Brand Spanking New Election Thread

[Analogman]

This is interesting:

 

Younger evangelicals split over Palin choice as VP

 

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

 

When Jessica Stollings learned on Facebook that John McCain had named Sarah Palin as his running mate, the 26-year-old from Bristol, Tenn., took the day off and picked up some campaign yard signs. Just like that, she went from "just a voter" to a McCain evangelist.

 

"He's a lot more visionary than I thought," said Stollings, a blooming evangelical activist for her generation who believes God has raised up Palin "for such a time as this."

 

Similar excitement built on the Virginia campus of conservative Christian Patrick Henry College, where busloads of students went on a road-trip to a McCain-Palin rally that drew thousands.

 

The mood was darker on blogs and social networking sites that connect more center-left young evangelicals. There, McCain's choice has been greeted as a cynical political ploy, a depressing return to the culture wars and damaging to efforts to broaden the evangelical dialogue.

 

Polls have yet to measure the Palin Effect on younger evangelical voters, whose shifting political allegiances put the demographic in play for both major-party presidential campaigns.

 

But a portrait emerges through interviews with more than a dozen pastors, authors and others who either belong to that generation or track it: Conservatives are energized much like their elders, progressives are unimpressed and many undecideds are gravitating toward McCain-Palin.

 

"I think the jury is still out on young evangelicals," said Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant magazine, an influential publication for this group. "Both parties have the opportunity to address issues of deep concern for this voting bloc."

 

Strang, 32, has been courted by Democrat Barack Obama's campaign. He accepted an invitation to speak on a panel at the Democratic National Convention about the faith vote and attended Obama's acceptance speech.

 

Yet Strang said he's "more undecided than ever." He said he was encouraged by Democratic pledges to reduce the number of abortions, but now worries the party is using abortion as a wedge issue by running ads sharply contrasting Palin and Obama on abortion rights.

 

Strang said he's waiting for the Republicans to talk more about health care and the economy

[Lammycat]

The under-30 white evangelical vote is a tough one to garnish, apparently. Don't underestimate the oft-neglected Eskimo vote that Palin has wrapped up, too.

[Analogman]

It's a SD, not an sd.

 

 

Don't worry about that bullshit - just do what you do.

[sweetheart-mine]

I just spent way too much time reading this thread. That was my choice as it was to read similiar ones. I am convinced that certain posters would be unable to have the same exchange face to face. They would start laughing or at the very least start smiling because they are saying things that they don't believe simply to watch the show. That is the uniqueness of message board debates. It is easy to have an enjoyable time getting someone to respond to you whether you are stating your actual convictions or not. You can type on a keyboard in the privacy of your own space and laugh your ass off. Few people can say insincere words - well they are sincerely meant to push the right button but you know what I'm saying - to such a degree in person and keep a straight face. I'm not saying anything you don't already know. I am just keeping it fresh in your minds.

 

i've noticed this somewhat in all the election threads on this board (and another board i was involved with but had to leave in disgust, where pushing other people's buttons is the only motivation of about 98% of the participants -- the percentage is way smaller here). having missed the last day or two here and now having caught up, i'd like to say how very much i appreciate the viewpoint and thoughts behind louie b's posts in this thread.

 

also, age sometimes brings wisdom but always brings experience. without living through at least more than one or two eras of elections & governments and pondering & literally experiencing the differences therein, even with the very imperfect two-party system we are stuck with, it is all too easy to demand nothing less than your perfect ideal or consider only what you want it to do for you as an individual. these approaches often, i would say usually, help your country as a whole get absolutely nowhere or actually regress. time has taught me and millions of other people that, not that i don't have a lot to learn; i absolutely do. it's one of the main reasons i read these threads, for those kernels of truth or wisdom. (also for the humor of the wits here, no small gift!)

 

mr rain pointed out earlier that there were long periods of time when much of the world thought highly of the u.s., which is true, and i would add that if you can't remember such a time, it's hard to believe that you're old enough to vote. people from the u.s. who travel to different countries for extended periods of time can tell you that the changes between how the u.s. is viewed now and how it was viewed as short a time as six years ago are huge -- and don't bode well, for anyone.

