Barack Hussein Obama II reelected as POTUS
looks like Hurricane Sandy and the death of Osama bin Laden won it for him.
|
Uninspiring choice, they had.
A slick pseudo-lefty from the Chicago Democrats' "interesting" power brokers and a God-bothering Mormon.
|
|
There was no contest - Mit lost it months ago - far too right wing for the changing demographics in the US. Obama is really full of crap though....
|
Mitt's a shapeshifter. Liberal or conservative on abortion? In favour of healthcare or against?
What was really funnyfrighteninig was hearing a teaparty guy on radio last night.
|
|
Better the devil you know ...
|
I'm ignorant of how American democracy works. Listening to the summary of the results this morning it seems that votes cast by the electoral college has not a lot to do with votes cast by individual people?
Is that how it works - a bit like our own dear TUC, block votes, win the TGWU and you win the election?
|
Not sure I'd see it that way Cliff. The President is formally elected by a college. The college comprises delegates from each state proportional to their population. Each states entire delegation votes 'en bloc' for the candidate with largest vote in their state.
In effect it's first past the post.
It's not a two horse race either. Although Obama and Romney were only candidates we heard of there were several others on the ballot. Amongst them were a Green and Roseanne Barr standing for the Peace and Freedom Party.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Other_candidates
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 7 Nov 12 at 09:46
|
>> Not sure I'd see it that way Cliff. The President is formally elected by a
>> college. The college comprises delegates from each state proportional to their population. Each states entire
>> delegation votes 'en bloc' for the candidate with largest vote in their state.
>>
>> In effect it's first past the post.
>>
>> It's not a two horse race either. Although Obama and Romney were only candidates we
>> heard of there were several others on the ballot. Amongst them were a Green and
>> Roseanne Barr standing for the Peace and Freedom Party.
Some states have a "write in" space as well where you can enter the name of anyone you want. Mickey Mouse gets a lot of votes but has never yet been elected.
|
>> Each states entire
>> delegation votes 'en bloc' for the candidate with largest vote in their state.
>>
But some of those states are bigger than countries. In our first-past-the-post system the constituencies are deliberately kept relatively small. OK Blogshire East gets one vote in the form of one MP, even though some people there didn't vote for him. But there aren't millions of people with wasted votes.
If we had the American system England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England would get one vote. England would "vote" conservative, Scotland SNP, Wales labour, and NI (?).
It doesn't sound very democratic to me.
|
>> >> Each states entire
>> >> delegation votes 'en bloc' for the candidate with largest vote in their state.
>> >>
>>
>> But some of those states are bigger than countries.
And they get more block votes
In our first-past-the-post system the constituencies
>> are deliberately kept relatively small.
And the smaller states get less votes.
You are trying to find issues where none exist.
|
>>
>> You are trying to find issues where none exist.
>>
OK, I accept your reassurances. Democracy is safe in the world's greatest democracy. :)
|
>> If we had the American system England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England would get one
>> vote. England would "vote" conservative, Scotland SNP, Wales labour, and NI (?).
>> It doesn't sound very democratic to me.
No. A state has delegates to the college in proportion to population. Applied to UK there would be a permanent England majority. The population of London and SE alone exceed combined population of Scotland, Wales and NI.
And of course the President is only one part, albeit a big one, of the US system. The Federal Government also includes the two houses of Congress. The role of each and what it can do is defined by the constitution, a document imposing numerous checks/balances. It's authors sought to avoid the issues of royal or parliamentary over might seen in Europe in C17/18.
In terms of making stuff happen at home the US President would kill for the powers of a British PM!!
Below the Federal govt sit the states, theoretically independent in all matters except defence and interpretation of the Constitution.
|
>> I'm ignorant of how American democracy works. Listening to the summary of the results this
>> morning it seems that votes cast by the electoral college has not a lot to
>> do with votes cast by individual people?
It does, you vote for a candidate of the college who says they will vote for either the Republican or Democrat presidential nomination winner.
The candidate then meets with the college who elect the president.
half the states have criminal legislation to prevent the college winning candidate acting in bad faith and voting in the wrong fella.
|
Good. Least worst option prevails.
Next up, Hilary Clinton versus............
|
There weren't enough well off white voters to elect Romney. The man has zero appeal outside of this demographic.
Wonder how many more elections the Republicans will lose before they realise that a move back towards the centre ground is desperately needed.
|
>> There weren't enough well off white voters to elect Romney. The man has zero appeal
>> outside of this demographic.
