USA Politics

Sounds like people are remembering why they didn't like Newt so much - his numbers in Iowa are starting to drop according to Rasmussen.

Of course, I don't trust Rasmussen, and that could mean anything. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Romney surrogate attacks are starting to catch.
 
Nigel Tufnel said:
It's only about retaining power. Without a serious 3rd party, Congressional Term limits are the only feasible way to address the problems .
Click to expand...

Right now it's about knowing what you're talking about, and trying to make as less blunders as possible.
 
Forostar said:
Right now it's about knowing what you're talking about, and trying to make as less blunders as possible.
Click to expand...

Knowing what you are talking about is the best way to loose an election. Go back to the 2000 debates and listen to what Gore wanted to do with the surplus (invest in technology, bio-engineering, solar power/green energy, etc) while Bush wanted to give it all back to the people. Think of where the US would be had those initiatives begun 10 years ago.

This year, the ONLY republican with any knowledge on foreign policy, China, running a successful business and the ability to work with the other side is polling at about 4%. If knowing what you were talking about was held dear John Huntsman would be the frontrunner.

Now I will go back to knowing nothing.
 
Habberdasher said:
Think of where the US would be had those initiatives begun 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

The US - and the world, for that matter - would no doubt have arrived in the 21st century by now.
 
That'll be a sure pickup for the GOP. I don't think this year will be as good for the GOP as they were hoping - Heller, for instance, may lose in NV, and it doesn't look like Kaine will lose Webb's seat to Mr. Macacas himself.
 
The GOP needs 4 seats (3 if Obama loses), they have 2 pretty much in the bag, Nebraska and North Dakota. NV and MA are the only 2 seats they currently hold that are in any kind of danger, the Dems have MO, PA, MT, FL, VA, and WI that are in danger (I think Hawaii might be on that list too based on how their primary is going, the NY Times had a recent article on it).
 
I read that article. I think that it's far too early to really guess at Hawaii, though. Ideologically disunited states are certainly up for grabs, but as for the rest of the states, it's going to depend a lot on coattails for the Republicans.
 
I should have added WV as well, Manchin is not a shoo in, though certainly a favorite. Hawaii is worth looking at because it has been a slam dunk for the Dems most every year since it became a state. This year, the GOP has a shot because of a a pretty divided Dem primary (more moderate versus liberal), a Dem governor who replaced the GOP candidate coming off a horrible first year .. which makes the Dems look bad and makes Lingle look better by comparison. With Obama on top of the ticket and the state's history, it is still tough sledding for Lingle, but she has a shot.

I have to think the Dems are a bit ticked Nelson did not announce earlier, I read that they spent $1.5 Mil trying to prop him up after the health care debacle
 
Yeah, definitely the Dems aren't pleased with Nelson. It's a little late to try to start selling someone else in Nebraska. I'm not sure who the GOP has there to run - that might be determinative as well, but I wouldn't think the Dems should expect to hold. The midwestern moderate Democrats are all gone now - their area for expansion lays in the purple states, like Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia (a state turning increasingly Democrat).
 
I doubt the Dems have a viable candidate in Nebraska. Most of the articles seem that the Dems think Bob Kerry is the best option and he looks like a pretty iffy candidate. The problem the Dems have here (as the GOP has in other states) is that they have so few elected officials at the lower levels of government that can work their way up to state wide or federal elections.

I think redistricting is the reason why, IMO, US politics is in the state it is in. There are far too many safe seats for one party or another that results in House and state-wide seats increasingly going far right or far left. Until a solution (that neither party wants) can be reached there, I am afraid we are pretty much doomed to what we have ... no matter the party in control.
 
I read that their former Senator might be considering a run. Can't remember his name right now, but I do agree that the Dems are in trouble in that area.

Yes, and the history of gerrymandering is pretty much exactly the problem. That's why the Texas redistricting fight is going to be interesting.
 
Bob Kerry is the former Senator. His problem is that he has lived in New York the past 10 years and has not run for office since 1994. He will be pretty easy to tag too far to the left for Nebraska. The Texas redistricting shows exactly what the problem is (as it does in pretty much every state), people are trying to determine a result (a Republican or Democratic representative or a representative being a certain race) versus grouping the requisite number of people based solely on georgraphy. The solution needs to be start at one corner of a state and go east/west/north/south (does not matter) until you get to the number of people needed to fill a Congresstional or state/county/city district, then start a new one.
 
Bob Kerrey. That's why it didn't click, there's an extra "e" in there on the source I read. And yes, that would definitely hold him back in Nebraska. Still though, he's probably a damn sight better than any other candidate they'd be able to pull from state-wide currently.

The Texas problem is exactly that. I don't think you should divide up by population - I think that urban vs. rural and racial blocks need to be taken into consideration (ie, you shouldn't crack the black population by splitting them up into several districts, etc, nor should you pack all the black populace of a city into one district and crack the remainder) - however, I think that the chief factor should be population density. Areas with similar densities tend to have similar ethnographic layouts. Grouping less-dense areas together and more-dense areas together should work the problems out, and have a good appropriate mix of the other considerations. Then you just make some adjustments manually.

I hate gerrymandering, for reference.
 
That is not just a problem in Texas, see the new Illinois map (or really the map in about any state). The goal should be to group like citizens by location and have a representative represent their interests. If you use a flat geographic block, you will get that, urban areas will be lumped together as will suburbs and rural areas. The problem (IMO) arise when you see a few suburbs lumped into a city or vice versa to create majority Dem or GOP seats. I think the bi partisan commisions that were set up in some states are a slight improvement over the previous systems, but they are really not much better as they protect incumbants, which is really the worst thing possible for a democracy. The only time there should be a safe seat is when the incumbant is doing such an outstanding job, no one thinks about running against him or her, not just becase someone is from a certain ethnic group or has D or R after their name, this is just as bad (if not worse) in state and city races as it is in federal races.
 
The problem is that any assortment of seats will result in some safe districts (except in exceptional years). I agree that the only difference with the bi-partisan commission is that they protect the seats from 2 parties instead of just one. Perhaps the real solution is to elect a state's reps via proportional representation and have the parties draw geographic districts from hats to assign local reps to. I'm really not sure there's a way to break up seats to make each seat constantly competitive.
 
I can live with some safe seats, the problem now is that the majority of seats are safe even in wave elections.
 
Well, I agree. That's why I think the answer lies in population density, rather than regions. Or just hire a bunch of Canadians to make the districts, we don't care too much. A Canadian, a German, and a Mexican. I know some guys who'd be happy to do the job...
 
One thing I know for sure: Whatever happens: the Rep candidate will be an old, white man.

But would you guys enlighten me on these pre-elections?
Are these always starting in Iowa? If so, why? If not so, how is this decided?
And why is Obama the only Dem candidate (the dems have already decided this)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top