The 2004 American Presidential Election

[Q Classic]

in over 200 years, we've had one catholic. catholics are quite a large fraction of the population, as well.

jfk's catholicism didn't factor as much because a) he was going against nixon, b) he flat out said he wouldn't listen to the pope if a conflict arose, c) he was young, charming, and hip, d) he was also at a time of great change--for a more liberal viewpoint.

clark's going against bush, who is a thousand times more charismatic than nixon (well, who wouldn't be, 'cept maybe dukakis or gore?), hasn't said b) (he should--like machiavelli says, a leader should be prepared to go to hell for his country), and c) has far too thin skin, i wager, to really last, unless he develops a shell fast.
there's also a great change...but it seems to be shifting more conservative rather than liberal.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why should a minority get to decide the President of the whole United States?

Because the constitution says so?

This country is a democratic republic. It's desiged to protect both the will of the majority from the few and the will of the minority from mob rule.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
The fact that you feel that the leader of a nation should be determined by a large number of people in isolated areas...

Do I think the leader of the nation should be determined by a majority f the people in the country?


YES!!!!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Because the constitution says so?

That's not an argument against changing the Constitution. It's a ethical question, not a legal one.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
Powell's wife says she'd divorce him if he runs... I doubt he will risk his marriage.

I think he would make a good president, I hope that in 2008 things change.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I think he would make a good president, I hope that in 2008 things change.

The ultra-conservative wing of Republican Party would never stand for Powell. Just look at how they think of Arnie.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do I think the leader of the nation should be determined by a majority f the people in the country?


YES!!!!!!

Most of the time the person with most votes in total does win. There has only been a couple of times when this has not happen. Bush is not the only example of a President winning the Electoral Collage vote but loses the popular vote.

[Japher]

Three Words why I support the electorial college:

Regional Information Shock

--

It's why we have towns, cities, districts, counties, and state... Because I don't want San Francisco telling New York how to behave anymore than I want advice Florida on how to conduct a election. Similarly, I would never vote for a President that would say "if elected I will give everyone living in a major metropolis tax deductions"...

more to come I need a smoke

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do I think the leader of the nation should be determined by a majority f the people in the country?


YES!!!!!!

Then we'd have no President because a majority of the people don't vote.

Hmmm... maybe that's not such a bad idea.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Three Words why I support the electorial college:

Regional Information Shock

I understand that sentiment, which is why I'm curious as to why you support a system which actually encourages this as opposed to a popular system.

As it is now, a candidate only needs win majorities in a handful of key states, rather than seek every vote he can get anywhere in the country. When was the last time a candidate campagined in Hawaii or Alaska or Wyoming? Right now they spend all their time going after the big ten states which have half the population in the U.S. The other half of the country is treated like red-headed step-children.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan


Then we'd have no President because a majority of the people don't vote.

Hmmm... maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Now you're catching on.

[Timexwatch]

Re: The 2004 American Presidential Election

Originally posted by Oerdin
So I was watching MSNBC today and it showed Bush's current approval ratings are 50% with 47% disapproving and 3% don't know/don't care. To compare at this time back in the 1992 elections Bush Sr. held around a 60% approval rating and he still lost. So what do you folks think, have the Democratic candidates drawn blood and is Bush vulnerable?

Also the polls right now are showing Bush getting beat in theoretical match ups with either Kerry or Clark but winning if it's Dean he's running against. Clearly, the America population likes Kerry and Clark (though I think Clark has gotten a short-term boost because he's the new guy. Once that wears off Clark's numbers most likely won't be so high.) but doesn't like Dean. The really sad part is the Democratic party's base is left wing voters so it's likely Dean will get the nomination, because he's the left most candidate running, meaning we're going to get stuck with Bush for another four years.

The polls are absolutely irrelevant at this point. These network polls and the like have no bearing because about 50% of the population does not vote in the first place. How many of these respondents will actually make it to the polls?

All the Democratic candidates at this point look good because nobody is really paying attention except for the activists and the like. How many rank and file voters can articulate a discernable difference between the candidates aside from the fact that Kerry is called a war hero, Dean's an outsider and Liberman's a Jew? I expect the numbers to change moderately one way or the other after the first few primaries and radically when the Democrats start realizing that Dean is organized and crazy enough to possibly get the nomination.

A Dean Presidential campaign with the reluctant support of the party leadership would be, IMHO, the worst thing to happen to the party in a long time.

[Japher]

The thing I hate about California is that so little attention is given to our biggest industry (Ag) and is instead given to industry and hollywood. We elect stupid democratic governors because the "majority" of the people live in LA or SF and that is all they really care about. My water, my food, my job, my movies, and they never really concern themselves with the fact that their water, their food, their jobs, and their movies are coming from the places where they sheit on (well not really the movies, but anyway)...

Pete Wilson at least had the respect for farmers (which are dwindling in numbers) to give them what they needed. Yet, because a majority of the people in California live in two cities, the rest are going to be ignored?

Ag will slowly fade out of California as the manufacturing industry creeps into the corridors into the valley (i.e. Vacaville, Fairfeild, Gilroy, Bakersfeild). Food production will drop and not only will the state starve but so will the world. Why? Because the governor is elected by popular vote, and popular vote does not guarentee social welfare and well-being, it only guarentees selfishness.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
popular vote does not guarentee social welfare and well-being, it only guarentees selfishness.

So you're opposed to democracy? That's unAmerican.

Anyway, the governor doesn't make the laws, he executes them. The state legislature makes the laws, and they come from all over the state.

All states are agricultural states. In all states, Ag is diminishing in the amount of land it is using (while becoming ever more productive on less land). Plus, if the market has a better use for the land, as a supporter of capitalism, why don't you see this as a better use?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
Bush will lose... there's no doubt in my mind. It's just a question of who will beat him.

Man I can remember a year ago when Gov. Grey Davis won election where 70% of the population hated his guts simply because the other party couldn't get their act together. If Davis can out smear his opposition then I suspect Bush will be able to smear a flip flopper like Dean in no time.