>>
>> Wonder how many more elections the Republicans will lose before they realise that a move
>> back towards the centre ground is desperately needed.
>>
As many of their voters are elderly, about another decade for them to croak.
And an infinity for the Religious Right. (When God is on your side, you CANNOT be wrong)
|
>> There weren't enough well off white voters to elect Romney. The man has zero appeal
>> outside of this demographic.
>>
>> Wonder how many more elections the Republicans will lose before they realise that a move
>> back towards the centre ground is desperately needed.
The republican party have decided that Romney was too far towards the center ground and think the next nominee should be more to the right. Much more.
|
"The republican party have decided that Romney was too far towards the center ground and think the next nominee should be more to the right. Much more."
A substantial part of the party of course think that. The people who put up the money however want a party that is capable of winning an election. Without a move to the centre and a substantial part of the hispanic vote this looks increasingly unlikely. Money talks - the Republican party will move to the left but after an internal civil war.
|
>> Next up, Hilary Clinton versus............
>>
..........Jeb Bush. How could I forget.
Should be a classic.
|
>> Hillary Clinton versus............
... one of those ghastly screeching tea party women?
Having baldly asserted here a week or two ago that the election would be a 'shoo-in' for Barack Obama, I confess to a feeling of slight anxiety when I went to bed at 2 this morning after watching the early results for a couple of hours. Naturally I knew I was right, just as we all do. But I had started to doubt the US voter.
|
You are so wize Sire ... tell me, who's gonna win the 2.30pm at Kempton Park on Friday then?
:+)
|
>> You are so wize Sire ... tell me, who's gonna win the 2.30pm at Kempton
>> Park on Friday then?
>>
I can tell you that - No one!
|
|
American democracy is the best that money can buy.....
|
>>I can tell you that - No one!<<
You'd get on well with my 87 year old FiL then if you know that!
|
>> Good. Least worst option prevails.
>>
>> Next up, Hilary Clinton versus............
Maybe, but 4 years in a long time in politics. She may well run, but whether she'll win the nomination is far from clear. Who knows who might else might emerge by then.
Also she will be almost 70. Not exactly ancient, but getting to the point where age may count against her. I don't think there has ever been a US president elected for their first term in their 70s (Reagan was just a few days shy of 70, Bush Snr was 64, and they were quite a bit older than most other modern presidents).
You ideally want a candidate who has a good chance of being healthy for two terms, so being elected at almost 70 is a bit of a risk.
|
>> You ideally want a candidate who has a good chance of being healthy for two
>> terms, so being elected at almost 70 is a bit of a risk.
Two words
Ronald Reagan.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 7 Nov 12 at 13:19
|
>> >> You ideally want a candidate who has a good chance of being healthy for
>> two
>> >> terms, so being elected at almost 70 is a bit of a risk.
>>
>> Two words
>>
>> Ronald Reagan.
Yes, although Reagan did have his fair share of health scares (including a number of cancer related operations) during his presidency and, of course, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's only a few years after leaving office.
Certainly someone could stay in good health into their late 70s, but there is a much greater risk than with somebody in their 50s or early 60s.
The main point being that successful candidates are, with few exceptions, significantly younger.
|
>> The main point being that successful candidates are, with few exceptions, significantly younger.
>>
McCain. Got the nomination, at least.
|
>> >> The main point being that successful candidates are, with few exceptions, significantly younger.
>> >>
>>
>> McCain. Got the nomination, at least.
He did, but certainly there were question marks over his age, and he was some way from being successful. The age question may not have helped him, but it's difficult to judge given that he was running against the Obama freight-train.
What McCain does show (along perhaps with Romney) is that the nomination process often throws up weak candidates that are just acceptable to the majority.
The Republicans probably need to focus better on finding the candidate most likely to win, rather than just the one that most of them can stomach.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 7 Nov 12 at 13:59
|
>> The Republicans probably need to focus better on finding the candidate most likely to win,
>> rather than just the one that most of them can stomach.
>>
Isn't Jeb Bush next in line to inherit the throne? Earned his spurs by buying GWB's re-election in Florida, and wisely demurred to stand for the Presidency against Obama, waiting for a clean run at a different opponent.
I thought this was already decided.
|
>> >> The Republicans probably need to focus better on finding the candidate most likely to
>> win,
>> >> rather than just the one that most of them can stomach.
