Forums > Personal > Obama...

forum rss feed
Author

Haystacks Calhoun II user not visiting Queenzone.com
Haystacks Calhoun II
Bohemian: 930 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jan 08, 15:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Barack Obama is very proud of the effort that he and his campaign have made in Nevada. As people head to their Caucus sites this morning, we have closed over a 25-point gap in a state where Hillary Clinton was the choice of much of the political establishment and enjoyed huge advantages in terms of name identification. In a very short period of time, our campaign has built an amazing grassroots network and has brought thousands of Independents and disillusioned Republicans into the Democratic Party. These efforts will go a long way to ensuring that Senator Obama wins this critical swing state when he is the nominee.

We expect to do well today and a win in Nevada for Obama would be a significant upset. As University of Nevada Reno Political Science professor put it – “If she loses Nevada, it’s not just a loss. It’s a collapse.”

Our hope is that today’s caucus comes off without a hitch and as many people as possible participate, however we remain concerned that the tactics of the Clinton Campaign and their allies in recent days have confused voters and could lower participation.

And now, according to Jon Ralston, allies of the Clinton Campaign may be planning to challenge voters at the at-large precincts. It is a sad day when Democrats start trying to suppress the vote of other Democrats.

Beginning with the lawsuit filed by their allies to suppress turnout among union members, the Clinton Campaign has been engaged in a systematic effort to discredit the process – a process which was pushed, developed, and approved by their supporters at the Democratic National Committee and in Nevada. It wasn’t until Obama began gaining strength in a state they expected to win by at least 20 points that they began their attempts to delegitimize the process.

Former President Clinton said that this caucus “was not like an election” and that it disenfranchised voters. Even though the lawsuit was rejected as completely meritless by a federal judge, we remain concerned that the specter of the lawsuit has confused voters and threatens turnout at the at-large precincts, which may have been the intent of the Clinton allies all along.

The Clinton Campaign has also repeated the efforts it made in the closing days of the New Hampshire primary by launching knowingly false attacks on Barack’s opposition to Yucca, his 100-percent pro-choice rating, and position on Social Security. There have been push polls and robocalls pushing these false attacks.

And just last night, former President Clinton made two false and outrageous allegations, distorting a radio ad that does not even mention Senator Clinton and accusing the Culinary workers, whose support both Clintons furiously sought, of engaging in deliberate voter suppression.

The conduct of the Clinton Campaign in recent weeks essentially makes the case for why we need Barack Obama – it’s the same old-style say anything or do anything to win, divisive attacks that have prevented progress in this country for so long.


Amen.....


The Golden Gate Bridge should have a long bungee cord for people who aren’t quite ready to commit suicide but want to get in a little practice.
Ms. Rebel user not visiting Queenzone.com
Ms. Rebel
Deity: 3428 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jan 08, 15:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

HALLELUJAH.


I'm sick of all my kicks.
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Jan 08, 17:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

For as much negativity as there is against Hillary, it seems she's still the one to beat.



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



The prophet's song user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1044 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 04:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Just got one question about the US elections; does whoever wins (after you've got the two candidates), win because they have the most number of states or the most number of votes all together?


...ok one more question. How come there is only the democrats and republicans? Is there only allowed to be two political parties or does no one want to start a new one?

I may sound stupid asking these but I seriously don't know. Our political system is so different!


"Either this kid has a lightbulb up his ass or his colon has a great idea"
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 07:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The prophet's song wrote:

Just got one question about the US elections; does whoever wins (after you've got the two candidates), win because they have the most number of states or the most number of votes all together?


...ok one more question. How come there is only the democrats and republicans? Is there only allowed to be two political parties or does no one want to start a new one?

I may sound stupid asking these but I seriously don't know. Our political system is so different!


It's not that simple, I'm afraid...

These are the primary elections, in which each of the two major parties (Democrats + Republicans) elect their presidential candidate. Then, during the presidential elections themselves, each state has a number of delegates. To whom these delegates go (Democrat, Republican, someone else) is decided by the vote in that state. In the end, the candidate with most delegates wins the elections.

And yes, there are more parties than the two, but neither of them ever get enough votes to provide a president. They do occasionally send people to congress, and regularly elect more local politicians.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 08:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's not even as simple as TQ's explanation. Each state is completely different from each other. For instance, some states hold primaries, whereas others hold caucuses. Some primaries are open, and some are closed...and some are semi-open...or semi-closed... Some Republican primaries/caucuses award candidates a proportional amount of delegates to their support, whereas others use a winner-take-all method.

