Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

okie wrote:

He is still leading in some polls however, but finally if thats true, good. The weird thing that keeps McCain in the race is the independents doing it for him, so how fair is that, independents nominating the Republican nominee?

Your sense of entitlement here is off the charts ridiculous if you think 2 sets of hyper-partisans, who have systematically barred the door against 3rd parties is entitled to choose the only 2 realistic candidates for leader of our land, exclusively. Tell me you don't really believe in something so utterly and completely asinine. The completely unfair cooperation of both sides against the citizens of this land should have long ago been challenged, defeated and the perpetrators tarred and feathered. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Hes a very good decent guy, but yes, that was the main reason he couldn't generate a groundswell of support, as he just seemed a bit tired and seemingly not highly motivated to be president. He was intrigued with it, but not driven to it. He never got out of first gear, let alone overdrive.

That still nags me about McCain. Besides his policies that I don't agree with, the guy is getting old, and why doesn't he just get out of the way, after all, how long has he been in Washington making backroom deals with Ted and the boys? I keep wondering when folks will begin to jump off of his bandwagon for this reason and other reasons?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:
He is still leading in some polls however, but finally if thats true, good. The weird thing that keeps McCain in the race is the independents doing it for him, so how fair is that, independents nominating the Republican nominee?
Your sense of entitlement here is off the charts ridiculous if you think 2 sets of hyper-partisans, who have systematically barred the door against 3rd parties is entitled to choose the only 2 realistic candidates for leader of our land, exclusively. Tell me you don't really believe in something so utterly and completely asinine. The completely unfair cooperation of both sides against the citizens of this land should have long ago been challenged, defeated and the perpetrators tarred and feathered.

What are you talking about, ob? Why should other people choose the nominees of a party, other than members of the party? Why don't independents form their own party? Nobody is stopping them. And what is this about entitlement. It is nothing of the kind. If you want to vote for Republicans, why not register as a Republican, simple as that. And if you aren't a Republican, just an independent, then wait for the general election to vote for whoever you want, but don't meddle with the party if you aren't a member of it.

To tell you the honest truth, I haven't totally made up my mind whether it is a good idea or not, but apparently some states do not think it is, and to call it "utterly and completely asinine" is grossly inaccurate in my opinion. I think the issue should be open to debate.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
okie wrote:
He is still leading in some polls however, but finally if thats true, good. The weird thing that keeps McCain in the race is the independents doing it for him, so how fair is that, independents nominating the Republican nominee?
Your sense of entitlement here is off the charts ridiculous if you think 2 sets of hyper-partisans, who have systematically barred the door against 3rd parties is entitled to choose the only 2 realistic candidates for leader of our land, exclusively. Tell me you don't really believe in something so utterly and completely asinine. The completely unfair cooperation of both sides against the citizens of this land should have long ago been challenged, defeated and the perpetrators tarred and feathered.

What are you talking about, ob? Why should other people choose the nominees of a party, other than members of the party? Why don't independents form their own party? Nobody is stopping them. And what is this about entitlement. It is nothing of the kind. If you want to vote for Republicans, why not register as a Republican, simple as that. And if you aren't a Republican, just an independent, then wait for the general election to vote for whoever you want, but don't meddle with the party if you aren't a member of it.

This is utter and complete BS. The Dems and Repubs have long conspired to prevent a third party from becoming viable, against the best interest of the American People and you should damn well know it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I think a third party would emerge if it represented the views of enough people, but that hasn't happened. It isn't because the two parties have conspired to block the efforts. Obviously they guard their turf with a floating or elastic set of values to fit the current moods of the citizens, which tends to head off any third party gaining support. Also, people do not wish to throw away their votes on a marginal candidate, but this is not due to the two parties conspiring. As long as the two parties have big enough tents to cover the two ends of the political spectrum, it simply does not leave room in the middle for another party. They only exist at the ends of the spectrum.

But you forget folks like Ross Perot, who captured roughly 20% of the vote, and something like this or more could happen, if either of the parties do not represent a sizeable portion of the citizenry.

I think a 2 party system beats a multiple party system, where a small minority can gain power. I blame Perot for the Clinton scourge on the country. Actually, independents voting in some Repbublican primaries is not bad from one standpoint, it serves to demonstrate the strength of the candidates among independent voters, that is necessary later to win the general election.

0 Replies

Your ignorance is unbelievable. If you remember Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote; you should also remember the Dems and Repubs joining forces to block him from the Debates 4 years later (where he'd doubled his polling numbers in the first cycle). They straight cheated him out of a chance, while claiming they were doing so because he didn't have one. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. Hyper partisan idiots may celebrate this ugly fact, but it was a sad day for American freedom. And now you think it's unfair for anyone not bound by partisan loyalty to voice an opinion on which 2 candidates the General election will consist of? Unbelievable.

