In the Rose Garden / Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

satyreyes · Back to Top

Thread title stolen from Jon Stewart. Thanks, Jon!

A little while ago I wrote a fun guide to American geography for non-Americans in the IRGeography thread. In the same spirit, I'd like to present:

The Satyr's Guide To The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
For Non-Americans, Bad Americans, And Folks Who Just Need A Civics Lesson

How does America pick a president? That depends who you ask. If you ask ultra-liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, he will probably say that America picks the richest white male who wants the job. If you ask arch-conservative pundit Ann Coulter, she will probably say that America picks whoever the liberal media tells them to pick. If you ask a civics textbook, though, it will say that the president is picked in a "general election" held in early November of years divisible by four. All of America's registered voters who feel like it go to a polling place and vote for the guy they want to be the next president. The winner is usually known by the end of the evening.

And whoever gets the most votes wins? Oh heavens no, that would be too easy! America uses an "Electoral College" to parcel out "electoral votes" to the states. For instance, Florida has 27 electoral votes. Whichever candidate gets more people's votes (or "popular votes") in Florida wins all 27 of those electoral votes. The candidate that accumulates a majority of electoral votes wins the election. It's questionable whether the Electoral College is a good idea in today's America, and debates on the subject flare up periodically.

Who gets to be on the ballot? Well, America has two major political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Each party puts exactly one candidate on the general election ballot. The parties pick their candidates in a series of state-by-state "primary elections" held earlier in the election year, and formally declare ("nominate") their champion in the summer preceding the election. It's also possible for "third-party candidates," also called "minor-party candidates," "independents," or "hopeless optimists," to get their name on the ballot if they meet certain requirements. However, no third-party candidate has ever won a presidential election, though a few have come close.

What happens if no one gets a majority of the electoral votes? The House of Representatives, one of our two law-making bodies, chooses the next president. Those of you with parliamentary systems regularly use a similar method to pick a Prime Minister, but in America this method feels horribly undemocratic. Only once, in 1824, has it ever happened.

Do candidates ever win the popular vote but lose the election? Yes. Most recently, in 2000, former vice president Al Gore got more people's votes than any other candidate, but George W. Bush won the electoral vote and, therefore, the election. This can happen partly because almost all states use the "winner-take-all" system for assigning their electoral votes; that is, if you get even one more person's vote than your opponent in the Florida election, you get all of Florida's electoral votes. States reason that this forces politicians to pay more attention to their agendas. Whether this is truly democratic is open to debate.

Who will be on the ballot in 2008? Aha, now that is a complicated question! Remember, the Republicans and Democrats don't officially decide who to put on the ballot until the summer of election year. For that reason, the field is still full of candidates right now. In each party, it's possible to narrow it down to "three plus one" -- three major credible candidates plus one who hasn't declared his candidacy yet. Here's who's who!

In the Red Corner, Representing the Republican Party...

= MITT ROMNEY. He's a former governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts is among the most liberal states, so Romney may seem an odd choice for America's conservative party, but Romney is the current front-runner in some primary polls. He will face questions on two topics: his Mormonism, which makes the Protestants who form the Republican Party's backbone uncomfortable, and his flip-flopping on abortion and other key issues, which makes pretty much everyone uncomfortable. Some politicos charge that Romney has no morals of his own, and "believes" whatever he has to in order to get elected. He seems like a long shot to me -- but then again, all the Republican candidates seem like long shots to me.

= RUDY GIULIANI. He was the mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001. For his response to the catastrophe, he's seen as a hero by many Americans. In some ways he is the most natural successor to George W. Bush; in spite of his liberal positions on homosexuality and gun control, he comes across as a rootin'-tootin'-yay-America conservative who prioritizes homeland security above pretty much everything else. Naturally, this makes the libertarian crowd look around for an exit. Like Romney, he faces questions about abortion flip-flops. He's approximately tied with Romney in the polls.

