Thread: US Presidential Campaign 2008

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Couldn't the delegates change their vote?

Yes, delegates can change their vote.

Or more accurately, they do not have to vote for whom they are supposed to vote for.

It's happened, very rarely.

In 1980 1 delegate (out of hundreds) cast a vote for Carter who was from a state that Reagan won.

Originally Posted by Milkman

There is a budding "National Popular Vote" Movement, that wants to give all of the delegates in every state and D.C. to the candidate that wins the entire national vote.

And your vote on this would be?

The Electoral System was designed (at least ostensibly) to make sure smaller states, and lessor populated regions of the US had some decision-making powers.

And hopefully this method will never be altered.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

The Electoral System was designed (at least ostensibly) to make sure smaller states, and lessor populated regions of the US had some decision-making powers.

And hopefully this method will never be altered.

Yeah, there are positive to the electoral college.

And even in the Caucuses and Primaries the smaller states and their citizens are playing some roll in the process. (Feb. 5th may be a major decider. Maybe not.)

^what I don't understand is that HC won the vote in Nevada, but BO got more convention nominees - 13 to HC's 12. So how, exactly, did HC win?

Originally Posted by William

^what I don't understand is that HC won the vote in Nevada, but BO got more convention nominees - 13 to HC's 12. So how, exactly, did HC win?

The Caucus system seems odd to me. It's like a club that meets in a fire station, library, or town hall. They're called "Precincts."

I am assuming some precincts have more delegates than other precincts because the population of one precinct is higher than another.

Anyway, things will be more clear - perhaps - after Feb 5th.

Originally Posted by William

^what I don't understand is that HC won the vote in Nevada, but BO got more convention nominees - 13 to HC's 12. So how, exactly, did HC win?

I think it has to do with the concept of a Convention Pledge, which is binding in some real respects. In other words, my understanding is you can lose Nevada, but still win the delegates from Nevada necessary to help you win at the Convention.

^ How bizarre!

BBC NEWS | Americas | US election focus turns to south

If you look at the article above, the table will show you that although OB has "lost" more primaries than HC, he has 38 delegates to her 36.

What interested me however, was an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald which said that the person you should be looking for - among the Democrats - is neither HC nor OB but Edwards. The reason why? He currently has 18 delegates and, subject to what happens on Super Tuesday, is almost certainly going to have enough delegates to make up any difference between the two. So, according to the SMH, either HC or OB could "lose" the primary, but so long as the offer JE a good enough carrot, could still win the nomination.

I love democracy in action

Originally Posted by William

What interested me however, was an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald which said that the person you should be looking for - among the Democrats - is neither HC nor OB but Edwards. The reason why? He currently has 18 delegates and, subject to what happens on Super Tuesday, is almost certainly going to have enough delegates to make up any difference between the two. So, according to the SMH, either HC or OB could "lose" the primary, but so long as the offer JE a good enough carrot, could still win the nomination.

I just saw today's CNN debate and Edwards was very powerful. Hillary was even more unhinged and venomous than usual, accusing Obama of being an attorney for slumlords and supporting laws that allow sex shops near schools. What a frightening, hideous person she is. Edwards would flatten any leading Republican candidate. His economic populism just might catch on in the next few months as the US economy continues to unravel. But Edwards is running out of time and money.

Originally Posted by floorpotato

Edwards is running out of time and money

It really is kinda ridiculous to extraordinary amounts of money that's spent on these campaigns.

The fact that even the amount raised is newsworthy seems to me to indicate a fundamental issue with the whole process - the money doesn't come for free, it's basically a bunch of people with their own vested interests putting a punt on their candidate being nominated and then elected.

So before they've even ran in the race proper, all these candidates are beholden in some way or another to the 'special interests' of these people that have funded them. And of course anyone who can afford to 'donate' substantial sums of money in such a way isn't exactly representative of the people as a whole and their needs and wants.

Democracy in action huh.

