The funny thing is, is that most of those voters today will support in in ten years. In my own parish we live for the day when enough of the old farts die that we can proudly place the code words, “open and inviting,” in our self description.
And it will still suck that code words are required. By then, I hope they aren’t.
Huckabee is a a dangerous candidate because he is very likable. I like him. I don’t like most of his politics. But he has charisma and he listens to people he talks to and talks to them.
Harding would not have been as bad as Bush, because Harding knew very well he was in over his head and way over his head. Bush still has no clue what a fuck up he is.
A parliamentary system is very different than our plurality take all system, which is magnified by the electoral college. We in fact have lots of small parties, but because forming a coalition cannot help you form a government, but only elect chamber leaders, there is little incentive for third parties.
That’s like saying an individual’s main career goal is to get hired. I don’t think so. For whatever party, winning elections is only an indispensable means to an end.
I almost hate to point this out, you guys are having so much fun gloating in your victory. But the fact of the matter is that, despite the economy, the Iraq war, six years of non-stop Bush-bashing by the news and entertainment media and Democrat politicos, a quasi-Republican candidate with a running mate subjected to the most negatively biased media coverage I’ve ever seen, and a virtual news media public relations campaign effectively coronating Obama prior to the election, he still won by only eight points!
I hardly think that a margin of only eight voters out of a hundred signifies that a seismic shift toward liberalism has occurred in this country. If anything I think it says the opposite, especially when you take into consideration all the things Republicans had working against them this time.
:dubious: . . . I remember when Colin Powell’s name was seriously floated as a presidential prospect in 1996 (he never did seem to show much interest), and it utterly perplexed and disgusted me, because although Powell was undeniably a successful general and (it seemed at the time) a good and honorable man, nobody seemed to know anything about his politics, nor to care!
America has an iffy record in making generals into presidents. The only really good one was Washington. Eisenhower was meh. Jackson and Grant were shit. Taylor was . . . who?!
That, right there, is the problem.
On both sides.
By this standard, has there ever been an election that signaled a ‘seismic shift’, either left or right?
Dude. Pols have to make compromises to get anything done. That’s how it works. The morally and ideologically pure generally are also the ineffective and useless.
Only in election season, only then. The responsible ones are in the business of governing, leadership, statecraft, nation-building, social justice, making the country and the nation better places to live … Yes, they do first need to win, but if that’s all that matters, then responsible voters will get rid of them at the next opportunity.
Look further ahead, then. To gain a majority in Parliament, and tenancy on Sussex Drive, they usually have to form coalitions among themselves, using the compromise process you deplore, and those coalitions have a general agenda as a result.
You do know what the composition of those coalitions is likely to be, right? The NDP isn’t going to snuggle up with the Alliance, or whatever the hell they call themselves these days, but they can influence the Libs in a coalition. You know who has a chance to win in your riding, and who doesn’t, too. You can still pick between essentially two general approaches to national leadership, and you even have the advantage of knowing how the coalitions that create them are formed, since that takes place in public rather than party caucuses or private conversations as is the case in the US. What, did you think our major parties aren’t also coalitions of disparate interests, compromising and partnering in order to advance their own visions of what the government should be and do? Of course they are.
Only almost, though.
You offer all of that as objective, independent, verifiable facts, right?
What “the Republicans had working against them” was their own policies and their own failures. Their remaining support was despite who they are and what they’ve done and what they stand for, not because of it. It says a lot about their ability to fearmonger and racebait that they did as well as they did.
Fair enough.
Not every view, but certainly every mainstream one. OTOH, just like England/UK, parties with no representation in government can contribute ideas to the domestic meme market which later take the country by storm–like environmental conservation on the individual level, for example. (I think your national healthcare is an example of a frivolous/joke party’s idea actually gaining a headwind and becoming mainstream.)
And give us some credit; our Senate has at least five parties represented (Democratic, Republican, Democrat/Farmer/Labor, Progressive, Connecticut for Lieberman). The minor ones just field one legislator each, who caucus with the Democrats, much like the way your political parties form temporary alliances to advance common goals. Ours are just more permanent by political necessity and much, much rarer.
I’ve agreed with that view ever since I became aware of an alternative to the two-party system. Of course, it’s actually the reality at the state level for some U.S. states. And it’s (rarely) possible in the legislative branch even on the federal level. It’s just not feasible in the executive branch in our current system–but it sounds like you’ve got the same thing going on over there.
