Pennsylvania Primary: To the Bitter End?

[b etor]

really? cool

[BeBMan]

So can you go to the pub during your work hours and tell the boss voting took longer than expected?

[Wezil]

There are some restrictions. The maximum is two hours iirc.

edit - It wasn't too many years ago that "pubs" were required by law to close on election day in Ontario.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


So what's your excuse?

You make no sense. You just throw the word "electable" around like it means something in an argument. People were saying OH MY GOD Bush stumbles when he speaks so he's unelectable. It means nothing. Anyone with as much support as Obama or Hillary is electable in this country, it's not Stalin's doghouse.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


You make no sense. You just throw the word "electable" around like it means something in an argument. People were saying OH MY GOD Bush stumbles when he speaks so he's unelectable. It means nothing. Anyone with as much support as Obama or Hillary is electable in this country, it's not Stalin's doghouse.

Electabilty is a fairly normal point to use when discussing primary elections.

Perhaps you could add to the discussion and explain why I'm wrong about Obama?

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Agathon



Why people believe in democracy is beyond me. I mean it works in smaller countries like Sweden and New Zealand, and works quite well in Canada. But it's an absolute joke in the US and UK and many other countries.

People like democracy because if the ruler is bad, you only have to tolerate him for 4 years. Then you get a new one.

[Gatekeeper]

I, too, am with Imran and Arrian: The general presidential election in November is going to be quite a close affair.

Looking at the national Democratic Party right now, all I can do is shake my head and think, "God, they always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

It's amazing how the Democrats have taken a potentially historic gift — a woman and an African-American running for the office of U.S. president — and turned it into a bitter, party-tearing affair. Hell, the last I heard, nearly half of Clinton's supporters were saying they'd stay home and not vote in November is she wasn't the party's presidential candidate (a smaller percentage of Obama supporters expressed the same sentiments). Add to that mix the increasingly negative tone in the primary campaign — most of which has been initiated by Clinton and her supporters — and you're starting to brew up a recipe for disaster come November, at least at the presidential level.

As a former moderate Republican and current independent, I can't help but think that, with such small-mindedness and provincialism, the Democrats *deserve* to lose the presidency to John McCain. I mean, my God, you've got "x" number of Clinton/Obama backers saying they're essentially going to sit on the butts and pout at home if their horse doesn't get the nod. With that sort of attitude ... well, let's just say it's noticeable to those outside the Democratic Party — namely, moderate Republicans and, more importantly, independents. IOW, men and women whose votes, originally, might have gone to the Democrats could now very well go to McCain. Why? Because I feel those folks (and I'm probably one of them) are simply *disgusted* with elements of the Democratic Party right now for squandering such a historic moment.

**shrug** It's only April. Maybe things will change for the better in the coming weeks and months for the Democrats. Frankly, I'm not too hopeful. But if they really want to win in November, the Democrats will have to reduce their incessant backbiting and form something of a coherent front to take on McCain and the Republicans.

If they don't, they could very well lose more than just the presidency.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Barnabas

People like democracy because if the ruler is bad, you only have to tolerate him for 4 years. Then you get a new one.

Yes, who then proceeds to do exactly the same thing you threw the bad ruler out for.

See how it works?

It's OK if you're living in a country that has no great wealth or industry. Democracy works fine in such cases. That's because the flies tend to swarm around the giant cow turds and leave the rest of the field alone.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Because, for all the faults of the people (and they are many), the faults of despots, aristocrats, oligarchs, etc. have displayed themselves to be worse.

At the time people thought these were enlightened forms of government. We're no different. We're just at that stage of history where our style of democracy is causing bad **** to happen. We've just been brainwashed into accepting it as normal, just as people were once brainwashed into accepting kingship as normal.

I'm not trolling. I don't believe that democracy works outside a few smaller countries, where it has had limited success. Canada is one of the better ones, as are some of the European nations. But even then it is pretty hopeless at dealing with many of our problems.

As for alternatives, there may well not be any. That just means that we're pretty much ****ed (which need not be that bad, as we're pretty awful really). People just don't want to explore that hypothesis, because they're pussies.

[Deity Dude]

Back to the topic of the PA Primary.

According to CBS News Hillary's "big win" was only 9. Thats like being down 30 points at the end of 3 quarters and claiming that winning the 4th quarter by 2 points is somehow a "big win". It is far better, however, than some of her other "big wins"

Texas lost 3 delgates
Nevada lost 1 delegate
NH broke even

At least this time she did win.

[David Floyd]

Agathon, I actually agree with you that democracy doesn't really work. But I also think that democracy, by which I mean voting, should be irrelevant. What I mean is, the Constitution should be so strong, and so restrictive, of federal powers that whoever we elect to Congress and the Presidency don't really have the power to pander to the masses of retards - oh, 80% want universal health care, to be funded by the other 20%? Well, so sorry, but the federal government doesn't have the power to pass wealth transfer programs like that into law.

Actually, we have such a Constitution. It's a shame it doesn't get followed very often. If it did, then frankly, we wouldn't even be having this debate, because McCain, Hillary, and especially Obama's campaign promises would be basically irrelevant.