Topic: Primary Wars (Read 45891 times)

Thad · « **Reply #60 on:** February 25, 2008, 02:51:22 PM »

Quote from: S D S on February 25, 2008, 01:54:20 PM

He's shown zero reflection or contrition for anything he did post-2000, like screwing over the Green Party in 2004,

My recollection is they told him they wouldn't have him if he wanted to campaign in swing states. I can honestly see his point in not agreeing to those terms.

Of course, I'm NOT happy with him running his campaign on donations from Republicans; that's a major reason I didn't vote for him then and don't see voting for him now.

Quote from: S D S on February 25, 2008, 01:54:20 PM

and whenever he "speaks out" it's either to announce that he's thinking about running for President, he's running for President, or demagoguing Terri Schiavo or talking with Pat Buchanan in The American Conservative talking about how he's opposed to "feticide."

Just because that's all the media coverage he gets doesn't mean it's all he's doing. He's been vocal about free trade, safety, net neutrality -- basically all his pet issues. nader.org and citizen.org are both pretty good sources.

Burrito Al Pastor · « **Reply #61 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:02:17 PM »

Well, and the fact remains that the fundamental, constitutional American political structure simply doesn't work when you have more than two real options. Too many voting thresholds define the majority as being more than half.

Thad · « **Reply #62 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:11:30 PM »

Well, there are plenty of things to be said about a non-plurality (that's the word you're looking for I think, not majority) voting system if that's a discussion you want to have, but I find it a little farfetched to say American democracy doesn't work with more than two parties. Lincoln was a third-party candidate, Jefferson ran in a three-man race, and Washington thought parties were a stupid idea outright.

(Of course, Washington ran unopposed, Jefferson tied electorally with the man who wound up shooting the former secretary of state to death, and half the nation seceded upon Lincoln's election, so perhaps your point stands.)

Burrito Al Pastor · « **Reply #63 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:50:10 PM »

Hell, there were two parties before the constitution was even ratified, although they weren't yet parties as such.

S D S · « **Reply #64 on:** February 26, 2008, 12:36:58 PM »

I still don't get it.

Nader is three years older than McCain.

Nader is six months younger than the average age of death in the United States.

It is very, very unlikely that Nader is going to get on every state ballot in the country.

Nader could possibly... possibly! garner himself a hundred thousand votes.

Nationwide.

This run isn't about changing the country, it's about Nader whacking off while he stares into a a mirror longingly (metaphorically).

Brentai · « **Reply #65 on:** February 26, 2008, 08:01:30 PM »

I think it's about proving that a third-party candidate can get votes.

...and it's going to prove otherwise.

Mongrel · « **Reply #66 on:** February 26, 2008, 08:05:35 PM »

Meanwhile, over at The Onion...

Mongrel · « **Reply #67 on:** February 26, 2008, 09:52:36 PM »

Hm!

Minor bombshell. From the Canadian point of view, that's easily the most relevant bit of news to come out of the whole campaign. More than a bit scary as it demonstrates just how piss-poor both candiates' economic acuity is. Pissing all over free trade at this point will lose far more jobs than it might save, at least in the short and probably in the middle terms (leaving aside the idea of whether it could be made to work in the long term or not).

On the balance of probability, it's just grandstanding and brinksmanship. But the cavalier attitude is still damned ~~annoying~~ worrisome.

Thad · « **Reply #68 on:** February 26, 2008, 11:24:47 PM »

NAFTA seems like a stupid place to start the debate. I have issues with it -- it's had a negative impact on both business and environmental regulation, and as far as I'm concerned anything that spreads current US copyright policy is a bad thing -- but it's not nearly the nightmare that WTO is.

EDIT: Relating this back to the earlier conversation:

Quote from: S D S on February 26, 2008, 12:36:58 PM

This run isn't about changing the country, it's about Nader whacking off while he stares into a a mirror longingly (metaphorically).

Quote from: eloH on February 26, 2008, 08:01:30 PM

I think it's about proving that a third-party candidate can get votes.

...and it's going to prove otherwise.

I would argue that it's about trying to get the Democrats to acknowledge that the corporate manipulation of our political system is a very bad thing.

I would further argue, as Tom did in the quoted bit above, that Nader's dreaming and he's never going to get that to happen, that any conversation he attempts to have immediately becomes about him and not about his message.

