Because we need one, and all my co-bloggers died.
By the way, maybe I should run for President. If all I need to do is promise change and I can get half of the liberal community falling on their knees praising me, I think I might have a shot. Believe me- as President, I will be a change.
/troll
richard
nah, I have a better idea. My friend has been a blogger for 25 years. We’ve been grinding it out. Send us in. We’re best equipped for new ideas.
Sensitive Pony Tailed Girly Man
Why didn’t you say something sooner, dumbass? We could have passed that hat for the $1K filing fee and gotten you on the NH Ballot. That’s all it takes up there, and there were plenty of ninnies who did just that.
Sensitive Pony Tailed Girly Man
Just to finish my thought, so called, there were 42 candidates to pick from. Live Free or Die!
TheFountainHead
Was Obama really at the bottom of a list of 42 candidates? No wonder the polling was off.
Svensker
Only if you promise not to give the secret to using Scoop to any Republicans.
Jake
You’d have to get married, dump the cat and give up Hola Fruta.
Billy K
I really have nothing to say.* I just want to get in before we hit 200 comments. I was following the last thread nicely, then had to work for a while. I come back and it’s grown to unmanageable proportions.
*I had a diatribe about Bush declaring martial law saved up for the next open thread, but I won’t bother anyone with it now.
Blue Neponset
…stop playing WoW and accept Steely McBeam as your personal savior.
Punchy
I may have misread this, but I think John would have to move to Massachusetts to do this.
After all….Hola Fruta. Isn’t that Mexican for “Hi, I’m fruity!”, right?
D-Chance.
Yes, the place has show considerable improvement, lately.
Bubblegum Tate
So, uh…you got any change?
Billy K
No, it’s Spanish for “Hello, fruit!” I don’t think he’d be real popular with Hispanics.
Ed Drone
42 candidates? Holy crap! That’s stupid.
Someone told me about a law in, I think I was told, West Virginia, where “None of the Above” is on every ballot (obviously, only statewide or local elections, as applying it to national races would require a national law). IF “None” wins, then a runoff race has to be held, in a short time, and none of the losing candidates are eligible to run in it.
I do not know if this is the actual law, but man, it surely ought to be! What a concept! I know in places like Georgia, if no one wins a majority, the top two then compete in a run-off, but eliminating candidates if “none of the above” polls more is just such a nifty idea.
Someone needs to start the ball rolling for making this a national law.
For that matter, another change needed is the dissolution of the Electoral College, and a third electoral change would be to reintroduce the “fairness doctrine,” to make it possible for all sorts of candidates to get their ideas heard and seen. For that matter, getting rid of campaign contributions is a good idea, too. Right now, people who win on November 9 have to start funding their reelections by November 10. This is obscene.
So that’s my take on it. Except for tightening our libel laws to include being sued for campaign claims that are egregiously misleading.
That’s enough kooky ideas for one comment, I think.
Ed
Pb
Looks like about half that; here’s the order:
1. Biden
4. Clinton
6. Dodd
7. Edwards
8. Gravel
15. Kucinich
18. Obama
Seems they randomly selected the letter ‘Z’ to start off with and then went in alphabetical order from there, wrapping around. And they did this on all the ballots, unlike in previous years. Apparently this effect alone can cause a discrepancy of 3% or more.
TheFountainHead
I’m no expert in this matter, but it seems to me that this would be a little bit of an issue.
DrDave
NH Voters had the opportunity to vote for:
O. Savior
Minneapolis, MN
I kid you not.
Paul L.
It has to be the right kind of change.
LiberalTarian
Y’all seriously think that Obama lost because people couldn’t find him on the ballot?
Can I have a puff off that?
dslak
The shock of loss is often a potent narcotic in its own wright.
dslak
I meant to put this in box quotes:
TheFountainHead
Not saying that, though I think we could find some psychologists and professional pollsters who would tell us it sure didn’t help his numbers.
Sid
I don’t support Obama because of his Kumbaya shtick. No…a lot of us support Obama because he had the correct judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, and for the right reasons.
