The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Palomar · 2004-07-13 13:14:26

As for who wins the election, it's anyone's guess. As mentioned earlier, Bush is predicted to win by the guys who have been right every time these last two decades except in 2000, and you might be able to forgive them there, considering that Bush lost the popular vote by a million votes (Any signitures for a petition against the electoral college?). However, not one president has ever been re-elected with their approval ratings as low as Bush's. Who knows?

*Yeah, I wouldn't want to put a substantial amount of $ down as to who will win.

Of course, Bush might get some help again from the massively confused nose-picking/booger eating voters down in a state I won't mention by name (orange groves) like he did last time.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-13 13:25:25

Of course, Bush might get some help again from the massively confused nose-picking/booger eating voters down in a state I won't mention by name (orange groves) like he did last time.

:laugh:

Damn fools, don't they know they're voting for the wrong guy! Idiots! But democracy is the ideal form of governance.

Don't know what's funnier, that so many people screwed up their ballots, or that they all wanted to vote for Gore. :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2004-07-13 14:44:58

Of course, Bush might get some help again from the massively confused nose-picking/booger eating voters down in a state I won't mention by name (orange groves) like he did last time.
--Cindy

Take it from someone who lives in a state where Huey Pierce Long is a folk hero: Every state has its booger eaters.

Florida just came to attention in 2000 because of its potential for statistical advantage in a very tight race. There is no evidence to indicate that nose picking is more prevalent per capita there.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-13 23:27:15

The actual number is barely half-a-million, and irrelevant given our electoral system, which is itself a product of the underlying structure of our Constitution.

Whoops. Guess it's my word against your's, so we'll have to fillibuster untill the last man (Sorry Cindy [joking obviously]) standing becomes the winner and then can make unlimited changes to the constitution in the margins in a red pen within 10 seconds. While supplies last. Isn't politics great!

Or I suppose someone could look it up.

The electoral college worked in a time when many Americans lived so far away from any news source they barely knew the candidates' names. Nowadays if one of them picks thier nose, everyone knows about it within approximately seven seconds, and within the hour there will be at least five flash videos made ridiculing the candidate for it. The simple fact is, in 1960 more Americans wanted Nixon to be president than Kennady. For better or for worse, more Americans wanted Dole to be president than Clinton, and more wanted Gore in office than Bush. The electoral college simply doesn't make sense.

Not that anyone's going to change it of course.

So.... anyone votin' for Nader?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-14 05:15:38

No need to filibuster, here it is.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESID … PRESIDENT/

One of many sites with the same figures.

The electoral college worked in a time when many Americans lived so far away from any news source they barely knew the candidates' names. Nowadays if one of them picks thier nose, everyone knows about it within approximately seven seconds, and within the hour there will be at least five flash videos made ridiculing the candidate for it. The simple fact is, in 1960 more Americans wanted Nixon to be president than Kennady. For better or for worse, more Americans wanted Dole to be president than Clinton, and more wanted Gore in office than Bush. The electoral college simply doesn't make sense.

Since this thread is nothing but tangents anyway, here goes: The electoral college exists and makes sense because national elections in the United States aren't really national in the same sense as elections for Prime Minister in European countries, for example. At the founding and in principle each state is sovereign, with the federal government being roughly a sort of continental UN. Though such distinctions have been blurred since, our Constitution is built on that premise. So the people aren't voting for President, rather each state is tallying the will of its people, then voting as a state for President, not necessarily with any regard for the results of that vote though in recent times they've just rubber-stamped it.

The United States of America was never meant to be a democracy, but a republic, a federation bound together for the common good. But sometimes we, as a nation, forget how we got here.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-14 06:39:18

So, CC, given the populations of the various States, how skewed could an election actually get?
For instance, could a candidate get as low as 25% of the actual votes, nationwide, but still beat an opponent with, say, 55% of the votes?
I'm talking about extreme cases here, I suppose, but what degree of distortion is actually possible under the electoral college system, I wonder?
???

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-14 07:03:24

For instance, could a candidate get as low as 25% of the actual votes, nationwide, but still beat an opponent with, say, 55% of the votes?
I'm talking about extreme cases here, I suppose, but what degree of distortion is actually possible under the electoral college system, I wonder?

Well, in an extreme case I suppose it would be possible for a candidate to win with even less than 25%, though it would require the electors to ignore the popular vote and their own party entirely.

Really what happens is each party picks a set of electors at their convention, so each party has a slate of people pledged to vote for them. The popular vote decides which party, which slate of electors, gets to cast the real votes for that state. Now, while those electors are pledged to support a given candidate, they don't always do so and aren't really bound to. So all the electors could, assuming some sort of super-villain mind control method, vote for someone who got almost no votes. An evil Nader could win.