And we haven't even gotten to the Presidential election yet. After all the primaries/caucuses are held, each party holds a convention where all the delegates are sent to nominate a candidate. Finally, the national election takes place, which is just as complicated.

Unfortunately, there's no way the entire process can really be explained on a message board.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Raf user not visiting Queenzone.com
Stop this noise!
Raf
Deity: 8274 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 09:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Isn't there any wish in the United States to change their elections to make it direct (as in, people vote directly for the candidates and the one who get more votes wins)?

It's a bit unfair that Bush won Al Gore when Al Gore had most votes. Doesn't sound very democratic.


We got the Cosmos rockin'!

We got the Cosmos rockin'!

We got the Universe rockin'!

We got the Cosmos rockin'!

We got the Cosmos rockin' to the mighty power of rock'n'roll!
The prophet's song user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1044 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 19:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thanks for your explanations. I can see how you'd need to write a book to explain it all! I'll just stick to MMP, which like Raf pointed out, it's almost as simple as the most number of votes wins.


"Either this kid has a lightbulb up his ass or his colon has a great idea"
Legy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 433 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 23:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It gets more complicated with Electoral College. You can win the popular vote but not get elected President. It happened to Al Gore in 2000 and a couple of times before that.

The prophet's song user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1044 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Jan 08, 23:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

^ that's what used to happen when we had the old First Past The Post electoral system.


"Either this kid has a lightbulb up his ass or his colon has a great idea"
Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 00:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Even proportional representation is flawed. It seems to me like we should have the ability to hold a direct election in the US - so it could surely happen in many smaller nations. It would make sense to me to hold direct elections. I know I wasn't the only one annoyed in 2000.

I suppose there really isn't a need to reform voting, though; it more or less works. The only time a reform would be considered would be after a rare incident like in 2000. However, even then, since the race is so close, you'll only ever have half the population (at most) pressing for the reform.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Legy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 433 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 00:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Quite frankly, if you don't win your own state, then you shouldn't be President.

Yes, the system isn't perfect, but it's worked well in the past, with 2000 being the exception


The prophet's song user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1044 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 02:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

Even proportional representation is flawed.


True, like Gerrymandering. A friend of mine lost out on a seat in Parliament because of this back in the 70's. Even now my town has just been shifted from a traditional right-wing electorate to a traditional left-wing electorate. (I'm left-wing so I welcome the change) It's almost like political chess around here.


"Either this kid has a lightbulb up his ass or his colon has a great idea"
YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 03:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:

I suppose there really isn't a need to reform voting, though; it more or less works. The only time a reform would be considered would be after a rare incident like in 2000. However, even then, since the race is so close, you'll only ever have half the population (at most) pressing for the reform.



It's interesting to see that many people in America think that way although they are rightfully upset about the undemocratic voting system

There are 3 main reasons why the voting system should be reformed immediately:

- the right to vote is not a citizen right, it's a state right . As a result US citizens don't have the same voting right throughout the nation which hurts the core of a democracy. The right to vote should be guaranteed in the constitution and all voters should be registered automatically in the very same procedure to avoid officials from shutting out unwanted voters by manipulating the registration process.

- the votes of citizens in smaller states count up to 4 times more than the votes of citizens living in big states. Therefore the basic democratic principle "one person - one vote" is simply non-existant in the US Presidential elections.

- voting computers and software can be manipulated and fraud is imminent when you use machines and computers. Although manual counting is far from perfect it avoids systematic fraud and manipulation.


I do not want any google ads here.

Music Man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2346 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 14:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Oh, I am certainly all for electoral reform. I was just explaining why it's unlikely to ever happen.

If a candidate wins because of an aberration in the system, he will still - in all likelihood - have the support of about 50% of the population. It probably takes more than 50% of the population's support to revamp the system (especially when that 50% is out of power).


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
Smitty user not visiting Queenzone.com
Cool, we have display messages
Smitty
Deity: 6196 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Jan 08, 18:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

...and in the meantime, congress is meeting about frickin' BASEBALL!

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Jan 08, 11:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Music Man wrote:

Unfortunately, there's no way the entire process can really be explained on a message board.


Wiki?

Thomas Jefferson thought it was a pretty good idea, so I'm gonna side with him.