American Politics - A Canadian Perspective - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Martian · 02-06-2008, 06:01 PM

Alright, yes, I admit it. I read Rick Mercer's blog. What can I say? The man makes me laugh.

For the Americans out there who have no idea who Rick Mercer is, he's essentially the Canuckistani answer to John Stewart. Except, y'know, he's been doing it way longer.

Anyway, I thought I might share his latest entry:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Mercer

So here we are, it's Super Tuesday. The most important day in the U.S. primaries as both political parties try to figure out who they're gonna try to send to the White House. And I'm loving it; despite the fact that, in all honesty, I have no idea how it really works.

I know, it's democracy in action – but to me, it might as well be Chinese algebra. And yes, I admit, it bugs the hell out of me that the Americans have this system of choosing a leader that, according to CNN everyone understands and I just don't get. Personally, I'm much more comfortable just assuming they're the stunned ones.

But I do know this. From a show business perspective they've got us beat. For starters, they know how to spend the big money. Rudy Giuliani spent 50 million dollars getting his ass kicked just in the state of Florida. That's twice as much money as any Canadian party is going to spend in the next federal election.

And it's not just the big money that makes it exciting. They work these candidates like Torbay ponies. They're exhausted. Cripes, there's a national debate on CNN every three hours. Half the fun is flicking on Lou Dobbs every evening to see the bags under Hillary Clinton's eyes get bigger.

And speaking of Hillary, when it comes to casting, we can't touch them. Here we are, we think of ourselves as this progressive, diverse nation and yet there's big bad backwards America and who's running for the big job? A woman, a black man, a Libertarian, a Mormon with big hair, and some dude who was in a bamboo cage in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. Meanwhile in Canada, we're gearing up for yet another race between a pudgy white guy and a skinny white guy and some other white guy. Which may go a long way to explain the other big difference between Canada and USA politics these days: in America in this race, young people are engaged. In Canada – they're choosing none of the above.

I wasn't sure if this belonged in politics or humor, except that there's a whole big bucket of truth to this. You guys seem to think that the parliamentary system is backwards, but the truth is we're equally stymied by this whole electoral college deal. Like Mr. Mercer, I can't help but feel vaguely inadequate when the commentators gloss over the whole thing seemingly with the attitude that even a monkey child could understand this and I'm sitting on my couch scratching my head.

It's also true that politics is yet another of those areas that Americans just seem to do bigger. Everything is huge there.

So, uh, discussion. Comments? Opinions? Angry retorts?

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 06:12 PM

Actually we do use an abacus to tally results. Who told Mercer?

Quote:

A woman, a black man, a Libertarian, a Mormon with big hair, and some dude who was in a bamboo cage in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. Meanwhile in Canada, we're gearing up for yet another race between a pudgy white guy and a skinny white guy and some other white guy.

HA!

Martian · 02-06-2008, 06:52 PM

I'd meant to call attention to this part, but y'know, short attention span and all:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Mercer

And speaking of Hillary, when it comes to casting, we can't touch them. Here we are, we think of ourselves as this progressive, diverse nation and yet there's big bad backwards America and who's running for the big job? A woman, a black man, a Libertarian, a Mormon with big hair, and some dude who was in a bamboo cage in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. Meanwhile in Canada, we're gearing up for yet another race between a pudgy white guy and a skinny white guy and some other white guy. Which may go a long way to explain the other big difference between Canada and USA politics these days: in America in this race, young people are engaged. In Canada – they're choosing none of the above.

Emphasis obviously mine.

Is there any truth to this? It certainly seems from where I'm sitting that 18-24 year olds in Canada have very little interest in politics; there seems to be a sentiment that one party's the same as the other. I contrast this with ten years ago when there were more parties, but also seemingly clearer delineations. We all knew what the Liberals stood for, what the Reformers stood for, what the PCs stood for and what the NDP was about. These days we've got Liberals vs. the United Right with an NDP party that seems to proscribe to the 'seen and not heard' policy. Except we don't really see them either. It seems to me that the only party that's still showing very clear values and objectives is the Bloc Quebecois and their platform is (and always has been) essentially 'screw you guys, I'm going home.'

So, yeah, I'd say that younger people aren't nearly as engaged in politics. I mean, there's always that subset of twenty-somethings that are more interested in where they left the beer bong than who's running the country, but it seems to me that more and more individuals of my generation are just tuning the whole thing out as so much noise.