Actually I used to have a scenario worked out for complete electoral chaos, breakdown of government, and revolution. But then in the mid nineties they passed a law requiring that all states hold Presidential elections on the same day. Kinda screwed that scheme up... :angry:

Not that I'd ever question the wisdom, righteousness or good intentions of the federal government. Long live the PATRIOT Act, and God bless America.

clark · 2004-07-15 11:11:29

Kerrys]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48168-2004Jul13?language=printer]Kerry's Inner Circle Expands

And experts have been enlisted to draft policy memos on issues -- from the technical to the obscure -- that just may crop up between now and November. Advisers have crafted briefings on Microsoft billionaire Paul G. Allen's private spacecraft, African trade agreements, a manned mission to Mars and federal tax deductibility of state sales taxes.
Mostly, however, the outer ring serves another purpose. By casting a wide net, Bianchi said, the campaign is always ready with an expert when an unexpected issue crops up suddenly. Many members of the policy councils can also be effective Kerry advocates in their far-flung communities, she said.

It will be interesting to see the policy postions on the Manned Mission to Mars...

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 11:25:52

It will be interesting to see the policy positions on the Manned Mission to Mars...

Indeed. Now the real question: assuming it's a good plan, what are the odds he'd actually do it? Afterall, we're talking about a plan formed as a contingency response in a campaign...

clark · 2004-07-15 11:35:15

Ah, my fine-feathered facist friend, you see the beauty of what is to come?

If Kerry comes out with a policy position basically accepting the overall premise of a larger human-exploration role for NASA, that means the Dem's in the House and Senate will play ball with the Republicans on NASA's FY'05 budget- all before Kerry takes office.

He will then be stymied to defund it, because then any accident will be blamed on him for short changing NASA and stretching it to thin (because he is busy saying that it currently lacks the resources for the current proposal). Republican's will want to keep funding it (and they have a majoirty in both houses) as a means to point out- look what Bush, a republican did. Kerry will be looking at 8 years (as soon as they win, they look towards the next election) and that's when CEV is slated to be near ready- lots of politicans dream of standing in front of the crowd on days like that.

Things look good, either way.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 11:45:29

All of this assumes that the space program is a big enough issue to generate such a snowballing effect rather than just withering after the election. I'm not convinced that enough people really care enough to push the issue to a degree to force any real progress. Other factors need to come into play and all things being equal, a President who thinks of manned missions as a pet-project is better than one who sees them as a cynical campaign ploy to dupe the geek vote.

Don't get me wrong, the Democrat candidate voicing support for the program is good, but it may well do more good if he gets Congress to soften up their resistance then loses the election.

clark · 2004-07-15 11:55:20

I think you may be a bit biased in your assessment here Cobra.

Other factors need to come into play and all things being equal, a President who thinks of manned missions as a pet-project is better than one who sees them as a cynical campaign ploy to dupe the geek vote.

We've had this talk, neither canadite seems to be gung-ho for space exploration in and of itself. Both are willing to make a case for it if it helps them.

NASA will get the money because they need it primarily to instutite the saftey upgrades as demanded by Congress. Neither party wants to open themselves up to being accused of killing astronauts. Once they get that funding, then we will see where people really stand on this issue- because then they can either do away with manned exploration, or canabilize NASA to fund the manned exploration goals.

It's either or.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 12:06:33

Maybe I'm completely off on this, but somehow I get the impression that Bush 41 really did believe in sending people to Mars. Maybe he blundered, thinking he'd get some Kennedy-esque boost, but that would have been a profoundly amateurish expectation. Most likely he really wanted that mission. And it got shot down.

Bush 43 seems to me to be after it for one of two reasons, either he too truly believes in the mission, or he wants to finish more of his father's unfininshed business. Either way, he's not doing this solely because he thinks it'll get him votes. The fact that he announced his policy (as it is) while actually in office and at a time when it actually seems to have hurt him speaks to at least some degree of sincerity.

Bush doesn't fill me with optimism on this issue, but a Kerry rush-job response doesn't top it.

BWhite · 2004-07-15 12:20:06

The Columbia accident forces everyone's hand. Democrats, Republicans, everyone. If Columbia had landed safely, that January 14th speech would not have happened.

Whether the orbiter can fly 25 missions between now and 2010 or 2012 is itself controversial. The idea that the orbiter can continue after that is simply absurd.

So, its either "Moon, Mars and Beyond" or we cancel the whole shebang and decide to stay home and watch Simpsons re-runs.

So, how can Kerry and the Democrats =OR= Bush and the Republicans possibly choose to abandon Moon, Mars and Beyond? IMHO, they cannot without being the party that ended America's space program.

