Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[slow west vultures]

If Clinton gets the nom, I'm voting for this guy in November.

I'm voting for Nader regardless. I'd've voted for Edward if he'd gotten the nomination, but Obama has really drifted to the center over his career, and there's no reason to think he's "really" a leftist just pretending to be centrist to get elected. I can't think of anyone who's ever done that. (Cue people pointing out examples of exactly such a thing.)

r u really voting for nader? this election? where whatever their faults, both dem candidates want to pull out of the war and the rep doesn't? i'm all for ideals but when u throw away your vote in an election where the outcome means staying or pulling out of iraq, in that light, it seems worth taking another look at the process u used to reach this decision, by considering the fighting in iraq.

a 16 year old girl could not have typed it better jon 

[DCDave]

Clinton is probably to the right of half the Republicans on foreign policy

i don't know if this is really the case. i doubt clinton will be as hasty in attacking iran as mccain will, for example.

and she's more beholden to corporate power than even McCain.

this, on the other hand, is totally true. her ties to wal-mart are particularly bothersome.

She still considers NAFTA a good thing and speaks about all the great things that happened during the 90's.

what i find funny is that obama has recently given her shit for past pro-nafta comments, and now she's trying like hell to distance herself from that stance, even though she was vocally in favor of it as recently as 2001. probably more recently, in fact, that's just the most recent public comment in favor of it that i've seen.

Andrew,  I think you overestimate the hawkishness of Republican Senators.  Clinton is to the right of a number of Republican Senators on foreign policy issues, specifically on things like land mine bans, torture, non-proliferation, torture, support of the state of Israel, and torture.

[guanajuato]

If Clinton gets the nom, I'm voting for this guy in November.

I'm voting for Nader regardless. I'd've voted for Edward if he'd gotten the nomination, but Obama has really drifted to the center over his career, and there's no reason to think he's "really" a leftist just pretending to be centrist to get elected. I can't think of anyone who's ever done that. (Cue people pointing out examples of exactly such a thing.)

r u really voting for nader? this election? where whatever their faults, both dem candidates want to pull out of the war and the rep doesn't? i'm all for ideals but when u throw away your vote in an election where the outcome means staying or pulling out of iraq, in that light, it seems worth taking another look at the process u used to reach this decision, by considering the fighting in iraq.

a 16 year old girl could not have typed it better jon 

thank u, i've been studying how to be more like a lady so when i finally give in and play wow, my milkshake will bring all the undead half elves to the yard. 

[RavingLunatic]

r u really voting for nader? this election? where whatever their faults, both dem candidates want to pull out of the war and the rep doesn't? i'm all for ideals but when u throw away your vote in an election where the outcome means staying or pulling out of iraq, in that light, it seems worth taking another look at the process u used to reach this decision, by considering the fighting in iraq.

If I were in a swing-state I'd have to consider these things, but I'm in Indiana, so I don't. Also, the Dems don't want to pull all troops out of Iraq, just some. Neither is talking about discontinuing the enormous permanent military bases we've built there. Neither will even guarantee a pullout by 20-freakin'-13. Obama wants to increase the size of the military by 100,000 troops. Neither is talking about reversing the atrocious neoliberal economic policies imposed on Iraq by Bush and Co. The differences between the Dems and McCain on Iraq aren't as stark as you think.

[Thermofusion]

I know I've mentioned it about ten times by now but Christ, Iraq ain't everything, people.

But by the time the next president takes office, Ruth Ginsberg will be a couple months shy of 76 and John Stevens will be going on 89 years old.  Dubya has had the opportunity to appoint two staunch conservatives to the Court.  The Court is getting polarized in a way we haven't seen in several decades.  The balance is fucking precarious as it is, but we're well on our way to theocracy town if McCain gets elected and manages to Trojan-horse a couple (or more) fundy Jesus freaks onto the bench.

Think hard before you throw away your vote, guys.  Shit's kinda serious.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Andrew,  I think you overestimate the hawkishness of Republican Senators.  Clinton is to the right of a number of Republican Senators on foreign policy issues, specifically on things like land mine bans, torture, non-proliferation, torture, support of the state of Israel, and torture.

hey, you might be right. i didn't know hillary was pro-torture. so now that mccain has flip-flopped gloriously on torture, obama's the only anti-torture candidate left? that's nuts.

[elpollodiablo]

I love this "I don't live in a swing state and thus my vote is purely symbolic" mentality because it demonstrates so well how deeply flawed our national elections process is. I mean, yeah, you're right, fuck it, if you live in Indiana, vote for fucking Nader for all it matters. Shit, vote for Clay Davis. Your state will go red regardless, and it won't matter, because the popular vote means exactly shit.

