They would just have rigged the election more had it been Dean. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
I can't quite put a finger on it, exactly, but I find myself increasingly disliking Obama.
I've been cheerfully posting Obama hit comments over at the Big Orange for a couple of months now.
Obama has always creeped me out. He just seems like all PR, all the time, and then once in a while the mask slips and you can see a quiet seething patrician contempt for the little people.
He's happy to farm the little people with his charm, and he's happy to consider condescending to help them once in a while. But he doesn't really see them as equals, and I suspect he's only interested in their lives to the extent that they can help him fulfill his ambitions and vision for himself.
Edwards seems to actually care in a genuine and connected way. I suppose that could just be an act too, but I have a much harder time seeing Edwards as a faker, if only because he'll have burnt a lot of bridges and made a lot of enemies in this campaign.
I know I can't trust Hillary to care about me. Therefore, she can't play me, and I can't be deeply disappointed when she sells us out.
I know. It's a sick game of lowered expectations. But it gets rid of the stress of the voters and candidates pretending to like each other...
You all have a month to talk me out of this. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
(not that I have a personal choice, apart from none of the other side) Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Who do I want to run the country? Gore? Bill Moyers? Putin? Unicorns?
I have to make a choice. I guess I will take comfort in the fact that my choice has not made a difference in 15 years. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Migeru: So it's all about picking the winner?
...
Do you have access to some information I don't? Please share! "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Is picking the winner the only way that your vote makes a difference? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
I hate it when you do this thing where you understand every well what I meant to say : the person I voted for has lost, but act like you don't. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
But that can't be the point of voting, can it? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
My conclusion is that you vote to express your part in, and support for, your group (however you define it). Getting a candidate accepted as the probable winner gets the people who wants to identify with the winning party. Getting a candidate defined as the underdog gets those that wants to identify with the underdog. And so on. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
There was a point made that on the referendum on the Spanish Constitution of 1978 a lot of the campaigning was against abstention. Those unreconstructed fascists who voted against fell in the trap of validating the democratic system by casting a vote. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
The media of course was very against Dean as soon as he opened his mouth about media regulation, big surprise. Edwards has done the same this time around but knew going in what the effect would be. Edwards is much savvier than Dean and has a far greater grasp of long-term strategy in a political situation, his trial lawyer experience is huge here. Remember that Edwards is a guy who won a senate seat in North Carolina as a DEMOCRAT in the late 90's. That is some miraculous stuff.
In terms of "aggression" or "rhetoric" or primary/general election differences it's all b/s. Nothing said the past two months will be remembered come August/September. How one wins the primary is not especially important in a general election when you have a party apparatus behind you going against an "enemy" who is genuinely not on your side.
Tonight is really fascinating because there are 8 or 9 people who might be the next US President and that picture will clarify greatly after all is done in Iowa. Even the mere thought of someone other than Bush being the President is inspiring.
I also see major potential for party re-alignments depending on how things shake out. The Republican Party is dangerously close to a split on coalition lines. I also think that if the GOP genuinely splits the Democrats will be right behind them. The political realignment will look as such:
Right Wing/Christian Party (15% base) Libertarian Party (10%) Centrist Party (left wing Repubs and "moderate" Democrats - 30%) Corporatist Party (Romney/Giuliani's/Lieberman's - 25%) Progressive/Green Party - (left wing Dems and Greens/Nader/Kucinich types 15%)
That represents a clearer view of the actual political breakdown in the US, in my opinion and the failure to nominate party-uniting candidates can push a split here. The Republicans will go first but the Democrats will immediately follow, being abandoned by a left-wing that is only there to keep Republicans out of office, once the GOP block is broken the left wing block can leave in peace and the Democrats/Centrists will still be a "majority" party able to block rightwingers from the big office.
The Republican Party is dangerously close to a split on coalition lines. I also think that if the GOP genuinely splits the Democrats will be right behind them.
I agree.
I'd rearrange your political list to put the Corporate Party above the Centrist Party (to the Right), but that's me.
I hope and actually think the Progressive/Green Party did better than 15%. How much? shrug 20%? Maybe even as high as 25% depending on the leaders and the message.
There is a not-so underground wave of anger building in the US that either of the establishment Parties, as currently constituted, are prepared to handle.
Without even OSP (Optional Second Preference) Voting, let alone IRV, and with fusion tickets illegal in most states (joint candidate on the ballot for multiple parties), the only way for a third party to gain power in first past the post districts is to be the first or second party on a state or regional basis ... and in that case, as with the Farmers-Labor party of Minnesota, there is a strong incentive to join the national major party where it is possible to find the most allies. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
A few of them could easily win electoral votes in a Presidential election, thanks to our much-maligned but in my opinion geographically-sound and well thought-out electoral college system. If a candidate fails to reach the majority # of electoral votes the election returns to Congress, which has decided US Presidential elections in the past. At that moment your ability to form coalitions with other parties would become very important.
Most important culturally the existing "Democrat" and "Republican" type parties would essentially remain with less conflicted bases and would likely be relatively the two largest parties, preserving a significant amount of the existing political climate. The key is that the incentive for say left wing Democrats to throw in their hat with them is reduced because the liklihood of a rightwinger getting elected is still about the same as it is today. The difference is now their values are actually represented, potentially growing and there is an actual platform.
A Progressive/Green coalition party in the US, if able to steal the left wing of the Democratic party, would be very legitimately powerful immediately. Consider that they would most likely have a couple sitting senators and a number of congressman from day one.
