Why only two-parties in the US? Electability trumps Faction

[Crissa]

That's not what I see in aggregate, Neeek.

-Crissa

[Neeek]

1200990447[/unixtime]]That's not what I see in aggregate, Neeek.

Considering your link is to random crap, I'm not likely to take it at face, or, honestly, any, value.

[Username17]

Here is a link to Rasmussen. Predictions: Clinton wins democratic primary, McCane wins republican primary, McCane beats Clinton, Democrats take White House.

Seriously.

:Scratches Head:

-Username17

[MrWaeseL]

Seeing is this now pretty much the election thread, I read someone characterizing the two democratic candidates this way:

Obama is the one with the best story, but filled with hollow phrases and broken promises should he be elected, while Hillary has the more pragmatic campaing.

Is that an accurate assessment?

[Username17]

The American Media has a heavy bias towards reporting "conflict" (because it sells papers) and a moderate conservatives bias (because conservatives own papers). Both Clinton and Obama are much more pragmatic, friendlier, and straight talking than portrayed in the American media.

The classic example of course is where Clinton was loudly touted as having played the "Race Card" and speaking out against Dr. King. Only it turns out that what she actually said was that King's reforms were actually put into practice by Johnson and that it takes politicians to accomplish goals in addition to political will. Which is a simple fact and in no way playing the "Race Card".

That being said, the actual difference between Clinton and Obama as regards pragmatism and idealism is that Clinton has a number of issues that she doesn't give a fuck about, which she will patiently listen to pollster data on and then make announcements that she supports whatever happens to be popular on those issues (she does not back off from her stance on healthcare reform, women's rights, or other issues that she actually cares about). Obama on the other hand writes his own speaches. So sometimes he personally announces an idea which is impolitic to say (regardless of whether it is true and/or a good idea).

So Hillary Clinton will completely without apology come out in support of restrictions on violent videogames or the nation of Israel because she does not give a crap. Obama will come right out and say that Pakistan is a rogue state because, well, it is. But of course Clinton will drop those tertiary issues like a brick fll of scorpions as soon as they aren't buzz issues, and Obama will have to backpeddle on the Pakistan thing as soon as it is pointed out that Rogue State or not Pakistan is an unstable dictatorship with a large minority of religious extremists who can't read that happens to have nuclear missles pointed at the homes of a billion people so you have to pretend that they are nice.

-Username17

[tzor]

1200957140[/unixtime]]Each of the Democrats has a slight variation on the same themes. Contrary to what you see on Faux News, Hillary and Obama are not getting into a "race war" and are actually keeping things pretty high brow and friendly. When Clinton, Obama, and Edwards sat around a table to debate, they did so ammicably at a shared damn table.

I don't watch Faux news, I listen to NPR, which is liberal biased according to some. It is clear that there is brewing an all out war between the two (and her little dog ... er I mean her husband) and as the stakes get higher and higher and it appears that she is not guarenteed a victory afterall.

When necessary they will "appear" to be nice and friendly, that's how politicians operate. Do you think they really like kissing babies? I didn't see the debate last night, but from what I heard on NPR, the first half was a verbal slugfest of accusations that were so stupid and desperate that I would guess before the month is out there will be accusations about what each candidate did in Kindergarden. It's gotten that bad!

[Username17]

That NPR is more liberal than some would like does not make it especially liberal overall. However, even they are "conflict driven."

The Debates just aren't that snippy. Even when the moderators directly ask the candidates to attack each other they don't really do so:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that what's most important is that Senator Obama and I agree completely that, you know, neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign.
...
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think Hillary said it well.
...
Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate and some serious differences that we have, and I'm sure those will be on display today. What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality, has been historically.

Seriously. While people love to use combat lingos to describe the verbal battles of the debate world, there really wasn't a lot of barbs sent one way or the other.

Seriously, all three candidates fill their paragraphs with "PS.: I am awesome" but that is only to be expected. Contrary to what the media was hoping for there seriously is not a lot of acrimony going around. All three leading candidates seem to realize that they are likely going to have to come to an agreement with one another and putting one or another in as Vice President or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

In short, they aren't trying to alienate each other because they are very likely going to have to work with one another closely in a short period of time.

-Username17

[tzor]

Of course they can't mention race directly, not in a debate ... that's not proper. Besides you don't need to when you have far better manure to throw around.

When I was working on the streets, you were a corporate lawyer working on the board of Wal-Mart.

Ooh, Wall Mart. That's got to hurt. Let's retaliate with a Slum Lord Cruise Missile.

Some commentary from THE SWAMP

When Obama took that shot at Clinton, telling her he was on the streets as a community organizer working with the families of laid off steelworkers while she was working as a corporate lawyer for Walmart and she got that "Oh, no you didn't" look on her face, that was a scene that will be likely go into the documentaries made about the 2008 campaign.

Same for her retaliatory strike, when she said that she was fighting against bad Republican ideas when Obama was working as a lawyer representing indicted Chicago wheeler dealer and fundraiser Tony Rezko in his "slum landlord business."

