "intellectuals" that call Bush a 'terrorist' 'Neo-Nazi' and 'One who will nuke us all' and call Iran ' a peacefull power' Kim Jong Ill a 'belovent leader'? Doesn't that sound biased even to you?

Palin opening her mouth did not drop McCains approval ratings at the election...so I would have to say no, that is incorrect again.

Considering how often they ignore it or say inaccurate things...

"FDR was on the television taking to America with his famously known Fireside Chats"
-Ring a bell?

A week. I watched this election like a hawk.

One that is blind. You should check the polling data, the drop in the economy corrisponds with McCains loss in popularity, along with a growing hatrid of Bush 43.

Because Ross "I will blow up your countryz" Perot was a billionare and got good media coverage.

The only one...for once we agree on something. :eek:

She was found guilty first. Read the damn report. Then about a month later she was found not guilty by a committee of people she appointed. Whether they were Republican or democrat they were her friends and owed their job to her.

One for you, I cant topple that....:)

See, if you actually read his policies he never really "flip-flopped". Besides, whats wrong with changing your mind when knew facts present themselves? Whats wrong with comprimise? Are you saying that this is just as insane and morally repugnant as charging rape victims for their rape kits?

Your "bi-partisan" leader voted more times with his party than Palin. She actually attacked her own party, now, on that I could say that she was fucking nuts, but...what has Obama done to rid corruption in his party. And I do find it insane that he wants to play his game of "Robbin Hood socalism" and expects to earn revenue out of it. Bankrupting the country is at some point far worse than charging the insurance companies, not the victims, for their rape kits.

Neither of them. Theyre both far right and are both fucking nuts.

Huckabee and Sarah? Just because they are Republicans doesn't make them nuts, I could...again...say the same thing with Obama and Biden about being socalists.

Weird how that seems to be left out...I wonder why the democrats didn't take on the name GOP.....


Dunno. Maybe we don't feel the need to compensate by advertising how old our club is.

Hey, I wont disagree that the GOP has nothing to brag about, but given the option, who are they most likely to brag about?

Regan, and other than that...the republicans don't have that many other "life changing presidents"

The Democrats have FDR, but other than that, again same thing. Well, except Kennedy, he was a hell of a good president...too bad he died.


Isn't it weird that other than a handfull of people, most political party canditates are not all that great and in-fact were downright bad in most respects. (Bush 43, Carter, Nixon, Clinton (after affair)...ect.)

The same "intellectuals" that call Bush a 'terrorist' 'Neo-Nazi' and 'One who will nuke us all' and call Iran ' a peacefull power' Kim Jong Ill a 'belovent leader'? Doesn't that sound biased even to you?

Palin opening her mouth did not drop McCains approval ratings at the election...so I would have to say no, that is incorrect again.


What credible, intellegent person says such things about Kimy?

"FDR was on the television taking to America with his famously known Fireside Chats"
-Ring a bell?

A gaffe does not mean historically inaccurate.

One that is blind. You should check the polling data, the drop in the economy corrisponds with McCains loss in popularity, along with a growing hatrid of Bush 43.

This is well documented. Christ. McCain was up for a week. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

Check the history.


Your "bi-partisan" leader voted more times with his party than Palin. She actually attacked her own party, now, on that I could say that she was fucking nuts, but...what has Obama done to rid corruption in his party. And I do find it insane that he wants to play his game of "Robbin Hood socalism" and expects to earn revenue out of it. Bankrupting the country is at some point far worse than charging the insurance companies, not the victims, for their rape kits.

He voted with his party because they had the better ideas. Besides, the democrats dont really have major corruption issues, at least nothing the public is aware of.

Sarah didnt attack her own party. This was just more of her "maverik" crap.


[qoute]Huckabee and Sarah? Just because they are Republicans doesn't make them nuts, I could...again...say the same thing with Obama and Biden about being socalists.[/QUOTE]

No, just because theyre Republicans doesnt make them nuts. Their views make them nuts.

Regan, and other than that...the republicans don't have that many other "life changing presidents"

The Democrats have FDR, but other than that, again same thing. Well, except Kennedy, he was a hell of a good president...too bad he died.


Isn't it weird that other than a handfull of people, most political party canditates are not all that great and in-fact were downright bad in most respects. (Bush 43, Carter, Nixon, Clinton (after affair)...ect.)

A lot of presidents were just...there.

And besides, how was Clinton a bad president just because he had an affair?

Dunno. Maybe we don't feel the need to compensate by advertising how old our club is.

Hmm...The Grand Old Democratic Party (TGODP)...thats too long of an acronym, I see your point.

Dunno. Maybe we don't feel the need to compensate by advertising how old our club is.

Wikipedia sez: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))
The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism "G.O.P." (or "GOP") is a commonly used designation. According to the Republican Party, the term "gallant old party" was used in 1875.[6] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known reference to the Republican Party as the "grand old party" came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation GOP is dated 1884.
So they were calling themselves "old" when they were still fairly new, and significantly newer than the Democrats.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/11/11/republicans/

Looks like these dipshits didnt get it. Its funny, the problem wasnt that America is sick of the Republicans far right, religion in government, only America gets rights bull shit. Its that the far right isnt crazy enough.
.

No, they were sick of that fact Republicans didn't stick to their principles of low spending. Also they were sick of Republican corruption. That along with economic problems cost them the election. The US is still centre-right and the election was in no way a mandate for liberalism.

US is still centre-right and the election was in no way a mandate for liberalism.

We'll see.

No, they were sick of that fact Republicans didn't stick to their principles of low spending. Also they were sick of Republican corruption. That along with economic problems cost them the election. The US is still centre-right and the election was in no way a mandate for liberalism.

I agree. And the Democrats are a center-right party.

We'll see.

As for your prediction of a GOP fracture causing Dems and Libs being only viable options, I just don't buy it. Both of them are far left on foreign policy. Low taxes and a strong defense has always been the GOP backbone. I think you may see a split, but not in that way. It's more likely IMO that you'll have one wing low taxes, strong defense, and more moderate on social issues and inclusive. With another more rigid, conservative wing that would include Christian conservatives.

The only way the Republican Party is going to survive is if it moves in a more libertarian direction and away from the social conservatism, Christian fundamentalism, and big-government Bush neoconservatism it currently associates with. Whatever happened to the GOP that stood for small government and non-intervention?

Most people I know really don't want the government to step in and try to fix their problems, they just want it to leave them the hell alone.

This time the GOP better heed the fucking wake-up call.

I agree. And the Democrats are a center-right party.

Compared to many parties in the West, sure. But not in American politics.

A lot of presidents were just...there.

And besides, how was Clinton a bad president just because he had an affair?

Alot were just left in history...

As for Clinton not because of the affair, I mean after the affair...he sort of...didn't do as much....

What credible, intellegent person says such things about Kimy?

One that apparently is not intelligent. Jimmy maybe? They rhyme...:p

A gaffe does not mean historically inaccurate .