0 Replies

You sure throw around names freely bill. You have called me a bigot, now ignorant, what else?

People are free to participate in whatever debate they wish to debate in, or they are free to not debate, that is their freedom to do it. If it becomes a free for all, only serving to muddy the waters with fringe candidates, I don't blame the 2 parties for not participating. This is a free country, remember? There are in fact plenty of policital parties in this country, but the fact is they have not grown to any significant status, but it is not due principally because the 2 parties won't let them. Its because not enough people agree with their philosophy so far, at least that is my opinion. If you believe it is a conspiracy to explain it, I think you are just plain wrong.

And if you have a club in your town, I should be able to come there and vote for the president of your club even if I am not even a member? Is that right? Look, I already told you there are pros and cons to this debate, and different states feel differently, for good reasons, but for you to go on your name calling routine does you no good, in fact you only reflect upon yourself.

I like some of your opinion, some I don't agree with, but your name calling is over the top.

0 Replies

Your ignorance is your choice, Okie. It's not a name. It simply means you don't know. In your case; it seems to be a willful ignorance because I watch over and over again how you choose not to know things that don't suit your predispositions. Things like posting on the main Obama thread regularly for a year, without learning any of his positions. That is willful ignorance, Okie. You're a nice enough guy. You seem plenty bright. If you don't like being ignorant; do something about it. But don't expect others to spoon feed you information that is readily at your fingertips.

Here's a good first place to start. See if you can come up with 3 ways Republicans and Democrats have conspired to keep 3rd parties at bay.

0 Replies

If the country would adopt the Nebraska-Maine method of electoral college, then perhaps third parties would be better represented and be given a more fair share of this country's political pie.

Think about what campains would look like if every district held the same power. Imagine the swing states. I honestly think that we'd be better off.

T
K
O

0 Replies

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2008/1/prweb642881.htm

Excerpt:

The Big Lie about Senator Barack Obama's experience is put to rest by a new study revealing the actual experience of the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for President. Of the nine top candidates for their parties' nomination, only three have served as an elected official longer than Senator Obama, the only candidate whose experience has been questioned. Both of his Democratic rivals -- and half of the Republican hopefuls -- have served in elected office for fewer years than Senator Obama.

River Forest, Illinois (PRWEB) January 23, 2008 -- Which of the Presidential candidates has the most experience as an elected official? According to a new study by the researchers at Planning/Communications, it's not who the campaign rhetoric suggests.

Topping the principal Democratic contenders is Senator Barack Obama with 11 years in elected office versus just seven for Senator Hillary Clinton and six for former Senator John Edwards -- according to their own official biographies. The facts show that not only does Senator Barack have more experience as an elected official than the other major Democratic contenders, he tops half of the leading Republican hopefuls as well. Obama is the only candidate of either party to have his experience questioned by his opponents.

To put politics aside and assess the truth, we conducted a study of how long each Presidential candidate has served in elected office, based on the official records of each candidate
Senator John McCain sits at the head of the class among the leading Republican contenders with 24 years in elected office, followed by Congressman Ron Paul at 18 years, and former Arkansas Governor Michael Huckabee at 15. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former Senator Fred Thompson each have served eight years in elected office while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the least experienced of all the candidates with a single four-year term as an elected official.

http://www.planningcommunications.com/election/years%20in%20office%20chart%20lr.gif

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If the country would adopt the Nebraska-Maine method of electoral college, then perhaps third parties would be better represented and be given a more fair share of this country's political pie.

Think about what campains would look like if every district held the same power. Imagine the swing states. I honestly think that we'd be better off.

Echo that!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
If the country would adopt the Nebraska-Maine method of electoral college, then perhaps third parties would be better represented and be given a more fair share of this country's political pie.

Think about what campains would look like if every district held the same power. Imagine the swing states. I honestly think that we'd be better off.

Echo that!

Echo that into a megaphone. That would be awesome! 55 votes coming from a single state is an almost automatic disenfranchising of millions of people. It is no more fair than if you told the smallest 15 States their populations were too insignificant to count individually, so we're going to average them together for a winner take all competition.

0 Replies

Interesting article about the large number of undecided voters in primaries:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/politics/23web-elder.html

Last bit:

Quote:

But the caucus and primary polls taken by Edison/Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool suggest that more than 4 in 10 voters have decided who to vote for in the final week before the contests. In the Iowa Democratic caucus, 41 percent decided late; in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, 49 percent decided at the last minute; in the Michigan Republican primary, 46 percent decided late.

All of which suggests any state's primary is in play until the waning moments.

