Clinton or Obama???

Who would get your vote????

 

Not sure. I can see possible weaknesses in both.

 

Obama - can't stand that woman.

 

Me too!!! I didn't like Bill Clinton either!!! Both his and Tony Blair's smiles were so ..... false!

 

That's because they're false people. Been in the game too long to know anything else. Actually, I find the same with Kyt's favourite candidate so I'll have to lean to Obama.

Well done on the 300 posts, CT.

 

Thanks Andy - I didn't think I'd make it before David overtook me. Looks pitiful beside those of you above me though!

 

Just proves you don't dribble as much!

 

As the first person to way in here whp may actually have the chance to cast a vote in this election I would like to say that this time the Americans this time are spoiled for choice. There are good attributes for any of the main candidates: Democates Obama or Clinton, Republican McCaine, Ralph Nadar, or Ron Paul -- Libertarian.

But if we are to limit our discussion to either of the two front-running Democrates, I would like to report something I heard today on the radio. It seems the main difference of the campaigns of these candidates is that while Clinton is running a top-down (or centrally guided) campaign Obama issusing a "bottom-up" strategy (grass-roots or decentralized).

Obama is appealing to a broader base of citizens. This utalizes his expertise in oratory. He has a spell-binding quality which has mass appeal, and can certainly sway crowds. Reports of his rallys speak of huge crowds, and his appeals have raised mass money, the lifeblood of American political life.

Clinton has name recognition going for her. Her husband has been acting as a surrigate candidate, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It has been said by many pundits here in the States that she is certainly the candidate whom the Republicans want to run against. In fact, it is said that in recent primaries, where it is sometimes allowed, voters who are idiologically Republican are castig primary ballots for her so as to try to improve her chances, thus making their target more vulnerable.

Sometimes American politics seems as if it is a blood-sport.

 

In 2000 when Bush was elected after the controversy of the counts in Florida, I was told by an eminent American professor that, because of the sheer size of the exercise, it was the practice in some States to only sample count votes!

Was this true and is it still the case?

Do our elections in the UK stimulate any interest in the US (or elsewhere in the world come to that)?

Is there the same cynicism towards politicians in the US or Australia?

 

There is here but there's just been a change in government so everything is apparently rosy. Some issues have arisen so far and I have yet to pass judgement but I think we'll discover some sneaky taxes and cost-cutting.

 

Thank you for the question.

One of the problems from which the United States suffers is that in some important things we are not united. One of these is election laws. Each of the fifty states in the unioin have their own election laws, and in some cases, such as in primaries, this may be dobled as each of the two main parties may have its own set of rules or laws. This has lead to much confusion, and the creation of nitsch professionals who understand this bit of law.

But as a rule ALL VOTES should be tallied, err, counted. This can be tricky as sometimes rules need to be created as to which ballots show clear choice and which ballots are "spoiled".

An example of a spoiled vote may be where someone vote twice, or when there is a mark outside the designated bow, or some other such foolery. Or there was the case of the imfamous hanging chads. I know more than I should about hamging chads and will bore you with this only if you ask.

One issue in American politics of some great importance is how to vote. In the last presidential vote (2004) some states or some districts in some states, used computerized voting machines. It was said that the manufacturer would not reveal the source code because it was a propritory secret. Later it was shown that the machines very easily hackable, and that vote totals could be changed. And in fact there are chares that that is exactly what happened asnd that is why we got stuck with Junior Bush again.

An American writer for the BBC wrote a great chapter concerning this in his book. The author's name is Gregg Palast, and the book is "Armed Madhouse".

 

Thanks Interrogator.

Tallied rather than counted??? Please explain

Chads - please bore me.

I'll look out for the book (have yet to finish even one of the books recommended to me and have no hope of living long enough to get through the whole list!!!)

 

For a long time I've been leaning towards Obama. But I'm getting concerned about just how much actual substance there is in politics, as well as how experienced he is in government. His latest slogan, something like "We are the ones" sounds very subjective and populist.

Hilary Clinton may be no more sincere; what politician is these days, on either side of the Atlantic? - but she is immensely more experienced than he is, even if a lot of this is via Bill, and I wonder if she may be a safer pair of hands in terms of the economy and national security and foreign affairs.

 

Voting in the States

First, Tally verses counting

Ideally in the American republican form of government every enfranchised citizenis to be permitted to vote, to cast a ballot. There have been times and there have been places in this country where fully enfranchised citizens have been denied their vote. And there are people who think that agents of the Republican Party have conspired to systematically, or sommetime radomly, rig the voting mechanism in several ways. They no longer really are counting ballots, all ballots, but go through a simulation of counting. Thus a "tally".