Whereas, you John Cole, sneered at the anti-war movement for being a bunch of Saddam apologists and soft on terrorism.
Cyrus
Explain to me again what the problem is with candidates getting selected in smoke-filled back rooms?
I mean, I’m almost serious about this. And I certainly don’t advocate general elections. But I’d rather have Hillary Clinton win a primary by fiat then have Barack Obama win because two percent of Hillary Clinton supporters voted drunk, forgot their glasses, were dyslexic, whatever, and got Clinton mixed up with Caroline Killeen.
Zifnab
Paul, what does this have to do with the Duke Lacross Rape story?
Yes, ok. That meme died on the last election. Admittedly, after he voted for Bush… twice… John’s judgment gets called into question pretty regularly around here. But you can’t hate on him for being wonky on policy over image. Maybe he’s not just being a hater and is actually trying to avoid the pitfall that got us stuck with a President We’d Like To Have A Beer With. Give the guy some credit.
Zifnab
Voters will inveritable vote for what they believe will be their best interests. Give the power of candidate nomination to guys in smoke filled back rooms, and you’ll never see a smoking ban pass in this country again. Whether that is good or bad for the country at large is immaterial to the smoke-filled room pickers.
Smoke-filled back rooms tend to be establishment, anti-progressive candidates. So if you’re an anti-establishment progressive, they generally rub you the wrong way.
Pb
LiberalTarian,
Follow some links and do some reading, it’s a fairly well known statistical / polling quirk, which is why good polls randomize their list items to minimize this effect.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you were ok with Clinton or Obama, but didn’t like Edwards. So, you look at the list, and the first name you recognize is “Clinton”, and you say, ok, I’ll vote for her. However, had you seen Obama’s name first, maybe you would have voted for him instead.
Incidentally, I do wonder if approval voting would also help minimize this effect–by letting people vote for as many candidates as they wanted to, would they be more likely to look over the whole list? Maybe, but I think I’d still want to see the lists get randomized.
Sasha
Twice burnt, thrice shy.
Birdzilla
I dont care for OBAMMA he is too liberal and favored by the bird cage liners and talking heads
dslak
The real Birdzilla would have said “Osama.” I call shenanigans!
srv
Cole-Hamsher 2008
Louise
Anyone know of a military/government source for information on infrastructure — specifically electricity and water supplies — in Iraq? I’m looking for current stats on the hours of electricity provided, and the person who I’m talking to won’t trust any newspaper accounts.
tBone
Leave it to Paul L to make John’s original lame troll look good by comparison.
Cheer up, BZ. That just means you get to poop on him regularly.
Billy K
You have my vote…and my sword!
Dracula
Our first gay president?
ThymeZone
Check the Iraq Weekly Status Report from the State Department, I think it has all the information you need, including a demand/supply electrical power chart.
srv
http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/factsheets/docs/December_2007.pdf
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=32&Itemid=47&Itemid=47
Progress is, or course, a moving goal post.
ThymeZone
For example see page 12 of this recent weekly report.
Z
Anybody can run (provided they have a LOT of money). So, basically, John can start by pretending he has to ‘update’ his website and funnel the money into his campaign. Then he can start fellating the wealthy donors and lobbyists. Finally, he can start quoting the ‘serious’ foreign policy talking heads, so they swoon over him. Pretty much, his campaign would be viable.
Is anyone else completely sick of the coverage? I love what Glen Greenwald had to say about it today.
wasabi gasp
Longer links pleazez. O how I luvz me some horizontal scroll.
Jon H
If Clinton is elected, we’re going to suffer through 4-8 years of rhetoric crafted by Hallmark and Celine Dion.
Gack.
Billy K
Wait…was that sexist? I can’t tell any more.
Wilfred
Here’s more
ImJohnGalt
I do loves me some Barney Frank. [In a purely platonic way]
Chris
You could try marrying a former president. I hear that helps a lot.
Louise
Thanks all!