So could someone explain to me why we're still using this antiquated, utterly un-democratic system to determine the outcome of the election to our highest office? I've heard it said that it empowers minorities, though I don't understand exactly how that works. It seems to me like a fail safe for the establishment

[Andrew_TSKS]

naw, dude, it doesn't really empower anybody. what would empower people is having their vote count the same. old men like my dad get all "states rights" whenever you bring up abolishing the electoral college. they like the idea that each state has a separate winner, and then that state's winner is what determines how every person in that state's vote is counted, because it preserves the idea that the individual states are more important than the union. but fuck that idea. besides, it's a federal office we're voting on. so yeah, you're right, there's no reason for it. i can't imagine that anyone will try to get rid of it anytime soon, though.

[DCDave]

Shit, vote for Clay Davis.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

[dieblucasdie]

It doesn't empower minorities; it gives disproportionate influence to low-population states (for example, Montana has three times the say that it ought to have).  So in the sense that rural voters are a "minority" it empowers them.   

The reason it's never been changed is that you'd have to amend the Constitution, and that process is so arduous that no one has the political will to go through with it when it only matters like, once a century.

[Good Intentions]

So could someone explain to me why we're still using this antiquated, utterly un-democratic system to determine the outcome of the election to our highest office? I've heard it said that it empowers minorities, though I don't understand exactly how that works. It seems to me like a fail safe for the establishment

I remember, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this, the extreme consternation, hand-wringing and earnest promises concerning the elctoral college system after W made his way into the White House by hook or by crook. How it obviously requires change and, dog-nabbit, it will be changed.

Guess how much it actually changed.

And no politician, not one anything like what we have today, has changed anything for the better ever. When change has come, it has always been as a concession in the face of popular protest and mass action, and always less than what was demanded.

Nice big generalisation, I know, but that's what you get for calling my politics Gen-X.

[dieblucasdie]

So could someone explain to me why we're still using this antiquated, utterly un-democratic system to determine the outcome of the election to our highest office? I've heard it said that it empowers minorities, though I don't understand exactly how that works. It seems to me like a fail safe for the establishment

I remember, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this, the extreme consternation, hand-wringing and earnest promises concerning the elctoral college system after W made his way into the White House by hook or by crook. How it obviously requires change and, dog-nabbit, it will be changed.

Guess how much it actually changed.

And no politician, not one anything like what we have today, has changed anything for the better ever. When change has come, it has always been as a concession in the face of popular protest and mass action, and always less than what was demanded.

Nice big generalisation, I know, but that's what you get for calling my politics Gen-X.

Surely you wouldn't deny the world of difference between a 2000-2008 Gore presidency as opposed to the 2000-2008 Bush presidency?  In fact this post wants to have it both ways; which politician gets elected doesn't matter, but the electoral college is anti-democratic?

[Good Intentions]

There's a scope within which it does matter, like you say, comparing a hypothetical Gore presidency to the actual one Bush had. But that is a very narrow scope. The ebb-and-flow of White House politics is, to put it bluntly, sections of the ruling class passing the baton between each other, politely acknowledging when the other team have managed to outplay them that round, starting to prepare for the next time the derby comes round.  Shift changes at the abattoir, as the relevent self-righteous revolutionary slogan goes. What remains certain is that it's broadly the same group of people with broadly the same interests who are in contention. As andronicus pointed out in the last incarnation of this thread, the mere fact of which candidates are able to campaign effectively is already an enormously conservatising factor: I won't repeat what he said there. It is only those within a select group - those able to find support from their party machinery and the other the connections to fund campaigns - who are able to run at all.

And even if the parties that swap power might seem radically different, it turns out that they aren't. Look at UK electoral politics, where Labour was able to finally sweep the Conservatives from power, and the Tories at this time were pretty hard-core free-market rightists. While steadily staying in power for three terms, how much has changed? Britain is still a haven for foreign money, and if anything has become more so, while the standard of living for working people has not increased at all. There are serious moves to further privatise healthcare, even the welfare system, and personal liberties have beebn seriously cut back. Extremely tellingly, even though Labour have ruled for 12 years, the child poverty rate in Britain is still double of what it was in 1979.

An even starker example is South Africa. While it is not economically comparable to the US and UK, few people would have likened the ANC with the ousted National Party, which has since gone defunct. At the stroke of 1994 SA introduced the most liberal constitution in the world. That's a positive. But the majority of the ANC's and the broader resistence movement's stated goals, as laid out in the Freedom Charter, have not been met, and change is not forthcoming. Despite having a dizzying array of rights, the average South African is a good deal poorer now than in 1994, and the standard of living has taken serious hits from the increase in poverty and the resulting skyrocketing of crime. The rich are still growing richer, and they are the same people, making money the same way they did 14 years ago, but now it's a slightly different group of lackeys who get their places in the gravy train.

And why would this election, this one, be any different than all the others? It isn't, it is not within its scope to be.

