McCain - Feingold has limited the central organization of the DNC or the RNC to "directly" contribute to campaigns beyond limits. It just changes the framework of how those donations are received within the campaigns and encourages the creation of smaller coalitions throught the country. The money is still the same. The electoral college by party control over balloting does have a large influence on candidates. Opinions on this are subjective. You don't agree with it but as an independant voter with no party affiliation, my perspective is different which does not invalidate the symbiotic relationship between the electoral college and the two major parties in the US.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-engl...s0.6480067.html

It's fairly telling how much control they have over major elections by the following information:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm

I have the opposite opinion as you do as far as party control lessening the influence of the far right and far left. Splintering the parties into smaller mulit-party systems would have the greatest effect in jarring the control of the far right in the Republican party and the far left in the Democratic. They would form their own party on the ballot and the more moderate on both sides would represent more of the typical American voter with either right or left leanings.

That is my opinon and disagree if you like but I stand by it.

Yes, the electoral college is a barrier to third-parties, but no where in that article does it say how the parties == the RNC, the DNC -- control the electoral college Give me your opinion -- how do the parties control the electoral college??

The electoral college does limit the creation of third parties, as does our winner-take-all system of elections, individual state petition requirements for ballot entry (this is strongly influenced by the two major parties). With winner take all and the electoral college, we will probably always have a two-party system. I think if they did away with the electoral college, we would still have a two-party system.

In this country, we have had probably six major political re-alignments. I don't think the two-party system is going anywhere unless we adopt some form of proportional representation system.

As far as the party and money, money still plays a huge part in campaigns, but the political parties do not finance that much in campaigns, nor do they select candidates to run for office in the majority of instances, nor do the run the candidates' campaigns. Our elections, because of the primary system in large part, are candidate driven and not party driven. In my opinion, if they were party driven, neither of the two presidential candidates in this elections would be nominees. But that is just supposition.

Zell Miller is probably a Republican now because Georgia is a Republican state (returning to the original topic of discussion). It was a business decision. The only reason Joe Liberman hasn't officially switched parties is he has more power as a Democrat in Senate. I suspect, he'll switch as soon as its convenient.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Jess

I posted this already.

Sorry, I don't usually click on the links without a description. (I dont mean that personally in any way). I apologize.

Zell Miller is probably a Republican now because Georgia is a Republican state (returning to the original topic of discussion). It was a business decision. The only reason Joe Liberman hasn't officially switched parties is he has more power as a Democrat in Senate. I suspect, he'll switch as soon as its convenient.

Zell retired without renouncing the Democratic party.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/pa...ial-needs-kids/

Interesting read here. It seems Palin is a bit of a mixed message in this bit:

I am a mother of a special needs child. My son does not have Down's Syndrome but he has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. I wonder how far the commitment to special needs will extend. I would love to hear more about this from the candidate herself.

I would as well. There are alot of opinions she really needs to make clear, and if the media is so biased against her, she wouldn't mind sitting down and dispelling the thingsthat have been reported about her.

I think the GOP has done a great job intimidating the media. How many reporters are in Alaska writing about Palin? A study media watchdog that is traditionally very critical of the media recently found there was a media bias in this election and it favored McCain.

I had posted a article about that earlier in the thread. i guess there are some here who apparently did not read that, and are still insisting that the "liberal" media is out to get McCain/Palin.

Sometimes it seems that the McCain campaign is more interested in pushing this mess instead of talking about the issues.

Media bias:

http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/ele...s%207_29_08.htm

I would as well. There are alot of opinions she really needs to make clear, and if the media is so biased against her, she wouldn't mind sitting down and dispelling the thingsthat have been reported about her.

I had posted a article about that earlier in the thread. i guess there are some here who apparently did not read that, and are still insisting that the "liberal" media is out to get McCain/Palin.

Sometimes it seems that the McCain campaign is more interested in pushing this mess instead of talking about the issues.

That is because it works.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Jess

World's Smallest Political Quiz

Where do you fall? It says I am a Libertarian...

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Casey008

Media bias:

http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/ele...s%207_29_08.htm

That is because it works.

That is the same report I had posted. Thanks for putting a stamp on this for us.

Which show will you watch tonight.....KO's or O'Reilly's?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Wi...9815&page=1

Here's another tax polilcy comparison.

