U.S. Elections.........

[red indian]

......I have been watching quite a lot of the coverage and have a few questions.

When was the last time someone stood against the incumbent President in the same party? are you allowed to stand against the President if you are a republican?

Who speaks for and controlls the democrat party in the long period before they choose a new leader in caucuases? it seems very unfair to the party who are out of power, that they have to plod along for most of the incumbents period of office in an apparently rudderless condition.

What do Americans think about the fact that the results of the caucauses are announced as they happen in each state? in the UK and many other countries national elections take place simultaneously over the whole country regardless of the size of the population. Dont you think that knowing in advance that (for instance) Dean is doing badly at the moment, may well cause a collapse of his potential vote over the remaining states for no other reason than that he has done badly in the first couple of caucauses? is this a good form of democracy?

Why is the U.S. media so silent about the fact that General Clarke was sacked by Clinton for ordering General Mike Jackson ( a Brit) to open fire on the Russians during the Balkans war? Jackson refused, and said " I am not starting world war three for you" does anyone in the states know about this? or did i just dream it?

More questions to follow.

 

[red indian]

another one.......

.....are most Americans as enthusiastic as they appear to be about presidential candidate elections? it all looks very bougus to me, surely you dont ALL care THAT much do you? ....."bring it on....bring it on....bring it on".....dear oh dear.

 

[red indian]

and another........

......why does the fact a candidate fought in a war make him presidential material weather Democrat or Republican?.....Hitler "fought in a war".....was he the right choice for the germans?

 

[Mitchell]

Okay, Iam an American, with my BA in history, and a politics minor, so I hope I can help you.
Yes, it is allowed for there to be a challenger in the race of the party that controls the White House. If there were dissatisfaction by someone in the Republican party as to how Bush is doing as President, another Republican is allowed to stand up and challenge him. It doesnt happen often though.
The "Dean" of the other party is usually the last person to be President from that party, so in the Democrats case, it is still Bill Clinton. He will probably speak at the convention. Occasionally a strong shower in a close election lost by the party may be, but in this case, it is Clinton.
Let me re read your post to answer your other questions.

Mitch

 

[red indian]

and another..........

.....Susan Estrich is covering the caucuases for Fox News. What a bloody horrible woman, fancy waking up in the morning and finding that grinning at you!

 

[Mitchell]

I like the cacuses. I believe it is a good way to let voters decide before the election who they want their candidate to be. In this case, there have been surprises. Howard Dean was a front runner before the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, and now Kerry has won both. Its not over yet, but Dean is in trouble.
About Clark. He was let go by Clinton in his role as general. It is possible that this, in addition to his relative obscurity as a national figure, may be hurting him.
Again, I hope all this helps. Any other questions, I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Mitch

 

[Mitchell]

I dont think a candidate fighting in a war always is needed for him to become president. Look at the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and W Bush. Neither fought in a war, and both became president. It is looked upon favorably if a candidate fights in a war, but it is not mandatory.

Mitch

 

[BigJim]

I dont think a candidate fighting in a war always is needed for him to become president. Look at the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and W Bush. Neither fought in a war, and both became president. It is looked upon favorably if a candidate fights in a war, but it is not mandatory.

Mitch

Both of them were drug-abusing, draft dodgers too.

 

[sushi854]

The basic purpose of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary is to narrow the field among the seven candidates competing for the Democratic nomination. The people of these states actually have more say in determining who doesn't make the cut rather than which of the remaining candidates will ultimately win the nomination. It may not seem that democratic, and it certainly may not actually be that democratic, but it does reflect the federal nature of the US system in which each state determines its preferred candidate by sending a certain number of delegates (based on the percentage of the vote won in each state) to the party's summer convention. Each state is free to choose its own method of delegate selection (primary, caucus, etc.)

No, most Americans are not that enthusiastic about the presidential election, nor will they be. The people screaming and cheering "bring it on" are Kerry's campaign staff, volunteers, and other supporters.

The issue of having fought in a war will be big in this election as the right wing in America has gone to great lengths to portray Democrats as pacifist, unpatriotic radicals who want to disassemble the US military.

And the US media worships the ground upon which Bill Clinton walks. It is not surprising that such an incident did not make headlines here, as it would have tarnished Clinton's Balkan project and undermined Clinton support for General Clark. In fact, I haven't heard of this before. That's a hell of a dream, though. Where can I find more info?

 

[Daumantas]

Further background for red...

