![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
american politics
Another reason why Obama is the better candidate (well, kinda, or more that his supporters are marginally less twattish than Clinton's):
"Recent polls suggest that more than a quarter of Mrs Clinton's supporters would defect to the Republicans if Mr Obama wins. Almost a fifth of his voters threaten to switch if she becomes the Democrat nominee."
1/4 and 1/5 of democrats would go republican if their democrat didn't win??
You've got to be fucking nuts. I'm such a strong supporter, I'll change my whole ideology out of spite if my horse don't win the popularity contest, yeehaw!
Fucking politics blah blah fucking americans grumble blah rant GOOD MORNING WORLD.
I have rehearsals today. I shouldn't be in a bad mood as it will be fun, but it's also The Morning. Blah.
¬_¬
"Recent polls suggest that more than a quarter of Mrs Clinton's supporters would defect to the Republicans if Mr Obama wins. Almost a fifth of his voters threaten to switch if she becomes the Democrat nominee."
1/4 and 1/5 of democrats would go republican if their democrat didn't win??
You've got to be fucking nuts. I'm such a strong supporter, I'll change my whole ideology out of spite if my horse don't win the popularity contest, yeehaw!
Fucking politics blah blah fucking americans grumble blah rant GOOD MORNING WORLD.
I have rehearsals today. I shouldn't be in a bad mood as it will be fun, but it's also The Morning. Blah.
¬_¬
no subject
I suspect that the Times is guilty of misrepresenting the poll. The voter can still vote for the Democrats AND vote for McCain so the poll probably reflects a change in selection of candidate, rather than party.
There are also voters that vote different ways in the three elections because they feel that maintaining checks and balances is the most important. And, for whatever reason, there are voters that are registered with one party, but vote for the other, so these probably affect the figures.
I'm not saying that the system doesn't have its
flawsoddities, but I don't think that the ideological thing follows.GOOD EVENING!
no subject
I don't fully understand american politics, as much as I try. I should stop judging them by our system, as they differ so much. it's not as if either of us has a workable democracy.
blah blah blah grumble BLAH
anyway, what makes you so sensible at this time of day? :)
no subject
On the other hand, I am far from sensible. This place is doing my head in! I thought I had a date this evening and now, if I don't watch out, a horny-by-proxy old man will make me buy a woman for the night, because my date seems to have cancelled.
no subject
no subject
If they started it then we must have got it wrong when emulating them.
no subject
no subject
But I may be wrong.
no subject
I hope they gave it the right to buy, provided it kept up with its rent. It's only fair.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Eh, not really true. His personality was part of what attracted some people and repelled others, but ultimately, I think it was his penchant for religious platitudes and his campaigns' use of fearmongering ("Oh noes! The terrorists and homosex-shulz is gonna getcha!") that got him elected. That and Diebold.
Of course, the fact that a portion of the American public will vote for someone based on whether they like them rather than whether their policies make any bit of sense what-so-fucking-ever is a contributory issue. I'm curious to see what would happen if a high-profile celebrity founded a a party analogous to the Monster Raving Loony party over there, because you just know they'd do at least as well as Ralph Nader...
I think it's a misnomer to assume that people voted for Bush because they "like him." It may be a worse crime, ultimately, but I think a lot of Americans genuinely liked his policies, misguided as they may be. They liked his track record of putting a bazillion people to death in Texas. It's not so much that they're ignoring his policies, because they like his personality. It's that his personality and policies are akin to the way in which they think the world should be run. It's erroneous and ignorant, but it's more than just "Aw, I like that guy!"
no subject
But you have to remember that those upswings in popularity, if they really exist, are based on really suspect polling practices. I think it's true that Americans responded to seeing more personality from Gore, and while I'm sure it's part of what influences the vote, I don't think it's as important as some are making it out to be. Sure, a lot of retardonaut Americans wanted to have a beer with Bush, but I bet that while they had that beer, they'd also want to hear him say "We gon' bomb us some A-rabs and give ya a tax cut!"
As for Bush's policies, you've got me there. The 2004 election was interesting to watch, in a rubbernecking sort of way, in that you had all these people saying they weren't going to vote for Bush for any of many reasons, and then a while later they were admitting that actually they did vote for him, because he was going to bring in tax breaks that would suit them. Which in and of itself is fine, only for the spending the preceding months talking about how awful he was and how they wouldn't vote for him...
Honestly, I still don't know what to make of the 2004 election. Something about it doesn't really add up at all. Well, a lot doesn't add up, truthfully.
no subject
no subject
no subject
So, more accurately: "Representative republic: ur doin it wrong"
no subject
no subject
no subject
The primaries are for party registered voters only aren't they?
Same goes for this mass exodus in the main topic, not very likely as the majority of Americans who do turn out are registered to the party of their choice.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've always maintained the position that every candidate is terrible. And nothing about the last three or four presidential elections here has reminded me of anything but student council in high school.
no subject
no subject
Don't get me wrong, I've always admitted that American presidential elections are a question of choosing between the douche or the turd sandwich... but at least the douche has a purpose. The turd sandwich is just... revolting.
Still, I had been waiting to see how the Dems would, yet again, snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Guess now I know.
no subject
If they'd wanted to win the election, they should have run Al Gore. After all, he won last time - and back then he didn't have his Nobel prize or Oscar.
But I'm sure they'll find some way to blame it all on Ralph Nader.
no subject
Meanwhile, I continue to find it hilarious that a decade ago, there were all these complaints that Hilary was too involved in Bill's administration, running things behind the scenes, and now the cry is that she has no experience.
Either way, I can't stand the American vacillation that seems omnipresent in my lifetime. "Man, [party in power] hasn't done enough. Send a message! Let's vote [the other guys] (with too narrow a margin to accomplish anything), then complain when they fail, and show our displeasure by swinging the other way." I want a Democratic legislature, and a Democratic president, in the forlorn hope of the government actually achieving something in my lifetime. The mess we're in is intractable enough without keeping not quite enough legislators to bust a veto up against a president with a differing agenda.
I do mostly agree on Gore, though. He certainly had the best slogan option of anyone: "Re-elect Al Gore in 2008." Sadly, the folks who realize he won are fewer than those who think he lost, and fewer than those who voted against him, so the rhetoric would all come down to running a loser - or, even acknowledging his win, a quitter - a second time.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
that being said, McCain might not be a bad president compared to George W. Bush but I'm not going to go vote for him, either.
no subject
Hmmm...
no subject
no subject
no subject
fair's fair.
no subject