Obama Jokes

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well at least the dems make sure they choose some serious candidates.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in general the party doesn't so much choose candidates as it supports (or sometimes does not support) the candidates that choose themselves. Which is why both parties start out with a bunch of candidates and narrow the field in a messy and archaic primary process. As to 'serious', depends on what you mean. The most important characteristic for a candidate is the ability to fund the race in spite of the fact that that ability has nothing to do with the executive or legislative duties involved in the office the candidate is running for.

And indeed the reps choice of candidates is just ridiculous and an insult to the world seeing that the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have.

The Republicans are not running in those other countries. And the population of those other countries have no votes in our elections. So, while 'the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have' is true, it is also moot to this discussion. And how ridiculous the Republican's choice is will be determined by the final results. This isn't an art show. It's an election. Opinions are fine, but it is votes that matters. And if the Republicans win this one, it is the Democrats who will have been shown to have had a ridiculous candidate. Especially if the final result is Democrats gaining in both houses but losing the White House. That *will* send a message, but a message of experience or one of race is not clear.

. . . Americans . . . are so narcissistic that they want a candidate that is 'a normal average joe' like them....even though they themselves are herding cattle or flipping burgers at Burger King.

Not sure what the point is here. In spite of intelligence, educational opportunities, economic status, race, religion, or gender, there is an underlying 'national' character in each nation. It is rooted in history and tradition and passed on in the attitudes and mores that the young observe about themselves as the go through their formative years. It is both natural and right that people should want their leaders to share their basic character. So, yeah, the *American* flipping burgers has every right to want an *American* in the White House.

And this is something what the republicans understand very good. They successfully make people believe that the republican candidate is an elitist snob that doesn't like normal people. That they themselves are rich oil baron or industrialist that just care about themselves does not seem to bother people.

I suspect that one of the occurrences of 'republican' in this paragraph should be changed. Also, I can't figure out the antecedent of the 'they themselves' in the last sentence. So, since I can't parse your statement, I don't know if I should endorse it or rebut it.

And coming to my last point as a reaction on Occhi's call for a big third party; of course that would be great, but I don' see it happen. The difference between the reps and dems for many Europeans seems very small (our political spectrum is much wider) but (and maybe because there are just 2 serious parties) the hostility between the parties and their hardcore supporters is greater.

The Europeans do, in general, have a greater spectrum in their parties. To a large extent this is true in countries where the government structure is such that representation is more proportional.

And what you will always see in such a case is that instead of voting for a party that you really agree with, you vote against the party that you don't want to win.

This is a stupid statement. If a party consists of more than one person, then there will be issues of disagreement within the party. Maybe not issues of position, but definitely issues of extent. So, nobody 'really agrees' with any party. Everybody votes for the party they agree with most and against all the other parties. That's because voting is a zero sum game.

So an unofficial two party system can never turn back to be a multi-party system in my opinion.

We (the USA) can hardly go back to a system we've never had. However, a third party emerging and replacing one of the two existing parties has happened at least three times in our history that I can think of, so I'll write your opinion off to ignorance. If you expect a one-trick-pony party, like the Greens, to compete against broad spectrum parties, then you don't understand our system.

Mind you, I am not defending our system. I think it is extremely flawed. While I could (and have in the past) write a big post about its drawbacks, I'll limit myself to two points. First, because of the division into districts (of many types, not just congressional) it is theoretically possible for the country to be completely ruled by one party even if the population is *almost* equally split. All it would take is for that split to be homogeneous. The main reason this does not happen is what I think of as the sheep effect. Most people think like their neighbors, so you get regions that support one party or the other and the representation, at least as to major parties, is split. But that brings up the second issue. Since our system is 'winner take all', the minor parties are greatly underrepresented. For instance, while Libertarians represent about ten percent of the registered voters, they are only represented (IIRC) by one member of the House and no Senators. So ten percent of the population is represented by two tenths of a percent of the lawmakers.

I'd dearly would love, and would support, changes to our laws to make the situation better. But that's the problem with being first, you don't have other's mistakes to learn from. Considering that, I'd say both that we're not doing too bad and most European nations aren't doing so good.

And so you end up with a presidential election where the 'only' arguments are experience of the candidate, abortion, patriotism and various mud throwings.

Funny, I watch a bit of CNN almost every morning. I've heard nothing from the candidates about abortion or patriotism. I've seen no real mud throwing. I'd think a rational person would consider the experience of the candidates an important issue -- or do you think presidents should be picked with a pin? And I have heard a lot of discussion of energy, the economy, our international involvement, and other matters of import. If you haven't heard them, it is because you haven't been listening. Perhaps a little information would make your opinions less hollow.

--Pete