TV advertising is a big cost. They also employ staffs for each state they're campaigning in. They travel a lot every day -- each stop can usually be measured in minutes. Maybe an hour for lunch or an hour for a proper speech. Some candidates just blow off certain states that they figure they're either a shoe-in or it's a lost cause. Many candidates also spend a lot of their own money on their campaigns.

I don't like the idea of blowing so much cash on "winning" the contest either, but if you don't raise some money and spend it wisely, you're toast.

Ideally, candidates would be judged purely on their platform, in a blind vote (voters wouldn't know if the candidate was a woman, a black or had three noses). Simply vote on the issues and the nation gets who they voted for ... ain't gonna happen.

^I think there is a maximum donation per person. In fact, if I recall, the amount is not all that much - about $1,000

That said, I think there are ways around this.

^ I think the $1,000 applies to 'personal donations' as seperate and distinct from the much larger 'campaign contributions' which - as long as they are declared - have no upper limit that I'm aware of?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure myself; Tex or any other of our American members know the specifics?

$2,300 is the current max

Originally Posted by floorpotato

I just saw today's CNN debate and Edwards was very powerful. Hillary was even more unhinged and venomous than usual, accusing Obama of being an attorney for slumlords and supporting laws that allow sex shops near schools. What a frightening, hideous person she is. Edwards would flatten any leading Republican candidate. His economic populism just might catch on in the next few months as the US economy continues to unravel. But Edwards is running out of time and money.

A great debate. Hilde was nasty but Obama cut her no slack when he derided her for sitting on the board of Walmart. Also, the audience booed her when she made that attack on OB. I agree, Edwards is a fine speaker, but his views scare me -- he'll have the whole country unionized, and anyone with a business will suffer. Hilde even pulled billionaire Warren Buffet into the fray -- fek, the guy's just donated most of his wealth to Bill Gates' charities. Dems want to tax the crap out of people who work hard, build a strong company, and made alot of money. Even China allows that today.
A bunch of meanies, really.

^ Agree on Demos wanting to tax working folks - bad.

On Edwards and unions - unions are already dead.

The Democrats have a better record of managing the economy than the Republicans.



Less Cash in Their Pockets: Trends in Incomes, Wages, Taxes, and Health Spending of Middle-Income Families, 2000-03

Hootad, the cost of living increases every year, no matter who is in office. Is that graph from Congress correct? I thought the defict was in trillions. And how is this measured? By the Treasury market's bond offerings.
Yep, things were so much cheaper in Clinton's era. Well, we don't live in that era and prices have increased for everything, or do you still pay the same amount for a quart of milk that you did in 2000?

The table with the 2000 and 2003 info based on 2003 dollars is another scam. How about basing it on 2000 dollar values?

SECURITY PHOTO

Psst!!! Hey ... This was sent to me by an associate in the surveillance field. I am sharing it with friends and family on a need to know basis. I cannot vouch for its validity but, if true, it could very well rock the foundation of this country.
SECURITY PHOTO: CONFIDENTIAL
The photo is a video capture from a security camera located in the North Corridor that leads to the Senate floor in the US Capitol Building .
This is classified material, so do not ask how or where I got it.
Please DO NOT FORWARD this. The repercussions could shake things up more than you can imagine .

^ Ice maiden? 555

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Oh really? Let's compare tax rates of the Clinton administartion and GWB shall we?

GWB gave a big tax break to the super-rich, I believe, meanwhile the cost of living has increased during his tenure and wages stagnated; how does this benefit the middle class and working poor, compared to Clinton? Facts, please.

I agree with you. (But I don't know if you're referring to me.)

I was referring to the Democratic party - not Bill Clinton.

Yes, GWB gave tax cuts to the top, while the Middle Class slow sinks, every year, and the working class declines as well.

Both parties tax the middle class.

The trend of wage stagnation, and higher COL (cost of living) started about 35 years ago, and will continue.

Bill Clinton IMO, was one of the better Presidents the US has had many decades.

He also practiced the fiscal policy of "Pay as you go" as the deficit charts illustrates.

And good charts by you, Hootad.

I agree with you.