Well..then it is your turn to say something that someone said inaccurate. Then I could say it was a gaffe, and so on and so forth untill we reach a deadlock.

This is well documented. Christ. McCain was up for a week. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

Check the history.

Yes, but the major slump in McCains overall popularity came when the economy started to slide downhill.


He voted with his party because they had the better ideas. Besides, the democrats dont really have major corruption issues, at least nothing the public is aware of.

Sarah didnt attack her own party. This was just more of her "maverik" crap.

No Corrupition? ACORN? A prime example that corruption exists on both sides. Oh...the pubic is aware of, so there is corruption that we should know of then? Better to speak now than to have us find out later.

Again, for some reason, she shouldn't have used the word maverick every 5 seconds...that is where I agree with you, but if you recall, she made several attempts to oust Republican cabinit members that bribed her.

No, just because theyre Republicans doesnt make them nuts. Their views make them nuts.

Their Republican views...if they were Democrats, then it would be a different view of them now wouldn't it?

Wikipedia sez: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))

So they were calling themselves "old" when they were still fairly new, and significantly newer than the Democrats.

Interesting. I wonder why they started calling themselves that when they were still pretty recent.

Wasn't the 1876 election also known for a rather crooked deal?

We'll see.

Yes we will, it will definitely be an interesting few years that follow this election to see exactly where this country will go. I couldn't have more eagerness than you to see what could happen.

Interesting. I wonder why they started calling themselves that when they were still pretty recent.

Wasn't the 1876 election also known for a rather crooked deal?

The Grand Recenct Party (GRP)?

I think it's rather odd that the Republican Party was founded to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but is believed to be, by some, a racist party.

Well..then it is your turn to say something that someone said inaccurate. Then I could say it was a gaffe, and so on and so forth untill we reach a deadlock.

Not learning from the mistakes speaks a lot louder than what one says.

For example, arming one extremist group and playing that group against our enemy is how Al-Quada got started. And thats what Bush is doing in Iraq.

Yes, but the major slump in McCains overall popularity came when the economy started to slide downhill.

The major slump. McCain however was up for a week after the convention, than after a week, Obama was back up.


No Corrupition? ACORN? A prime example that corruption exists on both sides. Oh...the pubic is aware of, so there is corruption that we should know of then? Better to speak now than to have us find out later.

The ACORN nonsense? ACORN isnt a democrat group. And the company isnt corrupt. A few fucks tried to get paid for work they didnt do. The ACORN leadership passed it on to the authorities as they should have.

Again, for some reason, she shouldn't have used the word maverick every 5 seconds...that is where I agree with you, but if you recall, she made several attempts to oust Republican cabinit members that bribed her.


Never heard this. I just saw her defending Ted Stevens.

Their Republican views...if they were Democrats, then it would be a different view of them now wouldn't it?

They can hold Republican views without holding the extreme...batshit versions.

I think it's rather odd that the Republican Party was founded to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but is believed to be, by some, a racist party.

Because after the Democratic party leadership came fully under the control of its liberal wing (it had heretofore had both a very liberal wing, the urban progressives, and a very conservative wing, the southern racists), and decided to stop paying lip service to the Dixiecrats (southern racist democrats), most of them eventually left and joined the Republican Party.

Because after the Democratic party leadership came fully under the control of its liberal wing (it had heretofore had both a very liberal wing, the urban progressives, and a very conservative wing, the southern racists), and decided to stop paying lip service to the Dixiecrats (southern racist democrats), most of them eventually left and joined the Republican Party....But...wouldn't it...not be the Republican party...anymore? It's a complete reverse of their views.
"We oppose slavery, equality for all." To... "We think people of color are scum, and are lesser than us."*
Uh, that's a mess.

*Dramatization.

Well..then it is your turn to say something that someone said inaccurate. Then I could say it was a gaffe, and so on and so forth untill we reach a deadlock.A gaffe is one thing. A failure to understand basic issues is another thing. Not knowing about the Bush Doctrine, Hamas, the names of any magazines, the U.S. Constitution, the continent of Africa, etc--that's a problem.
Yes, but the major slump in McCains overall popularity came when the economy started to slide downhill. And yet polls showed that voters' biggest concern with McCain was not his economic policies, but his selection of Palin.

No Corrupition? ACORN? A prime example that corruption exists on both sides. Oh...the pubic is aware of, so there is corruption that we should know of then? Better to speak now than to have us find out later. :rolleyes: Ah, ACORN, the GOP's new favorite boogeyman. They turned in the phony voter registrations they were given, as they were required to do by law. Yes, there's corruption in the Democratic Party, as there always is in politics, but it's nothing compared to Jack Abramoff, Randy Cunningham, Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, etc. The current GOP has engendered a culture of corruption.
Again, for some reason, she shouldn't have used the word maverick every 5 seconds...that is where I agree with you, but if you recall, she made several attempts to oust Republican cabinit members that bribed her. Yes, Palin challenged other Republicans for her own political gain. Of course she ran against other Republicans. What's she going to do, run as a Democrat? A Democrat can't get elected in Alaska even if he's running against a convicted felon. And the Republicans she opposed weren't the corrupt one, but the ones who stood in her way. One of her closest allies was Ted Stevens.

Correct. Also basically every government.

*Watches 'Power of Nightmares'*

hahah republicans say that 69% of their members like palin ..well that may be true but 100% of democrats and abolut 30% of republicans hate her. ..

umm ..lets c ..oh yes ...that constitutes about 60%-65% of americans who hate her ...

hahaha ...the republicans do have to soul search ...

they need to return to their real heart ...true conservatism ...economical conservatism not a social one ...

2/3 of youth voted democrat ..soon these youth will become the middle aged and they will still vote democrat ...their younger counterparts will instead vote democrat in a still increasing majority ...

even the young christian evangelists vote majoritily for obama and democrats .....different form their adult older counterparts

about 55 % of catholics vote in opposition to mccain ...thus in opposition of thr church hierarchy ...

the world's society is liberalising all over the world albeit slowly , but they still are anyway ...

in asia, americas, africa, oceania, europe ...

...But...wouldn't it...not be the Republican party...anymore? It's a complete reverse of their views.
"We oppose slavery, equality for all." To... "We think people of color are scum, and are lesser than us."*
Uh, that's a mess.

*Dramatization.

True, but the Democratic party is far different from its originating views as well.

...But...wouldn't it...not be the Republican party...anymore? It's a complete reverse of their views.
"We oppose slavery, equality for all." To... "We think people of color are scum, and are lesser than us."*
Uh, that's a mess.

*Dramatization.

