USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Tying into the "division" subtopic, a bit, implying a growing division (or at least one that grew between the 2000 and 2004 elections):

All states were consistent in voting for George W. Bush or his opponent in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections except for three: New Mexico (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04), Iowa (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04) and New Hampshire (Bush in '00 and Kerry in '04). The 2004 election showed two of these three states to be true to the presidential preferences of their respective regions, creating a greater regional separation; thus, an argument that the country is more divided from the 2000 election. All three of those states were very close in both elections.

What would the effect be if Democrats just began to ignore more or less completely the strongly Republican states, and/or Republicans began to ignore the strongly Democrat states, perhaps not even bothering to get their candidates on the ballot, much less opening up offices or spending money on campaigning and so on? I mean, why not give the other guy a free pass if you already know with a great deal of certainty that he's going to win, and that as a result of that, you'll get zero credit even if hundreds of thousands of voters in that state vote for you (all of them except Nebraska and Maine following the winner-take-all approach, you know)?

In this synergistic situation, each side could then commence with just mailing it in in those same states where they're strong, just getting their candidate on the ballot and having a couple of offices and so forth. Each side could then spend all that time and money and energy and effort on the "purple" states, especially the larger, "kingmaker" states, and maybe, you know, accomplish their goal of winning the election via the Electoral College system.

This would get us to MikeW's suggestion just sort of by default, a side effect of each side being more logical in their strategies than they have been previously. Funny how this Electoral College-produced approach would accomplish precisely the opposite of the supposed advantage of the Electoral College of ensuring that candidates don't overlook some states or regions of the country at the expense of others.

I'm sure the reaction would be very negative, though, toward the candidate/party that did so, a "kill the messenger" type of response from the people, which would just underscore that people don't realize that the Electoral College most often negates the value of their votes for President.

Steve

[melliedee]

You Tube debates on CNN tonight at 7 for democratic candidates--will you watch?

I'm interested to see which questions they will choose, as there was a bit of controversy about CNN picking the questions. Youtubers thought the questions should be voted for online. I think the sideshow factor is inevitiable (folks asking questions dressed in antlers/bikinis/top hats) but seeing how the candidates handle this new media form for the debates should provide us with a glimpse of them outside the polished network format, imo.

Barack should be in his element given his success raising funds online, his connection to the you tube generation, and perhaps even because of the popularity of the "Obama Girl" clip?

[ryberg]

Naturally I may be all wrong -- it happens! -- but I have the feeling that this is no quirk, this is a real moment, a history moment, and I'm calling my son over to take a (slightly bewildered) look at it, much in the same way grown-ups called me over to watch Apollo launches when I was little. I haven't read what the pundits or the populus are saying, but even if it turns out to be a sort of awkward, fumbling step, I find it momentous that we have now had a debate of candidates on the Internet and not just over TV.

And I personally am glad that Democrats did it first -- I think it probably scores them some points in terms of being more modern and forward-looking and so on in a general way, and/or suggests a certain stodginess or overly staid character on the part of Republicans, by contrast. Just vague images, but still, maybe something.

Anyway, I was going to point out that at least Mark gets his answer on the issue of Obama's view on reparations, with a surprise chiming in from Mr K!

YouTubers challenge with health care, Iraq questions

Sen. Obama took a question from a voter asking whether there will ever be reparations to African-Americans for slavery.

He said reparations are best made through schools. He talked about a school he visited in Florence, South Carolina, that had a portion of classrooms called the "Corridor of Shame" due to its untrained teachers and lack of books and other resources. "We have corridors of shame across the nation," he said.

Kucinich answered more directly: "We have inequality in health care, housing, employement and we must be mindful of that," he said. [But] it's also affecting poor whites. Yes, I am for reparations."

Edwards said he wasn't for reparations but he was for "creating equality."

I must say that those 3 answers give me typical reactions to those 3 candidates: straightforward, sensible, valuable idea worthy of greater consideration and focus; idea for which something might be said philosophically but which is really out of whack with political reality, imo, and will thus never fly; and just a garden variety, vague, empty-sounding platitude.

Did Hillary not answer this one? I'd be interested...

