Election 08'

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:41 am

Obama vs McCain would be a good race. I think it'd be a lot nicer and focus more on... you know, issues and stuff. Cathartic for the country. Plus, while I'm not totally on board with either, I would be okay with either of them winning. Better Obama since McCain's pissed me off in the last few years, but it'd be the first race I can remember where it's not just the lesser of two evils.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:33 am

kmj2587 wrote:
Rotku wrote:So if VPs have almost no power (de jure? de facto?) why is it that the end of that article it stated "If he gets the nomination, the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket." Doesn't this apply that the VP can majorly shift the vote?
People consider the VP when they vote because the VP is first in the line of succession should the president die or become incapacitated in some manner. People will likely look especially closely at someone like McCain's VP candidate because of McCain's age.

So really, voting for someone because of their vice, is like saying "well, if he dies in two years time, at least he'll only be able to fuck things up for 24 months, then someone better will be along"?

psycho_leo · Post by **psycho_leo** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:36 am

Rotku wrote:
kmj2587 wrote:
Rotku wrote:So if VPs have almost no power (de jure? de facto?) why is it that the end of that article it stated "If he gets the nomination, the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket." Doesn't this apply that the VP can majorly shift the vote?
People consider the VP when they vote because the VP is first in the line of succession should the president die or become incapacitated in some manner. People will likely look especially closely at someone like McCain's VP candidate because of McCain's age.
So really, voting for someone because of their vice, is like saying "well, if he dies in two years time, at least he'll only be able to f*sk things up for 24 months, then someone better will be along"?

I think it's more like "If he dies in 2 years, the VP wont f*sk everything up in the next 2."

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 pm

danielmn · Post by **danielmn** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:23 am

Mr. Ron Paul, would you please step down. Huckabee...might as well follow him.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:11 am

Huckabee fucked Romneys chances by taking his votes. Huckabee has no chance in hell of winning and those idiots voting for him are just screwing things up. McCain is gonna win now because people are brainless.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:32 am

Wasn't that sort of predicted? Idiots always win the day.

But then, if people who had no chance of winning didn't run, we, very likely, wouldn't have seen a second term of Bush. Just imagin what a wreck this world would be in if that was the case. So may the gods bless idiots.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:40 am

Hmm... unless I'm the idiot there, and getting my facts mixed up

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:56 am

But you know what would be a perfect solution to that problem? Proportional Representation! That way there wouldn't have been such a big carry on with the 2000 elections. That way Huckabee wouldn't be able to steal so many of Romney's votes. That way parties like the Greens might get a seat. That way the world will spin happily on its course, like it would anyway without PR.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:22 am

"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

~ Winston Churchill

"Democracy is a regime in which stupidity rules - it is known that there are more stupid than wise men."

~ Janusz Korwin-Mikke

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:00 pm

Rotku wrote:But you know what would be a perfect solution to that problem? Proportional Representation! That way there wouldn't have been such a big carry on with the 2000 elections. That way Huckabee wouldn't be able to steal so many of Romney's votes. That way parties like the Greens might get a seat. That way the world will spin happily on its course, like it would anyway without PR.

That would require a reworking of the Constitution. Amendments and such. Which is unlikely to happen.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:43 pm

I've never had a strong opinion in the past on the issue of proportional representation in the general election, because at that point, there's very little gain if any.

I would much rather rework or eliminate the primary system to permit everyone to vote for a presidential candidate on a specific day. What we have now is a drawn out dog and pony show that - while fun to watch - disenfranchises a lot of voters and is subject to a great deal of influence by the media. This idea that a candidate can gain "momentum", that there is a psychology inherent in the primary process, disturbs me a great deal.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:57 pm

How does a Brokered convention work? Does it vary between parties?

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:09 pm

Rotku wrote:How does a Brokered convention work? Does it vary between parties?

Assless chaps and paddles.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:24 pm

Unfrotunately, democracy has a major drawback.

In order to get into a position to give the country what it needs, you have to promise the country what it wants.

Its like letting your children vote on what time they should be allowed to stay up, what they are having for dinner and whether or not they have to go to school today.