Well, they still oppose slavery (to the best of my knowledge), but they aren't the party they once were. Remember how Teddy Roosevelt called himself a "progressive?" Or how Eisenhower warned against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex?

the republican party was originally an economical conservative party and an all people are equal party, also with strands of libertarian views in it , right ????

but what happenned to it ? it has been hijacked by social conservatives and the religious right wingers ...how did that happen ???

you see that happenning to almost every right wing originally conservative party around the world ...excet maybe for ( europe= the austrian right wing party has no conservative social policies, and in new zealand = the right wing National party is moving to the centre socially ) ...


right wing economic policies are a total opposite of conservative social policies ..

how on earth does it survive together ??? that i do not understand ...

hahah republicans say that 69% of their members like palin ..well that may be true but 100% of democrats and abolut 30% of republicans hate her. ..

umm ..lets c ..oh yes ...that constitutes about 60%-65% of americans who hate her ...

hahaha ...the republicans do have to soul search ...

they need to return to their real heart ...true conservatism ...economical conservatism not a social one ...

2/3 of youth voted democrat ..soon these youth will become the middle aged and they will still vote democrat ...their younger counterparts will instead vote democrat in a still increasing majority ...

even the young christian evangelists vote majoritily for obama and democrats .....different form their adult older counterparts

about 55 % of catholics vote in opposition to mccain ...thus in opposition of thr church hierarchy ...

the world's society is liberalising all over the world albeit slowly , but they still are anyway ...

in asia, americas, africa, oceania, europe ...

Then you woke up.

It's people like you who fall asleep at the switch out of complacent assumption and allow folks like the neocons in.

right wing economic policies are a total opposite of conservative social policies ..

how on earth does it survive together ??? that i do not understand ...
It doesn't survive all that well, if the McCain campaign is anything to judge by.

But it's just not realistic. That's just not how things work. Obama is right -- economies are built from the bottom up. So are cultures. If there really is such a thing as a "culture war" -- and I don't think there is; I think it's just propaganda spread by religious extremists -- then it will be decided by development of the culture itself, not by fiat from on high imposed via legislation or constitutional amendments.

The problem is that once it's partially built pressures come from the bottom, top and middle so the end result to constructed from the bottom, but from a mix of sources.

The problem is that once it's partially built pressures come from the bottom, top and middle so the end result to constructed from the bottom, but from a mix of sources.
Huh?

You want to try composing that one again?

Huh?

You want to try composing that one again?

A "culture war" is a war of ideas. Ideas can be propagated by any level of society. Religious extremists, in attempting to seize the upper echelons of society, influence individuals.

A "culture war" is a war of ideas. Ideas can be propagated by any level of society. Religious extremists, in attempting to seize the upper echelons of society, influence individuals.
Nah, I don't think that was it. At least, it doesn't make more sense than the original did, only the original's problem was missing words, I think.

Nah, I don't think that was it. At least, it doesn't make more sense than the original did, only the original's problem was missing words, I think.

It makes sense to me. Government can influence culture.

the republican party was originally an economical conservative party and an all people are equal party, also with strands of libertarian views in it , right ????

but what happenned to it ? it has been hijacked by social conservatives and the religious right wingers ...how did that happen ???

you see that happenning to almost every right wing originally conservative party around the world ...excet maybe for ( europe= the austrian right wing party has no conservative social policies, and in new zealand = the right wing National party is moving to the centre socially ) ...


right wing economic policies are a total opposite of conservative social policies ..

how on earth does it survive together ??? that i do not understand ...

The Dixiecrats joined it. That's how.

Huh?

You want to try composing that one again?

No! Well, alright, it was a bit odd sounding...

I was trying to say that the economy is only a bottom-up affair when it is in it's infancy, when it has reached sufficient size it's would be a mix of bottom-up pressure (grassroots, new ideas/products), top-down pressure (regulation, economic plan/government incentives, large business) and middling groups (local governments, small/middle business, local pressure groups). The same thing goes for various culture groups (low level groups cause a trend in government, though the regulation won't be a direct copy of their desires). If that doesn't make sense then ignore it, I'm a bit tired so anything I'll say will be a bit... odd.

Then you woke up.

It's people like you who fall asleep at the switch out of complacent assumption and allow folks like the neocons in.

huh ??

what does that mean ??

which neocons would i allow in ??

It doesn't survive all that well, if the McCain campaign is anything to judge by.

exactly ...thats wat i thought ..but how on earth ahs it survived this long??

but it wud not surviving wud be good anyway ...

It makes sense to me. Government can influence culture.

exactly ..thats why we should have a government unburdened by religion or bias ..just logic and equality

All polls indicate that it was Palin. She really turned away moderates.


The party of Palin will appeal soley to the nutjob base. You cant win with just a fraction of the country.

I'd love to see some proof of such. That's quite the statement there when right in the original post, a quote contradicts what you've just said.

I'd love to see some proof of such. That's quite the statement there when right in the original post, a quote contradicts what you've just said.

Proof of what? Discussing that Palin is what screwed McCain has bee going on for...well...the whole thread, so read the thread.


As to whether or not the party of Palin could win elections? Well, polls on peoples views on different issues (America is largely in line with the democrat party platform on most issues, or so most polls indicate) are a good indicator. Other than that, its just my guess.

It makes sense to me. Government can influence culture.
Oh, well, why didn't you say that in the first place?

I disagree.

No! Well, alright, it was a bit odd sounding...

I was trying to say that the economy is only a bottom-up affair when it is in it's infancy, when it has reached sufficient size it's would be a mix of bottom-up pressure (grassroots, new ideas/products), top-down pressure (regulation, economic plan/government incentives, large business) and middling groups (local governments, small/middle business, local pressure groups). The same thing goes for various culture groups (low level groups cause a trend in government, though the regulation won't be a direct copy of their desires). If that doesn't make sense then ignore it, I'm a bit tired so anything I'll say will be a bit... odd.
I see. And I disagree.

Proof of what? Discussing that Palin is what screwed McCain has bee going on for...well...the whole thread, so read the thread.


As to whether or not the party of Palin could win elections? Well, polls on peoples views on different issues (America is largely in line with the democrat party platform on most issues, or so most polls indicate) are a good indicator. Other than that, its just my guess.
Anyone can win an election under the right circumstances. The trick is to make sure the circumstances are never right for Sarah Palin to gain high national office.

the republican party was originally an economical conservative party and an all people are equal party, also with strands of libertarian views in it , right ????

but what happenned to it ? it has been hijacked by social conservatives and the religious right wingers ...how did that happen ???

you see that happenning to almost every right wing originally conservative party around the world ...excet maybe for ( europe= the austrian right wing party has no conservative social policies, and in new zealand = the right wing National party is moving to the centre socially ) ...


right wing economic policies are a total opposite of conservative social policies ..

how on earth does it survive together ??? that i do not understand ...

Just how the tides shift. Post 1930's the republicans were a small group they needed extra numbers. The religious groups had become increasing dissatisfied with the democrats over the new deal (took charities out of the church's hands).

with African Americans joining the democratic party the democrats no longer needed the aid of religious voters to win elections.

