The Politics Thread

[MissLlanviewPA]

:

http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/08/29/ann-romney-speech-or-taylor-swift-lyrics?xrs=synd_facebook

[DRW50]

More racism in voter ID.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/alan_clemmons_amen.php?ref=fpblg

[Roman]

I just was about to post this from HP. Of course, THAT PARTY isn't racist.

[Wales2004]

I don't know if I'll have the patience to watch the DNC but I cannot seem to watch more than a couple of seconds of the RNC. Besides the usual bunch of rubbish coming out of their mouths including the lack of enthusiasm for their own candidate, is this whole business about how they can work with Democrats and how Barack Obama does not know how to work with them.

It seems to me that he initially bent over backwards giving in to their general idiocy and how do you compromise with a group of people who made it their mission not to work with you at all. The amounf of venom that they've shown him is over and beyond their usual contempt of Democrats and I would hate to be any of them when it comes time to pay the piper or whatever it is they believe in of a karmic nature.

[Bright Eyes]

Stupid random question: Can a presidential candidate who lost run again or are they done forever after that?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Bright Eyes

[Mr. Vixen]

They can run again.

[ReddFoxx]

Adlai Stevenson is the most notable person to lose the general and run again. Harold Stassen holds the record for running for President every election between 1944 and 1996, although he never got for in the primaries. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=8199

[Max]

I apologize for being such a smartass, but Richard Nixon also ran again after losing the general election. Of course, he won the next time (and when you mentioned to Stevenson, I'm sure you were just referring to two time nominees who lost both times).

Aside from Stevenson (who got the Dem nomination in 1952 & 1956), there are at least two other presidential nominees who lost more than once: Democrat William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900, & 1908) and Republican Thomas E. Dewey (1944 & 1948). (Also, Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 general election but won a second, non-consecutive term in 1892.)

There have also been instances where nominees ran again (only to fail to get the nomination). The most recent example occurred when George McGovern (who got the Democratic nomination in 1972) ran in 1984. Given that he lost 49 states in 1972, and that he lost re-election to the Senate in 1980, his 1984 bid was not taken seriously by most people. (McGovern himself didn't expect to win the nomination in 1984, but ran as a "statement candidate" in order to promote his agenda.)

This isn't as stupid a question as you might think. While legally anyone can run an unlimited number of times (unless said person was elected twice before to the presidency), having a losing presidential bid carries with it a huge stigma that often makes it very difficult to attract support in a future race. An obvious exception to this rule occurs when one just barely loses a disputed election. (This explains Cleveland's and Nixon's comebacks, and would have allowed Gore to run in 2004. Similarly, Hillary will be given another chance if she wants it.) Another exception occurs when a losing candidate (usually in the primaries) does much better than expected (such as McCain in 2000); then, he can become the front-runner in a subsequent cycle.

To me, it appears that the Democrats seem to be more hostile and unforgiving towards their losing nominees (with the exception of Gore) than the GOP is. A lot of Democrats seemed to disown Mondale, Dukakis, and even Kerry (the last of whom narrowly lost) to an extent that the GOP didn't do with Dole or McCain. (However, I have a feeling that if Romney loses, the GOP will disown him to the same extent the Democrats normally do to their losing nominees.)

Edited August 30, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

Is it possible that the Democrats may not have been that enthusiastic about Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis in the first place? John Kerry supported Barack Obama in 2008 so I don't think the Democrats disowned him. It's more the case that the Democrats don't appear to have the same people coming back several times to attempt to become President as is the case with Republicans who churn out basically the same crop of candidates in two or three cylcles. The Republicans are not that into Mitt Romney so this should be his last try.

After the election, the Democrats need to make the definition of the poverty line more accurate. Part of what allows the Republicans to play these games when it comes to welfare is that being poor seems to be viewed in terms of not being able to have certain material items as opposed to it being related to not having the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. It's dishonest to keep using black Americans as the face of poverty in this country when poverty is a problem that crosses racial and ethnic lines and in reality affects a greater number of white children than black. This constant racialization of everything does no one any good in the long run.

[quartermainefan]

Walter Mondale was almost beloved by democrats. Dukakis they sort of blacklisted instantly. I don't recall Dukakis ever appearing at a convention again or giving a speech of note after 1988. He was a terrible candidate and deserved to lose. LLoyd Bentson was far better as a VP candidate and he got off the "you're no John Kennedy" line which has to be now the most famous debate zinger of all time.

[DRW50]

I think Dukakis was at the 2004 convention.

Meanwhile:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-lies-of-paul-ryan.html

[GoldenDogs]

A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

The three-judge panels says that presenting a photo ID to vote imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

Now, I'm struggling with this one and would like someone here who sides with the three-judge panel's decision to explain to me how showing a photo ID is a burden. I realize some of these people may not have a driver license... but neither does my son, who just graduated and is 18, but he carries with him a school ID that has his picture on it. (Hopefully he'll get his actual driver license today - he's taking the test! Please send me good thoughts that my car doesn't get smashed!!)

How do people without a photo ID get jobs or, if unemployed, draw benefits... etc. Help me with this... how does a person NOT get a photo ID - ANY sort of ID? I think the fee for a Driver License in California is only $30... I know, I know... that is eggs, cheese, and milk for a poor family. But still... anybody here NOT have ANY photo ID or proof of existence?

I can be swayed to the left on this one if someone has good some good ideas on this...

Thanks!

[SFK]

I agree that showing a photo i.d. should not be considered a burden. I've seen upper middle class white men get the business for not having i.d. on them, and you need one if you don't have a driver's license. You can't buy liquor, cigarettes, let alone cough medicine without an i.d. in this day and age. I can't walk into certain buildings in New York and D.C. without my i.d. And frankly, how does one even register to vote without photo i.d. in the first place?

[Ann_SS]

Except showing ID is a burden for segments of the population. Many elderly people are on the voting rolls, but lost their driving license, birth certificate, marriage certificate, etc. and their passports (if they ever had one) expired many years ago. They are not mobile and do not have the transportation to run from government office to government office to get the documents to get their government ID.

Besides voter fraud rarely ever happens. It is merely the latest mask that the white right wing conservation establishment is using for vote suppression of segments of the population that do not support their politics.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ann_SS

[Wales2004]

As far as the I.D. question goes, it would seem like a no brainer that people should be able to obtain them without problems but that's apparently not always the case. It depends on what is required by the issuer in terms of proof. Some may require a specific thing like a certified birth certificate which everyone does not happen to have lying around. I live in Southern California where they used to (and probably still do) give a record of birth that is not an official certified document. In order to obrain a certified document you have to go to a certain location which is not necessarily convenient if you live in certain cities within Los Angeles County.

Basically the cost may deter some people but the biggest obstacle is having to travel to different locations to obtain the documents which are necessary for meeting the requirements for state identification. Plus if you take into consideration the timing of all of this then it will be more likely that some people won't be able to get all of the required documents prior to the day of the election. Getting expedited documents can cost a significant additioal fee and even then there is no guarantee that they will be mailed timely. Also, some may have lost certain documents and if they are of a certain age then it is even more of an issue to track down "ancient" records.

The main problem with this is the fact that this is all being pushed through for this election cycle. If this had been done a couple of years ago or if they pushed for it to be implemented the day after the election then it would not be such an issue. It's quite obvious that this is a ploy to keep people who woud vote for the Democrats from being able to vote by placing them at a disadvantage. But this may also affect a certain demographic of the Republican party as well though maybe not to a significant degree.