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I find all the speculation about a Clinton-Edwards or Clinton-Obama ticket amusing. Edwards isn't going to be picked to be on anyone's ticket. The idea that he can carry some southern states was disproved by the Kerry-Edwards ticket's inability to carry a single southern state in '04. Edwards won't be anybody's VP nominee unless he's forced on them in order to unify the party. Right now, it looks like Edwards isn't going to have nearly the votes to make that happen.

I don't think Clinton will pick Obama for her VP if she has a choice, either. Having both the first female major-party presidential candidate and the first black major-party vice-presidential candidate on the same ticket may be too much diversity for many of the middle-aged people who make up most of the electorate. Furthermore, Obama would be stupid to take the job. Even if they win the White House, Obama will not have nearly as much influence in a Hillary Clinton White House as Bill Clinton. Win or lose, he's better off getting more seasoning in the Senate for a future run.

I think if Hillary has her choice, her VP candidate will be Bill Richardson. He served in the Clinton administration and, despite the Anglo name, is actually Hispanic on his mother's side, allowing the Dems to play to the ever-growing Latino vote. As a governor in the Southwest, he would also give the party a chance to win in a region that only narrowly went Republican last time.

[cthulhu]

1201001226[/unixtime]] Here is a link to Rasmussen. Predictions: Clinton wins democratic primary, McCane wins republican primary, McCane beats Clinton, Democrats take White House.

Seriously.

:Scratches Head:

-Username17

More accurately - polling data indicates that - actually that article is just needlessly confusing. Why are you telling me that McCain is more popular with republicans than hillary clinton and that (shock horror) Hillary is even more popular with democrats than McCain! Holy shit I never would have guessed that.

[Crissa]

Romney is more popular with Republicans than McCain, even when in the contests he lost to McCain.

So...

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Okay, again, Obama comes in vs McCain 5 points lower than Clinton.

-Crissa

[Lago_AM3P]

Crissa, here is an average of several polls, including the one you posted.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... br][br]The polls generally show Obama ahead of Clinton WRT McCain, even though some of the polls are complete crap like the ones from Ram. and FOX News.

[Crissa]

How does losing the same, with an average where Clinton is higher, shows Clinton faring worse?

One of the studies shows more people voting for McCain in one contest. That's statistically stupid.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Shakespeare's Sister[/url]]She's totally talking shit, as per usual, but this is hilarious:
[FLASH=425,373,false,#ffffff]http://www.youtube.com/v/HuTqgqhxVMc&rel=1&border=1[/FLASH]

Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that she would sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than for John McCain...[/url]]I will campaign for her if it's McCain! … She isn't going to be a weak woman; compared to John McCain, she'll be better. … She lies less than John McCain; she's smarter than John McCain, so when she gets caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught. … Yes if it's close, and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is; he is bad for the country. He is very, very bad for the country.

Hehe, conservatives seem to be getting two candidates they hate.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Really? I count quite a few Republican candidates with a good chance of winning the party, but a snowball in Gehenna's chance of actually becoming president;
Romney, Romney, Romney, Romney, and of course Romney.

[Crissa]

1201931558[/unixtime]]Really?

Really what?

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Maybe Coulter is trying reverse psychology?

[JonSetanta]

Really, as in "conservatives seem to be getting two candidates".
I don't see any other than Romney pulling in the crowd, and that's just because he's a smooth talking snake.

[Crissa]

sigma, there are more words in that sentence than you quote. Words which have something to do with what I quoted.

And I quoted nothing about Romney.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

OK whatever. Anyways...
http://flickr.com/photos/kentbye/868063604/sizes/o/

[Josh_Kablack]

It took me 30 seconds to find a factual error in that chart.

Just sayin'

[JonSetanta]

What's the error? And instead, where can I find a reliable chart similar to that, since this one is apparently faulty.
Charts make everything better.
Not that I can vote this month, anyways. Didn't change parties in time for my asshat state laws. Deadline was a month ago, it seems... in most other states you have a week to a day before the Primary to change registration status. But nooo.. not this one.

[Crissa]

Check is for, cross is against, the no symbol means they had no answer at that point in time.

There's alot of questions on that chart, and they weren't good at checking all the candidates.

Which error did you spot, Josh?

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

Candidate Website

Ending Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation: Joe Biden believes legal recognition should not be denied same-sex couples. He advocates for re-examining federal laws, including the tax code, to ensure our national laws are not unfair to same-sex couples, and that committed adults who are adopting are not discriminated against because of sexual orientation. He supports letting states determine how to recognize civil unions and define marriage.

How exactly that translates as an "Against" same sex marriage and "Unknown" for civil unions is beyond me. While leaving such issues to the states is not really a "Supports" it clearly fits into their "Other" category.

And just in case you don't trust a candidate's own website, here's Another Issues Website

Q: In November 2003, you were asked, "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" And you responded, "I'm not sure. I think probably it is."

A: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by you?

A: Yes. Yes, it is.

That gets rated "Other" by the chart. It's clearly a bit of waffling as he's trying to balance the religious and civil definitions of marriage, but as he's running for a government position and not for church secretary here, it's perfectly clear to me what his position on the issue is.