The end is near!

[bobbob1313]

I'm a firm believer in the economy's ability to right itself, if we can avoid panic. Unfortunately, at the first sign of trouble, people panic. And then they yell at the government to fix it. Because things always have to go up!

 

But things naturally go down. And then they right themselves and go back up better than ever. That's how it's supposed to work, but we throw a trillion dollars of tax payer money at the economy as a hail mary to try to save themselves. And then when the economy naturally goes back up in a few years, people forget about it.

 

can you use your crystal ball to tell me if the cubs will ever win the series and if i'll ever get my boys potty-trained?

 

The sarcasm bit is only funny when I'm not the victim of it, damnit!

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I'm secretly hoping this happens:

 

Obama wins and is an abject failure.

 

His victory splinters the republican party into the religious right and the Ron Paul right.

 

Obama's failure splits the democrats into a far left party and a centrist party.

 

 

Change we can believe in!

We already have these factions (and more). They operate under the big tent of each party because they want to govern.

[Winston Legthigh]

The two party system thrives because of the Electoral College. We have to get rid of that before we have any expectations of Other Parties gaining a foothold.

[bjorn_skurj]

The two party system thrives because of the Electoral College. We have to get rid of that before we have any expectations of Other Parties gaining a foothold.

Good luck, man. Any state that is not Califorrnia or Florida will never ever vote to have that repealed.

[LouieB]

Good luck, man. Any state that is not Califorrnia or Florida will never ever vote to have that repealed.

I would have to say I don't think too many states want it repealed since any state, even small ones, like the idea that they can be in play.

 

LouieB

[Moe_Syzlak]

Of course saying what is politically expedient is not the exclusive domain of either party or candidate, but still this is funny stuff:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSWKVt9Zxc

[LouieB]

Of course saying what is politically expedient is not the exclusive domain of either party or candidate, but still this is funny stuff:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSWKVt9Zxc

We are all Socialists now....

 

LouieB

[lizish]

 

Hello this is a Robo Call from Rudi Guiliani.

 

That "liberal" Barack Obama, and his liberal friends in congress, want new laws to let the liberal judges decide the fate of violent murderers, rapists, and drug dealers rather than have to use mandatory sentences. Oh, and that we just can't trust the inexperience of that liberal, Barack Obama.

 

This has been a another in a series of annoying robo-calls from Rudi Guiliani.

[bleedorange]

The two party system thrives because of the Electoral College. We have to get rid of that before we have any expectations of Other Parties gaining a foothold.

 

 

I would have to say I don't think too many states want it repealed since any state, even small ones, like the idea that they can be in play.

 

LouieB

 

 

I guess it's easy to forget that this country is the United States of America.

[LouieB]

I guess it's easy to forget that this country is the United States of America.

or maybe it is currently hard to believe this is the United States of America. Somewhere along the line it became the Red and Blue States of America instead....

 

LouieB

[Moe_Syzlak]

I guess it's easy to forget that this country is the United States of America.

I don't really see how the electoral college better represents states. It may allow for better representation of rural areas vs. urban population centers, but that too is debatable. Here is a graph representing campaign stops (left) and money spent (right) by Kerry and Bush in the final weeks of the '04 election:

 

 

That doesn't seem to fairly represent all states to me.

[Winston Legthigh]

I don't really see how the electoral college better represents states.

Because first a candidate must win a given state. It's not a national election - it's 50 mini-elections.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Because first a candidate must win a given state. It's not a national election - it's 50 mini-elections.

Right, but how does that BETTER represent all states? A candidate will concentrate on winnable areas with more votes whether they be electoral or popular, no?

[gogo]

I like those "campaign stops" in California. No money spent there, just a ton of it picked up...

[Winston Legthigh]

Right, but how does that BETTER represent all states? A candidate will concentrate on winnable areas with more votes whether they be electoral or popular, no?

Well, I guess I'm saying that if you take away the 50-mini elections, the individual states have no say at all.

[Sir Stewart]

Just watched Nancy Pfotenhauer on Hardball trying to defend Palin's statement that the veep is in charge of the Senate. I felt slightly sorry for her.

Did she know what she was getting herself into when she signed onto this campaign?

[Moe_Syzlak]

Well, I guess I'm saying that if you take away the 50-mini elections, the individual states have no say at all.

And I'm asking how it would be less of a say than they have now.

[Wendy]

Just watched Nancy Pfotenhauer on Hardball trying to defend Palin's statement that the veep is in charge of the Senate. I felt slightly sorry for her.

Did she know what she was getting herself into when she signed onto this campaign?

I saw that, too. Chris Mathews was pretty relentless, but he has a point and she has really nothing to defend. Sad. But yeah, I'll bet she had no idea it was gonna be this bad.

[Winston Legthigh]

And I'm asking how it would be less of a say than they have now.