Conservatively Liberal
I know John is all for change. When I cleaned out my change jug last year, I donated $50.00 of it to BJ. John did not complain, thus I can confirm John does like change. Our change. So please give freely, and often! The more you give, the more change there is!
See, change can be good! Just ask John! ;)
John, if you run and get elected, please select me to head the new Department of Marijuana Quality Assurance. I can promise that I will be at work every single day. Hell, even weekends!
If not, then how about the Bureau of Skimpy Lingerie. I would approach the job with eyes wide open to every detail. I promise to be a hands on guy too, no delegating.
Jake
Solar System safer than Detroit.
AkaDad
I think America is ready for a President who eats Hola Fruta.
Jon H
“Wait…was that sexist? I can’t tell any more”
It’s not a question about gender, it’s a question of taste.
Jon H
Am I the only one who, when listening to McCain’s speech, is reminded of Gallagher reciting his poem about rivers?
Jon H
Apparently Bush devalued the presidency so much it is now the consolation prize for being in a bad marriage. And not even a violent one.
libarbarian
One of Sullivans readers captures my thoughts exactly
I dont give much of a damn about “hope”. I want a politicians whose attitude is “How can we accomplish something good in our limited time in power?” not “How can we stay in power for long enough for us to eventually accomplish something good”
J sub D
Apparently at least 3% of voters are too stupid to be trusted with the franchise. It sure is a good thing they don’t have that all-confusing butterfly ballot, then we’d have to through out the results all together .
The Other Steve
Fixed.
J sub D
Actually, that would be our first transexual president.
Badtux
The only “change” I’m going crazy about is the fact that none (zero) of the leading Democratic candidates are stupid batshit crazy ideologues. Which makes them 1,000,000,000,000 times better than the current occupant of the office, and indeed would be real “change”, at least compared to the last seven years.
As for which of the Democrats win… meh. I’ll vote for one of them in November, that’s all I know. Because the leading Republican candidates are all batshit crazy, and I done had ’nuff of dat silliness, mon cher!
– Badtux the Meh Penguin
Badtux
While on the subject of proposals for revised campaign laws, here’s one. If you tell a lie about any other candidate, you’re automatically disqualified. Hell, if you tell a lie, period, during the course of your campaign, you’re automatically disqualified.
Only problem then becomes finding candidates who aren’t liars. Hmm, might be a slight problem there…
– Badtux the Snarky Penguin
ThymeZone
I just woke up from a nap. Did I miss anything? Is there anyone out there?
Tractarian
You are aware that it takes 60 votes to beat a filibuster in the Senate, right? How is Hillary supposed to get legislation passed without “working with people on the other side of the aisle”?
That’s why I think all this talk about “fight” is baloney. Democrats are thirsting for revenge after 7 years of being pushed around. Hillary is tapping into that sentiment (so is Edwards, less successfully). But tough talk won’t mean anything if she doesn’t have 60 votes to back it up.
J sub D
After 6 years of GWB and a Republican majority in both houses, aren’t sane people happy that filibustering exists.
libarbarian
Exactly. They only need like 10 Republicans, not all of them.
Too many people would rather insist on 100%, get nothing, and then have a grievance to nurse and campaign on, than to actually get something done now.
Of course its all rationalized because “they started it”.
Yeah – it keeps tiny minorities from making sweeping changes that are highly unpopular with a significant fraction of the country. That is exactly what the hyper-partisans keep trying to do, and thats why important issues go inadequately addressed for so long.
heywood jablomy
It’s like this, see:
Hillary won because:
1) Her team of extremely loyal and competent women GOT THE VOTE OUT.
2) Women on the fence went for the strong able woman with baggage over the inspiring young man with too little experience. They did this because they believe it is their time – women’s time – to run the government. Thank god. Men have proved they can’t run it for the last 10 years.
3) Say what you want about Hillary but she’s the only American female pol with the guts to slug it out with the boys at this level. She deserves her shot
4) I’m as unconvinced by Hillary as the rest. I want more read meat from her and more blood on the floor against these scumbag repubs.