Anybody else worry about the prospect of President Hilary?
Thought she might be a nice way to bring together the various conservative/liberal feminist/white male victim etc strains in this forum.
For my part, i worry about her views on trade. In another thread i learnt a bit about harmful tax incentives for offshore financial areas. Hilary says;
We also had a discussion on the recent breakdown of Cancun and the need for greater liberalisation of trade in agricultural produce. hilary says;
How many people are looking forward to life after 2008?
i would love to see a show down between the house of bush and the house of clinton. would love to see the ruling elite tear itself up. ain’t gonna happen. personally, i think hilary would whip george w. one-on-one. but she ain’t even gonna bother. she’ll wait. when georgie is finished playing with the ball, he’ll let her have it. and then she may very well pass it on to jeb. that’ll be twenty years, or just about time for chelsea to come up and be the female jack kennedy. oh goodie.
Time to start writing that script… it would play so well in the US… power money, family… oh… hold on… its been done already… Dynasty.
You think Hillary is electable in te US any time soon? I don’t know her that well. i guess she’d win New York and California, but much else!?
She strikes me as a very lawyerish type (sorry mr T), i.e., trying to legislate for equality. Maybe that is a caricature of her, i dunno… but she seems to me far more ‘European’ than American.
But I definitely don’t want to see Clinton’s bush. Seriously, while I make no apologies for liking her politics, I have serious doubts about her chances for electoral success. I agree with Imyourbiggestfan’s comments: trying to legislate for equality. Maybe that is a caricature of her, i dunno… but she seems to me far more ‘European’ than American.
Her politics play well in the salons of the beltway and in European circles, but I see her as simply having too much political baggage. She would carry most of the Northeast states and the “left” coast. Bush would carry the South, the Rocky Mountain States, and most of the border states. I think Bush would beat her by a wide margin. She appeals to professional women in the Northeast, university students, and Salon types in New York and San Francisco. Can anyone give me a possible scenario whereby she could significantly widen her core constituency? I think she has many friends in the beltway, but has offended “Joe and Sally” Nobody with her bluntness and cold personality. For Bush, it is the complete opposite. And we all know where the elections are won.
The only way the Democrats can win the 2004 election is to make Middle America realize that Bush is a plutocrat in the hands of big business. In the early 1980s, House Speaker Tip O’Neil used to be flabergasted by the Reagan Democrats. These people making 4 or 5 dollars an hour, scraping from paycheck to paycheck, yet undying in their loyalty to Reagan. The only Democrat who has made a big issue on this is John Edwards. And he is lagging badly in the polls. As uncouth as the “class warfare” strategy is, it sometimes is a good political device. The Dems have to nominate a Southern moderate, massage Wall Street by assuring a Rubin type appointment, and play class warfare in Middle America. As long as foreign policy remains the biggest election issue and Dean remains the “standard-bearer” for the Dems, Bush is smoking a cohiba.
founding fathers or hilary? hmmm…? legal slavery, women couldn’t vote nor would a good many modern day voters (they don’t own property, so renters would be excluded).
as much as we lionize “the founding fathers” we certainly have deviated from their original tack of things.
why did the communist revolution work in china? in no small part because it tapped into women. previously women weren’t part of any power equation. the women saw the CCP as their best chance and went with it.
the majority of american voters are female. kinda interesting that the voting majority has rarely had a champion of their own. if hilary takes NY and New Enland, the upper midwest and the west coast she would be well on her way.
The founding fathers drafted a Constitution that contained the principles that we have been striving to achieve ever since then. Yes, politics at the time prevented all of the ideals from being realized at once… but the FF included the ideas and gave us a goal to reach for.
Yes, I agree… but I think not in the way you intend above. We are moving away from the federal system and interpreting the Constitution in odd ways now.
I don’t think that was a big reason for the success of the Communist revolution.
Like I said, she’s an idiot and I hope she never gets near the White House again. She doesn’t even understand the genius of the electoral college.
He understands the founding fathers. Where the hell is Coldfront? I am sure he would have something to add to this discussion. Damn. Where is Coldfront? That said Blueface sent me a most interesting treatise on the subject. Blueface. You post too little. We need more blueface and coldfront on this forum and where are you?
no, i am not trying to denigrate the old guys. they had it going on. for their day, the stuff they did was great. is the constitution a “living document” or “set in stone”?
originally, the electoral college behave the way it does today… go look back at the early elections. an entire state’s electorate voting for one candidate was by no means the standard asit is today. somewhere along the line, the two parties tweaked things towards the modern set-up that 48 (maine and some midwestern state) still adhere to.
if we were stil operating under the electoral college scheme as intended by the founding fathers sans the two party co-opting, things would have played alot differently.
if electoral votes were prorated as a percentage of a given states popular vote bush and gore would have pretty much split fla. down the middle. nader would have gotten one or two votes in such a system (in cali.). in a tie or close race, the third party guy holding a few votes is literally the decision maker when he signs over his electoral votes. it is no surprise the republidemocancrats like things just the way they are.
the electoral college, as originally intended was swell. the way it stands today goes against the very idea of democracy. as a conservative registered in hawaii it is painful to know that my vote may very well count for anything under the present formula. each state regulates the allocation of electoral votes. most electors take “marching orders” from the guvnor.
in the last election, an elector from DC abstained from voting. my research showed that such had never happened before. i saw no mention/discussion of this in the press. fascinating stuff indeed…the people make their wishes known through the popular ballot and then the “leadership class” knows better and omits to perform the only obligation of required.
You’re quite right that the electoral college has been tweaked a bit since the early days. However, while the system is a bit different, in fact it still basically achieves the intended result as identified by the likes of James Madison. I would not be opposed necessarily to tweaking the system again to put it back as it originally was… but Hillary wants to abolish the electoral college completely! That, IMO, would be a horrible thing to do.
And there, in a nutshell, is the argument against such a pro-rated percentage vote. Mainstream politicians are loony enough without any need to give power to the mavericks…