Ok - under the current system, all of Wyoming's votes are up for grabs, winner take all. That creates the impetus for a candidate to campaign in Wyoming. Granted, your map shows that no dollars were spent, nor campaign stops made, in the final two weeks of the campaign, but I'm assuming that SOME money and stops were made there at some point during the election. (and if not, perhaps polls showed it locked in Red, making it not viable to bother campaigning) Without the Electoral College system, Wyoming would be even less of a factor because of its low population and lack of urban areas.

[sweetheart-mine]

Just watched Nancy Pfotenhauer on Hardball trying to defend Palin's statement that the veep is in charge of the Senate. I felt slightly sorry for her.

Did she know what she was getting herself into when she signed onto this campaign?

 

i don't feel sorry for her at all. it's her job, of course, to defend anything the campaign does/says no matter how ridiculous, but she has often done it with a sort of condescending snottiness that makes me want to gently land a pie in her face.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Ok - under the current system, all of Wyoming's votes are up for grabs, winner take all. That creates the impetus for a candidate to campaign in Wyoming. Granted, your map shows that no dollars were spent, nor campaign stops made, in the final two weeks of the campaign, but I'm assuming that SOME money and stops were made there at some point during the election. (and if not, perhaps polls showed it locked in Red, making it not viable to bother campaigning) Without the Electoral College system, Wyoming would be even less of a factor because of its low population and lack of urban areas.

Okay, but I guess my point is I don't think they pay much attention anyway. I look at it like House of Reps vs. Senate. If you really wanted all the states represented, you would have an equal number of electoral votes for each state regardless of population. As it stands now, an issue that is important to the people of Chicago is going to get more attention from the candidates than an issue that is important to the people of WY. Chicago gets no electoral votes specifically, but being attentive to them will likely result in more electoral success than being attentive to the people of WY. If you do away with the electoral college, that doesn't really change that.

 

Oh, by the way, that map represents the last 5 weeks of the '04 campaign, not the last two.

[sweetheart-mine]

i'd love to see the death of the two-party system as well, but what i'd really like to see would be these 'alternative' parties really take the time to legitimately build their respective fifedoms into viable entities via more focus on state and local...versus throwing a guy in the presidential race every four years or bobob's plan of building one on the back of further economic ruin, thanks.

 

you're right, that's exactly what they need to do. take the green party, for example. in '04 they made a concerted effort to run candidates for the state legislature in maine, and they did successfully convince 23 people to run as reps for their districts (my husband, about the most unnatural politician you'd ever meet, was one of them, what a nightmare). that was a great beginning, considering we'd had only one green party member in the legislature up to '04. but very soon the campaigns started falling apart. the people running them were hopelessly disorganized, with not only different districts having their own various agendas but also individuals within districts, even tiny ones like ours. they couldn't hold a decent meeting to save their lives. it was kind of hilarious sometimes, but the end result was that no one new from the green party was elected. my husband got 12% of the vote, and some others did unexpectedly well in their districts, so you'd think there was something to build on there. party workers were worn out from it, though, and to this day just wander around doing their own thing but saying they're from the green party and talking at people if they can find someone to listen. it's kind of sad. some kind of stamina and enduring platform was missing.

[owl]

Y'all's peoples eat oatmeal?

[Sir Stewart]

i don't feel sorry for her at all. it's her job, of course, to defend anything the campaign does/says no matter how ridiculous, but she has often done it with a sort of condescending snottiness that makes me want to gently land a pie in her face.

 

That's what I wanted to hear.

[LouieB]

you're right, that's exactly what they need to do. take the green party, for example. ..... some kind of stamina and enduring platform was missing.

The Green Party in IL ran someone for governor (my daughters roommates father in fact) and he got 10% of the vote due to a very bad choice by both parties....(everyone from IL knows who I am talking about...) And a third party like the Greens will get some votes in any election and their platform may have some good points, but frankly organization is NOT the Green's strength at all. They are pretty much a disorganized mess as far as I can tell (mostly white men too..) and when they had their convention here this year(national maybe) they had to borrow money. Contrast that to Barack's campaign that is swimming in money (some of it mine) and an organization to beat the band. Eight years ago when Nader was the candidate and everyone thought maybe this was the time for a third party to finally get off the ground, nothing happened. So while the Green Party (or any third party) is a wonderful pipe dream (I take a drag from time to time...) it hasn't materialized in recent years and probably won't because the Greens are too disorganized to get anything done.

 

For example when the Greens ran Rich Whitney in IL, I went to his campaign headquarters In Carbondale (his hometown and his base) and the office was closed in the evening just weeks before the election (which he eventually did get 10% in). So little was going on that the office didn't even have anything going on in the evening..nada....zilch, so I couldn't get a sign for my yard. So despite my support, in the past, I see no future for a party that can't afford to hold a convention or staff an office with volunteers into the evening hours when people could actually come by and get some material or help volunteer. Pathetic is more like it.

 

LouieB