![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Just four more years, and it'll all be over.
Well, screw you too, America. It looks like my primary vote is actually going to *matter*.
So here's my thoughts, as it stands:
HC:
+her initials look like a slash-related acronym
+she is a supremely competent politician, who has accomplished at lot in the Senate and before that, and she's well-liked at home
-Parts of her policy record makes me very unhappy, especially RE: the conduct of the war and RE: the Communications Decency Act.
BO:
+His initials mean "body odor".
+Most of his policy positions make me happy
+He seems to sincerely believe that honesty works
-He's running a campaign based almost entirely on emotion and charisma. Just like GWB did
-He has not impressed me as a competent politician - he did very little in the senate, and despite experience at the state level, he has been shown to be depressingly ignorant about what's going on at home.
So in summary: I agree with Obama more, but I don't believe he'd do as good a job in office. I disagree with Clinton more, but I think she'll do a very good job in office. I think they'd both do okay, although not necessarily well enough to save the world. Yes, I've totally been spending a lot of time re-organizing my "in case of apocalypse" supplies recently.
If only one of them was a Friend of the Show! This would be a lot easier.
I think unless someone makes a very convincing argument in the meanwhile, I'll still be voting for Gravel. That way, when they inevitably screw up later, I can tell everyone "It's not my fault, I voted for Gravel." (Also, I love all his policy positions, even the kookier ones, and I admire the way he's conducted his campaign, especially the way people keep asking me who he is, and I think he actually would have a snowball's chance of helping save the world when it comes to it.)
Of course, that doesn't actually solve anything, because Gravel doesn't have any pledged delegates on my ballot. I can vote all "uncommitted" for the male delegates, which I shall do RE: the Daily Show's (and my) endorsement of democracy by smoke-filled room. For the female delegates, there's only one uncommitted delegate, so I guess I'll split the others evenly between candidates. Or wait - how do I find out who the delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates are now for? (Why do we vote for delegates based on gender? Ask the National Democratic Party.)
I guess I'll go ahead and re-nominate our congressman - he's voted party-line on every single bill since he was elected, but then he is a first-term congressman, and he's good people (his dad went to the same high school as my dad, and that's right local politics.) And the only judge on the ballot is running unopposed, and he hasn't made any waves sufficient to make me care.
How boring. Can we move on already please?
ETA: Someone should get me an official Mike Gravel for President t-shirt for my birthday. From Cafepress. Because that's where the official campaign merchandise is from. Because he's just that cool.
So here's my thoughts, as it stands:
HC:
+her initials look like a slash-related acronym
+she is a supremely competent politician, who has accomplished at lot in the Senate and before that, and she's well-liked at home
-Parts of her policy record makes me very unhappy, especially RE: the conduct of the war and RE: the Communications Decency Act.
BO:
+His initials mean "body odor".
+Most of his policy positions make me happy
+He seems to sincerely believe that honesty works
-He's running a campaign based almost entirely on emotion and charisma. Just like GWB did
-He has not impressed me as a competent politician - he did very little in the senate, and despite experience at the state level, he has been shown to be depressingly ignorant about what's going on at home.
So in summary: I agree with Obama more, but I don't believe he'd do as good a job in office. I disagree with Clinton more, but I think she'll do a very good job in office. I think they'd both do okay, although not necessarily well enough to save the world. Yes, I've totally been spending a lot of time re-organizing my "in case of apocalypse" supplies recently.
If only one of them was a Friend of the Show! This would be a lot easier.
I think unless someone makes a very convincing argument in the meanwhile, I'll still be voting for Gravel. That way, when they inevitably screw up later, I can tell everyone "It's not my fault, I voted for Gravel." (Also, I love all his policy positions, even the kookier ones, and I admire the way he's conducted his campaign, especially the way people keep asking me who he is, and I think he actually would have a snowball's chance of helping save the world when it comes to it.)
Of course, that doesn't actually solve anything, because Gravel doesn't have any pledged delegates on my ballot. I can vote all "uncommitted" for the male delegates, which I shall do RE: the Daily Show's (and my) endorsement of democracy by smoke-filled room. For the female delegates, there's only one uncommitted delegate, so I guess I'll split the others evenly between candidates. Or wait - how do I find out who the delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates are now for? (Why do we vote for delegates based on gender? Ask the National Democratic Party.)