But -- and here's the part where I tie these two things together -- I think Nader would argue that it's obviously working because Clinton and Obama BOTH decided to go after NAFTA within days of him announcing his candidacy.

Which I think has about as much validity as Bush claiming credit for the lack of attacks on US soil since 9/11, and this rock keeping tigers away, but hey, it's Democrats suggesting that "free" trade agreements are not inherently a good thing. And that's a step up, even though, as I've said, NAFTA is certainly not one of the more egregious agreements we're in right now.

Thad · « **Reply #69 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:46:07 PM »

Oh hey, IM, assumed you knew this but just realized maybe I shouldn't have.

The article you linked mentions the upcoming primaries in Texas and Ohio, which are make-or-break for Clinton.

What it doesn't mention is that this posturing has everything to do with Ohio. NAFTA is TREMENDOUSLY unpopular in Ohio, and the voters there haven't forgotten that a Clinton signed it into law.

Anyway, don't know if you knew that or not, but just in case, NYT has more.

SCD · « **Reply #70 on:** February 28, 2008, 03:58:46 AM »

Quote from: Thad on February 26, 2008, 11:24:47 PM

NAFTA seems like a stupid place to start the debate. I have issues with it -- it's had a negative impact on both business and environmental regulation, and as far as I'm concerned anything that spreads current US copyright policy is a bad thing -- but it's not nearly the nightmare that WTO is.
...

..thing. And that's a step up, even though, as I've said, NAFTA is certainly not one of the more egregious agreements we're in right now.

Yeah, we dare you to open up that pandora's box.

Do it.

Make us rich..

Fredward · « **Reply #71 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:03:07 PM »

Mongrel · « **Reply #72 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:26:03 PM »

Quote from: Thad on February 27, 2008, 11:46:07 PM

Oh hey, IM, assumed you knew this but just realized maybe I shouldn't have.

The article you linked mentions the upcoming primaries in Texas and Ohio, which are make-or-break for Clinton.

What it doesn't mention is that this posturing has everything to do with Ohio. NAFTA is TREMENDOUSLY unpopular in Ohio, and the voters there haven't forgotten that a Clinton signed it into law.

Anyway, don't know if you knew that or not, but just in case, NYT has more.

Ah, the first two points I did know (that the primaries are coming up, and that they're make or break for Clinton), but I didn't know anything about the popularity of NAFTA in Ohio. I know one or two folks in Ohio and they never mention it (on the other hand, they're rich assholes, so...)

Arc · « **Reply #73 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:51:07 AM »

<--------

Haven't been active here because of all the election duties I've taken on. Hopefully will have more for you all on Wednesday.

Mongrel · « **Reply #74 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:44:27 PM »

Hey, I already won my primary race.

Thad · « **Reply #75 on:** March 01, 2008, 12:58:09 AM »

New Clinton ad takes a page from Mondale's playbook and ends by talking about what a good decider she is.

Seriously, what the hell is she thinking?

Kashan · « **Reply #76 on:** March 01, 2008, 01:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Thad on March 01, 2008, 12:58:09 AM

Seriously, what the hell is she thinking?

"ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit
ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit!"

A² · « **Reply #77 on:** March 02, 2008, 05:23:35 AM »

So. question. Hillary's going at Obama like he's a fresh piece of meat and she's a rabid bear.

Has anyone told her that they're technically on the same side (Democrat)? I mean, if she does win (long shot), how exactly is she going to cater to the thousands of people she's pissed off who need to vote for her now?

Thad · « **Reply #78 on:** March 02, 2008, 11:17:57 AM »

She expects them to fall in line because she's the Democrat. What she's not counting on is that a lot of Dems would rather vote for McCain than for her, and a lot of Obama's base are people who might not vote at all if he's not the nominee.

You're absolutely right; they're on the same side and she needs to step down her rhetoric. John McCain's already pretty much quoting her criticisms of Obama verbatim. (Well, not the plagiarism one. I think he has the good sense to realize that's ridiculous and nobody cares.)

Of course, McCain himself is a perfect example of a situation where most of his strongest critics (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al) have fallen in line behind him simply because he's the Republican nominee.

Brentai · « **Reply #79 on:** March 02, 2008, 02:53:19 PM »

Hillary Clinton is more interested in being the President of the United States than actually doing anything for the United States. That's why everybody hates her in the first place. If she wasn't like that, she wouldn't even need to be fighting Obama for the seat right now.

News:

Author Topic: Primary Wars (Read 45891 times)