= JOHN MCCAIN. Limping in at number three is this long-time Arizona senator. Not long ago, he was the easy front-runner for the Republican nomination because moderates believed he was moderate and conservatives believed he was conservative. Since then, he's made a series of missteps that have resulted in moderates thinking he's conservative and conservatives thinking he's moderate. He is still a well-respected figure, though, and could bounce back in spite of his support of the unpopular Iraq war.

+ FRED THOMPSON. He's a former Tennessee senator, but today he's probably better known for his role on the TV sitcom Law & Order. He has not formally declared his candidacy yet, but everyone pretty much knows he's going to. No one knows what he stands for, which is probably why people are so enthusiastic about him. Political futures market InTrade has him leading the pack with a 30.5% chance of winning the Republican nomination. This compares to 29.4% for Giuliani and 22% for Romney. McCain is at 8.5%.

& OTHERS. Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning Texas congressman who a lot of Internet libertarian fanboys would love to see win the nomination. InTrade has him at 2% to do so. Newt Gingrich is an old-timey conservative icon who probably won't run but would make waves if he did. He is also trading at 2%. Both men are crackpots, but intelligent ones.

In the Blue Corner, Representing the Democratic Party...

= HILLARY CLINTON. Ms. Clinton is former president Bill Clinton's wife and has been a New York senator since 2000. She is the clear favorite to win the Democratic nomination, due to her universal name recognition and her appeal to folks nostalgic for Bill. Unfortunately, while everyone knows who she is, a lot of people hate her or fear her. Liberals see her as too conservative, conservatives see her as way too liberal, and moderates think she has a scary face. The Democrats are favored in 2008, but some analysts think that nominating Hillary is the surest way for the Democrats to blow their lead. Others think she's obviously the best choice.

= BARACK OBAMA. He's a one-term senator from Illinois. His two big disadvantages are that he's inexperienced -- he's never held political office before he became a senator in 2005 -- and that he's black. (Well, half-black, technically.) His big advantage is that everybody loves him. Seriously. There is some of the Fred Thompson effect here -- people love him because no one knows what he stands for -- but he's definitely a charismatic young face who seems to know what America wants to hear. While he trails Hillary in the polls, he's clearly a serious contender.

= JOHN EDWARDS. A former North Carolina senator, and the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee in 2004. So far, this trial lawyer has failed to distinguish himself from his better-funded opponents. It's almost like he's there in case the party decides it wants to field a white male after all. He's also a plausible compromise candidate; occasionally the party conventions where candidates are nominated get deadlocked, and the delegates end up compromising by picking someone who's nobody's first choice.

+ AL GORE. He was the vice president under Bill Clinton, and he suffered a heartbreakingly close loss while running for president in 2000 (see above). More recently, he's been vocal in calling for action on global warming and other environmental issues. He hasn't declared his candidacy, and he probably won't, but boy, it would sure change the race if he did; he's a popular figure among Democrats, inspiring both sympathy and loyalty. Even though he hasn't declared he's running, InTrade gives him a 10.6% chance of winning the nomination. Compare that to Clinton's 49.3%, Obama's 29.8%, and Edwards' dismal 5.2%.

& OTHERS. Hope springs eternal for long-shot New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; he has little popular appeal, but is tenaciously clinging to the campaign trail. InTrade has him at 1.9%. Delaware senator Joe Biden made waves in a recent Democratic debate, but his fundraising is slow, and InTrade calls him a non-entity at 0.7%.

Are there any plausible third-party candidates this time around? Well... not yet. But keep an eye on the current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. Yesterday he officially left the Republican Party. Given that he's a multibillionaire who's publicly speculated about running for president, it's hard not to see that as a prelude to battle. He'll have his work cut out for him if he wants to be president, but his money and his political philosophy (probably a potentially appealing blend of conservative and liberal ideas) could draw attention and credibility to his campaign.

Who's going to be the next president? Wow, that's a tough one. If I had to guess, I'd say Hillary Clinton, for lack of a better answer. InTrade puts her on top, with a 32.6% chance of winning; Obama trails at 17.2%, followed by Fred Thompson at 16.1%. The probability that the Democrats will win is 55.4%; the Republicans, 41.5%.