It is very possible we will see the religious migrate back to the democratic party if the republicans become less influenced by the religious groups. this is largely because African Americans are very religious and tend to have few qualms about religion and politics intermixing. prior to Obama. Prior to Obama the two major African American leaders were both Reverends(Jackson and Sharpton)

Thank you for correcting a slight keaboard error....and may you please back up your statements. Saying that "he did or tried to do some of those things" doesn't tell anyone much. What exactly did Bush do that is related to Lenin and USSR?

"Bushevik" was never meant to be a policy comparison. It was a way of ribbing extreme supporters of Bush by comparing their devotion to him and the Party to fanatical Communist Party supporters. And his attack on civil liberties certainly helped the comparison. It's a joke, pure and simple. This is NSG, it's what we're about. :tongue:

Only if the middle votes.

The right wing had a pretty horrible candidate in the 08 election, backed by an even more horrible VP. They ran one of the most horrendous election campaigns... well, perhaps in American history... and they only ended up a few percentage points off the pace.

And that's after an unpopular president, wars on two fronts... and campaign promises that the party THEMSELVES said they wouldn't honour.

The thing you're forgetting is that the vast majority of the electorate votes a straight party ticket, time after time, no matter what. That's why the popular vote still sticks so closely, because people are viewing things as an either/or proposition.

It wouldn't be so bad if our system didn't encourage only two superparties...with more representation, people would be able to spread their voting around a bit.

The thing you're forgetting is that the vast majority of the electorate votes a straight party ticket, time after time, no matter what. That's why the popular vote still sticks so closely, because people are viewing things as an either/or proposition.

It wouldn't be so bad if our system didn't encourage only two superparties...with more representation, people would be able to spread their voting around a bit.

If the middle stays home, the Republicans will win. Unless of course the Democrats actually show up, which they usually don't. Far more of the Democratic base showed up this time.

I started a thread a while back asking if anyone was knowledgeable about Ireland's election system, as I've heard they do not use "first past the post"/"winner take all" voting, instead using something called "single transferable vote," which sounded interesting. I didn't get any replies, though.

If the middle stays home, the Republicans will win. Unless of course the Democrats actually show up, which they usually don't. Far more of the Democratic base showed up this time.

I started a thread a while back asking if anyone was knowledgeable about Ireland's election system, as I've heard they do not use "first past the post"/"winner take all" voting, instead using something called "single transferable vote," which sounded interesting. I didn't get any replies, though.

Although I'm not CERTAIN, I imagine that's something similar to preferential voting, where one votes for every candidate, but gives them a preference. When all the first preferences are counted, they take the bottom scoring candidate, and then re-allocate their votes to who was preferenced second on those votes, and repeat the process until there is a winner.

It tends to encourage two roughly similar size parties, plus a third, slightly smaller party who, while not normally popular enough to take power outright, can often act as a "kingmaker" in support deals, and appeals for voters to preference other parties in a certain way, etc.

That is how the Democrats won...see how fun it is to use your brain!*applause* ;)


Silly bunny. Democrats didn't win on an extremist vote, unless you're arguing that the vast majority of Americans are extremists, which would make the minority (that voted for the more-right-wing Republican ticket) the 'moderates'. Despite the obvious conflicts between that theory and... well, reality.

The thing you're forgetting is that the vast majority of the electorate votes a straight party ticket, time after time, no matter what. That's why the popular vote still sticks so closely, because people are viewing things as an either/or proposition.

It wouldn't be so bad if our system didn't encourage only two superparties...with more representation, people would be able to spread their voting around a bit.

I'm not forgetting the brand-loyalty factor - in fact, that's kind of my point. Even with a total shitbomb of a ticket, in the wake of a travesty government, and some of the worst policy (both internal and external) in recent history... Republicans held Democrats to a fairly close result. WITH defection of party faithful AND sacrifice of a proportion of the swing vote.

Democrats of recent years have punished with abstention. If 10% of potential Democrats stay home in the next election, and Republicans are energised, Republicans win.

I could see a split within the Republican party, with the fiscal conservatives, moderates, and small-government advocates in one group, and the social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists in the other.

The irony is that McCain and Palin could both become influential in these factions - McCain would be a natural choice to lead the first group, while Palin could lead the second.

The thing is, the social conservatives aren't going to go away. They'll still have a bunch of seats in Congress, not to mention a lot of regional governments.

The irony is that McCain and Palin could both become influential in these factions - McCain would be a natural choice to lead the first group, while Palin could lead the second.
Or Schwarzenegger.

Or Schwarzenegger.

Very true.

Or Schwarzenegger.

More likely than McCain, probably. I can't see him being all that active in the future. And the further we look into that future, the less likely it is he'll be an important figure, I think.

But, Schwarzenegger seems to be at the height of his game.

More likely than McCain, probably. I can't see him being all that active in the future. And the further we look into that future, the less likely it is he'll be an important figure, I think.

But, Schwarzenegger seems to be at the height of his game.

Shame he can't be president. He could have been the next Ronald Ray-gun! YAAAAAAAAY!

huh ??

what does that mean ??

which neocons would i allow in ??

It means that if you sit back and think you've got a majority for any longer than the next two years, you're asking to have your head handed to you in the next election. Complacency breeds carelessness.

It was a simile, friend -- you allow anyone in who opposes you if you are not vigilant in defense of your gains.

Or Schwarzenegger.

He can't run for president, though. Not necessarily a must in a party leader, but it helps.

Shame he can't be president. He could have been the next Ronald Ray-gun! YAAAAAAAAY!

*shudders at the thought of another Reagan*

I sure hope not

Shame he can't be president. He could have been the next Ronald Ray-gun! YAAAAAAAAY!

He can't be president as it stands. If two-thirds were willing to allow him to be, he could.

I personally think he'd be a pretty good candidate in terms of bipartisan supportability.

He can't be president as it stands. If two-thirds were willing to allow him to be, he could.

I personally think he'd be a pretty good candidate in terms of bipartisan supportability.

Two thirds of both houses of congress, and then three fourths of the states.

Not going to happen. At least not any time soon.

He can't be president as it stands. If two-thirds were willing to allow him to be, he could.

I personally think he'd be a pretty good candidate in terms of bipartisan supportability.

And a political satirist's wet dream.

The garbageman doesn't normally come until Monday.

The garbageman doesn't normally come until Monday.

So youre off until then eh?

Sure would like to know what kind of enlightening intellect was typed in here.

Sure would like to know what kind of enlightening intellect was typed in here.

I think its funny that you feel the need to constantly remind everyone that you have me on ignore. Attention whore much?

Two thirds of both houses of congress, and then three fourths of the states.

Not going to happen. At least not any time soon.

Could happen next year, for all I know. Who knows?

I think its funny that you feel the need to constantly remind everyone that you have me on ignore. Attention whore much?

Isn't it against the rules to continue to tell people that you have them on ignore?

Isn't it against the rules to continue to tell people that you have them on ignore?

If it is, I dont really care. I find it too funny in a sad, pathetic way to try and get him to stop via moderation. To use that kind of energy, Id have to care.