[Party @ the Moontower]

This is interesting:

 

Also a little scary

 

Palin has ruined my hopes for the future of this country, and my dream of living in Alaska.

[Analogman]

The editors at No Depression are also writing about the election.

[Guest Speed Racer]

If america ever wants to actually have a democracy we need a third party.

 

A few-day lecture series on one of my political science courses, that I don't remember terribly well, showed that it is virtually impossible for a third party to succeed in American politics. France and other nations that operate on a coalition system can have a multi-party system, but our democracy is really set up to only support two parties at once. Neither the Dems or the Republicans are going to collapse any time soon, so you had better hold your horses on that.

 

Edit: Some scholars to back up the point (can't find the articles at the moment, just instances where I discussed them in papers...): Powell and Whitten (voter expectation/historical party alignment); Lijphart (mostly corporatism and consensus democracy stuff); Inglehart (voting behavior and political climate). There's a big name I'm missing, but there you go...

[ikol]

So is SD the running mate of Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich?

[sweetheart-mine]

Alss a little scary

 

Palin has ruined my hopes for the future of this country, and my dream of living in Alaska.

 

and my dream of even just visiting alaska. for one thing, i didn't know lipstick existed in alaska. now i hear that it does, over and over and over.

 

 

p.s. for anyone who needs clarification, that was a joke.

[bobbob1313]

Don't worry about that bullshit - just do what you do.

 

You're a funny guy.

[lost highway]

My view is that choosing not to vote could be seen as a vote in and of itself.

 

I'll buy it as soon as you can show me what politician or branch of the government is concerned that you didn't show up.

 

What did that non-vote get done?

 

What message did it send and who received it?

 

It might mean something to you, but to the rest of the country and how it will be run you are invisible by choice.

[lost highway]

In other news Karl Rove is now criticizing the McCain/Lipstick-Pitbull campaign:

 

cnn:karl rove on the mccain campaign

 

 

I hear O'Reily even backs Obama. Maybe the poles are gonna shift.

[jc4prez]

FWIW, I think the media gave Ron Paul, et al., a fair amount of publicity. Had they gotten any traction in the polls, I am sure they would have gotten more. And there's always the Internet, where anyone can see anything they like. So, it could be that the message of Ron Paul and Nader and McKinney and suchlike, just do not resonate with enough Americans to make them players.

 

 

Ron Paul ran as a republican thats the only reason he got air time.

 

 

Do you believe the media does not spin the perception of these candidates. As long as they keep reporting that their "irrelevant" when they report about them, why would the american people care? Obama and McCain would both be done for if they had to enter a serious debate with Ralph Nader.

 

I'd venture to say more americans agree with the third party positions then they do with the democrats or republicans.

 

 

As for the McKinney ticket I agree, I think Clemente is a ridiculous choice. Hell they weren't even able to get federal matching funds (100,000 dollars must be raised across all fifty states prior to the election).

 

Nader is/has been running serious campaigns. If you don't know about Matt Gonzalez (Nader's VP) you should really look into him, its a shame there aren't more young politicians like him.

[jc4prez]

I'll buy it as soon as you can show me what politician or branch of the government is concerned that you didn't show up.

 

What did that non-vote get done?

 

What message did it send and who received it?

 

It might mean something to you, but to the rest of the country and how it will be run you are invisible by choice.

 

 

Both parties are very concerned with you not showing up. If only 50% comes out to vote that means they only really have to convince 10% tp 15% of the population they are the best candidate.

 

Disenfranchising voters is a big business in this country.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'll buy it as soon as you can show me what politician or branch of the government is concerned that you didn't show up.

What did that non-vote get done?

What message did it send and who received it?

It might mean something to you, but to the rest of the country and how it will be run you are invisible by choice.