I guess I'll go ahead and re-nominate our congressman - he's voted party-line on every single bill since he was elected, but then he is a first-term congressman, and he's good people (his dad went to the same high school as my dad, and that's right local politics.) And the only judge on the ballot is running unopposed, and he hasn't made any waves sufficient to make me care.
How boring. Can we move on already please?
ETA: Someone should get me an official Mike Gravel for President t-shirt for my birthday. From Cafepress. Because that's where the official campaign merchandise is from. Because he's just that cool.
no subject
Being as you're the only active Democrat I know (as opposed to Democrat-voter), care to help an elephant out? Perhaps by explaining how the Donkey Delegate thing works? Because it's absolutely mystifying me. Okay, so... I think I get proportional representation, except that nobody who does understand it can agree on whether Clinton's currently the frontrunner or they're effectively tied. Everyone seems to say something different. Also, you *vote* for delegates? Really?? How does that work, exactly? And what the devil is a superdelegate?
I'm tempted to primary-vote for Obama, because I don't think McCain honestly needs my help. If he doesn't carry NoVA, I'll eat my shoes. But Obama worries me. You're right, he's campaigning like GWB, only worse-- he seems very quick to believe his own good press. To the point of looking like he genuinely believes he's some kind of political messiah. (Look at his website. Jesus doesn't get this much glow effect.) What's going to happen when the press turns on him (as it inevitably will) and decides he's a lousy leader and a horrible disappointment? Will he believe that too? Will foreign leaders be able to get their way if they simply flatter him well? I worry immensely about Presidents who are easily led, for reasons that are, I think, obvious. OTOH, he's not married to That Silverware-Stealing, Cheating, Lying Wanker.
...help?
no subject
I don't know who's ahead either; I think the problem there isn't so much proportional representation as it's unpledged delegates? They're close enough that our primaries could be decisive, anyway, whatever. Also, apparently the voting directly for delegates depends on the state party commitee - on Maryland ballots, they're listed directly under the candidate names, classified by who they're pledged to vote for, and you're supposed to vote for the ones pledged to your candidate; the actual vote-for-candidate is just meant to be a guideline for the delegates once they're at the convention (that's how you end up with states that have lots of unpledged delegates, who can vote for whoever they feel like.) That's based on the old system; but some states actually have direct primaries, where you just vote for the candidate directly and that determines who the delegates have to vote for. Virginia must have the direct system, since none of the sample ballots I've found for VA have delegates on them, so I guess you don't have to worry about that.
Superdelegates, like direct election of delegates, are another throwback to the smoke-filled-room system: basically, if you're a national Democratic party figure, you get a vote at the convention regardless of who the people vote for. I actually kind of like the fact that it's not a pure direct election, because I don't necessarily think that bread-and-circuses campaigning is always the best way to pick a candidate, but I do understand the people who want just the popular vote to matter.
Yeah, I like Obama's positions, but as a person, he worries me (the exact opposite of where I was on Bush this time eight years ago! Oh how things change.) I don't think it's so much he's easily influenced, as that he has no idea what he's getting into and he hasn't done his homework - he could dive in and learn quick on his feet and be great, but his Senate record isn't making me optimistic about that possibility. On the other hand, I refuse to let Hillary's spouse influence my decision about her - I'm not letting spouses influence my position on any of the other candidates. And she's survived him for this long, intact; I really think she knows how to keep him in line (if she wants to... but I think that whether she wants to is more an issue of her political style than of her marriage.)
no subject
Well, you know, our shit be broked. Your shit be broked, too, but at least it's not broked in quite the same way. I'm tired of Dominionist vermin scuttling around under everyone's noses. Even if one disapproves of them (which, I assure you, most professional Republicans do), once they get established they're near impossible to eradicate. I'm waging a pitched battle with a friend on my LJ about that exact thing. No, Elephant Friend, it's not that there's something wrong with McCain. It's that there's something wrong with all the folks who'll end up staying around with McCain. The situation there for centrists is so badly fucked up that I don't think anything short of complete revolt will fix it. And not the sort of slacktivist, I'll go skiving off and not vote/vote for some Dems kind of one-person-dribbling-away-at-a-time revolt, but "you lot there, fuck off and die and GTFO of our party" revolt. The Neopentes are getting very bold lately, hopefully that means they're vulnerable. (Errr... sorry for book. *hides behind cat*)
TY for the explanation of delegate rules. Republican delegates are appointed by the party, there's no voting for them (of course, they all get the same kind of vote AFAIK). Folks who've been doing volunteer work forever will generallly be tapped as a thank-you. (I know several, including one who was a member of the Electoral College in 2004-- not sure if he still is, as some now find him controversial for objecting to the blatant fucking racism during the immigration "debates".) Republican primaries are winner-take-all, so the proportional, superdelegate, and uncommitted thing confuses the heck out of me.