I had posted a article about that earlier in the thread. i guess there are some here who apparently did not read that, and are still insisting that the "liberal" media is out to get McCain/Palin.

So why do you think Olbermann and Matthews were demoted? Was it because they were McCain fans? Ratings? Both? Neither?

"i guess there are some here who apparently did not read that, and are still insisting that the "liberal" media is out to get McCain/Palin."

Hmmm. I wonder who this is refering to?

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by Casey008

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/08/h...ed-john-mccain/

There is apparently a video in te first line. The rest has been posted before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Wi...9815&page=1

Here's another tax polilcy comparison.

Thanks for posting this. It's good to see numbers over personal opinion.

So why do you think Olbermann and Matthews were demoted? Was it because they were McCain fans? Ratings? Both? Neither?

Hmmm. I wonder who this is refering to?

Casey, I would tell you, but since I feel you have no intention of listening to what I have to say about it, then why bother?

Thanks for posting this. It's good to see numbers over personal opinion.

Casey, I would tell you, but since I feel you have no intention of listening to what I have to say about it, then why bother?

What's with the combativeness?

Thanks for posting this. It's good to see numbers over personal opinion.

Casey, I would tell you, but since I feel you have no intention of listening to what I have to say about it, then why bother?

It's a good comparison however I would love to see both candidates tax structure, projected revenue and where that revenue fits within their budget proposals. Can they afford the programs they are proposing within the revenue structure that would be available to them under their tax plans. Then I would like to see the proposed budget versus the the actual budget currently in place to see what is a proposed increase/cutback/program elimination in order to get this country on a fiscally sound path.

I don't want a tax cut now if my son will have to pay for it in the future.

And Jess- I PROMISE I'm not ignoring you but I want to put some thought into the wording of my response because I'm enjoying the conversation immensely.

Edited September 8, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

Media bias:

http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/ele...s%207_29_08.htm

That is because it works.

This unfortunately is true. I think things will be settled once the debates hit.

I really like Keith, and watch his show every night. I also think he is a hell of an anchor......when he keeps his personal opinions out of his anchoring. When he starts doing that, I cringe because it is supposed to be as impartial as possible.

But.......those clowns at Fox News really don't have any right to say one word about bias. Not only do they blast whatever Democrat they see for whatever reason (and lie about the person on top of it) the majority of their "Fair And Balanced" anchors spend their time up the backside of whatever Republican political figure is the hot ticket.

But, that's just my feeling on it.

What's with the combativeness?

IMO, no combativeness. Just the truth, according to me.

This unfortunately is true. I think things will be settled once the debates hit.

I really like Keith, and watch his show every night. I also think he is a hell of an anchor......when he keeps his personal opinions out of his anchoring. When he starts doing that, I cringe because it is supposed to be as impartial as possible.

But.......those clowns at Fox News really don't have any right to say one word about bias. Not only do they blast whatever Democrat they see for whatever reason (and lie about the person on top of it) the majority of their "Fair And Balanced" anchors spend their time up the backside of whatever Republican political figure is the hot ticket.

But, that's just my feeling on it.

IMO, no combativeness. Just the truth, according to me.

I can't speak about all the FOX news guys but Brit Hume is one of the best anchors out there and I do not see bias on his newsdesk. I trust him. I studied him in my journalism courses and respect his career that began at ABC where he and Peter Jennings could arguably considered two of the most trusted news anchors in the business.

I don't care what is said about any of the others because I don't know their careers as well, but "fair and balanced" fits Brit Hume, in my humble opinion.

This unfortunately is true. I think things will be settled once the debates hit.

I really like Keith, and watch his show every night. I also think he is a hell of an anchor......when he keeps his personal opinions out of his anchoring. When he starts doing that, I cringe because it is supposed to be as impartial as possible.

But.......those clowns at Fox News really don't have any right to say one word about bias. Not only do they blast whatever Democrat they see for whatever reason (and lie about the person on top of it) the majority of their "Fair And Balanced" anchors spend their time up the backside of whatever Republican political figure is the hot ticket.

But, that's just my feeling on it.

IMO, no combativeness. Just the truth, according to me.

I couldn't agree more, Roman.

I like Keith as well. I was happy that a major news network finally put a liberal voice on against Bill O'Reilly. It was a long time coming.