User talk:Orangemarlin/Archived Election Commentary
- So long as states use paperless electronic voting systems created by fine nonpartisan individuals, no polling lead is big enough to guarantee that the vote total will go to the Democrats. (Or have I seen Hacking Democracy once too often?) I don't know that it's really an advantage to control both houses and the executive branch... it led to the complete moral disintegration of the Republican party. They tripped over each other in their haste to cash in and abandon their small-government, isolationist, and fiscal-responsibility principles, and now they're left with no intellectually consistent ideology beyond a quest for power and a narrow, often intolerant sociocultural agenda. MastCell Talk 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Right now, I think the Republican Party needs to be eviscerated and rebuilt. According to Brad Delong raze the Republican Party to the ground. Plough it under. Scatter salt in the furrows so it can never grow back. We need another, very different opposition party to face the Democrats. We need it now. I happen to agree. We need the Democrats to run things for a couple of years, clean up a few things (carbon pollution, banking system, war in Iraq). I hope a new party arises from the Republicans...one that stays out of the social issues that only a few Americans care about (religion in school, abortion, gun control), and stick with economic and foreign policy issues. Their pandering to the crazy right has destroyed them. The US needs three solid political parties. A left wing/progressive one, a middle of the road one, and a conservative (economically, not the social issues party we have now). The consensus that would develop in the country would be spirited and healthy. What do I know however. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a viable three party system in the US, but then, dependng on how much the economy falls, the possibility of a third party gaining more than just a few adherents increases. However, so long as we don't use proportional representation as do many democracies, we're unlikely to see a three party system work. The only instance of proportional representation in the US that I can recall was in Alaska in the early sixties, and that ended when the socialists received enough votes to gain a seat in the state legislature. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Right now, I think the Republican Party needs to be eviscerated and rebuilt. According to Brad Delong raze the Republican Party to the ground. Plough it under. Scatter salt in the furrows so it can never grow back. We need another, very different opposition party to face the Democrats. We need it now. I happen to agree. We need the Democrats to run things for a couple of years, clean up a few things (carbon pollution, banking system, war in Iraq). I hope a new party arises from the Republicans...one that stays out of the social issues that only a few Americans care about (religion in school, abortion, gun control), and stick with economic and foreign policy issues. Their pandering to the crazy right has destroyed them. The US needs three solid political parties. A left wing/progressive one, a middle of the road one, and a conservative (economically, not the social issues party we have now). The consensus that would develop in the country would be spirited and healthy. What do I know however. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget the Bradley effect on the polling numbers of a minority candidate. I strongly suspect that Obama will underperform his polling numbers even more than Kerry did.
While I'll vote Obama (a mostly symbolic action, in my state), the Democratic trinity you point out is pretty strong reason for me to hesitate. I think we've seen in the past that unfettered control of government by either party typically leads to bad outcomes. The simple fact is that most law is more harmful than helpful, and gridlock at least provides for stability and prevents all but the most necessary and bipartisan legislation from passing. I think the most amazing criticism by the Republicans of the Democratic Congress was the disparaging description of the "failure" of the Democrats to pass 100 laws in their first 100 days. No one said "we don't need more than 100 laws in 100 days, the world doesn't change that quickly" - a huge mass of new law was seen by both parties as an achievement. Avruch T 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I might agree with these comments in normal times, these aren't normal times. The Republican Party is obsessed with abortion, creationism, and violating civil rights. Until they quit pandering to that group, they won't focus on the big issues, like the economy. Or the lack of oil. Or pollution. So our country needs the Republicans to spend a couple of years in the wilderness. Oh, let us not forget that FDR did a lot of wonderful things for this country because he did have the support of the Senate and House. Of course, I don't think Obama is quite FDR. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The whole forensic rapekit saga WRT Palin was so repellent to me, but then again I won't be voting as I am somewhere far far away...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's no excuse. You can vote by absentee ballot (assuming you otherwise qualify). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll send him my absentee ballot. I live in a state that may go for Obama by around 20 percentage points. Just randomly pick other individuals, based on any standard you so choose.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's no excuse. You can vote by absentee ballot (assuming you otherwise qualify). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The whole forensic rapekit saga WRT Palin was so repellent to me, but then again I won't be voting as I am somewhere far far away...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- To Boris - erm, no, I should have clarified, I am Australian, we had the pleasure of this guy for 10 years :(. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could still vote in Florida, you know. Or maybe Chicago. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- To Boris - erm, no, I should have clarified, I am Australian, we had the pleasure of this guy for 10 years :(. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still staring 30 in the eye - but in my own experience and from what I've read of the past I think there are very few elections where the candidates didn't confidently state that "This is the most important election of our era, this decision will irrevocably determine our future." Well, in hindsight, there seem to be few presidential terms where this is actually the case. The extreme right is concerning, but so is the extreme left - and the reality is that even when the Republicans were sipping cocktails on the penthouse portico (as opposed to the wilderness they already now inhabit) the extreme elements of the party never dominated the agenda. In the last 20 years we've had ample opportunity to see how dysfunctional the government becomes if one party has unfettered access to the levers of power. I think its a virtual guarantee that if Obama wins the White House, the Democrats will lose complete control of Congress within the next two Congressional elections - and most likely with good reason. I'll still vote for Obama, but I have zero confidence that the Democrats as a party will be able to restrain themselves effectively. Avruch T 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 2000 election was the most important of our lifetimes. Period. If you voted for Nader, have fun in purgatory.
Black holes have an event horizon; once you've passed the event horizon, it doesn't matter what you do - you're going to end up in the singularity. If the black hole is big enough, you might not even notice anything different when you pass the horizon, but in fact your fate has been irrevocably sealed.
Similarly, dominant world powers all reach a point at which their decline and eventual obsolescence is inevitable, though this turning point is often obvious only in retrospect. Interestingly, the fatal blow is usually self-inflicted. The Athenians invaded Syracuse. The Romans allowed barbarian mercenaries to settle within their borders. Napoleon and Hitler both thought they could subdue Russia without winter clothes or antifreeze. All of those things seemed like good ideas at the time. More subtly, the British Empire was finished in 1939, though its actual dissolution was prolonged. It's going to be our turn sometime. I hope I'm wrong and that we can still achieve escape velocity, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that 2000, Katherine Harris, the butterfly ballot, and Bush v. Gore will mark the apogee of the American era. MastCell Talk 04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 2000 election was the most important of our lifetimes. Period. If you voted for Nader, have fun in purgatory.
- I'm still staring 30 in the eye - but in my own experience and from what I've read of the past I think there are very few elections where the candidates didn't confidently state that "This is the most important election of our era, this decision will irrevocably determine our future." Well, in hindsight, there seem to be few presidential terms where this is actually the case. The extreme right is concerning, but so is the extreme left - and the reality is that even when the Republicans were sipping cocktails on the penthouse portico (as opposed to the wilderness they already now inhabit) the extreme elements of the party never dominated the agenda. In the last 20 years we've had ample opportunity to see how dysfunctional the government becomes if one party has unfettered access to the levers of power. I think its a virtual guarantee that if Obama wins the White House, the Democrats will lose complete control of Congress within the next two Congressional elections - and most likely with good reason. I'll still vote for Obama, but I have zero confidence that the Democrats as a party will be able to restrain themselves effectively. Avruch T 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)