The primary system arose in the middle of the 20th Century as an attempt to reform earlier methods of candidate selection by the two major political parties. Candidates were formerly chosen according to somewhat Byzantine rules that allowed for many under-the-table (the proverbial "smoke-filled room") deals. The primary system was implemented as a way of democratizing the candidate selection process by allowing rank and file party members a means of participation. Unfortunately the primary system has holes in it as well.

Americans' enthusiasm for political events may seem gauche to you, but I prefer it to the affected hipster-doofus ennui one hears from Britons these days.

 

[Daumantas]

The effect you've outlined - the emergence of an early "front-runner" due to successes in the early primaries destroying the momentum of candidates for succeeding primaries - is one of the worst holes in the primary system as it presently exists. Some here have suggested that the primaries be held on a single day, or at least regionally (the whole Northeast on a single day, for example) to compensate for this problem.

Keep in mind that the United States is a big country and it's hard for candidates to raise money to campaign nationwide. It's sometimes easier on a candidate to concentrate on a few states, make a great showing and then have momentum which will carry him to the nomination.

 

[Fairfeather]

I've been leery of Clarke's judgement ever since that incident at Pristina airport in 1999. Sure...just try to take the airfield from the Russians. They won't mind. But it's been pretty much forgotten over here in the U.S. along with the whole Balkans mess.

 

[red indian]

Just run that past me again..............

........"I prefer it to the affected hipster-doofus ennui one hears from Britons these days." Translation required please!

I think most Americans consider themselves cosmopolitan intellectuals now that they can name the U.K. priminister, I was not aware their interest extended beyond that single, hard to remember fact!

 

[BigJim]

I have a question to ask that will probably sound sarcastic, but I mean totally sincerely.

How can any American say they live in the freest country in the world, when the political agenda is so set on a certain man becoming President, that they completely ignore the fact that he lost the election by nearly six hundred thousand votes?

 

[Cav88]

He won by electoral college. He isn't the first one to win by that.

 

[kis123]

Hello Big Jim

As previously posted by Big Jim;

"Both of them were drug-abusing, draft dodgers too."

You're absolutely right. So were thousands of others in the 1960s. These two just managed to become president.

"How can any American say they live in the freest country in the world, when the political agenda is so set on a certain man becoming President, that they completely ignore the fact that he lost the election by nearly six hundred thousand votes?"

Been asking myself the same question. Here's one possible answer:
When your brother owns the state of Florida, why not ask for a big favor for the family?

The concept of electoral college sucks! The fact that the entire voting system needs to be overhauled sucks, too. Unfortunately, its all we have to work with in this country at the present moment. We're not a perfect people, but there's no other country I'd rather live. Not everyone can say that.

So we're not as "free" as many have claimed we are. But millions of immigrants pour into this country legally and illegally to get some sort of benefit. We're obviously not the worst place to live in these days. We must have something good to offer

 

[milagros317]

Indeed not the first time that the leader in popular votes was not elected President.

1888: Benjamin Harrison was elected over Grover Cleveland by 233 electoral votes to 168. But Cleveland won the popular vote by 5,540,050 to 5,444,337.

1876: Election returns were in dispute from South Carolina, Louisiana, Oregon, and Florida (yes, Florida). Congress in joint session eventually decided that the electors for Rutherford B. Hayes were the valid ones, giving him the presidential election over Samuel J. Tilden, 185 electoral votes to 184. Tilden had won the popular vote, 4,284,757 to 4,033,950.

1824: Nobody got a majority of the electoral votes; Andrew Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37. In such cases, the presidential election is decided by the House of Representatives, which elected Adams. Jackson was the leader in the popular vote: Jackson 155,872, Adams 105,321, Clay 46,587, and Crawford 44,282.

 

[Shem the Penman]

The electoral college, like the Senate, is intended to protect less populous states from being entirely dominated by more populous states. In practice, this does lead to inequities -- an electoral vote from Wyoming, for instance, represents much fewer people than does an electoral vote from New York. So, yes, results like those noted above do occasionally happen -- one of the hazards of the system.

It's also worth noting that Hayes's election in 1876 was almost certainly the result of fraud, so it's not like the 2000 election was unprecedented either.

And it's also cheering (to me at least) to note that all the presidents who were elected in this manner ended up as one-term failures. Dubya's already got a good start on the failure part, and we're working on the one-term part.