Dr. Just suggests that late deciding voters may actually have a preference but are looking and waiting for something to validate the choice they have already made.

"To a great extent people are trying to come up with answers that correlate with their preferences," she said. "They are just waiting for it to happen."

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Echo that!

Echo that into a megaphone. That would be awesome! 55 votes coming from a single state is an almost automatic disenfranchising of millions of people. It is no more fair than if you told the smallest 15 States their populations were too insignificant to count individually, so we're going to average them together for a winner take all competition.[/quote]
But the only way to get there would be to switch systems across the nation at once; or pair off "red" and "blue" states of roughly equal size and implement the change pair by pair.

If California had switched systems by its lonesome now, as the Republicans there proposed - or if Texas would do it all by itself - the only result would be to swing the election to the other party in one go - which would just create a backlash against the whole idea in the first place.

But if New York and Texas switched systems together, for example.. or, I dunno, Michigan and Georgia... that would be really cool.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But the only way to get there would be to switch systems across the nation at once; or pair off "red" and "blue" states of roughly equal size and implement the change pair by pair.

If California had switched systems by its lonesome now, as the Republicans there proposed - or if Texas would do it all by itself - the only result would be to swing the election to the other party in one go - which would just create a backlash against the whole idea in the first place.

But if New York and Texas switched systems together, for example.. or, I dunno, Michigan and Georgia... that would be really cool.

I agree all at once would be best, because it really shouldn't be a partisan decision. Interesting step system... I hadn't thought of that. I know the Republicans want it in California and the Democrats want it in North Carolina... but Americans should want it Everywhere. Pity the vast majority probably doesn't know the difference.

...On the other hand. When you consider the abysmal turnout in elections, and I would imagine it's especially abysmal in States that no one questions where it's going; there are probably a lot of people who would like for the first time to feel their vote actually mattered. A careful, comprehensive awareness campaign could possibly gain some traction. I fear the Democrats would fight tooth and nail to discourage it though. Cali is just too powerful.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I fear the Democrats would fight tooth and nail to discourage it though. Cali is just too powerful.

Just like the Republicans would fight it tooth and nail if you'd try to have Texas go first. Which brings us back to square one...

Perhaps it'd be easier to start off in small states, and work your way up.. beginning in the most purple of states...

That would also have an additional advantage, actually. It would pretty much ensure that the EC delegates from those states would split up relatively evenly, which means the campaigns would no longer be able to win the elections just by flipping two or three battleground states in their favour. So that alone would already force the campaigns to cast their net wider, compete in a larger number of states...

But yeah, all pie in the sky Confused

0 Replies

That's another good idea! I regretfully agree it is pie in the sky, though. Sad

(Damn it. Where's Ross Perot?)

0 Replies

The only way any of that would work is if you take the need for candidates to stump for financing out of the equation by allowing only matching federal taxpayer dollars to fund elections.

One major reason the smaller states have so much importance and fiercely guard their position in the line up is that the candidates spend many months there getting their organizational structures together and testing messages via TV ads and building up campaign finances. Those small early states get a great deal of windfall dollars pumped into their states.

0 Replies

A post of ifs:

IF the American people really want to change their political system, it will not come from a charismatic leader, but through reform of their electoral system. Proportional electoral votes per state is one arm, but the truly important one is a comptroller of electoral spending (both for primaries and the real races), with severe limits for corporate intervention -both direct and indirect- in the campaigns. I think Butrflynet hits the correct spot.

IF things are as they are, and party allegiance accounts for something, then the key to the analysis should come from Nimh's very insightful posts on page 39 of this thread.
The question is electability, and not just general electability, but who can win the "purple states".

IF I were a democrat, I'd pay attention to those polls -and any incoming ones- and wonder if Obama can deliver and go to the White House. I'd be scared, very scared about his possibilities in the deep South, and to find a nation divided, again, across the Mason-Dixie line.

IF I were a republican, I'd read those polls and wouldn't want our party to commit suicide. Even if I were a right wing conservative, I'd understand that the most Romney and Huckabee should do, is condition McCain's agenda to the conservative side. The old man is clearly, the GOP's only hope.

0 Replies

Agreed - and thank you. I got some incoming for the line of data I laid out there (or at least I did in the previous iteration), but it's a pretty clear and continuing pattern, and it genuinely makes me feel uneasy.

For a whole lot of reasons - not just how he's currently polling in the South, a lot of other reasons, mostly nothing to do with polls - I just cant get over my doubts that Obama could win the generals. Counter to CW, I'm actually more comfortable about Hillary winning, at least against anyone but McCain. But there the problem has by now become that I dont feel she deserves to win. Now there's a dilemma.

0 Replies

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know