Who ought to be the next president? Oh, God, I have no idea. Bloomberg, maybe? Or Obama? I can't tell. Maybe in four years I'll know the answer.

What is this thread for? Discussion about the election. Exchange of ideas. Questions about the process. Jokes about the candidates. Links to funny YouTube and Daily Show clips about the election. I want to know what you're thinking. All I ask is that we keep it civil. You can call a candidate a moron, but please don't say that anyone who supports him must be a moron, because this isn't IFD and you might be unwittingly insulting another forum member. Also, if you're going to be cynical, please be cynical constructively; talk about why you think our system can't produce a good candidate, rather than just saying "a politician will win and America will lose."

What if I can work in a relevant Utena reference? You get a Pop-Tart. Go you!

To the discussion!

Last edited by satyreyes (06-20-2007 02:02:27 AM)

Usagi · Back to Top

Oh my, I have no idea who I'll be voting for this time. I need more time to think.

Stormcrow · Back to Top

I see Obama as a bit of a Tatsuya, I guess. Everybody knows he's awesome, but that's not really what we want, so he doesn't have a great shot... emot-frown

Asfalolh · Back to Top

Stupid question: how old has one to be to vote?
And another one: who chooses the winner of the nomination? I mean, who has the right to vote and decide between, e.g., Clinton or Obama? Do you have to register as a Democrat? emot-confused

Last edited by Asfalolh (06-20-2007 07:07:52 AM)

MissMocha · Back to Top

Asfalolh wrote:
Stupid question: how old has one to be to vote?
And another one: who chooses the winner of the nomination? I mean, who has the right to vote and decide between, e.g., Clinton or Obama? Do you have to register as a Democrat?

For voting purposes you register at the age of eighteen, getting a nifty little voter's registration card, which you must have with you if you want to vote. At the time of your registration -usually done through the mail, but a lot of high schools, especially ones with political clubs, will do drives to get upperclassman at or above the age registered- you also make your party selection. You can choose to register as Republican, Democratic or Independent.

You can change your party affliation at any time by sending in for the paperwork, so it's not a lasting decision, but it is one you tend to take carefully. There are really only two reasons for party registration: To get an approximate count of party lines and demographics and to vote in the primary elections. You can only vote for the primary election for which you are registered. I.e., if you're a registered Republican, you don't get to choose between Obama and Clinton. But you do get to choose between...uhh... ::scrolls up for a look:: Giuliani and McCain. And vice versa.

I'm personally registered as an Independent, which means I don't get to participate in any primaries. Other parties in America -Libertarian, Green, and even Communist- are generally too small to be bothered with primaries, so they don't have them.

Also, every election year, they mail you a little slip of paper to go to your registered voting spot. Mine is actually a church which bothers me, largely because it's Spanish Episcopalian, and I'm a Honky Athiest. If you try to vote anywhere else, it's considered fraud and I believe there is a jail sentence attatched.

Ahhh, The Electoral College. A remnant of the good old days when the Founding Fathers wanted Democracy For All The Common Peoples, but couldn't trust All The Common Peoples to know what the fuck they were doing.

As for me this election year... I like Gore a LOT better then the last time he came around, but I'm not sure I want to contemplate President Gore. I don't care for any of the Republican candidates, although I liked McCain before he went all nuts, despite his being for war. Obama....what the hell? I'd like the first black, or even half-black, leader in America to get there because he deserves it, not just because he's the political equivalent of Mystery Meat. Hill...girl, you need to lay off the MAC. That's all. The only thing I want in a president is someone that will give money to schools, support abortion and get the hell out of Iraq. Keep on dreaming, kiddo. Keep on dreaming.

