Interesting points, Rodimus!  I think the religious right is probably -- probably -- not stupid enough to run a third-party candidate.  They know who it would ultimately help, and as much as they dislike Giuliani, they dislike Clinton much, much more.  They are, after all, still largely Republicans.

I don't know if they have to create a third party to hand the election to the Democrat, though.  It's been shown, I think, that turnout is much higher when people are voting in order to help a candidate win, rather than ensure that another candidate doesn't win.  (Think of 2004.  Democratic turnout was on the high side because Democrats hated Bush, but Republican turnout was even higher because Republicans loved Bush.)  Right now, much of the Republican base has no one to get behind.  That means they won't go to the polls.  Of course, if they can be persuaded to hate Hillary enough, they might go anyway, and the GOP is already taking steps in that direction with entire debates about how to beat Hillary and using the threat of a Clinton presidency to solicit funds. 

I think that Obama, if nominated, can't lose.  The question on most Democrats' minds is, what the hell would he do with the Oval Office if he won?

EDITED TO ADD: It occurs to me that it's very, very likely that Brownback, Huckabee, or another devout Baptist is going to get the vice-presidential nod from the eventual Republican nominee.

Last edited by satyreyes (10-24-2007 08:04:13 PM)

Giovanna wrote:

satyreyes wrote:

I think that Obama, if nominated, can't lose.  The question on most Democrats' minds is, what the hell would he do with the Oval Office if he won?

I don't know, he strikes me as all the trustyhappypolitik smile of the old Clinton with none of the intelligence and necessary deviousness backing it up. I just get the impression he's an opportunist with a clever advisor that saw an opening for someone who would otherwise not have a chance. Has he really given us anything of substance concerning what he'd do in office?

Exactly!  What would he do with the Oval Office if he won?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll … on%2C_2008

Woot, go Ron Paul.  It's a shame national media tries their best to pretend he doesn't exist let alone mention he's winning in the polls.  Candidates who know the Constitution and the current state of the country without glossing it over are bad.

Last edited by Scortia (12-03-2007 09:50:17 PM)

So here's a question.  Given that the Democratic Party (it is just them, right?) has stripped Michigan of all of its delegates to the National Convention, what does that mean for the results of Michigan's primary?  I'm not sure exactly how the selection of the nominee for a party works.  Is it a sort of electoral college and each states' delegates cast a vote?  Or is this all merely a "Bad you," slap on the wrist sort of thing?

Regardless, that has me extremely pissed off.  Heaven forbid other states want to, I don't know, have any input into the selection process...   By the time Indiana rolls around, it'll all be decided most likely, or anyone the majority of our state might have wanted to vote for is long gone.  I hate this damn system.

C'mon folks, the gold standard? Is he serious?

As for the primaries, the current system works something like this: Each party makes their own rules at the national level. The states either follow these rules, or the party might punish them if they don't. The important thing to remember is that these rules are not made by any actual governing body, but by the party leadership. The caucases and primaries are not actual elections, which means that the parties can do as they please. If they decide not to regard Michigan's input, there's really nothing anyone can do about it. The reason that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have early primaries is theoretically that this forces candidates to consider these smallish states, when otherwise they'd be ignored. In reality, there's nothing at all that prevents anyone from simply bribing the party leadership to do whatever, since it's not an official election anyway.

Yeah, kind of creepy that these things have such a huge impact on the actual elections, but that's a consequence of our despicable two-party system. George Washington was right!

FYI, regarding constitutional knowledge, Barack Obama's day job, when he wasn't a politician, was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school. Just saying.

Well... it's true that Indiana's May 6 primary means that the nomination will usually be decided by the time you guys are up.  The flip side is that if it's not yet decided, you will be showered with attention normally reserved for terrorist attacks and Paris Hilton.

It's also true that the parties don't have to listen to what the voters want; at the convention they could theoretically ignore the will of the voters and nominate Chuck Norris for president.  But I think it's time for another civics lesson here.

Civics lesson the first!  In the general election in November, nothing binds the members of the Electoral College to vote the way their state did either.  The occasional "faithless elector," who votes for the wrong guy or who abstains as a form of protest, is a fact of life, but this has never changed the outcome of an election.

Civics lesson the second!  Here's what the Constitution has to say about the general election.

James "Author of the Constitution" Madison wrote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .
--Article II, Section 1

Whoa, hang on!  Notice anything missing here?  Like any reference to a general election?  Yeah!  There's nothing in the Constitution that says that states have to hold elections at all!  If the states wanted to, they could rewrite their own constitutions to say that the legislators got to throw darts at the wall to determine who the state would back as president.  Or maybe there could be a duel between the head of each party in the state congress.

So in summary, we have no legal right to pick a nominee, no Constitutional right to pick a president, and no legal way to ensure that our pick for president is respected.  You can't really blame the Founding Fathers on this one; no one had ever tried democracy before.  They were terrified the whole thing would fall apart if the people were given direct control over -- well, over just about anything.  But amazingly -- amazingly! -- we haven't fallen apart, at least not yet, in spite of government's increasing democratization.  The people's will is generally respected, and the system generally works.  I'm totally with you that some reform might be a good idea, but let's be fair: how broken can the system be if it has survived this long?