I think its funny that you feel the need to constantly remind everyone that you have me on ignore. Attention whore much?

Ah, is that what those (somewhat cryptic) responses were supposed to be? References to having your posts on ignore?

If so - Dorksonian might want to read around the rules a little, because I think he's (potentially) moddable for that...

Hooray, Mark Begich has pulled ahead in Alaska! By 3 votes. (http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm)

Begich, Mark DEM 125019
Stevens, Ted REP 125016

I'll pray for you Knights. You need it.

If it is, I dont really care. I find it too funny in a sad, pathetic way to try and get him to stop via moderation. To use that kind of energy, Id have to care.

Fair enough, if it gives you enjoyment then you might as well carry on.

Ah, is that what those (somewhat cryptic) responses were supposed to be? References to having your posts on ignore?


Yeah, you'll see posts like them whenever he comments after I make a comment.

If so - Dorksonian might want to read around the rules a little, because I think he's (potentially) moddable for that...

Please no one mod him, I actually think its kind of cute on his part.

I'll pray for you Knights. You need it.

Nah, Im ok thanks. Satan's got my back.


I appreciate the thought though.

I'll pray for you Knights. You need it.

This strikes me as flame-baiting.

I'm not a mod, so take a little friendly advice from another poster - you're probably not doing yourself any favours with this avenue.

Hooray, Mark Begich has pulled ahead in Alaska! By 3 votes. (http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm)

lol, and only a quarter of a million people voting.

Do all states get to send the same amount of Senators to the Senate?

And what is this SENATE DISTRICT K, A, C etc? Are they for the State Senate?

And does the same go for the House districts?

Hooray, Mark Begich has pulled ahead in Alaska! By 3 votes. (http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm)

What does Alaska need? Majority... or plurality?

Recount territory?

lol, and only a quarter of a million people voting.

Do all states get to send the same amount of Senators to the Senate?Each state gets two Senators and a number of Representatives proportional to their population.
And what is this SENATE DISTRICT K, A, C etc? Are they for the State Senate?

And does the same go for the House districts?

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's right.

What does Alaska need? Majority... or plurality?
Plurality.
Recount territory?
If the final margin is under 0.5% (chances of that look excellent)

Each state gets two Senators and a number of Representatives proportional to their population.


Yep, I'm pretty sure that's right.

K, cheers.

Just another question.
Where it says Write-in votes what does that mean?

Plurality.

If the final margin is under 0.5% (chances of that look excellent)

Well, if it's under 0.5%, the recount is free. Otherwise, Stevens can still ask for one but he'll have to pay for it.

K, cheers.

Just another question.
Where it says Write-in votes what does that mean?
That's if you don't vote for anyone on the ballot but write in your own option.

K, cheers.

Just another question.
Where it says Write-in votes what does that mean?



Im assuming people who wrote in a candidate to give ther vote for, rather than voted for one of the candidates on the ballot.

That's if you don't vote for anyone on the ballot but write in your own option.

Im assuming people who wrote in a candidate to give ther vote for, rather than voted for one of the candidates on the ballot.

So they throw away their vote. Well that's rather stupid, why did they even bother showing up?

So they throw away their vote. Well that's rather stupid, why did they even bother showing up?

Basically to register their voice and indicate that they don't like any of the main candidates. Same as if you vote for a third party.

So they throw away their vote. Well that's rather stupid, why did they even bother showing up?

In some cases its a protest vote. In some cases, its to show your support for a candidate that didnt get on the ballot for whatever reason.


As an aside, in my local county elections, I have seen write in candidates win.

So they throw away their vote. Well that's rather stupid, why did they even bother showing up?There are many races on the ballot, some other of which they had some interest in.

Basically to register their voice and indicate that they don't like any of the main candidates. Same as if you vote for a third party.

But at least voting for a third party, you are voting for someone who has placed their hand up and wants the position.

In some cases its a protest vote. In some cases, its to show your support for a candidate that didnt get on the ballot for whatever reason.

Why wouldn't they get on the ballot? Or would it be something along the lines of Clinton not getting on the ballot?

As an aside, in my local county elections, I have seen write in candidates win.

Really that's quite funny. Are they allowed to take the position?

There are many races on the ballot, some other of which they had some interest in.

Really, you don't have idividual ballot papers?

lol, and only a quarter of a million people voting.

Do all states get to send the same amount of Senators to the Senate?

And what is this SENATE DISTRICT K, A, C etc? Are they for the State Senate?

And does the same go for the House districts?

Every state has two senators. Yes, Alaska, whose population is smaller than the city of San Francisco's, has the same number of senators as California, which has about 34 Million people.

The House of Representatives is based on population.

State legislatures work differently. California's is bicameral, with both the State Assembly (which has smaller districts) and the State Senate being based on population.

Sure would like to know what kind of enlightening intellect was typed in here.

So take him off ignore, n00b.

I don't think the mods like it when people continue to remind people that they're on ignore. Usually you're supposed to, you know, ignore the people you have on ignore.

Every state has two senators. Yes, Alaska, whose population is smaller than the city of San Francisco's, has the same number of senators as California, which has about 34 Million people.

Well if the Senate was made to be a State House than I don't see a problem with that. And it stops states like Cali pushing over other less populated states.

The House of Representatives is based on population.

Yeah figured that as much, I know I asked but I was asking about the rresluts page that said House District B or something like that and was wondering if these were the seat for the State Assembly.

State legislatures work differently. California's is bicameral, with both the State Assembly (which has smaller districts) and the State Senate being based on population.

Yeah fair enough, bicameral IMO is the best way to have a legislature.

Really, you don't have idividual ballot papers?
No. Never heard of a system where you got multiple pieces of paper. We get one very long, often two-sided card with a bunch of ovals to fill in, and you get a little loopy by the time you're down to the "drain commisioner" and the circuit judges; of course other places you have some mechanical or electronic device.

Could happen next year, for all I know. Who knows?

I just think it's highly unlikely. What with the Democrats in control of congress and probably unwilling to submit an amendment to the states just so that the Republicans can run a strong candidate against them. And the Republicans being afraid of 'teh ebil dirty mexicans' and such.

And then of course, getting 38 of the states to agree on anything, let alone changing the constitution, would be rather tough.

No. Never heard of a system where you got multiple pieces of paper. We get one very long, often two-sided card with a bunch of ovals to fill in, and you get a little loopy by the time you're down to the "drain commisioner" and the circuit judges; of course other places you have some mechanical or electronic device.

And then there are absentee ballots, ours have little arrows that you complete next to each candidate's name by making a line. The nice thing about absentee ballots is that you can take a couple days to fill them in completely.

No. Never heard of a system where you got multiple pieces of paper. We get one very long, often two-sided card with a bunch of ovals to fill in, and you get a little loopy by the time you're down to the "drain commisioner" and the circuit judges; of course other places you have some mechanical or electronic device.

Well in Australia we have two ballot papers, one for the House of Reps and one for the Senate. And then our State elections are held at different times to the Federal one so we would have different ones there. And if during an election we have to vote on something else (say a referendum) we would have another ballot paper to vote.

