BS: Primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:05 PM

It strikes me that the loudest complainers about the political system in this country are those who maybe do manage to summon up enough energy to mark a few boxes, stick the ballot in the envelop provided, and lick a stamp, but can't be bothered to get up off the couch and go to a meeting or two and speak their minds. I guess they regard elections as a "spectator sport."

You know, I don't really have the time either.

But I take the time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:06 PM

Maryland results: AOL News.

Obama    72%
Clinton    26%

Precincts reporting: 1%

They're declaring Maryland an Obama victory. It may well be but how they can declare anything on 1% of the vote is beyond me. I'm sure that lop-sided ratio can't last.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:13 PM

I know it is hard for you to grasp this Don, but one third of the US electorate doesn't vote in primaries or caucus, because they are not members of either political party.

We still vote and participate in our democracy, we just do it in a very different way than you do.

So why are you so harshly judgmental about that?

Exercising our democratic freedoms through voting, petitioning the government, organizing protest movements to work for change, fighting through the courts--all of these are ways Americans participate.

I do jury duty too, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:22 PM

Percentage of languages other than English spoken at home-
*New Mexico 36.5% (Spanish)
Texas 31.2% (Spanish)
California 39.5% (Spanish, Asian- 12.4%)
*Those who belong to the old families do speak English to a large extent, but the more recent immigrants from Mexico, etc., are quite different.
______________________

Obama made it look easy tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:34 PM

Q - I can see that you're on to something with this caucus problem.

               I was watching "This Week" with Georege Stephen-whatever, this weekend, and Sam Donaldson piped up with, "I was with a group of Democrats last night, we were drinking Chardonnay, and everybody there supported Obama."

               I don't know if you saw it. But I would submit, if the people he was with were drinking Budweiser, I don't think very many of them would have supported Obama.

               I see this as a major problem in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:50 PM

Art's point, as I understand it, was that many Hispanics can speak and understand English--especially those who've been here for quite a while. And they are by definition the most likely to be citizens and therefore able to vote. Many recent arrivals are not citizens, so Q's point about recent arrivals is not germane---and I am not saying they are illegal, just not citizens.

There was a huge Hispanic voter drive recently--but now it seems those who signed up to become citizens as a result of that will not finish the process til after this fall--so will have no impact on the vote.

Kevin, do you really find Spanish easy? I can understand it fairly well in reading but it's hard to follow conversations. I find German much easier to get along in. I suppose it depends on what training you've had in a foreign language. But I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that Spanish would be the easiest foreign language for an English speaker. It really depends on the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:57 PM

Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM

Rig--

So now it's the wine vs beer indicator, eh?

Actually, it's bit more complex than that.

If the wine drinkers come out to vote and the beer drinkers don't, that will tell the tale. So if your Bud drinkers don't feel a compelling reason to support their candidate they don't have to vote for the opposition--just stay home. The result will be the same.

And there are plenty of Democratic beer drinkers--and wine drinkers-- who will support the Democratic candidate--rather than see another Republican get in.

What's more, independents and some Republicans will also support the Democrat--if he is Obama. They will not support Hillary.

Your oh-so -subtle class division fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:26 AM

Rig-

Your generalizations above about Obama supporters appear to be out of date.

In yesterday's Potomac Primaries Obama's support increased across the board in all major groups by about 10 percentage points. All groups include senior citizens, women, white men, young adults, Mexican-Americans, and blue-collar voters. The only group that maintained support for Clinton appeared to be rural voters in Virginia.

It's boring, I suppose, to actually look at or listen to voting statistics before saying what you'd like to say but why not give it a try!

Charley Noble, who knows how to Goggle

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

It's occurred to me that the primary process needs to be constructed as close as possible to the general election process. i.e. primaries should not be caucuses.

                This is very probably why the Democrats have continued to nominate a long string of unelectable candidates. It looks like they're doing in again.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

"Rig: This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks. Has 2000 slipped your mind? lol..."


          Ebbie - As I recall, Al Gore was the anointed candidate in 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:05 AM

and had it not been for the antiquated electoral college system, Gore would have BEEN president, and we would never have invaded Iraq.

