The new Primary Thread

[Ramo]

Yet couldn't be bothered to put his words into action?

What action? Adding a vote to a landslide defeat instead of building up your underdog campaign? You might want to check out how many votes McCain has missed...

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war,...

... he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...f_iraq_funding/

The date of that article is 3/22/07. Serious efforts to stop funding the war only came later in the year.

[Ramo]

And not surprisingly, McCain also missed Kyl-Liberman...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean in the last ~8 months when he was really gearing up for the Presidency run?

[Ramo]

I'm not sure what your point is (or more to the point, you clearly don't know what mine was)...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see Clinton winning the nomination and losing the election since her strong areas are union hacks, soccer moms, and grandmothers. All of whom already vote so no new votes to be won there.

Um... all she'd need is Kerry's states plus Ohio, where the Republican Party has been eviserated by scandel. Basically same type of voters, but throw in Republican incompetance.

[snoopy369]

The question is, what voters would she lose because of her gender, and perhaps her personality?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean compared to Kerry's wonderful personality?

[snoopy369]

Kerry was boring. Many think that Hillary is a *****, and that's less socially acceptable than it would be for a man ...

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Kerry was boring. Many think that Hillary is a *****, and that's less socially acceptable than it would be for a man ...

QFT

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the Dems have botched it yet again. In a year when they have the momentum, their nominee is going to be one of two very polarizing candidates. Lots of people absolutely hate robo-hillary and they mistrust osama-obama for some combination of his name, heritage, cockiness, or inexperience. I think if Gore or Kerry was the nominee this time, it'd be a walk -- boring or not.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wezil


I challenged you on this nonsense before and you chose not to respond.

The Dems do not "own" anyone's vote - they must earn it. If they fail to do so this is their fault not Nader's.

Look, if a far leftist wants to go out and vote far left then fair enough but I get tired of their endless whining when we get people like Bush as a result. That kind of all or nothing extremism usually results in nothing winning.

[Barnabas]

Two questions

1)
A)Are there democrats who voted against the Iraq War?
B)If they exist, why arent they candidates?

2)If the republicans win again with less votes than the democrats (like when Bush defeated Gore) Could the electoral system be changed? (or at least would there be a serious debate about it?)

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed. Those who want to canonize Obama should realize he's just as much a politician as the rest of them... fearful of voting against bills that may hurt future electability.

Right, I'm not an especially strong Obama supporter, but I don't want another Clinton presidency so there's not much of another choice at this point. That Obama generally seems to show good judgement is a definite plus though...

Also considering who you (Imran) backed in 2000 and for what reasons I'm am pretty happy that we're disagreeing about this

[Alexander I]

And what would Bill Clinton really want his role to be during his wife's administration? I sense some potential conflict there; Hillary wanting to assert herself and Bill wanting a 3rd term...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Two questions

1)
A)Are there democrats who voted against the Iraq War?
B)If they exist, why arent they candidates?

2)If the republicans win again with less votes than the democrats (like when Bush defeated Gore) Could the electoral system be changed? (or at least would there be a serious debate about it?)

My Congressman, Xavier Bercerra, voted against the war. Next time I see him, I'll ask him why he's not running.

It'll be almost impossible to change the Electoral College. It favors the rurual states, which are the majority of states. And to amend the Constitution, 75% of the States have to vote to ratify. They'll never vote to weaken their own political power.

[snoopy369]

2)If the republicans win again with less votes than the democrats (like when Bush defeated Gore) Could the electoral system be changed? (or at least would there be a serious debate about it?)

Another conversation about this is apparently necessary

The electoral system exists for the purpose of allowing, occasionally, presidents who do not win the popular vote in the entire country to win. This is not precisely true, but it gets the message across.

The Electoral College exists for the (real) purpose of giving each state a meaningful say in the election of the President, that is not exclusively connected to the population. Just like the Senate exists to give states that are less populous a say in our government, so does the electoral college for the president.

Having each state independently determine its votes for the President, and then taking those votes and tallying up the presidential election, means that states like New Mexico suddenly become relevant, because of its five or six electoral votes (should be 6 at some point soon, I think - maybe 2010 census?).

If it were strictly national popular vote, then who would care about the ~10,000 votes that differentiate NM being a blue state from a red? Nobody... everyone would campaign in CA, TX, NY, and a few other states, trying to sway voters their way, and NM, AZ, WY, and other less populous states would be irrelevant.

Ultimately, it is that the US is (still) a federal system, to at least a minimal extent, where every state gets a say in federal governance. This is not a bad thing, and the fact that occasionally a president might be elected by slightly less than a majority does not change this.

Besides, there's absolutely no chance (thank god!) that any amendment on this nature would pass - 3/4 of the states would need to ratify it, and there are quite a few states that would lose power by doing so.