Is it just me, or are the Democrats and Republicans converging? Back in the good ol days of Reagan, things were different. A Republican would shoot you dead for saying a woman should have the right to choose, and then brag about how pro life they were. A Democrat would take all your money, tax your favorite company out of business, then give all the proceeds to the poor while cheating on their wives.

Now, half the Republican presidential candidates are pro life, the sex scandal of the campaign has been Rudy 9/11 using NYC's tax money to pay for his affair, and the most pro war and pro corporate power candidate is Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats lost the White House in 2000 over 500 votes in a winner take all system. Look how hard they worked to reform the outdated Electoral College. They didn't! Why? Like any duopoly, there's no incentive to actually work when you know your time will come around again. Sure enough, after 7 years of Bush, Americans are so tired of Republicans that I could win as a Democrat. In 2004, the Democrats elected GWB with a strategy called "Anybody But Bush."

Today, the Democrats in Congress aren't fixing a **** thing. They're dragging their feet, trying to keep every problem alive until the election so they look better by comparison. That's not how a real democracy functions. I know in England things are dysfunctional, too - they scream at each other and throw rotten fruit at the guy who's speaking. But they have a plurality of parties, that actually compete with each other to accomplish things and win the favor of the public. Do we need that in America?

We don't live in a democracy, the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic.

And I don't think the political landscape is that great, being able to only choose from Candidate A or Candidate B, with the media jamming them down our throats, and for some reason, the people don't even give Candidate C (or D, E, F, etc. for that matter) a second glance, it's really saddening.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

We don't live in a democracy, the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic.

And I don't think the political landscape is that great, being able to only choose from Candidate A or Candidate B, with the media jamming them down our throats, and for some reason, the people don't even give Candidate C (or D, E, F, etc. for that matter) a second glance, it's really saddening.

Thats because people are sheep, waiting for their opinion to be handed to them from the media and/or everyone else. The popularity of Bush hatred, as well as the ground swell of Obama support I imagine results from something not entirely unlike the Asch conformity experiments.

In a survey group, most people could not name one good thing Obama has ever done in his career. Lets face it, this election has little to do with performance, or even issues, and much more to do with personalities, likability, popularity, and voting with the majority.

That survey group isn't a fluke.

Hillary supporters complain that Obama is campaigning on change, but if you ask the people who support him what kind of change he's proposing, most can't answer. This bothers Hillary because it's going to cost her power and money and because it means she's less likeable and less trustable than Obama is.

But it doesn't speak well for most Obama supporters. I think part of it is he's playing the age card instead of the race card.

I don't know if its the age card. Hes a charismatic, well spoken , intelligent, likable candidate. He is a hell of a lot less bitter than Hilary, and had the audacity to say he likes Dubya as a person. People say blacks vote for him because he is black, and whites vote for him out of guilt, or a desire to see the race rift healed in the nation, but I would say many would vote for him just because they are sick of the bitter divide between the Dems and Republicans in the nation, and he campaigns on the idea of Unity.

Three so called "conservatives" in a group of 15 surveyed said they would vote for him in the general over the Republican candidate? It just p*sses me off. It makes me think the Palestinians deserve EXACTLY WHAT THEY GOT when they voted Hamas into power.

Hillary tried to play the race card, which is pretty funny. MLK's dream only became valid when a politician - and that's what Hillary is - validated it. That's not what she meant after she said it, and arguably not what she said. But the underlying theme is clear.

I don't know if its the age card. Hes a charismatic, well spoken , intelligent, likable candidate. He is a hell of a lot less bitter than Hilary, and had the audacity to say he likes Dubya as a person.

I sorta liked the guy until I saw the pictures of him refusing to "pledge alligence to the flag".

If the is a reasonable explanation for this, I might reconsider. As it stands now I could never have a commander in chief unwilling to pledge alligence to the nation he was leading.

Well, I hope you weren't taking my quote as an endorsement. The guy is sadly under qualified for the job. He's the "feel good" candidate. Has none of the economic experience Romney has, Foreign Policy experience McCain has, or domestic policy experience Hilary has (if we can give her credit for her years in Bubba's white house). You vote for him because it makes you "Feel Good" to do so.

Whoever inherits the white house will likely be getting it in fairly good shape as this economic cycle will just be bottoming or coming out of a low and things will hopefully be further stabilized in Iraq. Maybe he can sleep his way through it, if he doesn't touch anything.

I'm of two minds on the question. I believe true democracy can only exist if as many parties as possible have an equal opportunity to present their platform and campaign issues to the public at large, and be able to influence them directly, without any media biases or subjective interpretations whatsoever. So with that in mind, I'd have to say the optimal democracy would require more than two parties; I don't know what the exact number is, but I'd say "as many parties as is required to accurately represent the governing jurisdiction". In the States, I'd venture to suggest that the system would operate optimally with between 5-7 parties speaking on behalf of the people.

Where that logic falls apart is with the media bias and political showmanship that exists, which pretty much kills any real hope of democracy in any North American nation. Let's take Canada for example. We have 3 major political parties: Liberals, and Progressive Conservatives, and New Democrats (for the Yanks, think Democrats, Republicans, and the GM Auto Workers' Local 719 that's all upset because DEY-TUK-OUR-JAYORBS! TUK-er-JORBS!) A fourth party, the Green Party of Canada, has been making fairly significant inroads for a second-tier fringe party, to the point where in the past Ontario provincial election, they received 8.1% of the vote. A lot of you might say that a party with only 8.1% of the vote isn't doing enough to make an impact, and you're right to some extent. The problem is that the Green Party simply weren't allowed to express themselves in the same manner that the other three parties were. They weren't allowed to participate in the provincial debate. They weren't given funding representative of their vote total. The media wanted almost no part of them. They basically campaigned using their website and a few other gimmicks along the way.