(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM

It seems to me that either of the Democratic options are eminently electable, especially if (as seems possible) the "very conservative" and evangelical voters stay home in droves come November 4th.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM

Art - I think when blowhards like Speedy Cheese and Sean Hannity start talking about Supreme Court Justices, the witchdoctors will find the calling to drive their flocks to the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM

"(In November, I intend to start a thread noting your prediction about "unelectable candidates")"


                        Bill - I'd be happy to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

GG/Janet, there is nothing much here that I don't grasp. But there are several things that you don't grasp. One of those things is that several times here I have said that I do not belong to the Democratic Party, nor do I owe them any allegiance. DO try to read more carefully.

I am an Independent.

Believe me, I have done my share of organizing, petitioning the government, and protesting. And I belong to a couple of organizations, independent of the political parties, that are working for change—and with a measure of success so far.

I have also said that, of all the candidates, I preferred Kucinich, not because he is a Democrat, but because of what he, personally, stands for. But he has been cut out of the race.

Right now, there are no independent or third party candidates who even come close to having a chance of being elected this November. And I don't like ANY of the candidates currently in the running. So, disgusting as the situation is, I am NOT going to just throw up my hands and not bother to get involved, or even vote, which is what your defeatist attitude says everyone should do.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION ELECTED TO OFFICE IN 2008.

I feel like a doctor with a very sick patient, and I am trying to do whatever I can to save the patient's life. I note, however, that in every thread you have started and in every post you have posted, you are preaching negativism and defeatism. "The system is totally corrupt! Give up! Give up! Give up!"

I'm trying to save the patient's life, even though it may be a vain attempt. In the meantime, you want to perform an autopsy before the patient is dead!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

Rig--

"The witchdoctors" will "drive their flocks to the polls"--if the Democrats are stupid enough to make homosexual marriage and removing 10 Commandments plaques from courthouses pillars of their platform, as some Mudcatters evidently would like.

Something tells me Obama is not stupid. Hillary--well, you never know--she's been rather tone-deaf lately.

And there will be no Cheney riding the circuit this year predicting that if the Democrat is elected "a dirty bomb may be exploded here in...."

Also, the current rumors from your "Smears R Us" outlets are somewhat threadbare.

Added to which, Bill is still, through his business connections, diligently devising more scandals for his allegedly "thoroughly vetted" partner to deal with. With the Clintons there are always more rocks to peer under.

And McCain can hardly wait to bring up Hillary's Woodstock museum again--with all the 60's baggage attached. None of which will work on Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

By older Hispanics, I was referring to those who came in the period 1590-1900 or thereabouts and settled in the southwest.
Many others came from Mexico, esp. northern Mexico, mostly after 1900. The border was not a barrier, a typical example is Lydia Mendoza and her family, Tejano musicians who worked and lived on both sides of the border.

The Census provides a few figures-
Of the 39 million Latinos in the U. S., 67% are of Mexican origin. Mexican immigrants account for 38% of the Mexican origin population. About 1/5 have gone through the naturalization process.
77% of farm workers in the United States are Mexican immigrants. Many others are in service and construction industries.

The populations of several of the large farming-cattle-fruit counties in south Texas are predominantly Mexican immigrant. San Antonio is 41% Mexican immigrant, 16% other Hispanic (older inhabitants, etc.), El Paso is 64% Mexican immigrant (total 77% Latino).

Over 4 million of the citizens of California are Mexican immigrants.
Some 2.5 million of the citizens of Texas are Mexican immigrants.
Most of these citizens received their papers on length of residence, children born to Mexican parents working in the U. S. (1/2 of all Latino children in the U. S. have one parent who is a Mexican immigrant), service in the U. S. armed forces (for many years a route to citizenship for 'illegal' immigrants- no formal immigration procedure required).

In 1986, 2 million Mexican immigrants were 'legalized.' Currently, it is estimated that the undocumented population from Mexico is 5.3 million (2002). A pathway to citizenship for these immigrants should be provided by Congress.

They have proved to be good citizens. 44% of Mexican immigrants are home owners. They pay their taxes. They respect their Mexican roots, speak Spanish at home, celebrate Cinco de Mayo (defeat of the French army, 5 May 1862 by Texas-born General Zaragoza. Incidentally, this kept the French occupied and prevented them from providing supplies to Confederate forces during the Civil War). We should add it to our American holidays.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:48 PM

As to who is "electable" and who is not...I think we'll have to wait and see about that. Much can change between now and November.

The media can make or break any candidate. It depends on how they choose to do their coverage, and it can depend sometimes on a single incident or a single rumour, and how that incident or rumour is played upon in the mainstream media.