I voted for Hillary. If you're curious why not Obama, I wrote a lot about that last night/this morning in comments to the "halp" post. BTW, "no idea what he's getting into and hasn't done his homework" is at least some of what I meant by "easily influenced". He'll be surrounded by people who want to use him, and a whole lot who flatter him effusively in the process. I need to know he can resist them, but I see nothing at all to make me think he can. If he's this willing to accept the press' adulation and consider it fact (which is the way it seems to me), he will have nothing at all from which to combat his own yes-men when they turn into "yes, nice puppet, now dance please" men. Family, faith, and strong advisors clearly aren't enough. A lack of ambition (which I'd think would help) doesn't help. I'm left to conclude that these things aren't all that significant without a lot of experience (and, specifically, experience of how Washington works) to go with it. HRC and McCain have that.
(OTOH, I think I'll probably vote McCain if it's McCain vs. Obama. Obama, in addition to the above, has a couple of issue stands that really scare the shit out of me.)
no subject
But I don't know - I'm still wavering a lot on Obama. His campaign has been so much about image in all directions that I don't even *know* - but having looked at it a bit more closely, he's actually done a bit better in the Senate, in terms of actually accomplishing good useful non-special-interest-based stuff, than I had realized, so gah, I don't know.
Next month I may be going to the same leadership course (http://www.gamaliel.org/default.htm) where he supposedly learned his political style. :D I'll keep you updated.
The Maryland Republican ballot also has direct election of delegates, and the election judge seemed to think it didn't matter which party? So maybe that's also a state-by-state thing. But yeah, the Republican Party doesn't do the superdelegate thing regardless.
McCain's positions on war (not least, the way those positions have been fluctuating all over the place in the last few years) scare the shit out of me effectively enough that I can't get past that to whatever else is on his platform, so I'll be going with the Democrat either way.
But yeah, I wish there was somebody running on the other side that I could support whole-heartedly. (I wish was I was still non-cynical enough that I could fearlessly buy into Obama's rhetoric...)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think VA doesn't vote for delegates. At least I haven't heard anything about it and will be very confused if I see them on the ballot. Did you vote in the MD primary in 2004? I didn't (even if I had it would have been in ND). I didn't vote in the 2000 primary either.
Obama *did* challenge Stephen to a grit-off. That's more than Hillary's done. So if Obama gets the nomination, dare we hope for an actual, live in-studio grit-off? Hmmmm! *ponders*
It looks like the dropped candidates are still on our ballot (http://www.loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=533) ... so I might actually just throw up my hands and vote for Kucinich. Sigh! It looks like there's no other races on my ballot, too. Hmm.
Dennis sees Gravel's CafePress store, and raises it official replica Florida butterfly ballots with actual chads! (http://www.officialkucinichstore.us/) So there. (Plus, 50% off all items! XD )
no subject
And wah, why is the republican candidate a friend of the show but neither of the democrats? Dear democrats, please get a sense of humor, kthnx.
If you're not going to vote for somebody with a chance, vote for Gravel! He's awesome, liberal/libertarian *and* he didn't chicken out and drop out!
Kucinich merch also doesn't have the benefits of people reacting to it with a "who's Gravel?"
no subject
Honey, Gravel doesn't have a chance. *pets you*
A vote for Kucinich might give him hope for 2012. (Also, Kucinich, totally friend of the show. SENDS SECRET MESSAGES TO STEPHEN'S POCKETS.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
You mean, ask your state Democratic Party. Because we don't, here in Colorado.
(Although there is some verbiage in the platform about being committed to diversity blah blah blah of delegates.)
no subject
Although I've been continually amazed by how unclear the explanations of primary systems are, so I could be wrong.
no subject
(Also, the delegates for the national delegation are supposed to include 7 African Americans, 17 Hispanics, 2 Native Americans, 3 Asian/Pacific Americans, 4 LGBT, 4 People With Disabilities, and 13 Youth (18-35). I sympathize with those who say that the Democratic Party goes to ridiculous extremes of quota-mandating.)