|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 19, 2011 14:05:16 GMT -5
As somebody who ist not from America and understands your voting sytem only on a very basic level, I have a question to all of you who are: Is it really possible that somebody as crazy as Bachmann or Rick Perry becomes President of the USA? I heard various people on Pharyngula claiming it might be possible, while others dismissed it outright... If Bachmann(or somebody equally mad) would be elected how much damage could they realisticaly cause? It's entirely possible - our elections aren't too different from winner-take-all popularity contests, and about 85% of the country will vote for whomever their party puts forward. If Bachmann (for example) won the primaries and became the Republican candidate, she'd be almost guaranteed 40-45% of the vote. Obama had pretty much a landslide victory over McCain, with a mere 53-46 split or so. If Bachmann could somehow sell herself to 5% of voters, or if a liberal candidate challenges Obama from the left and takes a few percent of his vote (as happened to Gore in 2000, for example), she could take the White House. My hope is that she's too scary for moderates to support her. But charismatic lunatics have absolutely won over people who should know better, with Reagan being one shining example from this very country. As far as what she could do once in, that's a little more complicated. The American executive wields a lot of power, much of it concentrated there by Bush after 9/11. In theory, the Legislature and the Supreme Court are supposed to serve as a check on the power of the President, and if the Dems win majorities in both houses this might happen. But the Democrats have also been pretty spineless overall, and a major defeat next year could well demoralize them so hard that they'd just roll over and rubber-stamp like a Republican legislature would. So we could conceivably see things like a roll-back of protections for gays and transgendered folks, a prolonging of the whole gay marriage argument, more fuck-the-poor tax cuts for the ultrawealthy and encouragement of corporate irresponsibility, defunding of social programs, stripping away of abortion rights... all the sorts of stuff our friends in the hard right masturbate while thinking about. I'm not saying that this will happen, mind you. Just that it seems to me entirely possible.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 19, 2011 14:10:18 GMT -5
I think part of the reason the Dems are so fucking spineless is due to the Blue Dogs. Because the Democrats welcome them, the party can't decide if it is pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay or anti-gay, or if they prefer businesses to rape the poor with a red hot iron rod or a spiked dildo.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jun 19, 2011 14:18:35 GMT -5
or if they prefer businesses to rape the poor with a red hot iron rod or a spiked dildo. I like your metaphor choice.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Jun 19, 2011 15:31:18 GMT -5
How could I forget about Hermann Cain? Loudmouth with no political experience whatsoever. Spouts off some shit he thinks is from the constitution, but really from the declaration of independence.
Also Ralph Reid is getting back in the picture. The teabaggers are turning on the Republican party. They want Ralph to whisper the Teavangelicals back, someone to herd the sheeple.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Jun 19, 2011 20:13:52 GMT -5
Let's see, he is also pro-life, calls homosexuality a life choice, he wants to weaken the department of education, wants to repeal health care reform, says he wouldn't appoint a Muslim for fear of Sharia Law, wants the moronic gold standard, wants to dismantle welfare, and has called Social Security a scam. Yeah, all the Republicans have to offer is fail. Like I said, he's just telling them what they want to hear. I think he's focussing on one thing; HR 25. The rest is just bells and whistles. However, I don't know if I'd vote for him if he makes it past the primaries; I'm still not sure. I just want to see a campaign between him and Obama. You're basing your support for a candidate on a single issue? Sorry, but the president can't just decide they want to focus on one thing. A president needs to be well rounded and educated on all the issues. They have to take on everything. The other shit's not just "bells and whistles." Not even going to get into the stupidity of the Fair Tax again.
|
|
|
Post by demodocos on Jun 20, 2011 5:38:44 GMT -5
I think part of the reason the Dems are so fucking spineless is due to the Blue Dogs. Because the Democrats welcome them, the party can't decide if it is pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay or anti-gay, or if they prefer businesses to rape the poor with a red hot iron rod or a spiked dildo. Well, I think this ignores a larger problem of the political landscape in your country. The common conception is that there are two sides, conservatives and progressives and that the moderates are sitting between them: According to this model, both sides are basically the same and it's easy to blame the moderates if something goes wrong. Now, I'm not a US citizen, but I've been watching US politics for several years now and my impression is that it's not so simple. In my opinion, the conservative faction is deeply entrenched in American society and guarding its privileges while the progressives are far more more fragmented. Blacks, workers, immigrants, environmental activists, gay marriage advocates, women's rights activists, anti-war protesters and so on all have their own interests and the only thing that's keeping them together is the opposition to the Republicans: In this model, Blue Dog Democrats are merely another special interests group, the main problem is that the left resembles a bag of fleas that have to be constantly kept together while the Republicans converge naturally. IMO, that's the real problem and the main reason why Democrats seem incapable of growing a spine - they simply can't afford to not make concessions all the time because, if they stopped, everything would fly apart.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 20, 2011 10:31:30 GMT -5
In my opinion, the conservative faction is deeply entrenched in American society and guarding its privileges while the progressives are far more more fragmented. Blacks, workers, immigrants, environmental activists, gay marriage advocates, women's rights activists, anti-war protesters and so on all have their own interests and the only thing that's keeping them together is the opposition to the Republicans: All of those things you mentioned are core aspects of modern liberalism. That does not explain why there are Democrats with political values of 1980s conservatives. You are also leaving out libertarians, people far to the left of the Democrats, and people far to the right of the Republicans. When Carl Rove designed strategy for the Republicans, he challenged the assumption that independents are moderates and bet that independents are actually further to the left or right than the 1990s Republicans and Democrats so he lead the charge to the right. He found the teabaggers. I believe that is what they believe, I am not sure if this is the reality. Voter turnout here is horribly low. Like with the teabaggers on the right, I suspect there are a lot of people to the left of the Democrats who will vote for them consistently if the Democrats work towards progressive goals steadily instead of the schizophrenic way they do now. For example. Obama claiming he'll be a fierce advocate for lgbt rights in his campaign followed by his defense department defending DOMA in court by comparing them to child molesters followed by acting as though the American public is unwilling to accept the repeal of DADT and the instatement of employment protections despite polls showing support in excess of 70%. DADT was eventually repealed, but we don't have federal employment protections and DOMA is still in effect. Not to mention things like the same housing protections afforded to other minority classes aren't even talked about. And, with the groups you listed, there is absolutely no conflict between rights for blacks, women, and gays. There is no conflict between immigrants and homosexuality, or worker's rights and gay right (actually, judging from popular gay blogs, gays support immigrants and worker's rights). And, with feminism, the gay right movement is built off of feminism. Basically, to sum it up with a single line. Your model does nothing to explain why there are Democrats who vote more in line with Republican ideals than with Democrat ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jun 20, 2011 13:29:35 GMT -5
The system is totally dysfunctional. And while I hate to contradict P. T. Barnum, federal election campaigns are the greatest show on earth.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Jun 20, 2011 15:22:38 GMT -5
America is run by big business and corporate greed. Until that changes, this is the way politics in this country is going to look. It's a joke.
|
|