The tail does wag the dog, unfortunately, most of the time. So keep an eye on what the tail is doing. That can change quite quickly sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM

"The media" are neither as monolithic, all-powerful, nor potentially malevolent as just pictured.

How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me. And with the Net, "the media" is even more fragmented.

Why is everything a potential conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:18 PM

"Conspiracy"???? Ha! Ha! There is that word again, a word which has become a standard way of casting doubt upon virtually any argument, it seems, but without meeting that argument through anything but innuendo.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? I'm talking about clever marketing. I'm talking about a $ySStem of Big Business that looks after its own present and future interests. There are a few people, a few very rich people, who own the main media outlets (meaning TV and radio and the press). Those main media outlets are not totally disinterested in the process of reporting "the News" because their owners are not totally disinterested in how it affects the status quo. They'd rather not see someone like Kucinich, for instance, get equal coverage in debates or in the News, because they don't like his policies one bit! So he gets shut out.

Is that a conspiracy? Or is that just some very well-positioned business people doing business in the way that they feel will benefit them most?

Anything that is organized behind closed doors by more than one person, and which the public is NOT fully informed on at the time is technically a conspiracy. (that doesn't necessarily mean it's BAD, but it's still a conspiracy) It fits the literal definition of a conspiracy. So any business decision which is made behind closed doors by two or more people is technically a conspiracy, as is any military decision or any other decision made behind closed doors by two or more people. There are probably at least a trillion conspiracies happening in the world RIGHT now, and you may be engaged in one or two yourself! ;-)

But when you question someone's theory by calling it a "conspiracy theory" you are simply engaging in a kind of manipulative rhetoric which is a bit like playing the "race card" or pulling the "anti-semitic" card. It obfuscates the discussion by treating the other person's premise as if it automatically was in the realm of wearing tinfoil hats and believing in lizard-people who secretly control the government from underground bases beneath Greenland.

In short, it's a mild form of implied ridicule. That is not a legitimate way of discussing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:32 PM

Sorry, LH, your $ystem cannot be monolithic if it includes both Fox News and the NYT. Face it, "the media" always were fragmented, and with the advent of the Net, are even more so.

And since "the media" are not one force, "the media" do not pick the president. The various outlets play a role--contradicting and competing with each other for readers and viewers.

And to make dark predictions of the power of " the media" just shows a mindset that can only be described as a prisoner of conspiracy theory obsession.

Competition precludes many conspiracies you seem to believe in.

However, congratulations, you get the last word for today--I have to go do other tasks.

See you tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:01 PM

Who ever said it was monolithic?

I am not saying that at all. There are various factions within the moneyed status quo who constantly vie against each other for the most influence, and they do not necessarily agree on all policies. Hardly. But what they do pretty much agree on in a general sense is which people and which stories are given big coverage in the media...and which are downplayed, marginalized, or ignored. They also agree on just how far outside the usual political box you can go and still get treated with any respect...and that is not too far. Some truths cannot be stated. If you state them, you are tuned out of the media from then on. (but you can still get on the Internet) Scott Ritter is someone who has been tuned out of the MSM for a long time now, but he's got some great stuff on the Net.

In other words, some people don't get a ticket to enter the great public media show, while others do. The way to get your ticket is to stay within certain unofficial guidelines. Kucinich was denied his ticket on numerous occasions...as is the case with anyone who really seriously challenges the status quo.

It's also necessary to maintain opposing points of view if you want to play the Great Game: Divide and Conquer. A public that can be divided into...

Left vs Right
liberal vs conservative
Black vs White
Hispanics vs Whites
Religious vs non-religious
Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice
Democrat vs Republican
Male vs Female
Straight vs Gay

and a whole whack of other such dichotomies...

That is a public that can be easily manipulated and controlled by turning their combative energies mostly against one another rather than against the very basic power structure of the $ySStem itself.

And that's why the game is played the way it is. It keeps people mesmerized with divisive issues, and keeps them chewing over old history and old conflicts.

This again is not so much a monolithic conspiracy as it is a generalized way that has evolved over centuries of coping with the ongoing maintainence and perpetuation of established political power. Sometimes it grows more corrupt, sometimes less so.