[Good Intentions]

When the New Deal came around, it was on the back of the workers who unionised and the people who marched, and even rioted, in the streets. When the civil liberty movement won their victories, it was on the back of the activists who organised and the people who marched and rioted in the street, as it was when the Tory racketeers were driven from Parliament. And when the increasing crisis in labour conditions the world over will be broken, it will be on the back of unionists, activists, and the masses of the nation taking to the streets in protest.

[Good Intentions]

GI/Mass Riots '08

[dieblucasdie]

Well, and my argument is that this thread is about said narrow scope.  I'm an Obama supporter thanks to specific, concrete gains that *may* be had under his presidency; I harbor no illusions about this election having massive world-historical/balance-of-power import.  I don't think anyone here does, except for maybe Dave and my brother, but they live in DC, so that can't be helped.

[Good Intentions]

Promises of concrete gains. How much power do you have to force him to keep his word? How accountable is he for all the millions of dollars he's received in donations from average Americans?

It is when people on the street start making sacrifices to keep this juggernaut rolling on when I start losing my cool. There must be something more that can be done.

[dieblucasdie]

I have no power.  Like I said, I harbor no illusions here; I'm an obama supporter in a very narrow context ((Obama vs. Clinton) vs. McCain).

[Good Intentions]

What I'm saying is that there are good reasons to keep your expectations pretty goddamn low when it comes to these politicians. There's a whole fucking lot more enthusiasm flying around than is of use to anyone except those same politicians who will keep business as usual ticking on for as long as they can.

If people wonder why I put so much energy into all of this:
Even though I obviously find it thoroughly infuriating, I follow the primary process because it is a matter of some importance. If nothing else, it's a pretty handy way to see what kind of talk has what kind of currency in the most powerful nation in the world. This primary has made plain, as some have mentioned, that misogyny is alive and well in the US to a level most of us find pretty unbelievable.
I speak my mind here because talk about poltiics is not limited to true believers.
And sometimes, when I get nasty, it's because I get overwhelmed by disgust.

[dieblucasdie]

Well, you're right.  But you can forgive us getting this way every four years.  it's like a hypothetical game of  Football Manager for media-saturated Americans.

edit:  yeah, misogyny AND racism.  Jesus, you should hear the smears I've heard about Obama even in Illinois. 

[John]

See man that's the kind of petulant, "If I can't win, I'd rather not play" attitude that makes these elections so meaningless, in my view. If having HC--who, like her or not, is one of the most well-respected and successful figures in the Democratic party--win the primary is enough to put you off the party entirely, why the fuck were you even voting Democratic in the first place?

my friend, the next time you and I are in the same room, I'm buying the drinks

[hannah]

I know I've mentioned it about ten times by now but Christ, Iraq ain't everything, people.

But by the time the next president takes office, Ruth Ginsberg will be a couple months shy of 76 and John Stevens will be going on 89 years old.  Dubya has had the opportunity to appoint two staunch conservatives to the Court.  The Court is getting polarized in a way we haven't seen in several decades.  The balance is fucking precarious as it is, but we're well on our way to theocracy town if McCain gets elected and manages to Trojan-horse a couple (or more) fundy Jesus freaks onto the bench.

Think hard before you throw away your vote, guys.  Shit's kinda serious.

For a second I thought Thermofusion was me!

QFT etc

[elpollodiablo]

See man that's the kind of petulant, "If I can't win, I'd rather not play" attitude that makes these elections so meaningless, in my view. If having HC--who, like her or not, is one of the most well-respected and successful figures in the Democratic party--win the primary is enough to put you off the party entirely, why the fuck were you even voting Democratic in the first place?

my friend, the next time you and I are in the same room, I'm buying the drinks

Last time we were in the same room another drink would've killed me

[elpollodiablo]

It doesn't empower minorities; it gives disproportionate influence to low-population states (for example, Montana has three times the say that it ought to have).  So in the sense that rural voters are a "minority" it empowers them.   

The reason it's never been changed is that you'd have to amend the Constitution, and that process is so arduous that no one has the political will to go through with it when it only matters like, once a century.

Also apparently it was within spitting distance of being abolished after the Nixon/Humphrey election of 1968. And yet it garnered hardly any serious discussion after the debacle in 2000.

[Antero]

I remember, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this, the extreme consternation, hand-wringing and earnest promises concerning the elctoral college system after W made his way into the White House by hook or by crook. How it obviously requires change and, dog-nabbit, it will be changed.

Guess how much it actually changed.

I'm thinking you're not actually aware of the actual process of amending the Constitution, because given a relatively even power split across the country with only one party really in favor of electoral college reform, making any such change was literally impossible no matter how many hands were wrung.

[edit to add]: Especially when the more immediate topic of discussion was vote fraud.