 

[Daumantas]

To expand on Shem's comment: The electoral college was established when the Constitution was written as one of the various compromises that were necessary to ensure that the smaller states would get on board. The Founders were fearful of direct election of the President by popular vote because they were afraid of demagogues winning people over by rhetoric (see also "Germany, 1933").

red: Look it up.

 

[BigJim]

Been asking myself the same question. Here's one possible answer:
When your brother owns the state of Florida, why not ask for a big favor for the family?

Not the only favour that Texas did for Dubya. Did you know for instance that in Florida the vote is overwelmingly white? People who commit crimes get disenfranchised and as crime is very often done because of poverty, something like 70% if the disenfranchised Floridians were black! On top of this a certain state sent information to Florida of former Texas citizens who were black and now living in Florida. These people had committed crims before, but were mostly allowed to vote again. Florida ignored this and illegally removed the validity of these people's votes. The state that provided this information? Texas.

We're obviously not the worst place to live in these days. We must have something good to offer

In Britain it's very much the same. We're drowning beneath a tide of mainly Eastern European immigrants and mant of them are illegals. I sincerely doubt however if any one of them is a political idealist. They're after things like food and water not tainted with rat piss.

 

[JoBelle]

Not the only favour that Texas did for Dubya. Did you know for instance that in Florida the vote is overwelmingly white? People who commit crimes get disenfranchised and as crime is very often done because of poverty, something like 70% if the disenfranchised Floridians were black! On top of this a certain state sent information to Florida of former Texas citizens who were black and now living in Florida. These people had committed crims before, but were mostly allowed to vote again. Florida ignored this and illegally removed the validity of these people's votes. The state that provided this information? Texas.


Not being confrontational Jim, but where do you get these facts? I'm just curious.


Jo, hates most politicians, but votes with her fingers crossed.

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Hey, Red, I've seen a challenge or two from the incumbent's party, and for the most part, they haven't boded well for same. The two that immediately come to mind are 1980, when Jimmy Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy, and 1992, when Shrub Senior was confronted by the candidacy of political commentator Pat Buchanan, who won BIG in New Hampshire (page one headline of the 'Manchester Union-Leader': "Read OUR Lips!"). Neither incumbent won in the end.

When a party is out of power, the most important figures are USUALLY the Senate Minority Leader, or the House Minority Leader...they have the ability to guide things on a national basis...but the most powerful figure might be the head of the party's national committee. The national committee's primary concern is to raise money to elect future candidates. In that vein, wouldn't a GREAT chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in theory, be Bill Clinton? After all, who can raise money like him? And, from that pulpit, he could attack the current administration with great effectiveness. However, the powers that be in the Democratic party would never, ever go for this...I don't think Clinton would, either.

 

[TKpervert]

Presidential campaigns are circuses. I follow them as a source of amusement til the tents are struck, usually in late October, then vote for the least dangerous of the two left standing.

 

[red indian]

Thankyou all.......

....for your insights in to the U.S. electoral system. From what I have read my view seems to be confirmed that the party that is not in power in the White House, is at a great dissadvantage, beyond the obvious one that they are not making decisions on behalf of the nation.

Under the Brit system (full of holes and peculiar ancient traditions as it is) the Prime Minister has an apponent (the leader of Her Majesties Loyal opposition) throughout his tenure as the countries leader, and he gives Tony Blair a very tough ride. He has to answer to Micheal Howard in the house of commons for half an hour every week that the house sits, for the duration of his premiership. No President has to face this kind of blunt, hard, aggressive questioning by someone who is his opposite number. All the President has to deal with is powder puff questions from the White House press corps.

 

[JoBelle]

Just because your PM has to go head to head doesn't mean that our lack thereof implies that the two party system dies in between elections.

If anything, I've found the Democratic views during this administration to be gathering more press than usual. While your PM may have to 'duke it out' on the floor, our President is literally in the news everyday facing off with the opposing party. This isn't just during an election year either. You forget that there is an actual position dedicated ot the minority party within Congress. You may not hear it on your news across the ocean, but on local, state, and national levels, we're shown the "losers" on a regular basis.

It seems that you wouldn't give credit to a party unless they hold the White House. Unfortunately, you're out of luck. It doesn't work that way. While the President doesn't have to have verbal banter with one specific person on a regular basis, he does have to confront the other party as a whole. That means shots being fired from all directions, all the time. I personally would rather your way...seems easier. Face the battle head on. Here, our President is like the sitting duck of the 2 party system! And right now, the Democrats have all the guns.

Not in the White House, but not inconsequential by any means.

Jo