13
   

IDIOTS' GUIDE TO THE US ELECTIONS.

 
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2008 05:11 pm
You are welcome( American English)
and no mention please.( Indian English)

I will always be here to help the needy .
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 03:58 am
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 08:23 pm
Olga

Bear in mind....all this carry-on - and huge amounts of money.

And they still elected George W Bush! Shocked

What does that say for the system?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 01:48 am
... What does it say, margo? Hmmmm ....

I guess the wrong guys were enjoying "the vanguard of (the voting public's) approval" at the time! And possibly the wrong guys were being shamelessly promoted (or not exactly critically scrutinized) by certain media powers (We know who they are!), for their own ends?
But no doubt about it, GWB had more than the requisite amounts of $$$$ & the "right"extremely powerful connections to succeed.
Depressing.
Sigh.

If someone wants to (briefly!) provide another explanation, you are most welcome.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 09:11 am
It's not just money. If it was, Romney would be doing much better than he is.

Remember that Bush was first voted into office right after Bill Clinton's tenure. Al Gore was hobbled by the whole Monica debacle -- Bill didn't give him the kind of oomph that vice-presidents of two-term presidents usually get. Gore's choice of Lieberman for his own VP was also seen as dangerous, and Gore himself had problems in terms of campaigning. He's come a long way since then but he was called "wooden," "stiff," etc. He simply was not nearly the campaigner that Bill was.

Meanwhile, many disparate elements of the right were united by the idea of finally overthrowing the whole Clinton machine, and were willing to put aside differences to unite behind George.

Still, Gore almost won. (Did win the popular vote.)

Once George was in office, he was much harder to beat. An incumbent always carries a great advantage, especially during wartime. Kerry was simply not a strong enough candidate. He was again a poor campaigner in much the same vein as Gore (seen as elitist and Northeastern, wooden, etc.) and didn't react well to the Swiftboat attacks. (Accusations by Vietnam vets that Kerry exaggerated/ lied about his own Vietnam service.)

Still, George barely won.
0 Replies
 
MarySzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 06:10 pm
George Barely Won???????

Do you remember that Slick Willie received only 43% of the popular vote in the Election of 1992?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 06:34 pm
Does that have anything to do with what I said?

Yes, George barely won. If Kerry had won Ohio -- which he almost did -- Kerry would be president today.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 08:15 pm
sozobe wrote:
Meanwhile, many disparate elements of the right were united by the idea of finally overthrowing the whole Clinton machine, and were willing to put aside differences to unite behind George.

The other part of this was that Bush was a well liked governor who worked well across party lines in Texas. After all the partisan rancor in Clinton's last term, the idea of a "compassionate conservative" was appealing to a lot of people.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 12:29 am
O K That explains king Georges first election. Now how about an explanation for his second election besides voter stupidity.
0 Replies
 
MarySzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 02:25 pm
What about the fact that the American People could not have abided a man in office who looked exactly like the town Undertaker?
0 Replies
 
MarySzy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 02:29 pm
Yes, and if Nixon had won Illinois(He really did win Illinois and Daley stole it) and Texas( He really did win Texas-Johnson stole it) he would have been President. Kennedy won by three tenths of one percent..
49.9% to 49.6%. There have been many close contests for the American Presidency. Some of them, like the above, according to Historians, were stolen!
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 04:09 pm
So you are saying because electicians have been stollen in the past it makes it O.K. today as long as its your candidate or your party.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 05:13 pm
A quote from a person who is not a Gandhi nor a communist.

Every two years the American politics industry
fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country
- and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians. ~Charles Krauthammer
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 05:41 am
This is not a question specifically about the US elections, but I can't find a suitable thread to ask it - nor do I want to start a new one ....
So, could someone explain to me what the term "wingnuts" means? And where the term actually comes from. I get the gist of the meaning, but wanted a more precise understanding of how the term is used in the US.

(This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested.)

Thanks.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 05:43 pm
@msolga,
Still wondering ...
Could it be short for "right wing nut"?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 05:47 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Still wondering ...
Could it be short for "right wing nut"?


Spot on.

Cycloptichorn
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 05:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you, Cyclo!

You (US folk) may not realize it, but some of the terms you use can sometimes be a little mystifying to folks in other places. I've often relied on creative guessing rather than interrupt the flow of a good conversation to ask ...

But then I guess what Australians are talking about could be a complete & utter mystery to others, too! Wink
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:55 pm
@msolga,
Good title for a thread. Idiots appear to have played major roles in this last election and there's little reason to think it won't continue.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:56 pm
@gungasnake,
Sigh
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 07:22 pm
@msolga,
Actually, msolga, it can be used both ways -- right wingnut or left wingnut. It's obviously just a play on words. A wingnut is a 'nut' with winglike parts that fits over a threaded bolt and can be turned with thumb and forefinger. But the word 'nut' in the colloquial vernacular also means a mad person. So, whether you're speaking of the left wing or the right wing, to describe a person as a zealous supporter of his/her political side as a 'wingnut' is a somewhat denigrating label. On A2k, at least, the absence of a directional tag -- 'left' or 'right' --usually indicates that the right wing is being referred to.
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 03:06:56