11/02/2004 Archived Entry: "Why is it so close?"
The last U.S. election came down to a few hundred votes in Florida, and after 4 yrs of economic downward spiralling, hundreds of lies, torn international relations, profiteering, and over a thousand dead U.S. troops, all polls show that it'll be dead even again. Amazingly, it's like no one's mind has been changed in the last 4 years.
How they can continue to support someone who's destroyed a huge fiscal surplus, invaded another country with hand-wavy proof, while taking away civilian liberties is just beyond me. In Canada, we give our leaders their due, do a good job you get re-elected with majority, do a bad job => minority government or lose official party status altogether.
Politically, at least, I think about half of all Americans really are just dumb sheep.
Also, I think if Ralph Nader really wanted to affect some political changes, he should sit out this round. With things being so close, the votes Nader gets are totally meaningless and would be better off going to the Dems.
Replies: 22 comments
i have so much to say to that, but perhaps i'll wait till tomorrow.
nah ... i'll say a couple now:
1. how did jean chretien do a "good job"? was he not more rewarded for not being preston manning or stockwell day than for doing a good job?
2. the votes nader gets are not meaningless ... they're votes that are not given to someone else (generally the dems), a point to which you alluded in the latter half of your sentence.
that's it for now.
looks like the puppet will get to dance for four more years.
Posted by melpie @ 11/03/2004 12:01 AM EST
Bush again!?!?!? NO!!!!!! I blame religion.
Posted by dAN @ 11/03/2004 09:17 AM EST
but ... really ... did you believe that bush was going to lose? sure, you might have hoped he would lose, but did you think it would actually happen?
this just puts the democrats in a much better position four years down the road.
perhaps we'll have a president clinton again (since we seem to like running things all in the family lately)
Posted by melpie @ 11/03/2004 11:09 AM EST
How many votes did Ross Perot get?
Posted by Doug @ 11/03/2004 12:50 PM EST
this time around? is he even still kicking?
Posted by melpie @ 11/03/2004 01:31 PM EST
How does this improve the Dem position in 2008? You hoping that the public will catch on to the bad job Bush is doing by then?
I'd like to see Hilary in the white house, but I doubt that would happen. Though she could try to get her revenge on Bill with some male interns.
Posted by Rayne @ 11/03/2004 02:33 PM EST
the states is running into a rather large debt crisis ... one that will have to be addressed in probably about 2 years ... in order to address the crisis, bush will have to do one of two things:
- dastically slash spending
- raise taxes (over and above the levels they were at when he came into power)
these should both swing the vote towards the democrats
the second thing is that, john kerry wasn't seen as a decisive man, a man of action ... and with the terrorism cloud still hanging around .. no one was really comfortable in him being the one to hold the umbrella.
had he gotten into power, he would have had to deal with the crippling debtload left by bush, the iraq mess left by bush and all of this when the states are most likely not going to be enjoying one of those economic good times (presidents who are in power during cyclical economic good times are much better viewed than those from the bad times)
the likely outcome would be a one-term stay in that big ol' white house. and then it'd be back to the republicans again .. lead perhaps by arnie to once again save the world, but this time, for real.
it's kinda like in canadian federal politics ... the conservatives thought it'd be nice to win this time around, but they weren't really ready for it ... if they had won they would probably only be in office for one term .. and what can you really accomplish in one term? they had a chance after martin got in to break up the reigning liberals ... but didn't take it. it just wouldn't work out right .. politics is half about timing.
Posted by melpie @ 11/03/2004 04:43 PM EST
don't you need to be born in the US to become president, therefore ruling out good ole arnie. But don't worry, he'll be back.
Posted by Mike @ 11/03/2004 09:00 PM EST
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
-----
looks like you just have to be +35 and lived there for more than 14 years.
go arnie!
Posted by melpie @ 11/04/2004 11:26 AM EST
I also remember hearing that you had to be born American to run. Not like Bush can't make the necessary changes or anything.
Posted by Rayne @ 11/04/2004 11:45 AM EST
well, under the constitution (article II, section 1) it does say you have to be a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the united states. of course, at the time they made the constitution, the country was still populating itself
Posted by melpie @ 11/04/2004 03:02 PM EST
Article 34, Section 12, Subsection B:
"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
Posted by dAN @ 11/04/2004 04:13 PM EST
Why is it so close?
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
There, I rest my case.
Posted by Will @ 11/08/2004 01:54 PM EST
Those red ones still seem a little skewed...;)
Posted by dAN @ 11/08/2004 02:11 PM EST
so i looked up this wealth of nations iq thingy ... and it has iq by nations ... and apparently the us has a higher avg iq than canada.
the shame! the horror!
Posted by melpie @ 11/08/2004 03:19 PM EST
wow, I'm tempted to go get this book now. If only to read more on how Chinese are superior. =P
Posted by Rayne @ 11/08/2004 03:56 PM EST
Hmm...Mein Kampf anyone...:P!!
Posted by dAN @ 11/08/2004 04:29 PM EST
wasn't there some prof from western who was studying that ... it was tres controversial. i remember this from back in high school though ... so really, that was yeeeears ago.
Posted by melpie @ 11/09/2004 10:02 AM EST
Yeah, no matter how objective or well-intentioned you are, even suggesting that one race is somehow genetically superior to another is going to get some knickers bunched.
Posted by Rayne @ 11/09/2004 06:46 PM EST
speaking of racial educational profiling ...
i read in one paper this morning that the board did approve the collection of race-based statistics (this article is from yesterday)
Posted by melpie @ 11/10/2004 02:02 PM EST
bleh, you have to register with the star to read their articles now? i hate the internet.
Posted by Zamir @ 11/10/2004 04:12 PM EST
oh yeah ... i forgot that the star did that.
at least the star waited longer than the post or the globe. and with the post, you have to actually be a subscriber for half their articles.
all of them do have some articles for free public viewing .. just not the more obscure or interesting onces.
Posted by melpie @ 11/10/2004 04:44 PM EST