39 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Did we really see a true majority in the tally
or was the winner from a hand-picked collection of minorities? I believe it was the latter.
quick glance at a couple of sites
it seems that in the last 50 years the average percenage of voter turnout is from 45% to 62%.
So obviously some years it wasn't a majority, just a majority of eligible that cared enough to vote and in some years not even a majority of voters voted, much less for one candidate.
I was speaking more of the way they campaign
Back in the '60s, the candidates came to our statehouse steps. In other towns it might be the town square. They'd go to a generally gathering or meeting place. During this past election, college campuses were prime real estate for speech making...that, union halls and other very select locations which weren't readily available to the general public. That's how it was in may town, anyway. Some states or people got little or no attention at all. Candidates already know who will be loyal to the opposition regardless of who that person is. They know not to put much effort into getting in front of them and focus on just making sure their own base turns up to vote. We've been divided into a bunch of minorities by race, economic class, gender, sexual preference, etc. Gather enough minorities together by making promises of special support and you can easily defeat the largest group out there.
True enough but can't see the courting fractions changing
Well that's certainly not what I saw, and at this level he's
the first Presidential candidate to fight two elections. From what I read from Nate Silver's site, Obama won the lion's share of previously uncommitted voters.
Ane what could have represented a hand-picked candidate from a minority than Mitt Romney. If it had been Eisenhower, or Colin Powell, or someone from a similar background he'd have done far better, and Obama might have been in trouble, but even Republicans couldn't stand Romney.
"or was the winner from a hand-picked collection of minorities?" sounds distinctly like, he doesn't look like me so it's a fraud. Precisely who is it you conceive that does the hand picking? You don't believe it is a natural swing in the leaning of the electorate? and a rejection of the blatant phoniness of Mitt Romney.
This same argument could be pulled by a candidate who lost by 2% in an election with a 97% turn out. "I'd have won if everybody had shown up." said the loser.
Obama got 3 million votes more than Romney in an election with a turn out around 57%. That's a victory, no matter how little you like it. And has served as a victory for Republicans in the past without cheese-paring complaints like this.
As loathesome as the person who said it is, "This is not your grandfather's America" is absolutely true. Then again his America wasn't like his Grandfather's America either. No place stands still through time. Look at the Middle East.
The people who tend to be lazy about elections are the poor and ethnic minorities, meaning that if you'd gone around to everyone and collected their votes odds are Obama would have won quite big, Unlike Bush in 2000 who lost the total vote tally, but won the electoral vote.
Maybe I miss the days when, as I mentioned, candidates
picked open venues to speak and took their cheers and boos in stride. They actually talked about political issues, their own accomplishments and ambitions. It wasn't all that long ago. This past election we got to see a different campaign method. We got to see a candidate bring rock and rap stars with him, pick his venues based on who he knew his supporters were and make sure the cameras caught loud cheers for the TV news. From what I saw, only one of the two candidates deliberately addressed a crowd that was known to be hostile toward him. That takes some guts.
I've heard past complaints about presidential candidates who were dividers and not uniters. It's my opinion that our current president beat all records as being the country's biggest divider. It would be difficult to not see that in his presidency and his campaign. He set a bar that I hope no one ever clears again.
As for voting, I'd prefer to have a president elected by those who studied well the candidates and issues and made a concerted effort to get themselves to the polls. I can't think that highly of those who only consider selfish and personal desires or will only vote if they can an all expense paid trip to the polling place and back. That's what, in some places, is happening.
You miss the days when candidates were chosen in the cliche`
ridden "smoke filled rooms" outside and inside the convention halls, and then campaigned usually in well organized venues outdoors or indoors. Okay, I miss my innocence too, the time when cynicism seemed an aberration rather than a simple clear-eyed view of the process. But Romney was certainly not The People's Choice of the Republican Party, and less so than Obama was the People's choice of the Democratic Party.
Obama comes closer to the old myth than anyone in decades, closer to being an Outsider than anyone since Jimmy Carter, nearly 30 years ago.
Obama and Carter
You certainly got that combination correct.
Not just my opinion anymore
I've noticed in the news that many on both sides are favoring having the conventions held much sooner than August so that a primary pick has the ability to start campaigning earlier in the race and not have an incumbent have months ahead of the challenger, since the challenger isn't allowed to start spending on the campaign until the convention is over. More equal footing equals 'fair share', 'fair shot', etc.
This race was the most noticeable for the disproportional amount of campaigning done because BO was able to start well before February in gathering funds and once the runners were in place for the Republican side by February, the Dems had already decided which ones of those runners would be the most 'promising' to go after. They decided on Romney well in advance and targeted him almost exclusively and was able to 'define' him in the light they wanted to present long before Romney was actually picked.......and that gave Romney only from mid-August to the first week in November to run his actual campaign. He had so many slanders to defend against that he didn't have much time to redefine himself away from what the Dems had already painted him as.
If the conventions aren't held any earlier, then I believe the campaigning rules for an incumbent need to be changed via the election board itself to where the incumbent also can't begin to campaign until his/her convention either.