The issue is that, as nice as a Parliamentary system would be, it would be difficult to implement for a nation with such broad and diverse geopolitical interests. As individual citizens, we don’t want to vote for 10 people who will pass the laws we like, we want to vote for one person who we can personally appeal to for solutions to problems going on in our own neighborhoods/states. A few scenes in “Charlie Wilson’s War” demonstrate this well; we like that, if push came to shove, we could fly to DC and harrass our representative right in his/her office about what’s going on on our block.
Vox’s point, badly worded as it may be* is that the U.S. model of democracy is intentionally much more immutable than other systems. It’s an arcane model which serves incumbents well–and incumbents would have to sign off on any change, which is not likely to happen any time soon. As much as Bernie Sanders and I would love to see a change, I think it would take a total collapse of the American electoral system–i.e., some bilateral split/crisis serious enough to make strange bedfellows agree that a drastic solution is necessary–to get the House and especially the Senate to strike up a new plan. The legislature would have to devolve into utter chaos. Most likely, there would need to be a handful of close three- or four-candidate Presidential races in a row, where the legislature ends up having to decide the Presidency and the electorate begins to get really angry about its effective disenfranchisement. It could happen, but I doubt it.
*Give him a break. Latin is his mother tongue. 
You’d rather support a “pure” someone who can just stand up and *talk *about what’s important to you, but ultimately not be able to do anything about it, over someone who is willing and able to do the dirty work of getting some of it actually enacted? How do you consider that to be more responsible?
Hostile Dialect, there are really only 2 parties in the US. DFL is simply the Minnesota name for the Democrats, Lieberman is a Democrat in everything but name and Iraq policy, and Sanders picked a different name to put on an air of Yankee independence. No “independent” can do anything without working a deal with one of the majors.
And one more thing, Starving Artist: You correctly pointed out the economy and Iraq as among the things that the Republicans had “going against them” - but do you not hold them *responsible *for those failures of theirs? The voters certainly did, but do their own adherents, such as you, believe in responsibility even when it hurts? That is not on display from you.
Unfortunately, they’re not as responsible as often as I’d like.
Well, of course they are. Which is why it’s not really substantially better to have two parties than three.
Those *other *voters aren’t responsible enough, Mister “Politicians All Suck”? :dubious:
My mistake; I was referring to parties, not voters. I didn’t notice you had also used the term “responsible” to refer to the voters.
I think the people generally make good choices given the information available. After all, we’ve never elected the Christian Heritage Party.
OK, I have to give you that one.
Policy does not a party make. The main purpose of political parties, other than advancing their own policy platform, is to support politicians within their own spheres of influence. Lieberman may have undeserved power in the Democratic caucus, but when midterm elections roll around, the Democratic Party will advance and support their own candidate, not Lieberman.
Bernie Sanders is independent. He’s literally a socialist, and he’s far to the left of the Democratic Party. The Dems have asked the Vermont Progressive Party (which also has a few seats in the House, BTW) not to run in 2006 in exchange for official Party support of Sanders in the Senate race, but the Progressive Party don’t play that game. Presumably, when Sanders runs for reelection, the Democrats will advance their own candidate to run against them. It’s only once election season is over that Sanders can be considered a Democrat.
Minor parties form coalitions with major parties everywhere. They’re still their own parties with their own constituencies, their own agendas, their own party structures, and their own platforms.
Right, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.
Yeah, but he won by 2-1 in the electoral college! Mandate!!!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Merciful Og, it’s like reading RW blogscreeds – the kind that are not only detached from reality but an inversion of reality, like they’re all posted from some alternate Earth where all the politicians have the same names but everything else is bizarro.
FWEET! Time out! Let’s get this straight and clear once and for all! Because it’s a confusion I see popping up time and again. A parliamentary system is not a multiparty system and is in essence neither more nor less friendly to third parties than is a separation-of-powers system; the chances of third parties depend on electoral mechanics entirely unrelated to whether the executive is chosen by and from among the legislature or is separately elected with an independent electoral mandate.
The republicans who acknowledge Bush did a terrible job as president and are interested in reclaiming the republican party and conservatism for the average citizen have a chance if there’s not too much in fighting. Blaming the media for McCain’s failures and Palin’s lack of ability won’t fix anything.