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Naturally I may be all wrong -- it happens! -- but I have the feeling that this is no quirk, this is a real moment, a history moment, and I'm calling my son over to take a (slightly bewildered) look at it, much in the same way grown-ups called me over to watch Apollo launches when I was little. I haven't read what the pundits or the populus are saying, but even if it turns out to be a sort of awkward, fumbling step, I find it momentous that we have now had a debate of candidates on the Internet and not just over TV.

And I personally am glad that Democrats did it first -- I think it probably scores them some points in terms of being more modern and forward-looking and so on in a general way, and/or suggests a certain stodginess or overly staid character on the part of Republicans, by contrast. Just vague images, but still, maybe something.

Anyway, I was going to point out that at least Mark gets his answer on the issue of Obama's view on reparations, with a surprise chiming in from Mr K!

I must say that those 3 answers give me typical reactions to those 3 candidates: straightforward, sensible, valuable idea worthy of greater consideration and focus; idea for which something might be said philosophically but which is really out of whack with political reality, imo, and will thus never fly; and just a garden variety, vague, empty-sounding platitude.

Did Hillary not answer this one? I'd be interested...

Steve

Oh, but I was being an a hole for asking? Put some guy on You Tube, and all of a sudden it's an acceptable topic. Go figure.

Hillary did say she was against the Senate getting a raise until the Minimum Wage goes up. The Minimum Wage goes up tomorrow. What a brave woman.

[roni]

Latest polls show Hillary's lead widening. You could look it up. Of course, last time around Howard Dean was leading at this point

I did not see tonight's debate.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Naturally I may be all wrong -- it happens! -- but I have the feeling that this is no quirk, this is a real moment, a history moment, and I'm calling my son over to take a (slightly bewildered) look at it, much in the same way grown-ups called me over to watch Apollo launches when I was little. I haven't read what the pundits or the populus are saying, but even if it turns out to be a sort of awkward, fumbling step, I find it momentous that we have now had a debate of candidates on the Internet and not just over TV.

And I personally am glad that Democrats did it first -- I think it probably scores them some points in terms of being more modern and forward-looking and so on in a general way, and/or suggests a certain stodginess or overly staid character on the part of Republicans, by contrast. Just vague images, but still, maybe something.

Anyway, I was going to point out that at least Mark gets his answer on the issue of Obama's view on reparations, with a surprise chiming in from Mr K!

I must say that those 3 answers give me typical reactions to those 3 candidates: straightforward, sensible, valuable idea worthy of greater consideration and focus; idea for which something might be said philosophically but which is really out of whack with political reality, imo, and will thus never fly; and just a garden variety, vague, empty-sounding platitude.

Did Hillary not answer this one? I'd be interested...

Steve

Could you explain Obama's to me. It seems to be a major, professional ducking of the issue.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Could you explain Obama's to me. It seems to be a major, professional ducking of the issue.

In short, he wants a disproportionate amount of money to go into school districts with mostly black students. At least, that is the way I understood it. Of course, we already do that in a lot of places, like Washington DC. It hasn't made any difference.

[melliedee]

I liked the format, less room for stump speaches and avoiding the actual question. I'm watching the post show and the body language/image experts are too much. See how feminine Hillary looks in her pink suit? Ridiculous.

Last question really cracked me up: say something you like and dislike about the candidate to the left of you. When they got to Kuchinich, who was on the end, he says, "Notice they did not put anyone to the left of me..."
Anderson Cooper replied, "We couldn't find anyone!"

[sctx]

Originally Posted by roni

Latest polls show Hillary's lead widening. You could look it up. Of course, last time around Howard Dean was leading at this point

have they let Howard outta his box yet ???

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

In short, he wants a disproportionate amount of money to go into school districts with mostly black students. At least, that is the way I understood it. Of course, we already do that in a lot of places, like Washington DC. It hasn't made any difference.

I think the assignment of additional resources should be based on two things:

1) underperforming school, but along with a takeover of the school by whatever public body can best bring improved achievement.

2) incentive payments to schools that are high-performing or taking concrete steps that are leading to measurable improvement.

I think that helps the folks Obama is talking about without the divise issue of reparations being brought to the foreground by the activists who have that as part of their agenda.

[melliedee]

Also like Obama's answer of "yes," when asked if he would be willing to meet with leaders of Cuba, Syria, Iran and Venezuela in the first year of his presidency, stating that is was a "disgrace" we did not have dialogue already.

I'll get to that Hemingway house yet!