= = =

Space advocates need to travel to Washington (like the past weekend) and quietly and subtly play the two parties off against each other.

smurf975 · 2004-07-15 12:20:09

I also read somewhere that the space initiative is important for the missle defense system that Bush and Co want to deploy or it the technology is interchangeable.

----

Although I'm wondering what Bush's plans is for the deficits, does he foresee economic growth that would eventually cover the budget problems? I don't here anyone else talking about it as I don't think that the military spending will have longterm positive economic effects.

clark · 2004-07-15 12:21:24

Bush 43 seems to me to be after it for one of two reasons, either he too truly believes in the mission, or he wants to finish more of his father's unfininshed business.

Perception is not truth. You have to be careful here since (by your own statements) you fall more towards the Bush camp. We all have a natural tendancy to filter our information to fit our preconceived perception of what is happening. Making order from the chaos, as it were. Now, I'm not saying that you're off, I can see the same thing, but I can also see the opposite.

Take for instance this:

way, he's not doing this solely because he thinks it'll get him votes.

Every President since Eisenhower has come out with a Space Policy speech, declaration, proclimation, something or other. All of em. So how do we reconcile that with this? Are some president serious, and some not? Are some really interested in space exploration, and some not? How do you tell? What is the indication? Deeds? Even Kennedy didn't support Apollo- it was merely a means to an end.

Why did Bush support a ban on gay marriage? Because he believed in it, or because he was pandoring to his conservative base to get out the vote?

Perhaps Bush is serious, perhaps he does support space exploration- and perhaps Kerry does too. Bush didn't come up with the policy, he had experts put it together and make a reccomendation. The same thing Kerry is doing- but you tend to think he isn't serious. There really isn't a difference, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

The fact that he announced his policy (as it is) while actually in office and at a time when it actually seems to have hurt him speaks to at least some degree of sincerity.

No, he did so at an advantageous point, and it didn't gain the traction he had hoped for. Now there is back peddiling, and from what I've seen, O'Keefe has been given the ball to run with. Bush isn't killing himself to make it happen, but he won't stand in the way if it does.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 12:30:18

Okay, some good points Clark. Yet still I'm left with being able to find some indications that maybe Bush is really serious, and nothing to even hang a hope on with Kerry.

But you really summed it up with this:

Bush isn't killing himself to make it happen, but he won't stand in the way if it does.

Whether we like or not, this is the best we can realistically hope for at the moment. I'm not convinced that Kerry won't stand in the way, and I know that some of the factions he is beholden to most certainly will.

BWhite · 2004-07-15 12:36:18

Right now, Cobra, the faction stopping enactment of the vision is named "Sherwood Boehlert" and last I checked he is a Republican.

= = =

Space advocates need to be ready to play the two parties against each other and not let either party believe their support can be taken for granted.

= = =

Remember this. CEV is OSP with a fancy new name.

If Kerry wins, he will change the name (I like DSP for Dummy-crat space plane) but Kerry cannot re-certify orbiter without deafening protests and there is no political advantage to sticking with ISS as the only space objective.

One big difference might be whether we seek more (or less) Russian and European cooperation.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-15 13:06:32

Agreed, there is no "party of manned space efforts," but the parties are not equally inclined regarding it. Both sides have their supporters and detractors, but deeper fundamental issues make the real difference.

In general, Republicans are more inclined to do things alone, spend money on programs that benefit defense contractors, and ignore people clamoring for universal healthcare, yet-higher education funding, or countless other social programs.

The best hope with Democrats is that, if enough people demand it loudly and other nations are looking to do it anyway, they'll enter into a joint agreement with ESA, the Russians, or both to take a multi-national approach that saves us money and "rebuilds the bridge with our allies" or some such thing. The ISS isn't a resounding endorsement of that approach. It has its advantages, but its costs as well.

Either party may get us there, but the somehow the elephant looks to be a better shot. Not a good one, but slightly more encouraging. Since no one ever votes for the Cobra, here we are...

But then as far as I'm concerned it's something of a moot point, as there's more at stake here. Look forward to the details, if any, of the Kerry proposal though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2004-07-13 13:14:26

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#227 2004-07-13 13:25:25

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#228 2004-07-13 14:44:58

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#229 2004-07-13 23:27:15

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#230 2004-07-14 05:15:38

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#231 2004-07-14 06:39:18

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#232 2004-07-14 07:03:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#233 2004-07-15 11:11:29

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#234 2004-07-15 11:25:52

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#235 2004-07-15 11:35:15

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#236 2004-07-15 11:45:29

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#237 2004-07-15 11:55:20

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#238 2004-07-15 12:06:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#239 2004-07-15 12:20:06

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#240 2004-07-15 12:20:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#241 2004-07-15 12:21:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#242 2004-07-15 12:30:18

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#243 2004-07-15 12:36:18

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#244 2004-07-15 13:06:32

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer