The Road to the White House

[Arroyo #1 0]

Most countries have constitutions, even Puerto Rico has one. They can be and are meant to be ammended. I agree with a modification that will allow for a distribution of the electoral votes that sounds like a fair compromise.

[Rhubarb 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

My predictions:

 

Republicans

 

Romney 32%

 

Huckabee 28%

 

 

Democrats

 

Edwards 29%

 

Clinton 28%

 

Obama 24%

Guess ya blew it, huh...

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by Rhubarb:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

My predictions:

 

Republicans

 

Romney 32%

 

Huckabee 28%

 

 

Democrats

 

Edwards 29%

 

Clinton 28%

 

Obama 24%

Guess ya blew it, huh...

 

Kinda like your mom did Tuesday night....

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by KillingInTheNameOf:

It has always been the Democrats fighting for a movement towards the popular vote and that has absolutely nothing to do with "democracy". It is about their agenda to depreciate the integrity of the constitution, depreciate the individual identities of States, and cement the establishment of a centralized federal government.

 

I can appreciate not liking the Democratic stances on issues, but isn't this a *little* too conspiracy theorist?

 

In all honesty, I don't think so. I could simply say it is part of the effort to cement a strong centralized federal government, which it is. But, that in and of itself chips away at the fabric of the individual identify of States, and the rights of States as "protected" in the constitution.

 

One could make a very easy argument we have gravitated further and further away from the original design of the constitution since the new deal, therefore it is outdated, and such a change is warranted. But, this is the essentially the issue as some still cling to the hope of decentralizing the federal government and returning power to the states while others attempt to insure that is impossible. Do you really believe this isn't a conscience battle?

 

I say this with admiration from strictly a political point of view and utter disdain as an individual who dispisses the current political climate. But, the Democratic party has absolutely mastered the art of political warfare, and I think anybody who underestimates how calculating the Democrats are is very naive.

 

They are far more united than Republicans when it comes to pushing agenda's and talking points. They refuse to compromise on big issues and will patiently destroy the fabric of existing policies in order to create a climate needed to win approval for their positions. Examine the evolution of a health care policy so widely rejected 15 years ago gaining more and more support today! It has a lot to do with the "resolutions" Dems used moderate Republicans like McCain to pass that they knew would create bigger problems in health care that eventially lead us back to their original goal. Great political strategy, questionable leadership to say the very least. Hard to label such actions as conspiracy theories when the movites were widely discussed and the results were widely predicted at the time.

 

You really don't need to examine beyond the issues of impeachment and health care over the past 16 years to see prime examples of what I'm referring to as the difference between these two political parties MO's. I would stop well short of claiming the Republican party possesses integrity, but there is a laundry list of examples I could easily supply off the top of my head that demonstrate the willingness of the Democrats to abandon their principles or sacrifice battles in order to win the war. Republicans simply lack the same level of unity and resolve. As a political observer, I find that indisputable.

 

Regarding the empeachment issue. Republicans fought that battle knowing it wasn't supported by the American people and paid the price. They are probably justified when you consider that Martha Stewart, Lil Kim, and Marion Jones have served prison time for the exact same offense. But, it was also political suicide, and that was obvious as an observer.

 

Dems on the other hand are far to politically conscience to pursue their own principles regarding the impeachment of this president despite the fact nearly all of them would support it.

 

Seriously, it's very well known, and publically discussed right now that the Democratic party has collectively decided to attempt to defuse the issue of the war and not make withdrawal an issue in this election with the understand they all support a withdrawal within 8 months if elected. That's what I'm talking about. They are politically conscience even when it probably hurt Obama not to continue attacking Hillary on this issue.

 

Just watch this election as it turns towards the conventions and the national election and study the talking points. The Dems are far more organized and unified and have been for as long as I can remember.

 

When you look at the leftward shift or our political positions and consider the economic positions held by someone such a JFK would be positioned right of all current Republican candidates, it's clear their methodical approach is effective. But, I don't think you need to look too far beyond the passion a candidate like Perot evoked to realize it isn't a principled shift of ideology in America. It's the result of a more organized political machine and that's a compliment "politically" speaking.

 

So, if you choose to believe such positions are not that calculating, fine. But, you aren't giving your party nearly enough credit!

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

Is it Democracy when a California Republican's vote is meaningless because all the electoral college votes will go to the Democrat?

 

That's a very interesting comment considering that a Republican has carried California far more recently than a Democrat has carried several other states.

 

Along that same line, why run for the mayor of New York when they haven't elected a Republican for centuries and the registered Dems outnumber the registered Reps 4-1?

 

I think one of the more interesting issues that goes unreported in this election year is that register independents are up to nearly 30% with the biggest increases in "liberal" regions like the West coast and Northeast.

 

Couple that with the fact that ideological independents are 3x as likely to be registered as Dems than Reps if they haven't chosen to change their registered political identity and I see a ground swell forming for a worthy independent candidate if one ever presents itself.

 

Which will make the current election process far more likely to yield an independent candidate.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

 

I personally think Electoral votes should be based on percentage. Where if the candidate receives 25% of the vote in a state he should get 1/4 of the Electors. If there is an odd number or if it cant be divided strictly on percetage, the remaining vote goes to the overall winner. This means everybody's vote make a difference.

 

It's sound in theory, but when election officials, and political parties attempt such changes we end up with systems like those used by the Dems that disproportionately distribute the minority votes.

 

We'd also no doubt see a system created that would stack the deck against any non-2 party candidate similiar to the debate commission and I desperately don't want to see that happen.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by Arroyo #1:

Most countries have constitutions, even Puerto Rico has one. They can be and are meant to be ammended. I agree with a modification that will allow for a distribution of the electoral votes that sounds like a fair compromise.

 

The key word here is "ammended". The establishment of a centralized federal government in this country has not been a ratified one and goes against every principle outlined in the constitution. I think one could make a very easy case it has not been a conscience choice by the people, but more a slow leakage of power from the states to the federal government. I have little doubt one could also make a case that the federal government has acted in an unconstitutional manner and exceeded it's boundaries all over the place. This includes, but is certainly not specific to "military conflicts" circumventing declarations of war!

[Tough Break There 96]

quote:

They are far more united than Republicans when it comes to pushing agenda's and talking points.

 

Puh-leaze. Democrat's are far less united and consistent in their focus.

 

quote:

Couple that with the fact that ideological independents are 3x as likely to be registered as Dems than Reps

 

And yet Democrat's manage to have a more consistent agenda? How is that possible?

 

JFK to the right of the modern Republican Party? What?

 

And to act like Republicans haven't controlled most of government for the past 40 years is to be blind to history.

 

quote:

When you look at the leftward shift or our political positions

 

Such as?

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by Tough Break There:

quote:

They are far more united than Republicans when it comes to pushing agenda's and talking points.

 

Puh-leaze. Democrat's are far less united and consistent in their focus.

 

It's so difficult to fathom why you would believe this and I'm not even going to bother laying out endless examples you would obviously ignore. I'm an independent with equal disdain for both parties giving the Dems political machine credit and you still want to argue about that as a compliment???

 

I'll put the challenge out there that you attempt to explain why you believe this to be true and I'll be happy to respond to more than a denial.

 

quote:

Couple that with the fact that ideological independents are 3x as likely to be registered as Dems than Reps

 

And yet Democrat's manage to have a more consistent agenda? How is that possible?

 

1) Both parties political platforms are targeted towards their most extreme supporters. Why do you think a higher percentage of moderates within a party would dictate their flatform or agenda? It certainly influences their individual campaign positions, but not the political platform of the party.

 

2) There are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

 

3) The number of ideological independents who remain party affiliated only represent about 6% of all voters. It breaks down like this nationally.

 

The vast majority of independents are registered independents. Roughly 26% of registered voters are registered independents. Another 8% of registered Republicans or Democrats identify themselves as ideological independents who remain party affiliated either out of a desire to vote in primaries, sheer laziness, or the fact they simply prefer being identified with one of the two major political parties. Many political observes actually suggest if your strip both parties down to about 30%, the rest are more independent in nature.

 

Never the less, as is, you're talking about a Democratic party with about 43% of all registered voters and maybe 5-6% of that group identifies themselves as independents. Clearly not a large group that is going to influence a political party's platform or positions.

 

 

This is a fact! You can choose to ignore it, but it's fact never the less.

 

quote:

JFK to the right of the modern Republican Party? What?

 

I never said JFK was to the right of the modern Republican party. But, I did say his economic policies were and I firmly stand behind that statement. I'm not suggesting JFK would be a Republican today. I'm saying our political climate has shifted so far left, his economic policies would be right of Mitt Romney if they were taken from his era and dropped into this election.

 

quote:

And to act like Republicans haven't controlled most of government for the past 40 years is to be blind to history.

 

This might be the most clueless comment I've read in this thread, but at least I know where your political education comes from because I hear Hillary uttering this consistently along with her vast political experience.

 

Before Democrats lost control of congress to the Republicans during Clinton's administration, Dems had controlled congress for 40 years and typically by a much wider margin than either party has controlled congress during the past 16 years. How this fact has been twisted and completely turned around is laughable. You and Hillary can keep spewing this statement, but it defies reality.

 

 

quote:

When you look at the leftward shift of our political positions

 

Such as?

 

Such as the idea of "targeted tax cuts". Such as the dramatically increasing size of our federal government and social welfare spending over the past 32 years that both parties now fight to preserve. Do Republicans even discuss budget cuts any more? There's nothing wrong with our economic policies. It's the increased annual spending coupled with these policies that is horrible.

 

Of the 3 "Conservative Republicans" fighting for the nomination, which one hasn't supported tax increases? Not had his hand forced as Bush Sr. did, but presented, and supported tax increases? Such as, attempting to regulate state & local issues at the federal level. The Republican position used to be not that long ago to return power back to the state. Then it became block grants. Now it's full blown regulation like the Democrats.

 

There are some social issues that Conservatives still fight for and I couldn't care less about most of them. I'm specifically talking about economic issues. Give an issues that has to do with economic policies or federal spending and the standard accepted position of that issues has moved left over the past 20 years. Far left over the past 40 years!

[Osprey 199]

McCain vs. Clinton? Thoughts?

 

Kill me please?

[Arroyo #1 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

 

Obama takes the lead!

Republicans are scared everywhere!

Si se puede!

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Arroyo #1:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

 

Obama takes the lead!

Republicans are scared everywhere!

Si se puede!

 

That's good news to the Dems. He's a lot more likable than Hilary ever could be, and his campaign theme of change, while incredibly vague, is far more motivating than Hilary's theme of experience that reeks of self-entitlement.