|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 7 of 406:
| 
Sep 24 03:55 UTC 2000 |
Certain parts of the Gore-Lieberman platform sound awfully, awfully
conservative...
|
bdh3
|
|
response 8 of 406:
|
Sep 24 13:00 UTC 2000 |
The problem people have with 'polls' is to the extent that they reflect
what they don't believe in... The DNC and it 'common roaders' excell in
what are known as 'spin polls' as well as the use of what Al-the-Pal
invented - the Internet.
Its currently "Bush to lose" - ie Bush will win if he doesn't blow it
and/or something like home heating oil being too expensive and
Al-the-Pal can get Clinton to release two days of US consumption from
the oil reserves (which does little to bring down the ppb of oil...)
Oh, wait....
I predict Gore via an 'electorial college' win but with a minority of
the popular vote similar to Clinton in 1996 and a GOP majority retained
in both the House and Senate. All things considered not a bad
situation.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 9 of 406:
|
Sep 24 13:18 UTC 2000 |
Prez-Congress gridlock has saved from many bad situations.
|
bru
|
|
response 10 of 406:
|
Sep 24 13:33 UTC 2000 |
Listening to the energy secretary today on Meet the 'de'-Press'ed' we find
out the amount of oil released isenough for 1.5 days. The Secretary of Energy
sidestepped every question, proving he isa consummate politician.
In february, when we had another home heating shortage, Gore opposed release
of the Strategic reserves. Today, he is all for it. Unfortunately, the
secretary of the treasury, and the others oppose this use as possibly damaging
to the economy.
But who cares! WE have an election to win!
|
mary
|
|
response 11 of 406:
|
Sep 24 13:56 UTC 2000 |
I was planning to vote for Gore but Lieberman is unacceptable.
I'll be voting for Nader.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 12 of 406:
|
Sep 24 15:29 UTC 2000 |
Good. What is it about Uberman that you don't like?
|
polygon
|
|
response 13 of 406:
|
Sep 24 16:48 UTC 2000 |
Re 8. "Spin polls" (by whatever name) are a Republican tradition, the
type of poll that asks biased questions like: "Should it be legal for
doctors to deliberately and viciously murder babies before they're even
born?" Polls like this show the overwhelming majority agreeing with the
Republican position. It may seem like an odd tendency to ask questions
like this, but there is a method to the madness: the idea is not to find
out what voters really think about the isssue, but to test the Republican
rhetoric. Maybe some Democratic pollster does this, too, but I if so, I
have not heard of it.
And then there are "push polls," which aren't polls at all, but a way of
communicating smears anonymously to the electorate, in a pretend-poll
format. "Hi, we're from Nonexistent Polling Group. How would you feel
about Sen. Claiborne if you knew that he was convicted of armed robbery in
1972? Were you aware that last year he sponsored a bill to ban prayer in
churches? Does it matter to you that the Senator shared a meal with a
known cannibal? Thank you for your time!"
Bush and McCain accused each other of using push polls. This issue never
came up between Gore and Bradley.
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 406:
|
Sep 24 16:57 UTC 2000 |
I'm considering voting for Nader. I think I'll wait and see what the polls
say right before the election. If it's close in Michigan, I'll vote for
Gore, but if not, I'll vote for Nader.
|
md
|
|
response 15 of 406:
|
Sep 24 17:00 UTC 2000 |
I voted for Nader last time, probably will this time, too.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 16 of 406:
|
Sep 24 17:16 UTC 2000 |
the dems are saying that releasing the oil will allow refineries to purchase
it at a lower price now vs waiting for the predicted drop (according to the
commodities market predictions) that will occur in january.
|
scg
|
|
response 17 of 406:
|
Sep 24 18:15 UTC 2000 |
Before voting for Nader because the polls say that Gore will win, remember
Engler in 1990.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 406:
|
Sep 24 19:35 UTC 2000 |
I'd love to see the oil reserves opened up and watch all those corporate
fat cats pee themselv.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 406:
|
Sep 24 19:51 UTC 2000 |
Why would they do that? They don't have to lower the prices at which they
sell refined products.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 20 of 406:
|
Sep 24 20:25 UTC 2000 |
Bap? releasing oil from the strategic reserves in Last february would
have had it processed into healing oil by about mid-march which is long after
it would have been needed. and as for 1.5 days of usage? Are we talking total
usage, or just that of heating oil during the winter months?
Meet the D-Pressed? oh, really...
|
aruba
|
|
response 21 of 406:
|
Sep 24 22:56 UTC 2000 |
Re #17: Well, I know that the polls the last couple of elections have been
dead on. I had just come to Michigan in 1990 and wasn't paying much
attention to the election - how far off were they about Engler?
|
scg
|
|
response 22 of 406:
|
Sep 25 02:25 UTC 2000 |
Blanchard was predicted to win. Voter turnout was very low. Not voting can
presumably be treated as equivalent to voting for Nader.
|
richard
|
|
response 23 of 406:
|
Sep 25 03:10 UTC 2000 |
mary, why is leiberman unacceptable? I know you arent anti-semitic! Anyway
he's the vp candidate, he's not the one you are voting for. He doesnt
sign the bills.
|
senna
|
|
response 24 of 406:
|
Sep 25 04:28 UTC 2000 |
Think, Richard. You've heard Lieberman's statements. :)
|
mdw
|
|
response 25 of 406:
|
Sep 25 05:30 UTC 2000 |
It seems to me that the problem with Blanchard vs. Engler was low voter
turnout not "voting for a 3rd party candidate". What is "supposed to
happen" with 3rd party candidates is not that they win, but rather the
major two parties start picking up their ideas. In recent years, there
have been an number of strong 3rd party conservative candidates. The
Republicans, rather than arguing about split votes, seem to have adopted
many of those conservative plans, as have indeed the Democrats. That
leaves us today with an at least outwardly conservative Republican
candidate, and a solidly centrist Democractic candidate. Both the
Republican & the Democractic candidates have some fairly unwholesome
ideas about free speech, the media, and government & business.