The usae of the term is mine own, and others may use the same word in different ways.

Next, Hanging Chads.

Any of you older who are old enough will recall Computer Punch Cards. They are old data processing devices which pre-date computers, something which were even used by IBM and the NSDAP regime to systmatize the processing of the inmates of the Concentration Camp network (how is that for a tie-in to WWII?).

One technology which has been used in the States at various times is called a "butterfly ballot". Using this system each voter inserts a sort of punch card into a special jig which displays the varius candidates and ballot issues. The voter then uses a special metal probe to press-out the Punches - the "chad" - thus producing a punch-card ballot which can then be machine read.

There is a flaw in the System. When it was used in the State where I vote, Minnesota, some 20 year ago, it was noticed (I noticed), that it was easy to lay the punch-card atop of the voting jig and punch out all the the top few rows of chads. It would take but, say, 5 pounds of pressure. But a card laid atop the jig rather than inserted INTO the jig would be such that it might take 100+ pounds of force to punch out the chad. This force difference affected only the top row or two, and only if the card was atop the jig rather than inside it. Minnesota no longer uses such a system.

This is what MAY have happened in Florida in 2000. With improperly used puchcards, with Al Gore's place at the very top of the ballot, many voters could have pushed mightily on the card but not properly cast a ballot.

Third, other vote problems

In 2004 the problem was different. Rather than using punch-cards in Ohio the State officer called the Secretary of State, one Mr. Blackwell, had control over the method of counting the vote, err, tallying the vote. Problem was that he also was the state chairmen for the Re-elect Bush Campaign, and so was very partisan in his opinions. He also owned the company which sold the state of Ohio the machines which were used, "black boxes" which were easily hacked by someone with knowledge of how the machines worked. This fact was not revealed until well after the election was finalized and certified. And several studies have shown there "anomolies" regarding certain select voting districts. This is, again, described in better detail in "Armed Madhouse" (look in your public library).

There are those of us in the States which are worried about this nation slipping away from a "democracy" (realy, it is a representative republic form of government) into something else. But at the time of this writing, March, 2008, it looks like the old, free and fair institutions will prevail.

We can only hope.

 

being an outside watcher, I wouldn't vote for either of those two. Obama is too much spin and Clinton, from what I have read in papers over here, is a nightmare who will pretty much make America even more hated. To be honest MacClaine looks a better candidate, mainly as I know precisely zip about him.

 

Kitty, McCain comes from quite a prestigious military family. From memory, I think he served on the USS Forrestal CV 59 (pilot) off Vietnam and was on board when she suffered that massive fire in 1967. He was injured by shrapnel. Later in 1967, he was shot down and spent more than five years as a POW suffering torture, dysentry etc. I think, to be honest, if there's one presidential candidate who knows what the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are going through, it's McCain.

USS Forrestal The Tragic Fire - July 29, 1967

He is in fact John S McCain III as his father and grandfather, obviously, had the same name. They were also naval officers and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS John S McCain DDG 56 is named after them (I toured her here in Fremantle when she was on her first WestPac deployment in about 95 or 96). There was another ship of the same name but that was named just for the "original" JSM who died from shortly after the Japanese surrender.

John S. McCain, Sr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
John S. McCain, Jr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
John McCain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, two Admirals and a Lt Cdr in one family.

 

As an inside oberver I am at a loss to tell you what the results of th election next November will be. I am not even sure what the results of the Democratic nomination will be.

Clinton is quite popular among her own following, but has very high "negatives" from a large fraction of the citizenry, both outside the party and in. I have heard pundits remark that if she is selected as candidate, she may have an uphill battle on her hands.

Obama on the other hand does not have the high negatives to overcome. And he does have aa much broader emotional appeal, which curry favour with the large fraction of "independent voters".

It is said of American politics that a quarter of the votersa may be hard-set to the one party or the other, but about half the voters can be swayed one candidate or the other. The Key is to persuade this vast middle third. Obama looks to be the greater appealer.

Of McCain, there ws a major motion picture made about a decade or so ago about his experience as a POW.

He may be the better choice for foriegn policy issues, hat point is open to debate, but, by his own admission he is weak on economic issues. Right now the plurality of questioned potential voters list the Economy as the most important issue. This weakness may prove to be his fatal flaw.

 

Had a quick look, I#6 and came up with this. Never heard of it!

Return with Honor (1998)

 

The film was "Faith of my Fathers" (2005). It met with little sucess. I can not say I would endorce the senator on the strength of the film.

 

Not really following it, but I don't like either of them.
Hilary is just an extenstion of Bill.