DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[kapkomet]

It amazes me how you people spin this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (I could go on) again.

 

The laws that were on the books in Florida during 2000 were not followed. If the laws as they exist now (after they closed the loopholes) were on the books then, it would have been a different outcome...

 

The Supreme Court told the Fla. Supreme Court that they had to interpret the laws at the time, not what they "should have been". That's a gross oversimplification, but that's the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

The Supreme Court told the Fla. Supreme Court that they had to interpret the laws at the time, not what they "should have been". That's a gross oversimplification, but that's the bottom line.

The problem I have with that decision is that the Supreme Ct. clearly didn't believe enough in what they were saying to actually have it as settled law, because they attempted to include that clause in their own verdict saying that this decision could not be used as precedent. If the court itself thought it was issuing a sound legal opinion, then that clause makes no sense. I take that as an admission that the majority on the court knew full well they were deciding that based entirely on the 5-4 lead the Republicans had in appointments to the court, and that they felt it was a political decision and not a legal one.

[mr_genius]

the majority on the court knew full well they were deciding that based entirely on the 5-4 lead the Republicans had in appointments to the court, and that they felt it was a political decision and not a legal one.

 

or was it the 4 that voted not to enforce current state laws which were acting politically?

[Balta1701]

or was it the 4 that voted not to enforce current state laws which were acting politically?

Both sides were, and it's implied that both sides knew that fully in the fact that the majority did not want that decision to be used as a precedent. The simple fact was that the election wound up decided by which side had appointed the most people to the court, and that is exactly how both sides voted. The law was not the issue.

[longshot7]

Well, the odds say that as long as the system sits around as badly broken as it currently is, its probably only a matter of time before a Repub. wins the popular vote and a Dem winds up in office too, so...

 

Doesn't make it right.

 

No matter how screwed up Florida was (or Ohio, or the South, or any other state for that matter) - if the Electoral College didn't exist, Gore would have won the election. And that's the bottom line.

 

Popular vote only. We're Americans first, and (state)-ians second.

[Jenksismyhero]

Popular vote only. We're Americans first, and (state)-ians second.

 

IMO that's the exact opposite direction we should be heading in. Small states become unimportant if you do that. Candidates would simply forget about 10-12 states because the population isn't big enough. Their votes wouldn't matter. Why promise farm subsidies when you can promise New Yorkers energy credits. More people, more votes, more pull. The exact opposite intention of most of the Founding Fathers.

 

And I'm an Illinois citizen first. This is where I live. This is where I work. The US just happens to surround me.

[BigSqwert]

And I'm an Illinois citizen first. This is where I live. This is where I work. The US just happens to surround me.

So why do you care about the 200 people that live in Montana?

[Balta1701]

IMO that's the exact opposite direction we should be heading in. Small states become unimportant if you do that. Candidates would simply forget about 10-12 states because the population isn't big enough. Their votes wouldn't matter. Why promise farm subsidies when you can promise New Yorkers energy credits. More people, more votes, more pull. The exact opposite intention of most of the Founding Fathers.

 

And I'm an Illinois citizen first. This is where I live. This is where I work. The US just happens to surround me.

You do realize that there's already been a major effort to take care of that issue, right? Specifically, the great compromise in the Constitution; small states getting equal representation in the Senate and larger states dominating the House?

 

And the farm subsidy system as it stands now is an abject disaster, btw. For everyone who doesn't own a factory farm.

[Jenksismyhero]

Who has control these days in the Fed Gov? Sure as hell isn't Congress. The Executive is now the king branch mainly because he is a reality star. The majority of the country thinks that he should be the one proposing legislation and that he should be the one getting things done. If you take away the EC there's no reason for this incredibly powerful individual to spend 2 seconds thinking about any rural area of the country. They don't have enough people to make a difference in a popular vote, so why focus on them? Focus on the major metro areas and you're set for election day. Farm subsidizes was just an example of an issue that a small percentage of the country deals with.

 

And I don't concern myself with Montana-ians unless we're talking about the collective whole of the country, i.e. in foreign affairs or national issues. Generally though those issues make up what, 10%, of our daily lives, if that? The vast majority of governmental issues are state/local related. It's unfortunate that we don't focus our attention on that. I'm a strong proponent that the fed gov is wayyyy to large and that the vast majority of power should be held with each State.

 

[Chet Lemon]

or was it the 4 that voted not to enforce current state laws which were acting politically?

 

I don't think so because the four dissenters thought that the State Court violated Equal Protection like the majority. Where they differed was that they argued the Supreme Court should not have decided whether or nor to stop the recount, but instruct the State Court to provide clear standards for recounting ballots.

 

[Balta1701]

Who has control these days in the Fed Gov? Sure as hell isn't Congress. The Executive is now the king branch mainly because he is a reality star. The majority of the country thinks that he should be the one proposing legislation and that he should be the one getting things done. If you take away the EC there's no reason for this incredibly powerful individual to spend 2 seconds thinking about any rural area of the country. They don't have enough people to make a difference in a popular vote, so why focus on them? Focus on the major metro areas and you're set for election day. Farm subsidizes was just an example of an issue that a small percentage of the country deals with.

But in terms of all the issues you could bring up that wind up being important to small states, things like farm subsidies, or immigration regulations, etc., all of that stuff gets hashed out in the budget debates in Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit, and George W. has truly made it a king branch, but his power over the minute details that matter to folks in states like Iowa, Montana, etc. (pick your example) is not nearly as great. Day to day issues, like ethanol subsidies, drilling in one place or another, funds for highways, and on and on, that all gets hashed out by the deal makers in Congress and their lobbyist friends.