So, nope; I don't expect to change the world by voting for Nader. I'd
like to think, though, that if more people voted for their principles
rather than whomever they expect to win, perhaps the major candidates
will pay more attention to some of those issues. This can only be good
because some of those principles are fundemental principals of American
democracy, and their disappearance bodes ill for the future.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 406:
|
Sep 25 05:39 UTC 2000 |
Even if Nader won, I think the best that would be said about him ten or
fifteen years after his single term would be a comparison with President
Coolidge, who is best known for doing nothing. And i don't think that's
what we need right now.
Yeah, both Gore and Bush have some unhealthy ideas. But Bush would actually
try to do something about them, I think. With Gore, common sense will win
out.
|
mdw
|
|
response 27 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:04 UTC 2000 |
You think a president who will try to restrict the media is preferable?
You think there's some awful looming external emergency that will
overwhelm and destroy us all if the president doesn't act promptly and
forcefully, even if he does the wrong thing?
I don't know how successful a president Nader would be at doing
anything, due to the ghastly prospect of so much of the rest of our
political landscape. I heard Nader talk about health care some time
back, and while I forget most of the details now, I do remember that
what he said struct me as both so much more sensible and good than any
other politician at the time, and extremely unlikely to survive the
lobbying of the health industry which is by now so utterly committed and
dependent on things being done the wrong way. So, actually, I agree
Nader would end up doing "nothing", but not through no will (although I
think that's actually not a fair depiction of Coolidge), but rather
through getting stuck with gridlock and congress over every special
interest. The process of getting a discussion started over these
problems has to start *somewhere*, and I think a candidate Nader who at
least can bring these out into the open is worth something. At the very
least, it would be interesting to see the effect on Gore. If, by some
miracle, Nader became president, perhaps it's worth hoping for a 2nd
miracle, that there might be enough turnover of people in congress in
favour of people willing to stand up to special interest groups and do
what's right for all of us and not just the rich.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:16 UTC 2000 |
I'd always heard it was Coolidge himself who said, "They wanted a President
who would do nothing, and I gave it to them," or words to that effect.
I don't think Gore will try to do more to "restrict the media" than provide
moral leadership. The reality is that "the media" will continue to provide
what the public will pay for.
Nader has been saying much the same thing for forty years now. He already
has had an effect on public discourse, and no doubt will continue to do so.
Undoubtedly, the effect would be magnified, coming from the Oval Office.
But there is more to the Office than the office.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't see into the future. But I do expect
some external crisis in the next four years, and the four after that, too.
If nothing else, S. Hussein is going to continue to be troublesome.
|
mdw
|
|
response 29 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:40 UTC 2000 |
I don't think S. Hussein is a reasonable basis for electing an american
president. Last I remember, Iraq wasn't part of the US. Besides, the
cynical part of me wonders how much of that was Hussein using the US as
a convenient and obvious source of bogey men, & how much of that was the
US using Hussein as a convenient foreign fire that could be fanned at
will.
The reality is that media has been changing a lot in the past 40 years.
What we have may look much like the free press of the past, but under
the surface there have been some disquieting changes. The whole idea
that the president might be expected to provide "moral leadership" for
the press is one that ought to give anyone who believes in democracy a
mild case of indigestion. We've already had cases where people have
tried to legislate "morality" into the media - CDA being an outstanding
example. What all of that is translating into is more choke points
being built into the media, more ways for things to be controlled, fewer
people who control those things, & more arbitrary limits on what can be
said and by whom. History does not yield very many encouraging
precedents as to what might happen after that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 30 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:52 UTC 2000 |
S. Hussein is just one example of where trouble may occur. You are right
that he, himself, is not a reason to elect a U.S. President, but ignoring
external influences is not a reasonable approach, either.
I had thought your comments on "the media" were aimed more at the
entertainment industry than the press (although it would be a mistake
to ignore the informative aspect of entertainment). I think it quite
appropriate for the President to offer leadership, both moral and otherwise,
to the country as a whole and to the entertainment industry specifically.
I've not heard any comments from Gore that lead me to believe he would
be any additional threat to the freedom of the press.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 406:
|
Sep 25 19:35 UTC 2000 |
Re #18: My prediction: They release oil from the reserves. The price to
the consumer stays the same, but the oil companies make slightly more
profit.
I'm planning to vote for Nader. I'm aware he won't win, but I'd like to see
the Green Party get enough of a percentage of the vote to get funding and a
place in the national debates. I think we need a highly visible third party
(other than the Deformed Party) to shake things up. I listened to Nader's
speech on C-SPAN when he spoke at the Green Party rally in Minneapolis, and
was pleasantly surprised at how much real substance there was. Much less
fluff than a major party campaign speech.
|