How is democracy supposed to exist when all parties aren't given equal opportunity to speak? The same logic applies to other fringe parties as well; at least give voters to hear parties like the Communist Party, or the Family Coalition Party, or the Freedom Party, or the Libertarian Party, or whatever parties exist...everyone should get an equal opportunity to be heard. Right now, that just isn't there.

In other words, the problem with democracy doesn't necessarily lie in the number of political parties (although I do think it's a contributing factor in the US case); it's a systemic issue that results from media bias and, as cbwm pointed out, an impressionable and uninformed public who will blindly make a decision without being given every opportunity to absorb all available information.

I say you guys just say to hell with the whole party politics thing and vote in Christopher Walken. America needs a creepy cool bad guy president.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He's the "feel good" candidate. Has none of the economic experience Romney has, Foreign Policy experience McCain has, or domestic policy experience Hilary has (if we can give her credit for her years in Bubba's white house). You vote for him because it makes you "Feel Good" to do so.

I hate to be the arse who says mean thing we all know to be true, but Obama has more and better foreign policy experience than McCain. Obama's is none, McCain's is negative. The man was captured by the enemy, for Chrissakes! It's admirable the sacrafice he made for his country, and at least he tried unlike most of the major candidates on both sides of the isle. But a spectacular failure is not the kind of experience that qualifies a person to lead America.

(Sort of like how the US National Security Adviser should have been fired on 9/12.)

I saw this youtube video last night, this thread reminded me of it. An interviewer went after an Obama supporter on the streets at the California Debate. You can tell by his tone of voice and questions he thinks the guys going to be an idiot and ends up getting owned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8...page=1&t=t&f=b

The 'nothing but fluff' stuff seems to be a common myth, Obama has all his positions on the issues and there technical details layed out on his website, but instead of rattling off numbers on his stump, he gives inspirational speeches and goes with the politics of hope theme.

Well, I don't think what his position on the issues are in question. He's clearly left of Chappaquidic Ted. His character doesn't seem to be in question either. He looks like the only candidate who has any. I do think, however, that his qualifications and accomplishments are seriously in question. Its also looking like hes very likely to win the general election.

Here is a little survey question. Which candidate is more divisive to their party, Hillary, or John McCain? Note I didn't ask who is more demoralizing as I think it is going to be hard to demoralize Democrats this year as they fuel themselves up on Bush hatred.

Interesting question. I don't know if it's one that can be answered. I woudl say Hillary is more divisive, because I'm closer to the division she's causing. I can see McCain shaking things up, and I can also see him pulling folks together (I know, they're mostly independants, not Repubs) but this is more distant. What I can say to your straw poll is John McCain is the Republican I least want to see as the Republican nominee, because he's the only one that could potentially win in a free and fair election.

I saw a comic skit where Colin Fergusson has a Bush and a Larry King impersonator. King asks Bush who he's voting for in 2008 for president, and Bush replies "Barak Obama." A shocked Larry King spits up his coffee and says "WHAT? REALLY?" Bush says "Yeah, Laar Bear, I know he's black, and a liberal and all of that, but he did cocaine in the 80s, so he's good in my book."

I sorta liked the guy until I saw the pictures of him refusing to "pledge alligence to the flag".

And in THAT you are misinformed an mis-led, that is an urban legend !

In truth, the event in question wasn't a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--rather, the participants were standing for the national anthem. The incident warranted so much attention that Obama felt inclined to post his own web site that "My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was two. During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

It was NOT the Pledge as circulated in the garbage emails that went out.

Its also looking like hes very likely to win the general election.

It is just way, WAY too early for a statement like that. There are still over HALF of the Democratic delegates to fight over, so it's likely to be a loooonng trying 7 months of fighting back and forth for those delegates, especially given the way democratic delegates are 'won'. Then you have the 'super delegates' and there's no way to know which way they're going to go at this point.

Hillary is scary, and I, for one, will NOT vote for her just because I'm a woman and so is she. Any woman who votes that way, specifically on gender, is an idiot. Same goes for the person who votes only because they're the same race as a candidate. It's simply NOT the way to intelligently choose a president !

Obama may not have the long history of 'experience' that people are harping about, but IMO this country needs someone who has some fresher ideas, a different approach than the moldy, old-school approaches that have been getting us NOWHERE.

McCain -- all he means is more of the same CRAP we've been getting for the last 8 years from Shrub - the gov't selling the American people down the river for the sake of big businesses who pump $$$ into their war chests thru a lot of corrupt lobbyists.

There are more than 2 parties in the US, the problem is that you have to be wealthy in order to get elected these days. Truman would never make these days, neither would Eisenhower - they were NOT wealthy men. The other parties just don't have the MONEY to get their candidates the exposure needed to get anywhere. Ron Paul .. he's FROM my area, yet I had no idea who the man was .. and I still don't. Given his positions, I'd never vote for him anyway, and this man has some money - just not enough to really be heard in the media.

If you can't buy the media.. you can't win.

Is it just me, or is the name "Shrub" kind of endearing? You are right we are a long way from the finish line, I'm just opining on the reality of today. I keep clicking my heels and wishing Gingrich had ran this year.