The same things were done in Imperial Spain or Elizabethan England in the 1500s, for heaven's sake, only the outer details were different! The powerful find, by trial and error, all the ways that they can best maintain and enlarge their power, and keep the public in support of the ruling system. You can call it a conspiracy if you want, but what it really is...it is simply a set of standard modus operandi for the power brokers of this world, and the power brokers are and always have been those with the most money and weaponry.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:30 PM

"How anybody could include the NYT and Fox News as part of the same monolithic "media" is beyond me."


                      Ron - I think all you have to do is to get out a pencil and paper and write two columns. (1) What does the NYT and Fox News have in common, and (2) What does the NYT and Fox News have that separates them. You will soon find the first column growing much faster than the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:52 PM

Right.

And the differences that exist between them aid in maintaining the illusion of a genuinely open-minded media that offers real choices and alernatives.

What they offer is stylized black hat /white hat choices within a rather constricted mental box of general conformity, conformity to various forms of virtually unquestioned national myths and illusions such as the assertion that "this is the greatest country in the World".

And that's utter nonsense, unless you mean great in the power of destructive weaponry or space missions...but when people are taught such things from the time they are toddlers, they grow up believing them. It becomes an unquestioned dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:41 AM

Many of us saw Kuchinch (sp?) on CNN or somewhere or another, but although he seemed like a pretty smart guy, there is no way that the public, the press, or the gods would ever install him as a leader.

Tear up the status quo? That's a security blanket for most of us; we might open a hole here and there to get rid of some particular elements that we object to, but we don't want any part of tearing it up. The press mirrors us (the majority) and it is quite diverse.

I don't believe in being policeman to the world and it is obvious that Bush is a moron for trying, he has wasted a fortune and the lives of a lot of young people and got no forwarder; but that doesn't mean that we should back off into a corner. You've got to maintain your position vis-a-vis the other big guys or get shoved away from the feeding trough.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:31 AM

Yes, you're quite right that the press mirrors the majority, and, yes, it's quite diverse. No question about that. The majority of people do support the status quo in almost every society...that can only change if and when the status quo becomes absolutely unbearable for the majority of people, and that's quite rare. It can happen when a war is decisively lost or an economy is in a shambles. Or both.

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them. They will remain generally complacent and passive with leaders who are unwilling or incapable of inspiring them.

You could not have had the American Revolution without a small group of visionary leaders to inspire and lead it. Same goes for any other revolution.

Now, we got public health care in Canada starting out shortly after WWII because a socialist visionary, Tommy Douglas, dared to try something brand new in a single western province where he was premier at the time (it's like being governor of a state). He made the breakthrough, he showed people it was possible and workable, and he was bitterly opposed by the medical establishment, but he got it done anyway. Then the rest of the country followed suit in not too many years. Now it IS the status quo, and people take it for granted that we have universal health care.

It would not have happened without one inspired man to lead the way.

I hope that Americans find such an inspired man or woman shortly. The inertia in the system that opposes such people is simply tremendous, but sometimes it can be overcome.

******

I am not suggesting an isolationist foreign policy for the USA. I am suggesting a policy of not attacking other nations militarily, of NEVER attacking anyone "pre-emptively", but instead working with other nations through mutually beneficial trade and negotiation. A win-win scenario is a far wiser course in human affairs than a win-lose scenario can ever be, and win-win scenarios can always be found by those willing to look for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:22 AM

It takes great visionaries in positions of leadership to break the status quo. It is the job of such people to lead in making a breakthrough in understanding. The public will respond if their leaders are willing to inspire them.

THis concept is what is driving the Obama resurgence. People are betting he might be such a one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:43 PM

Who said the press was monolithic?   Well, somebody recently said "The media can make or break any candidate".

This implies:

1) "The media" will all write about the candidate the same way. Sounds rather monolithic to me.   And more and more out of date--if it ever was true--which is doubtful. Especially, as I've noted, with the advent of the Net. Not only do we have the NYT, Fox News, and the WSJ, for instance, but now we have Daily Kos, for instance--and programs like Jon Stewart. There are any number of prisms these days through which voters can receive their news.

Therefore "The media can make or break any candidate" strikes me as absurdly simplistic.

"Some truths cannot be stated". Unlikely. Some evidence please--please specify a "truth" that all the "media" refuse to acknowledge.

2)    There are no countervailing forces---- such as a person's built-in negative--or positive-- feeling about a candidate--especially the degree to which they identify with a candidate.