Though we don't vote for things like judges, drain commisoners etc. I always wondered why Americans voted for people to do this, it just seemed silly to me. I mean a Sewage Director, come on?

Well if the Senate was made to be a State House than I don't see a problem with that. And it stops states like Cali pushing over other less populated states.
That is actually the very reason. When the constitution was written, the states, like they do today, varied widely in population and the smaller states were worried about being overpowered. Having one house of the legislature based on population, and the other house with equal representation by state, was a compromise that was agreed to be fair. I also think it's fair, despite being from the largest state in the Union.

Oh, also. Please don't call it "Cali." My state's abbreviation is "CA," "ca." or the rather more archaic "Cal." "Cali" sounds stupid. Bit of a pet peeve of mine.


Yeah figured that as much, I know I asked but I was asking about the rresluts page that said House District B or something like that and was wondering if these were the seat for the State Assembly.
Different states work a bit differently. In California, the assembly districts are quite a bit smaller than the state senate ones, since there are more seats in the assembly.



Yeah fair enough, bicameral IMO is the best way to have a legislature.
When your country's administrative divisions vary so widely in their population size, I'd agree that it is the most fair way.

Well in Australia we have two ballot papers, one for the House of Reps and one for the Senate. And then our State elections are held at different times to the Federal one so we would have different ones there. And if during an election we have to vote on something else (say a referendum) we would have another ballot paper to vote.

Though we don't vote for things like judges, drain commisoners etc. I always wondered why Americans voted for people to do this, it just seemed silly to me. I mean a Sewage Director, come on?

Most local positions are elected. I'm not sure if that's the best way, but it sure is democratic.

That is actually the very reason. When the constitution was written, the states, like they do today, varied widely in population and the smaller states were worried about being overpowered. Having one house of the legislature based on population, and the other house with equal representation by state, was a compromise that was agreed to be fair. I also think it's fair, despite being from the largest state in the Union.

Oh, also. Please don't call it "Cali." My state's abbreviation is "CA," "ca." or the rather more archaic "Cal." "Cali" sounds stupid. Bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah fair enough.

Different states work a bit differently. In California, the assembly districts are quite a bit smaller than the state senate ones, since there are more seats in the assembly.

Yeah for sure.

When your country's administrative divisions vary so widely in their population size, I'd agree that it is the most fair way.

Yes true and it also acts as a check and balance against the government.

Most local positions are elected. I'm not sure if that's the best way, but it sure is democratic.

Yeah I understood how it was democractic, but I still find it a bit silly. Each to their own I suppose.

No. Never heard of a system where you got multiple pieces of paper. We get one very long, often two-sided card with a bunch of ovals to fill in, and you get a little loopy by the time you're down to the "drain commisioner" <snip>

Why is that an elected position anyway? Let alone one in which party affiliation is considered important . . .

Why is that an elected position anyway? Let alone one in which party affiliation is considered important . . .

It isn't really, at least not in my state. Purely bureaucratic or administrative positions aren't usually up for election. For local positions, you aren't put on the ballot as a member of a particular party, either.

I didn't bother to vote for school board, since I hadn't heard of any of the candidates. But if evolution was being debated, I would have definitely made the effort. So sometimes it's good to have such positions elected democratically.

It isn't really, at least not in my state. Purely bureaucratic or administrative positions aren't usually up for election. For local positions, you aren't put on the ballot as a member of a particular party, either.

I didn't bother to vote for school board, since I hadn't heard of any of the candidates. But if evolution was being debated, I would have definitely made the effort. So sometimes it's good to have such positions elected democratically.

We had a democrat and a republican running for drain commissioner. I almost wrote in vote stating "I vote for the Anarchist candidate." It seems silly to have the position on the ballot at all and it's not like your given much information about what their positions on drain commissiony stuff is . . .

We had a democrat and a republican running for drain commissioner. I almost wrote in vote stating "I vote for the Anarchist candidate." It seems silly to have the position on the ballot at all and it's not like your given much information about what their positions on drain commissiony stuff is . . .

And how much the idealogies of the party come into play on this position.

Do they have debates, and campagin dinners? Do the individual parties hold primaires to see which one of theirs will be elected to run for their party?

We had a democrat and a republican running for drain commissioner. I almost wrote in vote stating "I vote for the Anarchist candidate." It seems silly to have the position on the ballot at all and it's not like your given much information about what their positions on drain commissiony stuff is . . .

Wow, that's odd. Of course, in Hawaii, we were able to vote for all five or so positions in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. It's an office that only affects Native Hawaiians, and it used to be that only Native Hawaiians could vote for it. But then someone sued the state and forced them to open it to everyone.

The amusing thing is that you get about 80% of people voting for positions like that, and you know that 80% of people didn't actually research the candidates. I've heard stories of completely unqualified people being elected on the basis of having amusing names.

We had a democrat and a republican running for drain commissioner. I almost wrote in vote stating "I vote for the Anarchist candidate." It seems silly to have the position on the ballot at all and it's not like your given much information about what their positions on drain commissiony stuff is . . .

Really? No voter's pamphlets in your state? I get one every year. It details the positions and the candidates stances.

Why is that an elected position anyway? Let alone one in which party affiliation is considered important . . .

Usually such positions are not very partisan.

Like AC Transit director. It's basically just "I can do this job."

Really? No voter's pamphlets in your state? I get one every year. It details the positions and the candidates stances.

Not that I'm aware of.

Hooray, Mark Begich has pulled ahead in Alaska! By 3 votes. (http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm)

Go Begich! Send the Felon to prison, not the Senate.

Now Begich is ahead by 814 votes.

Well in Australia we have two ballot papers, one for the House of Reps and one for the Senate. And then our State elections are held at different times to the Federal one so we would have different ones there. And if during an election we have to vote on something else (say a referendum) we would have another ballot paper to vote.

Vic's local/council elections are supposed to be all held on the same day now.

Vic's local/council elections are supposed to be all held on the same day now.

Really? gee but not on the same day as the State election surely.

Really? gee but not on the same day as the State election surely.
Nah.

Really? gee but not on the same day as the State election surely.
In the UK, general elections are intentionally scheduled to take place on the same day as any local elections taking place that year in England. Elections in Scotland and Wales take place with local elections held there.

In the UK, general elections are intentionally scheduled to take place on the same day as any local elections taking place that year in England. Elections in Scotland and Wales take place with local elections held there.

Oh ok, but it would be surprising to hear that happening in Australia.

Oh ok, but it would be surprising to hear that happening in Australia.

We vote for local, state and national offices all on the same day.

Though state and local elections happen more often. There are pretty much ballot issues every year.

We vote for local, state and national offices all on the same day.

Though state and local elections happen more often. There are pretty much ballot issues every year.

Never let it be said that Americans don't like their democracy :p

But yeah fair enough but what is strange is that you vote on who will be in charge of the garbageman.