As I said, according to some news reports I've seen on both sides with various commentators and news 'reporters', there seems to be support for either either plan/revision. I hope it goes further than just talk at this point.
Incumbent advantage could be eliminated
by single term or non-consecutive term elections. Give a person 4, 5 or 6 years but require them to wait through another election cycle before being permitted to run again. The "Oops. I need a bit more time." plea wouldn't stand.
Why not change Presidents as often as you change your socks?
Not a good idea
They'd be in office way too long.
Change your socks more often
Or does the Gov tell you when to change your socks?
I'm glad you enjoyed 8 years of Bush
Too bad it wasn't more.
If you "survive"...............................Ya' done good
...IF you "enjoy it"...THAT'S a bonus.
I can't recall many people complaining the country wouldn't "survive" Bush.
Of course I could have selective memory.
Some don't think they'll "survive" Obama....Ho Hum/Oh Well.
We'll "survive" them, that's all that matters.
It has a long and glorious history
John Adams didn't think the US would survive a Thomas Jefferson Presidency.
It was Republican legislation which prevented that.
But Bush wouldn't have won against Obama in that first race. The Democratic base was just too pumped, and too eager to get rid of every vestige of Bush. Of course, Bush could have done to Wall Street exactly what he did to New Orleans. Let it drown by slow inches.
And Diana, they both died with more or less the same words
on their lips on the same day, "Jefferson yet lives." said Adams, but Jefferson had died a few hours earlier. I gather that Jefferson was similarly obsessed on his death bed with outliving Adams.
Carter is not deserving of the dismissal that everyone heaps
upon him because of the failure of Desert One. I don't know chapter and verse why the rescue took so long to set up (it may have been military exigencies which delayed it) though I certainly know what a ****-up it was. I just don't think Carter bears the lion's share of the blame, just an equal share. The Military didn't come out of it looking too good either and subsequently revised their procedures and sent quite a lot of troops and commanders to train with the SAS in Britain. I remember Carter being interviewed and being asked if he had any regrets, "Yes, I should have sent one more helicopter to Desert One."
All of us armchair Presidents sit around thinking we're all so smart, and "Why didn't they do this?" Just look at the Matthew Brady images of Lincoln where he appears to age 25 years in little over 4. Just look at photographs and videos of Barack Obama in the first campaign versus how he looks now, he looks about 15 years older, greyer hair, deeper lines in his face, an air of carrying a great burden. That's what the Presidency does.
His predecessor shows none of those things I note, but his predecessor was President in name only, **** Cheney looks older, Condoleeza Rice, lovely as she is, looks older, Rumsfeld looks like an octagenarian, and virtually all the rest of his cabinet looks older, but some how good old George escaped the pressure. Maybe it was all that rehabilitative brush cutting down in Crawford that rejuvenated him. Or maybe, as some of us have been saying since day one, he didn't have a clue and the Presidency was being run for him, just like his MBA and his Yale degree.
How I long for the truth behind Bush's transcripts.
How come you don't
long for BO's transcripts and admittance documents?
I'd don't believe I've ever even mentioned that, not once in all these years in the forum. My objection to Carter has always been social and economic. As for Desert One, if it failed at the outset, why would I blame him for not taking another chance on a second failure. Also it was our military which failed that mission, not Carter directly. Carter's failures in any of that were prior to and then follow up to the unfortunate circumstances of that failure by the military. After a failure like that, I'd not have taken another chance on them at the time either.
sometimes i watch Science Movies .:)
Me too, and sometimes I even watch Science Fiction Movies. R
Aren't you the snide one
and appointed yourself to be the grammatically correct SE police now?
Whaaat??? There was nothing there. I didn't correct
anyone's grammar, I was just making a joke. Maria said she watched Science Movies, and I said Me too, and went on to mention Science fiction movies. Is there a person in this world over the age of 10 who hasn't seen Star Wars?
I write gramatically correct English because that's how I was brought up. I don't do it for any other reason, and I've made lots of grammatical mistakes here which wouldn't be accepted in a University essay.
Toni, you're finding things that don't exist.
You don't have the ability to
not respond when you think you have a zinger you can throw at somebody. She wrote "science movie" when your original topic line said "science fiction' and you just couldn't stop yourself from 'correcting' her and pointing out her 'error'. Shame on you.....it's a habit of yours that needs to be broken because it isn't a 'joke'; it's an unnecessary slam. Everyone but you let it go because we knew what she meant.
RE: it's a habit of yours that needs to be broken
Aren't you the snide one - New!
by TONI H - 11/26/12 8:13 AM
In Reply to: (NT) Me too, and sometimes I even watch Science Fiction Movies. R by Ziks511
and appointed yourself to be the grammatically correct SE police now?
And you're the self appointed
hypocrisy police? I'm so glad SE has such a good "all volunteer army" to keep members under control.
So you noticed the hypocrisy also...it's not just me
There's no shortage of it, IMO,
and the chain gets long and unbroken. It's become too predictable as to who will call out certain members but leave their friends alone. That, too, is hypocritical behavior. I'm sure I've also been guilty of it also. Maybe it should stop. Anyone care to go first?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)