Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

EDIT: God I hate this forum sometimes.

[Mego]

Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Newt Gingrich deserve their own discussion of this new phenomenon, of people running for offices including the Presidency as a personal business decision and self-promotion vehicle.  It's a bizarre and I think frightening development, but at least it's apparently over and done with by the time voting starts.  I wonder what the next race will look like.

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Here's the confusion: This is how the parties pick the one nominee.  I don't know how it works in any particularly European country, but I get that in parliamentary democracies it's typical for the party to choose its nominees within itself?  Well, that's how America used to do it, but it was eventually phased out (mostly) by law (mostly) for a popular vote system.  In this case, each state holds its own primary elections, which determine how many delegates (votes basically) each party gives to each of their candidate at their conventions in August, which determines which one candidate is each party's nominee for that office.  Then we get the actual election between candidates.  It's simpler than it sounds, I swear, it's just a long and noisy process.

Actually it's just as convoluted as it sounds, when you factor in primaries vs caucuses and open vs closed vs blanket primaries (which I think are now extinct because American political parties hate the thought of their members having a chance to voice their opinions about the other party's candidates).

[Leafsnail]

As a crazy European, I need to ask probably a rather simple question. If this is a presidential election vote, then why are there so many candidates for one party? I'm used to one party, one candidate system from the UK. It seems rather odd to split your entire voter base up. And if (god forbid) they do elect a republic president, who gets to be it?

Well after the primaries are over, the Republicans will be left with one candidate.  I think some of the political parties here have a vaguely similar system.  For example, Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in a strange AV vote where 1/3 of the result came from MPs, 1/3 from unions and 1/3 from Labour party members.  Yes, if you belonged to multiple categories you got multiple votes.  If you belonged to multiple unions you could have up to 7 votes.  The American system does seem more logical in this regard, although obviously having a presidential rather than a parliamentary system makes it different.

[nenjin]

I agree the "gave up/flamed out" list is lacking quite a few names.

I have to give Palin credit. She's not as stupid as most people wanted to believe she was. I sort of wonder where she'll be in three-ish years: milking book tours and speaking engagements for all they are worth? Milking her paycheck from Fox News until she stops being relevant/sexually enticing to their viewer base? A run for the House? Or has she slipped into the background of the Republican party, where the actual decisions get made, and actually accumulated some political power? I hate being curious about it and yet I can't help myself. I thought she was headed for a total meltdown during the primary campaigning season.

My money is on Romney. The parallels between him and Kerry are so strong it's almost scary, like we're coming full circle just in time for the Mayan calendar to do the same. A candidate who generates less enthusiasm from the base than a door stop, who has lost credibility by giving every answer to every question, and who will ultimately win by default. Kerry looks like a shriveled up version of Romney. Even the similarities between the loathing held for Bush by Democrats and the loathing held for Obama by Republicans are the same. Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo.

[fqllve]

I wonder what the next race will look like.

In 2015 reality TV star Mr. Boston will simultaneously declare his candidacy and announce his upcoming show Kickin it with Boston in DC.

[Capntastic]

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

[Frumple]

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Wasn't the turnout still under 50% last presidential election?

[fqllve]

Presidential? No. They were for the 2010 midterm elections though (they always are for the midterms).

But that doesn't mean 60% is an ideal turnout.

[ggamer]

Ron paul sounds good, but has the problem of being fucking crazy.

"Mr. Paul, what is your stance on poverty?"
"w-w-whell, I remember one day Ronald Reagan was talking to me and he said 'Ron. America.' CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR AMERICA?!"
"Mr. Paul, that has nothing to do with poverty."
"W-thank you."

[SalmonGod]

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

[Capntastic]

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

The Problem With Modern Democracy, article 32.

For real though, even if you truly believe that all candidates are awful, and you 'refuse to vote on moral grounds', then you are self contradicting.   By taking no action at all, you're saying that "I'm morally superior to the candidates, so I'll let less scrupulous people decide."  If you truly believe in voting as a tool of moral imperative, then you should do the needful and vote for the most justifiable candidate, regardless of if they're only a little bit less terrible than the next guy.

[Karlito]

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that are U.S. citizens of the correct age to register to vote and also remember to vote.  No matter what your political leanings are, voter apathy is a serious issue!!

Have to convince me that there's a candidate worth voting for first.

At least vote in your local elections. The things your governor and state legislature do can potentially have a much greater impact on your life than anything in the President's limited powers.

[Capntastic]

Yeah, I'm not even going to pose an argument as to why voting in your local elections is hugely important, because it's so apparent.

So yeah, be registered to vote, and spend a bit of time becoming educated on the issues.

[Sirus]

Registered non-partisan, posting to watch

Love the nominee summaries, but who's the last one? It goes straight into the summary without his/her name.

[freeformschooler]

As for national election, I'm undecided, but as for local elections, whoever seems the least likely to mandate ripping apart the largest road in town for eight solid weeks to add a minimal amount of parking places. That was crazy.