Never let it be said that Americans don't like their democracy :p

But yeah fair enough but what is strange is that you vote on who will be in charge of the garbageman.

No no, not the garbagemen. The Peratas and Rattos decide who will be in charge of them.

I was referring mainly to having elections to decide who will be in charge of the bus system, and whether we'll fund the construction of a new town library or not. Parcel taxes, things like that.

No no, not the garbagemen. The Peratas and Rattos decide who will be in charge of them.

I was referring mainly to having elections to decide who will be in charge of the bus system, and whether we'll fund the construction of a new town library or not. Parcel taxes, things like that.

Really someone mentioned Drain commissioner (yes I know that isn't for the garbage)

But even taxes is strange, why can't the executive come up with them and the legislature approve of it?

Really someone mentioned Drain commissioner (yes I know that isn't for the garbage)

But even taxes is strange, why can't the executive come up with them and the legislature approve of it?

We don't vote on drain commissioner to my knowledge. In my town. In other towns, it's different.

California's weird because city councils aren't allowed to raise property taxes, nor is the state legislature, because of an old ballot proposition (the subsequent loss in revenue is directly responsible, along with Ronald Reagan's governorship, for why California used to have the best schools in the nation and now has, apparently, among the worst), so to fill the inevitable gaps in funding to keep schools and such running and the facilities maintained, we have to pass parcel taxes every so often. This is basically us voting to each give the town government an extra bit of money that year for each parcel of land we own.

We don't vote on drain commissioner to my knowledge. In my town. In other towns, it's different.

California's weird because city councils aren't allowed to raise property taxes, nor is the state legislature, because of an old ballot proposition (the subsequent loss in revenue is directly responsible, along with Ronald Reagan's governorship, for why California used to have the best schools in the nation and now has, apparently, among the worst), so to fill the inevitable gaps in funding to keep schools and such running and the facilities maintained, we have to pass parcel taxes every so often. This is basically us voting to each give the town government an extra bit of money that year for each parcel of land we own.

OH ok yeah for sure.

Really someone mentioned Drain commissioner (yes I know that isn't for the garbage)

But even taxes is strange, why can't the executive come up with them and the legislature approve of it?
BE, the US is a mosaic of government units. Every municipality has its own local governing body, and the vast majority of them (all the ones that are legal townships or higher) choose the people who admininstrate their public business democratically.

See, it's not just national and state levels of government. You get national, state, county, district/ward, and municipal, plus ballot initiatives/questions/referenda. And the more local you get from state down, the more variety you'll see in the kinds of offices that are presented for election. County election ballots tend to have the most odd-sounding offices up for vote because they include all the state representatives (to the state legislature) for districts/wards within the counties plus such things as judges, sheriffs, clerks and registrars of deeds, etc. But they vary from place to place. Not everyone is being asked to vote for such things as "Drain Commissioner."

BE, the US is a mosaic of government units. Every municipality has its own local governing body, and the vast majority of them (all the ones that are legal townships or higher) choose the people who admininstrate their public business democratically.

See, it's not just national and state levels of government. You get national, state, county, district/ward, and municipal, plus ballot initiatives/questions/referenda. And the more local you get from state down, the more variety you'll see in the kinds of offices that are presented for election. County election ballots tend to have the most odd-sounding offices up for vote because they include all the state representatives (to the state legislature) for districts/wards within the counties plus such things as judges, sheriffs, clerks and registrars of deeds, etc. But they vary from place to place. Not everyone is being asked to vote for such things as "Drain Commissioner."

Yeah ok fair enough.

If the middle stays home, the Republicans will win. Unless of course the Democrats actually show up, which they usually don't. Far more of the Democratic base showed up this time.

I started a thread a while back asking if anyone was knowledgeable about Ireland's election system, as I've heard they do not use "first past the post"/"winner take all" voting, instead using something called "single transferable vote," which sounded interesting. I didn't get any replies, though.

Oh joy, STV. This is stupidly complicated.

Briefly, you rank all the parties or candidates (depending on the particulars of the system).

Then a value called a 'quota' is calculated, and is (IIRC) the number of seats/the number of votes+1.

Then first preference votes are counted.

And now it gets complicated. Say the quota is 3000, and Bob, a candidate, achieves 6000 first preference votes. He gets elected, and spare votes are redistributed by second preferences.

To do this, the second preferences of these votes are counted. A weighting is also calculated, by dividing the quota by the votes acheived. Assume that Bill is the second preference of 3000 of Bob's voters. Bill gets 3000 extra second preference votes, multiplied by the weighting given to each of Bob's votes, which is 0.5 in this case. Therefore Bill gets 1500 extra votes. The same happens for all the other second preference candidates, which results in 3000 votes being redistributed.

The quota now changes, and the new quota is:


(the previous vote total / the previous quota )
-----------------------------------------------
the number of seats remaining + 1


Like I said, it's stupidly complicated. I haven't studied this in about a year, so that might not be right, but it's correct to the best of my knowledge.

Edit: Two things to mention --- this is used for multi-member constituencies. When used for single member constituencies it reduces (roughly) to the previous answer you were given.

Secondly, when no candidate reaches the quota, the lowest scoring is removed, and ballots are redistributed by next preference.

There's a lot of extra technical information on Wikipedia, including corrections for some of my minor inaccuracies, but this is a good enough attempt to stand (in my opinion).

BE, the US is a mosaic of government units. Every municipality has its own local governing body, and the vast majority of them (all the ones that are legal townships or higher) choose the people who admininstrate their public business democratically.

See, it's not just national and state levels of government. You get national, state, county, district/ward, and municipal, plus ballot initiatives/questions/referenda. And the more local you get from state down, the more variety you'll see in the kinds of offices that are presented for election. County election ballots tend to have the most odd-sounding offices up for vote because they include all the state representatives (to the state legislature) for districts/wards within the counties plus such things as judges, sheriffs, clerks and registrars of deeds, etc. But they vary from place to place. Not everyone is being asked to vote for such things as "Drain Commissioner."

Yes. In California it goes: National, State, County, City.

Though there are some things that are in between State and County, like AC Transit, which serves two, sort of three counties. And BART, which serves quite a few counties.

What is a "ward"?

Oh joy, STV. This is stupidly complicated.

Briefly, you rank all the parties or candidates (depending on the particulars of the system).

Then a value called a 'quota' is calculated, and is (IIRC) the number of seats/the number of votes+1.

Then first preference votes are counted.

And now it gets complicated. Say the quota is 3000, and Bob, a candidate, achieves 6000 first preference votes. He gets elected, and spare votes are redistributed by second preferences.

To do this, the second preferences of these votes are counted. A weighting is also calculated, by dividing the quota by the votes acheived. Assume that Bill is the second preference of 3000 of Bob's voters. Bill gets 3000 extra second preference votes, multiplied by the weighting given to each of Bob's votes, which is 0.5 in this case. Therefore Bill gets 1500 extra votes. The same happens for all the other second preference candidates, which results in 3000 votes being redistributed.