Last edited by morosemocha (06-20-2007 08:13:40 AM)

Asfalolh · Back to Top

Thank you, mocha poptart
Oh, and satyr for the thread poptart

Sounds as complicated as hell emot-tongue
I am amazed by American participation rates, now. They are quite high, aren't they? emot-aaa

MissMocha · Back to Top

Well, less then half of all registered voters actually turn out to vote. I actually missed the last election even though I was technically eligible. Businesses are supposed to give you time off, but even still, people always find a reason not to vote. One of the reasons the presidents have typically been Male WASPs is because the demo that votes in the highest overall percentage is the older middle age and senior citizens. There's been a higher turnout in recent years in young voters (18-24) but it still sucks pretty hardcore.

It's an annoyingly complicated system, and the whole Electoral College thing irritates me. It can and should be a lot simpler.

Edit: Not like I know how to fix it though, screw me.

Last edited by morosemocha (06-20-2007 08:51:33 AM)

Asfalolh · Back to Top

morosemocha wrote:
Well, less then half of all registered voters actually turn out to vote.

I'm confused, now. I was told most of Americans voted regularly, and in a higher proportion than Europeans. The rates here are lately around 50% (that's a shame, in my opinion, but I'm not sure on who should be blamed for it), with the honorable exception of last French presidentials.
Thank you for the info poptart

satyreyes · Back to Top

Asfalolh wrote:
morosemocha wrote:
Well, less then half of all registered voters actually turn out to vote.
I'm confused, now. I was told most of Americans voted regularly, and in a higher proportion than Europeans. The rates here are lately around 50%.

Nope... we're pretty lucky when we hit 50%. Every election year, we are swamped with news stories about what a bad democracy we are for not voting in greater numbers. Personally, I think that if you don't care enough about the result to spend an hour at the voting place once every couple years, it's probably best that you don't vote. The real underlying problem is how many people don't care, and all the "get out the vote" efforts in the world won't fix that.

morosemocha wrote:
You can change your party affliation at any time by sending in for the paperwork, so it's not a lasting decision, but it is one you tend to take carefully. There are really only two reasons for party registration: To get an approximate count of party lines and demographics and to vote in the primary elections. You can only vote for the primary election for which you are registered. I.e., if you're a registered Republican, you don't get to choose between Obama and Clinton. But you do get to choose between...uhh... ::scrolls up for a look:: Giuliani and McCain. And vice versa.

This is true in so-called "closed primary" states. There are also "open primary" states, however, in which you can choose one primary to vote in regardless of your party affiliation. For instance, if I live in Michigan, which uses open primaries, I can be a registered Independent and still vote in the Democratic primary. In Florida, a closed primary state, I don't have that option; if I want to vote in the Democratic primary, I have to be a registered Democrat. A slight majority of U.S. states use closed primaries.

Razara · Back to Top

I'm not going to be old enough to vote by the next election, which is probably a good thing. I don't know anything about politics. Plus, I'd vote for Hilary Clinton just so I could finally see the end of my favorite movie. (Evita.) Someone gave me a biography on Hillary Clinton's life called American Evita. I never actually finished reading it, and I can't find it.

From what I've read, she sounds like a psychopath, but in a fun way. The truth is, however, that there isn't a fun way to be a psycopath in real life, hence the reason why I have to remind myself that this is a book about the woman who may be in charge of our country some day. All that I know about her is what I've read in that book, since I never keep up with politics. But honestly, I don't know what to think about biographies. Sometimes, the person writing hates the author and is out to get them. Like Mary Mane's biography on Evita. She was the one who started to whole, "Evita became Migouldi's mistress to get to Buenos Aires," thing.

The biography also claims that Bill Clinton raped a girl, too, and that Hilary threatened her if she told anyone. Apparently he's also slept with a ton of girls. I barely remember the time when he was president, and I don't think that I knew what impeachment was back then, though I do know why he was impeached by now. It also strongly suggests that she's a lesbian. She also has daddy issues.

Like I said, I don't know how much of that is true. Either way, Hilary better watch out for that uterine cancer. "Don't cry for me, America..." (<--- Evita reference.)