Hills dropped it on this one, imo.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Oh, but I was being an a hole for asking? Put some guy on You Tube, and all of a sudden it's an acceptable topic. Go figure.

All I said was, at least you're finally getting an answer, and in this case, from the candidate himself.

Originally Posted by roni

Could you explain Obama's to me. It seems to be a major, professional ducking of the issue.

Why does that not seem surprising?

Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities does a very thorough and relentless job of explaining it. Even has a wiki page dedicated to it here, if you like, which summarizes:

Kozol illustrates the overcrowded, unsanitary and oftentimes under staffed environment that is lacking in basic tools and textbooks for teaching. He cites the large proportions of minorities in the areas with the lowest annual budgets, despite the higher taxation rate on individuals living in poverty within the school district...

Kozol argues that racial segregation is still alive and well in the American educational system, due to the gross inequalities that result from unequal distribution of funds collected through both property taxes, and funds distributed by the State in an attempt to "equalize" the expenditures of schools.

That is one highly recommendable, very scary book.

Originally Posted by melliedee

Also like Obama's answer of "yes," when asked if he would be willing to meet with leaders of Cuba, Syria, Iran and Venezuela in the first year of his presidency, stating that is was a "disgrace" we did not have dialogue already.

I'll get to that Hemingway house yet!

Hills dropped it on this one, imo.

Yes, another straightforward, sensible, valuable idea worthy of greater consideration and focus, I agree!

Steve

[Jacko]

I believe that Obama's general position regarding reparations is very easy to determine with even the very slightest amount of internet research regarding comments he has made on the subject....

If you seek truth you will not seek victory by dishonorable means, and if you find truth you will become invincible.
Epictetus

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Naturally I may be all wrong -- it happens! -- but I have the feeling that this is no quirk, this is a real moment, a history moment, and I'm calling my son over to take a (slightly bewildered) look at it, much in the same way grown-ups called me over to watch Apollo launches when I was little. I haven't read what the pundits or the populus are saying, but even if it turns out to be a sort of awkward, fumbling step, I find it momentous that we have now had a debate of candidates on the Internet and not just over TV.

And I personally am glad that Democrats did it first -- I think it probably scores them some points in terms of being more modern and forward-looking and so on in a general way, and/or suggests a certain stodginess or overly staid character on the part of Republicans, by contrast. Just vague images, but still, maybe something.

Anyway, I was going to point out that at least Mark gets his answer on the issue of Obama's view on reparations, with a surprise chiming in from Mr K!

I must say that those 3 answers give me typical reactions to those 3 candidates: straightforward, sensible, valuable idea worthy of greater consideration and focus; idea for which something might be said philosophically but which is really out of whack with political reality, imo, and will thus never fly; and just a garden variety, vague, empty-sounding platitude.

Did Hillary not answer this one? I'd be interested...

Steve

Actually, of the three, only Edwards gave an answer to the question. He said no. Well, he didn't actually say no, but he said he was against the idea. Obama sidestepped the "yes or no" question, and launched into education. I guess we could take it to mean "yes", but not in a way that many would consider straight up reparations. In essence, a political answer.

Having spent part of the past weekend reading some of Obama's books, on line, I was warming to him. There are times when he comes across as genuine and anti-politician. Then, he goes dodging one of the most important questions I have, and he ends up looking no better than the rest of them. There is still hope, but he needs to stump like he writes. If I am presented with Obama, the political double speaker, then I would be inclined to go with someone with more experience. BTW, that isn't Hillary. Her experience is not as extensive as she wants to make out. For example, not reading any intelligence reports before voting on the use of force in Iraq, is experience I can do without.

So, anyone know what Obama's position on reparations is? I know he is for improving schools, but that doesn't answer my question. A simple internet search didn't yield a "yes or no" answer, either.

Also, Obama's quick answer to the idea of meeting with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. was a little too off the cuff. He came off sounding naive, and Hillary jumped on that. Of course, Obama probably meant to say that he would meet with these guys if the circumstances were right. But, thats not what he said. Maybe he will clear that up, today.

[Jacko]

“Conservative people tend to see the world in black and white terms, good and evil. Liberals see grays. In any talk format, you have to pound home a strong point of view. If you're not providing controversy and excitement, people won't listen, or watch.”
Bill O'Reilly