The quota now changes, and the new quota is:


(the previous vote total / the previous quota )
-----------------------------------------------
the number of seats remaining + 1


Like I said, it's stupidly complicated. I haven't studied this in about a year, so that might not be right, but it's correct to the best of my knowledge.

Edit: Two things to mention --- this is used for multi-member constituencies. When used for single member constituencies it reduces (roughly) to the previous answer you were given.

Secondly, when no candidate reaches the quota, the lowest scoring is removed, and ballots are redistributed by next preference.

There's a lot of extra technical information on Wikipedia, including corrections for some of my minor inaccuracies, but this is a good enough attempt to stand (in my opinion).

Who comes up with a system like that? It seems needlessly complicated... then again, multi-member constituencies tend to be. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the Australian Senate is elected in a sort of similar fashion, and is also multi constituent. But I don't remember thinks like weighting added to the redistribution of votes. Again, I ask... is there a rationale behind this system of voting?

Oh joy, STV. This is stupidly complicated.

Briefly, you rank all the parties or candidates (depending on the particulars of the system).

Then a value called a 'quota' is calculated, and is (IIRC) the number of seats/the number of votes+1.

Then first preference votes are counted.

And now it gets complicated. Say the quota is 3000, and Bob, a candidate, achieves 6000 first preference votes. He gets elected, and spare votes are redistributed by second preferences.

To do this, the second preferences of these votes are counted. A weighting is also calculated, by dividing the quota by the votes acheived. Assume that Bill is the second preference of 3000 of Bob's voters. Bill gets 3000 extra second preference votes, multiplied by the weighting given to each of Bob's votes, which is 0.5 in this case. Therefore Bill gets 1500 extra votes. The same happens for all the other second preference candidates, which results in 3000 votes being redistributed.

The quota now changes, and the new quota is:


(the previous vote total / the previous quota )
-----------------------------------------------
the number of seats remaining + 1


Like I said, it's stupidly complicated. I haven't studied this in about a year, so that might not be right, but it's correct to the best of my knowledge.

Edit: Two things to mention --- this is used for multi-member constituencies. When used for single member constituencies it reduces (roughly) to the previous answer you were given.

Secondly, when no candidate reaches the quota, the lowest scoring is removed, and ballots are redistributed by next preference.

There's a lot of extra technical information on Wikipedia, including corrections for some of my minor inaccuracies, but this is a good enough attempt to stand (in my opinion).

That actually sounds kinda cool.

Who comes up with a system like that? It seems needlessly complicated... then again, multi-member constituencies tend to be. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the Australian Senate is elected in a sort of similar fashion, and is also multi constituent. But I don't remember thinks like weighting added to the redistribution of votes. Again, I ask... is there a rationale behind this system of voting?

Well, STV has several strengths. The first is being very pure proportional representation --- the system leads to a very close match between the result and the overall preferences of the population. Secondly, almost all votes go towards helping elect a candidate, avoiding the wasted vote problems which occur in some other systems.

Most notably, it provides an excellent PR system, while allowing voters to vote for individual candidates. Other effective PR systems leave the choice almost solely in the hands of the party, which makes it very hard for independent/maverick candidates to obtain a seat.

So it's theoretically fantastic, but nasty to implement.

That actually sounds kinda cool.

It is. I studied electoral systems as part of AS politics, and can now quote you the pros and cons of STV, FPTP, Party List, AMS, AV, AV+, SV, and more. Great fun to think about how the different systems will affect the shape of the government, and increase or decrease the strengths and platforms of parties.

Well, STV has several strengths. The first is being very pure proportional representation --- the system leads to a very close match between the result and the overall preferences of the population. Secondly, almost all votes go towards helping elect a candidate, avoiding the wasted vote problems which occur in some other systems.

Most notably, it provides an excellent PR system, while allowing voters to vote for individual candidates. Other effective PR systems leave the choice almost solely in the hands of the party, which makes it very hard for independent/maverick candidates to obtain a seat.

So it's theoretically fantastic, but nasty to implement.
Yes, I very much like the fact that it is good for proportional representation while still keeping local representation. Very nice. Though a bit tougher to implement than our first past the post system, unfortunately. Still, I would favor such a system.



It is. I studied electoral systems as part of AS politics, and can now quote you the pros and cons of STV, FPTP, Party List, AMS, AV, AV+, SV, and more. Great fun to think about how the different systems will affect the shape of the government, and increase or decrease the strengths and platforms of parties.
Your explanation of STV was great. Do you have a system that you think is the most advantageous? Or

Well, STV has several strengths. The first is being very pure proportional representation --- the system leads to a very close match between the result and the overall preferences of the population. Secondly, almost all votes go towards helping elect a candidate, avoiding the wasted vote problems which occur in some other systems.

Most notably, it provides an excellent PR system, while allowing voters to vote for individual candidates. Other effective PR systems leave the choice almost solely in the hands of the party, which makes it very hard for independent/maverick candidates to obtain a seat.

So it's theoretically fantastic, but nasty to implement.

That sounds really cool. It is kinda similar to the system here, like I thought, and I am a fan of proportional representation. Thanks for that, I'll keep it in mind.

Yes, I very much like the fact that it is good for proportional representation while still keeping local representation. Very nice. Though a bit tougher to implement than our first past the post system, unfortunately. Still, I would favor such a system.


Your explanation of STV was great. Do you have a system that you think is the most advantageous? Or

Mu.

Different systems have advantages and disadvantages. FPTP, for example, while not being particularly reflective of the overall views of society, is fantastically simple.

But in rough categories:

For electing single members at once --- Supplementary Vote or Alternative vote. Basically the same thing, and also known as Instant Runoff Voting. Rank candidates, eliminate lower ranked and redistribute until one candidate gets an absolute majority. They are about as simple as FPTP, and provide for a better way of reflecting the overall views of the population.

For parliamentary elections, etc --- AV+, which is a cross between the Alternative Vote and the Additional Member system. The basic idea is to elect a bunch of candidates in single member constituencies, then add a few extra for each region to help iron out the imbalances. It's simple, tends to lead to a fairly solid governing party, and is fairer than FPTP.

In theory --- STV, which combines pure PR with a much stronger defense for independent candidates. This is its great strength over the party list, which is a little simpler, but makes things solely based on party and at the discretion of the parties.

Ideally --- small scale group consensus, practiced by autonomous local collectives. Why yes, I am a crazy communist.

He can't be president as it stands. If two-thirds were willing to allow him to be, he could.

I personally think he'd be a pretty good candidate in terms of bipartisan supportability.

Not to mention the amount of Terminator jokes we'd go through. How long would THAT take to get old on the Daily Show?

I would actually consider voting for Schwarzenegger, if he were eligible and ran. He's not done such a bad job in California so far, and it'd be nice to see a decent Republican so I don't feel dirty for constantly voting Democrats despite being a left-wing independent.