Stormcrow · Back to Top

Ahem. Sorry, Razara, but whoever wrote that book had a giant ax to grind and wasn't overly concerned with the truth. The rape story is particularly hard to swallow. During the Clinton presidency there were a series of conspiracy theories regarding the Clintons, ranging from smuggling crack to murdering their good friend, Vince Foster. Several murders carried out by the Arkansas State Troopers were also alleged. The important point is, all of these claims were investigated with a thoroughness and rigor normally reserved for Hollywood films, and no evidence of criminal wrongdoing was ever found. None whatsoever. The only thing anyone was ever able to hang on Clinton was getting his dick sucked and then getting evasive about it, which was apparently grounds for impeachment.

As far as the Hilary psychopath thing, it is safe to say that she is extremely ambitious. I'd even go so far as to say that she might be a tad cold-blooded. But I guarantee you 100% that she would be a much better president than the one we have now. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to point out that I'm an Obama supporter.

And what does her alleged lesbianism have to do with anything at all? It's a pretty popular rumor, but I'd like to point out that most of the women I've asked find Bill to be pretty sexy. Coincidence? emot-wink

OK, it's true that Bill Clinton has pronged many women, but I guess everybody knows that now. emot-frown

Razara · Back to Top

Stormcrow wrote:
The book is wrong

I thought so. Like I said, it seemed like the author was just out to get her. Why do biographers do that? emot-gonk

hyacinth_black · Back to Top

If I could vote...

IF HILLARY GETS THE NOMINATION FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE:

I'd vote for Giuliani ANY day. He FUCKING ROCKS!

If not:

I'd probably vote for the Democratic choice. Depends. I LOVE Giuliani. That man is amazing.

HE LOWERED THE CRIME RATE IN NEW YORK, LIKE, 46% OR SOMETHING.

EDIT: BTW I'm a Libertarian.

Last edited by hyacinth_black (06-20-2007 02:40:05 PM)

Stormcrow · Back to Top

Well, it's hard to avoid some bias, but some people do a better job than others. I once read a very interesting job on the subject called "Blinded by the Right" in which the author describes how he published some of these kinds of stories and fed the controversy. I found myself thinking, 'OK, but why should we believe you now?'

One of the hardest things about following politics is finding reliable sources. It's not like science, where you can just accept most of the things the National Academy of Science says, you have to compare different sources and go with what's most plausible. Unfortunately, we're talking about human beings here, so sometimes truly implausible things happen. Like the Iran-Contra affair, for example. emot-confused

Mostly, you have to figure what sources are most likely to be trustworthy, then you can use them as a measuring stick. The down side here is that different people accept different sources, and popular media has become more polarized in the last decade or so. It's hard to have a conversation when you can't accept each other's facts, which is just a part of the sorry state of political discourse in this country.

Man, I'm ranting here, better wrap it up. It's easy to get discouraged when faced with this big, complicated political picture, but you have to realize that everybody else has to go through the same critical analysis to learn whatever it is that they supposedly know about what's going on. Even the political candidates mentioned above have a hard time of it, and they have staff devoted to figuring these things out full time. It's kind of a big mess, and it's not necessarily too good to even know what's going on, because it can be pretty depressing. I feel it's worth a little effort, but about half of the country seems to disagree with me. emot-rolleyes

Ragnarok · Back to Top

If Gore were to run, I'd vote him... despite being in the wrong country. Completely on the principle that I feel he should have won in 2000, I have no idea if he'd do a good job, just that there's no way he could have been worse than Bush.

Imaginary Bad Bug · Back to Top

morosemocha wrote:
At the time of your registration -usually done through the mail, but a lot of high schools, especially ones with political clubs, will do drives to get upperclassman at or above the age registered- you also make your party selection. You can choose to register as Republican, Democratic or Independent.

Or in a state like Connecticut, you can have no affiliation (which is how I am registered). There is a subtle difference between No Affiliation and Independent. Independent could be considered 'third party'. No affiliation is literally 'no party'.

morosemocha wrote:
I'm personally registered as an Independent, which means I don't get to participate in any primaries.

Same for me with my lack of affiliation.