 

The President has the ability to set the national priorities. He has the control of foreign policy, defense, and apparently, the ability to break the law at his discretion without any consequences. But he does not control the budget. He can propose legislation, but it's the guys in Congress who hash it out and make it work or not.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think so because the four dissenters thought that the State Court violated Equal Protection like the majority. Where they differed was that they argued the Supreme Court should not have decided whether or nor to stop the recount, but instruct the State Court to provide clear standards for recounting ballots.

Don't you mean 'stop the third recount'? Or was it the fourth? Whichever, they were going to keep counting until they made it 'right'.

[Jenksismyhero]

But in terms of all the issues you could bring up that wind up being important to small states, things like farm subsidies, or immigration regulations, etc., all of that stuff gets hashed out in the budget debates in Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit, and George W. has truly made it a king branch, but his power over the minute details that matter to folks in states like Iowa, Montana, etc. (pick your example) is not nearly as great. Day to day issues, like ethanol subsidies, drilling in one place or another, funds for highways, and on and on, that all gets hashed out by the deal makers in Congress and their lobbyist friends.

 

The President has the ability to set the national priorities. He has the control of foreign policy, defense, and apparently, the ability to break the law at his discretion without any consequences. But he does not control the budget. He can propose legislation, but it's the guys in Congress who hash it out and make it work or not.

 

 

But that's why it's important. The Prez can set national priorities that effect a minority of people. At this point it doesn't matter who has the actual authority to get something done. The President often has higher powers in the form of national attention. He picks up a hot topic and runs with it, he can force Congress' hands to get something. Even if Congress COULD tell him no and refuse to put X program in the budget, the Reps won't if they know their constituency at home won't reelect them.

 

To me, if the President doesn't have to speak to rural America and could instead worry about only the metro areas, wouldn't our priorities for national policy be skewed towards those metro areas? I'm not denying that small states can still 'get stuff' from their reps in Congress, but I feel they'd be second rate citizens compared to the big boys. And even if this isn't a big deal but 10% of the time, who cares? How many times in the last 200 some odd years have we had elections come down to a small number of votes where the EC is different from the popular? Two times? Three times?

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Ummm, if it weren't for shenanigans in Illinois and Texas, Nixon would have won the Electoral College in 1960.

Less than 150,000 popular votes effectively decided the electoral college in 1960, 1976, 2000 and 2004.

[Mplssoxfan]

The Iron Law of Unintended Consequences would rear its ugly head if the switch were undertaken. Because of that alone, I'm leery of it.

[Balta1701]

The Iron Law of Unintended Consequences would rear its ugly head if the switch were undertaken. Because of that alone, I'm leery of it.

Can anything that the law of unintended consequences could possibly do be worse than 8 years of Bush/Cheney?

[southsider2k5]

So how about the fun between Hillary and Barack? How do you guys feel about that stuff?

[FlaSoxxJim]

So how about the fun between Hillary and Barack? How do you guys feel about that stuff?

 

What has irked me the most so far was finding out Edwards and Hillary were actively conspiring to keep everybody else out of the dialogue.

 

Not cool.

[southsider2k5]

What has irked me the most so far was finding out Edwards and Hillary were actively conspiring to keep everybody else out of the dialogue.

 

Not cool.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all. If the Dems and Repubs can get together to keep the minor parties away, it doesn't surprise me that Hill and Edwards would try to eliminate their Dem competitions.

[Rex Kickass]

The truth is though, that if you have 10 people at every debate, you get no real answers to any question.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The truth is though, that if you have 10 people at every debate, you get no real answers to any question.

 

I agree there is a need to get past the cacophony, but the democratic solution would be to amend the debate process rather than exclude certain candidates from it. And when the ones doing the excluding have everything to gain by it it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the voters.

[southsider2k5]

The truth is though, that if you have 10 people at every debate, you get no real answers to any question.

 

And if you start excluding people before anyone has any idea what they have to say, you end up with the same recycled crap as your candidates.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't disagree. I don't think that any candidate should be precluded from the debate process, but I think a debate with almost a dozen people doesn't actually give anyone a terribly good shot to stand out.

[Balta1701]

And if you start excluding people before anyone has any idea what they have to say, you end up with the same recycled crap as your candidates.

One potential solution to this problem, and something I wouldn't mind actually seeing, is a group of debates with smaller groups selected from the overall flock.

 

I mean, you can't tell me it wouldn't be interesting to see Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich on the floor for a debate, or something like that. Where each one gets a lot more than 10 minutes or so per session.

 

I'm personally hoping that the Republican Youtube debate comes out like this; everyone except Ron Paul and John McCain had pulled out of it at last report (ahhh, young people, internets, series of tubes...AAIIIIEEEEEE!!!!). That's a debate I'd love to see.

 

One other little note...with the current debate setup, it's not like everything has wound up fair anyway. The networks have obviously devoted more time to the "Major" candidates in each session. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, will usually get about 2x as much talking in as Gravel or Kucinich, so if the moderator is excluding the people anyway, then you have to wonder whether that time is even worth spending on them.

[Mplssoxfan]

Can anything that the law of unintended consequences could possibly do be worse than 8 years of Bush/Cheney?

 

I said, unintended.

 

But how about a runoff (there will be a runoff provision, right? If not, I really don't want it) between say, Donald Trump and Steven Spielberg? What a zoo.