 

I subscribe to this point-of-view as well. Not voting, when accompanied by no other activity, implies that you just don't give a rat's ass. And if you don't, then you shouldn't have anything to complain about. But if the people on the ticket are so horrible that a significant change is required for you to vote*, then goddam, don't wait for someone else to make that change for you! Whether it's something as simple as writing letters to the candidates, a letter to a newspaper/other media outlet, or championing a third-party candidate or write-in, if you care enough to *not* vote, you need to accompany that with a behavior that can distinguish it from the millions of other people who don't vote because they're apathetic.

 

And again, I'm not saying you need to devote hours to any of this - I don't work for any candidates I vote for - but if it takes me 20 minutes to go to the church, wait in line, get my name checked off, go to the booth and slid the ballot into the machine, you can write a flippin' 10-sentence letter explaining your objection to the election. And then you can complain for the next four years like the rest of us who voted.

 

If you want change and you don't do *something* for it, I don't want to hear your complaints.

 

* Can we really say that any major-ticket presidential candidates or presidents have ever been anything other than 'pretty moderate' or 'kinda conservative'?

[lost highway]

And for this reason many people on Capitol Hill might celebrate your non-vote.

 

edit: to JC4prez, but it looks funnier as a response to Speed Racer's idea of writing a note on the ballot....

[jc4prez]

A few-day lecture series on one of my political science courses, that I don't remember terribly well, showed that it is virtually impossible for a third party to succeed in American politics. France and other nations that operate on a coalition system can have a multi-party system, but our democracy is really set up to only support two parties at once. Neither the Dems or the Republicans are going to collapse any time soon, so you had better hold your horses on that.

 

Edit: Some scholars to back up the point (can't find the articles at the moment, just instances where I discussed them in papers...): Powell and Whitten (voter expectation/historical party alignment); Lijphart (mostly corporatism and consensus democracy stuff); Inglehart (voting behavior and political climate). There's a big name I'm missing, but there you go...

 

We have had third parties throughout our nations history, this is nothing new. What is new is the federal debate commission (a private corporation) which ultimately decides whose view points will be herd by the masses.

 

 

I subscribe to this point-of-view as well. Not voting, when accompanied by no other activity, implies that you just don't give a rat's ass. And if you don't, then you shouldn't have anything to complain about. But if the people on the ticket are so horrible that a significant change is required for you to vote*, then goddam, don't wait for someone else to make that change for you! Whether it's something as simple as writing letters to the candidates, a letter to a newspaper/other media outlet, or championing a third-party candidate or write-in, if you care enough to *not* vote, you need to accompany that with a behavior that can distinguish it from the millions of other people who don't vote because they're apathetic.

 

And again, I'm not saying you need to devote hours to any of this - I don't work for any candidates I vote for - but if it takes me 20 minutes to go to the church, wait in line, get my name checked off, go to the booth and slid the ballot into the machine, you can write a flippin' 10-sentence letter explaining your objection to the election. And then you can complain for the next four years like the rest of us who voted.

 

If you want change and you don't do *something* for it, I don't want to hear your complaints.

 

 

* Can we really say that any major-ticket presidential candidates or presidents have ever been anything other than 'pretty moderate' or 'kinda conservative'?

 

 

Letter writing isn't going to change these candidates. They are opposite wings of the same party that have been bought out by corporate interests.

 

I do agree though apathy doesn't fix anything, but then again neither does voting. Its to bad people think voting is the extent of democracy.

 

And for this reason many people on Capitol Hill might celebrate your non-vote.

 

edit: to JC4prez, but it looks funnier as a response to Speed Racer's idea of writing a note on the ballot....

 

 

I agreed thats why i have been working for ralph nader and plan on voting for him.

[lost highway]

I agreed thats why i have been working for ralph nader and plan on voting for him.

 

As I said to Beltmann: I absolutely relate to your decision and even admire it. My vote towards Nadar in 2000 is something I regret. I could see taking up the 3rd party effort again along side you one day, but first I need a little more peace and prosperity to fall back on here in the U.S. Godspeed!