Too early for me to know where my vote is headed toward, but I do know who I am not voting for... anybody on the right. emot-tongue

Stormcrow · Back to Top

Left and right are all relative. If you're Dennis Kucinich, everybody's on the right! Anybody remember Dennis Kucinich? Too bad that crazy hippy's not running this year, I really liked him.

satyreyes · Back to Top

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:
Too early for me to know where my vote is headed toward, but I do know who I am not voting for... anybody on the right.

I'm not sure how commonly the left-right model is used in Europe and points beyond, so I'll take a moment to explain this comment.

In American political jargon, it's very common to say that a politician is "left-wing" or "right-wing." Left-wing candidates are liberals, usually meaning Democrats; right-wing candidates are conservatives, usually meaning Republicans. (Appropriately, sometimes a moderate politician is called a "centrist.") If you believe Wikipedia, the terms go back to the seating arrangement of the French States-General. Other systems for classifying politicans have been proposed, notably by the Libertarian Party (one of our ineffectual third parties), which proposes two axes: belief in economic rights and belief in civil rights. This model hasn't caught on.

Oh, and I missed Stormcrow's comparison of Obama to Tatsuya. A poptart for you!

Imaginary Bad Bug · Back to Top

Stormcrow wrote:
Left and right are all relative. If you're Dennis Kucinich, everybody's on the right! Anybody remember Dennis Kucinich? Too bad that crazy hippy's not running this year, I really liked him.

Hehe... if Kucinich were viable, I might consider voting for him. I like Chris Dodd (homestate senator) but I don't expect he'll make it past the primaries.. emot-frown

But yeah... I'm a social liberal, so none of the Republicans would fly for me. I'm a political lefty and not ashamed to say so. emot-biggrin In '04 I was tempted to declare myself a Democrat so I could vote for Howard Dean in the primaries, but I never did.

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (06-20-2007 04:37:29 PM)

Usagi · Back to Top

I am afraid people will vote for Clinton simply because she is female emot-frown

rhyaniwyn · Back to Top

Oh, and don't forget that there are plenty of states who are NOT bound by local law to give the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote within that state. So it's conceivable that not only can a candidate can win the popular vote in the country, and lose--as has happened. But s/he can win the popular vote within a state and have the electoral college give the votes to the other candidate.

satyreyes · Back to Top

rhyaniwyn wrote:
Oh, and don't forget that there are plenty of states who are NOT bound by local law to give the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote within that state. So it's conceivable that not only can a candidate can win the popular vote in the country, and lose--as has happened. But s/he can win the popular vote within a state and have the electoral college give the votes to the other candidate.

Yep! Every human being in Florida could vote for Rudy Giuliani, and then our 27 electors charged with executing the will of Florida's voters go to Washington and instead vote for Hillary Clinton. It's The Magic of Democracy (TM)!

In practice, this doesn't happen -- or at least, not when it can affect the outcome. Occasionally you have a rogue "faithless elector" cast a protest vote for the wrong candidate, and I think a couple elections back the entire Washington, DC delegation refused to vote because we don't give DC representation in Congress, but as far as I know, faithless electors have never decided an election. The ironic part is that the Founding Fathers may well have created the Electoral College partly so that the electors could go against the will of the people if the people voted like morons. It's The Magic of Democracy (TM)!

And yes, we really don't give Washington, DC representation in Congress. Which doesn't stop us from taxing them, of course. It's The Magic of Democracy (TM)!

...Yet somehow, the system works. Mostly.

Last edited by satyreyes (06-20-2007 11:03:38 PM)

ShatteredMirror · Back to Top

Usagi wrote:
I am afraid people will vote for Clinton simply because she is female

I'm afraid that people won't vote for Clinton because she's female. Or Obama because he's half-black.