>> >>
>>
>> Isn't Jeb Bush next in line to inherit the throne? Earned his spurs by buying
>> GWB's re-election in Florida, and wisely demurred to stand for the Presidency against Obama, waiting
>> for a clean run at a different opponent.
>>
>> I thought this was already decided.
Jeb Bush is unelectable. The rebublican party know this, he wont get a look in.
|
>> Yes, although Reagan did have his fair share of health scares (including a number of
>> cancer related operations) during his presidency
Dont forget the gunshot wounds.
and, of course, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's only a
>> few years after leaving office.
As was Thatcher.
The main point is tho that younger candidates are perceived not to command the respect, gravitas and experience of the older ones. Thats Dave's current problem.
|
>> >> Yes, although Reagan did have his fair share of health scares (including a number
>> of
>> >> cancer related operations) during his presidency
>>
>> Dont forget the gunshot wounds.
Yes, although he would almost certainly have had cancer regardless.
>> and, of course, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's only a
>> >> few years after leaving office.
>>
>> As was Thatcher.
Yes. Of course, she left office at roughly the same age that Hillary is now, and withdrew from public speaking on health grounds at the same age that Hillary would be finishing her second term.
>> The main point is tho that younger candidates are perceived not to command the respect,
>> gravitas and experience of the older ones. Thats Dave's current problem.
Sure, although I don't think that the lack of respect for Dave is simply down to age.
That said, Cameron was 43 when we took office, which really is a bit too young.
I would say that early 50s to early 60s is probably the sweet spot.
|
>> being elected at almost 70 is a bit of a risk.
Statistically, several years less of a risk for a woman than for a man. And Hillary Clinton seems pretty fit and energetic.
|
>> >> being elected at almost 70 is a bit of a risk.
>>
>> Statistically, several years less of a risk for a woman than for a man. And
>> Hillary Clinton seems pretty fit and energetic.
Yes, she does AC, although we are looking 12 years down the road for what would be the end of her second term, when she would be 77.
And yes, maybe the electorate would discount for that fact that being female should extend her longevity. I guess we'll see in a few years.
If she were still politically active, I would think that she might be a better candidate for VP.
|
|
Her monstrous ego would surely not allow her to stand for the biggest non-job in US politics - that of V.P.
|
>> Her monstrous ego would surely not allow her to stand for the biggest non-job in
>> US politics - that of V.P.
>>
I'll have to disagree with you about the "monstrous ego" Roger. Nobody with that sort of personality trait would have been able to do what she has done as Secretary of State. She's been very diplomatic and consensual in dealing with friendly and not so friendly countries during her term, while not shirking speaking out for the underdog.
In my view, she has been a great Secretary of State and a great argument for more women of this calibre taking part in public service.
She has said "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer she does not want to serve a second term as secretary of state or run for president of the United States."
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/clinton-running-for-president/
I hope that she changes her mind on both counts.
|
Ah, the old "I don't want to be King" schtick, as per Jim Hacker.
Nailed on.
|
Not many American presidents have done one term,the ods where with the Democrats.
Replubicans have lost the plot,the majority are white right wing voters and some of their retoric is scary.Ron Paul in my opinion would have been a good candidate.I disagree with him about health care.The Americans have more to worry about the country is trillions into debt.
|
>> Not many American presidents have done one term,the ods where with the Democrats.
But not many of the two termers were Democrats. Only one post war was Clinton though the stats are skewed by Kennedy's assassination and his sucession by LBJ.
The Republicans will not win unless they appeal more to women and Black, Latino and other minorities. Abortion may excite those already in the Republican camp but attempts to reverse Roe v Wade are a massive deterrent to the toung/female/single vote.
|
>> >> Not many American presidents have done one term,the ods where with the Democrats.
>>
>> But not many of the two termers were Democrats. Only one post war was Clinton
>> though the stats are skewed by Kennedy's assassination and his sucession by LBJ.
>>
>> The Republicans will not win unless they appeal more to women and Black, Latino and
>> other minorities. Abortion may excite those already in the Republican camp but attempts to reverse
>> Roe v Wade are a massive deterrent to the toung/female/single vote.
>>
Agree 100% !
|
>> Barack Hussein Obama II reelected as POTUS
cf. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493
"Laundry is strung outside the house. The water comes from a well in a yard, overgrown with weeds. Only two police officers and Manuela, a three-legged dog, keep watch outside."
|
|
I saw that earlier today and had a little chortle -
|
Obama Wins it - Roger.