Last edited by satyreyes (12-04-2007 10:56:30 AM)

satyreyes wrote:

Well... it's true that Indiana's May 6 primary means that the nomination will usually be decided by the time you guys are up.  The flip side is that if it's not yet decided, you will be showered with attention normally reserved for terrorist attacks and Paris Hilton.

This is the most awesome line ever.

And you make numerous good points about the Constitution there.

If that happens, I'm moving in with Yasha. For four years. Maybe eight. I don't know for sure.

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow.  Here's your pregame.

Most recent polls show the front-runners for each party in a statistical tie: Romney and Huckabee for the Republicans, and Clinton and Obama for the Democrats, with Edwards close behind.  With the polls this close and these caucuses so notoriously unpredictable, don't trust anyone who tells you they know what's going to happen in Iowa tomorrow.

Don't trust the entrance polls, either.  Tomorrow evening there's going to be a lot of noise about early results.  These results might be approximately accurate for the Republicans, whose caucus is really more like a primary; they fill out a ballot, drop it in a box, and count 'em up.  The Democrats, however, are an entirely different kettle of fish.  They gather in large rooms, take a show of hands, eliminate the candidates with less than 15% support, then assign each remaining candidate a corner of the room.  You stand in the corner for your candidate and try to convince your neighbors and any undecided voters to stand there with you.  That means that you can change your mind till the last minute, and if your first choice is eliminated your second choice matters.

What does this mean?  Well, it turns out that a large majority of the Democrats whose first choice will be eliminated -- supporters of Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, Richardson -- have Obama or especially Edwards as their second choice.  That means that the entrance poll numbers might get Hillary Clinton's support about right, but they'll understate support for those two candidates.  If you hate Hillary and she's way behind in the entrance polls, go ahead and pop the champagne; if you love Hillary and she's way ahead in the entrance polls, save the champagne for tomorrow, or for New Hampshire, or for Florida.  (If Hillary loses Florida, you might want to go ahead and switch sides.)

If you are an Iowan and have a shadow of an opinion, get out there and vote!  Turnout in Iowa is historically about 6%.  No, I didn't forget the zero; about six in one hundred Iowans show up for the caucuses.  In some rural districts the outcome is determined by the only person to show up; in others, no one shows up.  If four people show up and two people end up on each side of the room, sometimes they flip a coin to decide the winner.  This is madness!  No -- this is democracy!  Do your part!

Hmm... I was going to watch Good Morning America to see something on the Iowa bit, but I myself am a bit Obama supporter. I say make Obama prez and make Hillary Vice-Prez. On the system of America, I hate it too. It is better than say "Communist" States.

On the ignorance of most Americans, ask any what a State is. I will bet 90% won't mention that it's a word for a country. Most have no idea what Colombus was really on about, either.

"A People's History of the United States... now that's a history book."

Most American History teaches that many villains were really quite upright men unless it's Hitler then it's AHH TEH EVIL!!" America sucks. I know, I know. It's not as if I could fly to Italy tomorrow, passport in hand. Nope it's worst:

For those applying today for a passport on their own won't see it for at least two and a half years-on average. Forget about flying to Jamaica, let alone Venice.

For Florida? I can't be surprised Giuliani has the top word for the Republicans. Hillary isn't too big a shock either, I'd really be surprised if Obama got anything out of Florida if (as I should think he would) he's counting on the black vote. Black people in Florida are notorious for not voting, and the groups that do, if they are dems, are Hillary fans.

I'm kinda bummed I have no voice at all in the primaries in Florida, I'm unaffiliated and it's a miserable train wreck this year anyway. We'll see what happens. Part of me would really love some surprises, just because the system needs to get shaken up a little to remind the doubters that it's still remotely in their hands. A lot of people, myself included, just kinda toss this whole thing, feeling like it doesn't matter. The only thing that'll change that is if we prove ourselves wrong.

I'm actually watching the Iowa caucuses now on CNN. (They're also streaming the actual headcounting on their site.) 

This is incredibly fascinating. I didn't think they stood there and physically took a headcount and moved people around. No wonder they do this is Iowa and New Hampshire, you can't do it anywhere larger. Well, you can, but it would take FOREVER.

I also like the strategic aspect of this for the Democrats. One of the reporters said it would be smart if there was a candidate who was a handful of votes away from the magical 15% to bargain with one of the larger candidates. "Give me a few of your people. If you don't, and we don't get the 15%, then we'll go to that guy over there."

Well, I'm just watching it on my TV. CNN.com is probably going to be your best bet for a website, though.

As of 8:06pm CST, with 25% reporting, Huckabee has 35%, Romney has 24%, Thompson has 14%, and McCain is at 12% ,