Hillary Clinton!!! Surely not?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 10:59 Tue 06 Nov 2007

Con key - the man with the key to the cons. Makes sense to me.

Post by **DRT** » 19:28 Tue 06 Nov 2007

Conky wrote: My nickname is Conky and not Conkey!!!

When did you change it from Corky?

Derek

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 00:43 Wed 07 Nov 2007

Jay,

Come and rescue me from these half-wits! At least our Meaningless Drivel is Upper Class Meaningless Drivel!

Alan

Jay P · Post by **Jay P** » 07:46 Wed 07 Nov 2007

Alan

I think we will just have to agree to disagree in good spirits. Afterall, the essence of politics is compromise...

...something the Clintons knew well, and other politicians here (and around the world) would do well to try out once in a while!

Jay

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 16:07 Tue 01 Jan 2008

This article gave me hope about our cousins choices in their forthcoming Presidential elections.

I was concerned Clinton may cakewalk back into Office, on the back of Anti-Bush fervour. Well if it is wide open, and even the Party Leaders are in doubt, that has to be healthy for democracy. Now the Country can sit back and listen to the arguements. It might even make candidates make subtle policy changes, to appeal to the majority.

Our BBC is usually calm and reflective, and I'm hoping they are reporting correctly. If not I'm sure one of you, will put me right.

Alan

Post by **DRT** » 00:53 Tue 08 Jan 2008

So, it looks like Hilary is taking a pasting in the polls. At least that's how it looks to someone like me who does not understand how the US electoral system works.

Now, I could spend 20 minutes or so reading the BBC websites guide to the US electoral system. Or, just because it is bound to be more entertaining, I could post this question:

Could someone please explain to me how the US electoral system works? Why does it appear that only 2 or 3 States are allowed to choose the candidates who go forward to the big vote? (please note that I'm assuming there is a big vote at some point. I may be wrong.)

Ta

Derek

Post by **jdaw1** » 01:49 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek T. wrote:Could someone please explain to me how the US electoral system works?

In a Governor election (top chappie in a state), raise more money than opponent;
Election result looks inevitable: non-masochists abandon opponent;
Buy more television time than the opponents;
Win Governorship;
Stuff state equivalent of boundary commission with corrupt cronies;
Gerrymander Federal Senate and Representative (=House) boundaries;
Your party henceforth has lots of safe seats from that state (Senate has lower turnover than pre-Blair-reform House of Lords!);
So safe that the election no longer matters—it sufﬁces to win the party’s nomination, which one does by being more stupidly extreme than the other contestants in the primary;
Win election to Senate or House;
Remain in seat until senile, whilst having plenty of extremist-pleasing nutty policies.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 05:54 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Jdaw is right.....Derek, don't ever try to understand it, you won't...and neither does most of the US for that matter

Post by **DRT** » 09:56 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek T. wrote:Why does it appear that only 2 or 3 States are allowed to choose the candidates who go forward to the big vote?

?

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 13:36 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek,

I suspect it is because they are like sheep. Although the other states can vote differently, they historically dont, and certainly haven't done for decades.
A bit like you Scots, you do what the English say!

Good to see the majority of democratic voters up to now, have the same mistrust of the Clinton Dynasty as I have. (The point that started this thread)

Alan

Post by **DRT** » 14:07 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Alan,

According to Julian's description it seems that the voters don't really have much to do with the result.

Is it not just a case of Obama having spent more money in the right places and working the system better than Hilary has? Or is Obama somehow different to the others in that he is honest, upstanding and not involved in the seedier side of this particular political game?

Derek

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:11 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek T. wrote:According to Julian's description it seems that the voters don't really have much to do with the result.

A House constituency Gerrymandered to be solid Republican (likewise Democrat) does depend on the voters. But the voters in the primaries, not the election. And primary-voting people tend to be less middle-of-road and more extremist.

Hence most jobs in the Senate are jobs for life (or until standing for Prez, or caught doing things of which one’s supporters disapprove in a lavatory somewhere, or retiring to take a loads-a-lolly lobbying job).

Luc · Post by **Luc** » 15:13 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek,
I think Obama's cash has been spent in the right places .
However , what is just as important is his ability to grab hold of an audience .
Using Martin Luther King and J.F.K. references ( has he mentioned VP ? )
are not bad references .
His message is striking a chord and It can get him to the White house .

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:43 Tue 08 Jan 2008

My grumble about Gerrymandering is aimed (mostly) at the House of Representatives.

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 15:49 Tue 08 Jan 2008

jdaw1 wrote:My grumble about Gerrymandering is aimed (mostly) at the House of Representatives.

I was going to say! {insert indignant emoticon}

Actually, I wasn't, I couldn't give a damn. You could have made outrageous claims about Jerry Mandarin or any other American day-time personality and I wouldn't have a clue.

Post by **DRT** » 16:09 Tue 08 Jan 2008

I knew this would be more fun than reqding the FAQ on the BBC website

Right. Let's get technical. What are Primaries and exactly how are they supposed to work?

Derek

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 16:11 Tue 08 Jan 2008

They go to each State and ask a load of crocusses their opinions for each party.

Post by **DRT** » 16:14 Tue 08 Jan 2008

KillerB wrote:They go to each State and ask a load of crocusses their opinions for each party.

You're not taking this seriously, are you?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 16:35 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Derek T. wrote:
KillerB wrote:They go to each State and ask a load of crocusses their opinions for each party.
You're not taking this seriously, are you?

Why wouldn't I take American politics seriously?

Conky · Post by **Conky** » 16:58 Tue 08 Jan 2008

I'm getting a little lost here, Gerry asks crocuses about their onions???

Does he ever get an answer?

Luc · Post by **Luc** » 17:13 Tue 08 Jan 2008

This , beats by far all the Political Science classes I took in college .

Luc · Post by **Luc** » 17:18 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Actualy , some states have Primaries ( secret ballot votting ) and others have caucusses ( more of a townhall type of meeting were there's a show of hands )

Post by **DRT** » 17:32 Tue 08 Jan 2008

Now I'm starting to learn something and this perhaps explains why I thought only a couple of States were involved.

The key error was when I assumed The Caucusses was a region of the USA. "Hilary has been beaten in The Caucusses" meant the same to me that "Hilary has been beaten in New york State" would have meant

So, did all States participate in The Caucusses or do some States have that style of voting and others have Primaries?

Or am I going insane?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 18:48 Tue 08 Jan 2008

"Hilary has been beaten in The Caucusses"

No, that means that she has been kicked in the genetalia.

Post by **DRT** » 19:01 Tue 08 Jan 2008

KillerB wrote:
"Hilary has been beaten in The Caucusses"
No, that means that she has been kicked in the genetalia.

So that's the equivalent of punching Obama in the Primaries?

I think I'm starting to get it now.

Derek

ThePortForum.com

Hillary Clinton!!! Surely not?

voters in the primaries

Gerrymandering

Re: Gerrymandering