I'm a registered Democrat and I'm not sure which potential candidate I like the best. I don't really like any of them much though so I suppose it's a matter of who I dislike the least. I know I won't be voting for Obama in the primaries because I don't think that someone so politically inexperienced would be a good candidate. (and I'm irritated with him for not stepping in and stopping the Myspace scandal, but that doesn't affect his ability to be president) I'm all for innocence and idealism and whatnot but I'd prefer someone who's a little jaded and knows how to play the system better. I think my choice will be between Clinton and Edwards. I wish Wesley Clark would run, he was my favorite of the potential Democrats in 2004.

I don't like any of the Republicans - I suppose that's why I'm a Democrat. emot-tongue

Usagi · Back to Top

Oh I know what you mean Shattered. I suppose I should of said something more along the lines of 'I hope race/gender do not effect people's choice.' but I am normally not so eloquent with words due to my medication messing with my head.

I live with my parents and one of the things that my dad expects of me to to vote for whom he does. Absolute bullshit. I never have and never will actually listen to that. I vote for whom I want in office.

Honestly I don't think I should vote anymore. The medication gives me an attention span of almost nothing. All the stuff seems to go over my head. I think an ill informed vote is worse than not giving one at all. How long do we have til we need to make up our minds anyhow?

I missed out last time due to being super duper sick.

Hinotori · Back to Top

YEAH!!! POLITICS!!

I'm not political, for the sake of my own sanity, until I start hearing about the Presidential Election. That's when I start bouncing off the walls and pointing at my television and screaming, "THAT GUY'S AN ASSHOLE!"

FUN FACT: In some states (Ohio) you don't actually declare a political party. You just ask for a ballot when the primary rolls around and that is the party you are. The awesome part is that we're also apparently a closed-primary state. It's whacky.

By the way, for any of you Bad Americans out there the League of Women Voters website is an invaluable source of answers to political questions you were too afraid to ask. They used to run our debates, too. They don't do that anymore and this is probably not an issue you should get me started on.

My sole problem with Hillary doesn't have much to do with her as much as it has to do with the fact that there hasn't been a presidential election free from a Bush or Clinton for the better part of the last three decades. Other than that, I really like Chris Dodd... but he has basically no chance of winning so I'm not even going to pretend he does. I like the fact that Gravel supports FairTax, but I also think he might be crazy. I'll keep my eyes peeled during the debates and I'll give my Super Tuesday nod to the guy I like best, then dutifully vote for whatever Democrat gets the nomination like a good little drone.

Last edited by Hinotori (06-21-2007 02:22:29 AM)

#1 | Back to Top06-20-2007 01:40:37 AM

Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#2 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:19:17 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#3 | Back to Top06-20-2007 06:24:22 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#4 | Back to Top06-20-2007 07:00:19 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#5 | Back to Top06-20-2007 08:11:47 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Asfalolh wrote:

#6 | Back to Top06-20-2007 08:18:45 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#7 | Back to Top06-20-2007 08:46:30 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#8 | Back to Top06-20-2007 09:03:13 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

morosemocha wrote:

#9 | Back to Top06-20-2007 09:18:54 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Asfalolh wrote:

morosemocha wrote:

morosemocha wrote:

#10 | Back to Top06-20-2007 09:51:06 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#11 | Back to Top06-20-2007 01:58:50 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#12 | Back to Top06-20-2007 02:24:02 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Stormcrow wrote:

#13 | Back to Top06-20-2007 02:38:43 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#14 | Back to Top06-20-2007 02:48:02 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#15 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:20:14 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#16 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:20:29 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

morosemocha wrote:

morosemocha wrote:

#17 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:25:55 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#18 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:28:10 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

#19 | Back to Top06-20-2007 04:34:28 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Stormcrow wrote:

#20 | Back to Top06-20-2007 10:46:32 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#21 | Back to Top06-20-2007 10:51:36 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#22 | Back to Top06-20-2007 11:01:43 PM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

rhyaniwyn wrote:

#23 | Back to Top06-21-2007 12:07:51 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Usagi wrote:

#24 | Back to Top06-21-2007 01:37:30 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

#25 | Back to Top06-21-2007 02:13:16 AM

Re: Clusterf**k to the White House: The Thread

Board footer