[Guest Speed Racer]

We have had third parties throughout our nations history, this is nothing new.

 

Never been a 33/33/33 split though, and can't ever be. Third parties have always been significant minorities, and the only times they achieve majority status is when they overthrow and replace one of the two majority parties. Our system is such that we will always have only two dominant parties.

 

Letter writing isn't going to change this candidates. They are oppiste wings of the same party that have been bought out by corporate interests.

 

Well certainly not when you have the pen in hand.

 

All I'm saying is that a single vote is nothing more than a single voice. My voice in the booth isn't going to tip the scales any more than a letter to the editor on the first Tuesday in November. Therefore, if you're abstaining from voting because you want change, you had better do something of equal or greater effort as my vote for me to listen to your complaints about the system.

[lost highway]

All I'm saying is that a single vote is nothing more than a single voice. My voice in the booth isn't going to tip the scales any more than a letter to the editor on the first Tuesday in November. Therefore, if you're abstaining from voting because you want change, you had better do something of equal or greater effort as my vote for me to listen to your complaints about the system.

 

I like when people say the same thing I feel, only smarter.

[jc4prez]

Never been a 33/33/33 split though, and can't ever be. Third parties have always been significant minorities, and the only times they achieve majority status is when they overthrow and replace one of the two majority parties. Our system is such that we will always have only two dominant parties.

 

 

 

Well certainly not when you have the pen in hand.

 

All I'm saying is that a single vote is nothing more than a single voice. My voice in the booth isn't going to tip the scales any more than a letter to the editor on the first Tuesday in November. Therefore, if you're abstaining from voting because you want change, you had better do something of equal or greater effort as my vote for me to listen to your complaints about the system.

 

I agree 100%, although i believe it is the duty of all citizens to do more then vote.

 

As for third parties, its time we have a new leftist party in this country. This election should have been a cake walk, instead its a war. Had the democrats actually picked up on any progressive issues maybe we wouldn't see this back and forth in the polls.

 

I still don't understand why you believe are democracy can't handle more then 2 parties.

[jc4prez]

[quote name='Speed Racer' d

[Guest Speed Racer]

I still don't understand why you believe are democracy can't handle more then 2 parties.

 

I gave you the names of scholars that have devoted their careers to this topic. It's a simple fact that our system can't support more than two dominant parties. If you're interested in knowing why this is true, read up on it. Like I said, I can't remember the ins and outs of the argument, but non-coalition systems (like ours) cannot support a major multi-party system.

 

***

 

I disagree that it is the 'duty' of citizens to do more than vote. The Constitutional bare-minimum option (optional! not mandatory) for government participation is voting, and I personally hold that as my bare-minimum to have a conversation with people about politics (that is: you don't vote, I don't listen to your complaints). However, I do believe personally that it is beneficial (to person and community) for citizens to do more than vote; I prefer to participate in my community on a neighborhood/local level, but I don't really care what you do to participate.

 

That being said, I would never agree that someone who participates by doing more than voting should have a greater say in a discussion than someone who only votes. Again, that is a personal preference.

[Party @ the Moontower]

if you're abstaining from voting because you want change, you had better do something of equal or greater effort as my vote for me to listen to your complaints about the system.

 

 

Excellent point Speed Racer

 

And again, to the non-voter, what about your state and local elections? Is there anyone worthy of a vote anywhere to you?

[Lammycat]

Excellent point Speed Racer

 

And again, to the non-voter, what about your state and local elections? Is there anyone worthy of a vote anywhere to you?

Yep.

 

What's more democratic than having the ability/choice to abstain from partaking in a system you believe is a failure through and through? I am not trying to be a contrarian or throw bullshit out, though it may seem so to some, but opting not to cast a "voice' for shit you don't believe in doesn't mean you have no say in the matter. Why is that so hard to grasp? It's all about choices, anyway.

 

Telling someone that they should shut their mouth if they don't vote for one of two people is democracy? Come on.