I'm wondering how this contrasts to our southerly neighbours. Certainly politics in the United States are much more visible. I'm not even allowed to vote in your elections and I still know who all the candidates are and have at least a vague idea of what they're about. Does this lead to a higher voter turnout? Do flashy lights and giant talking heads make the young uns vote?

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 07:08 PM

It's hit and miss here in Canada's Mexico. Some kids really get into it and some could give a shit. Think of it this way: Bush is president. That right there is more inspiration than WW2. People get into politics when people are needed to get into politics (for the most part). with over 70% of the US saying that Iraq is wrong, the byproduct is suddenly everyone wants to vote.

It's a good thing.

Ustwo · 02-06-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's hit and miss here in Canada's Mexico. Some kids really get into it and some could give a shit. Think of it this way: Bush is president. That right there is more inspiration than WW2.

Ah the short sightedness of youth.

Martian · 02-06-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ah the short sightedness of youth.

Could you explain that comment for those of us who aren't as well versed in American politics as the natives?

Seaver · 02-06-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

It's hit and miss here in Canada's Mexico.

Sorry, if you think we're Canada's Mexico you need to spend more time in Canada.

Seriously, I lived there for 4 years growing up. Great place, but you're whitewashing the problems they have if you think we're Mexico in comparison.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 08:03 PM

Hey everybody let's read into an off the cuff remark that was meaningless and made in jest, thus completely getting the thread off track! Weeee!!!

The question was speaking to American youth involvement in politics. The answer is Bush. When the president fucks up that badly, people notice.

Martian · 02-06-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Sorry, if you think we're Canada's Mexico you need to spend more time in Canada.

Seriously, I lived there for 4 years growing up. Great place, but you're whitewashing the problems they have if you think we're Mexico in comparison.

Dude, I think it was more in reference to the fact that you're our immediate southern neighbours. Y'know, like Mexico is for you guys.

You obviously weren't in Canada long enough. Come back, drink a beer, smoke a joint and relax...

filtherton · 02-06-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Could you explain that comment for those of us who aren't as well versed in American politics as the natives?

Ustwo thinks that the measure of an american's maturity is his/her willingness to support complete incompetence if that incompetence offers tax cuts.

Baraka_Guru · 02-06-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ah the short sightedness of youth.

Shortsightedness is not bound by age.

Young people tend to be mobilized politically when the issues matter to them directly. Just like old people.

guyy · 02-07-2008, 07:14 PM

I disagree that the Canadian young people of 10 years ago were more engaged. There was plenty of cynicism and disaffection back then, at least among the young Quebeckers i dealt with at the time. "Parti Quebecois, parti bourgeois" was the chant, and really, people had been voicing the same opinion years before. The only people who chanted that were student activists, but a lot of people who didn't get involved at all felt that way, too.

These days, you have the party of small business with a phony "reform" agenda, the party of Ontario business interests, the party of Quebec business interests, and the party that wants to be the party of Quebec business interests. Maybe it wasn't quite so bad 10 years ago. At least the ADQ was still a minor player.

I miss CRAP. Now that was an acronym!

I don't know how different Canadian and American politics really are. Of course the money amounts are going to be an order of magnitude greater in the US. But in the end, the same pro-business agenda slides out of both parliamentary bodies.

Martian · 02-07-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

I disagree that the Canadian young people of 10 years ago were more engaged. There was plenty of cynicism and disaffection back then, at least among the young Quebeckers i dealt with at the time. "Parti Quebecois, parti bourgeois" was the chant, and really, people had been voicing the same opinion years before. The only people who chanted that were student activists, but a lot of people who didn't get involved at all felt that way, too.

But that's exactly my point. People had an opinion ten years ago. Ten years ago I was fourteen and I had very strong opinions regarding politics. Nowadays it's just apathy. Anecdotally, I feel like most young Canadians just don't care at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

I miss CRAP. Now that was an acronym!

The kind that only Stockwell Day could think was a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

I don't know how different Canadian and American politics really are. Of course the money amounts are going to be an order of magnitude greater in the US. But in the end, the same pro-business agenda slides out of both parliamentary bodies.

Would parliamentary body be the correct term in the US? After all, the US does not (so far as I know) have a parliament. Sure, congress is functionally nearly identical, but given how hard the Americans fought not to have a parliament, I would think that the term might be misapplied.

Semantics aside, I'm less concerned with the political agendas and more curious about direct voter involvement. Do the American people care more about who runs their country than the Canadian people do? Do Americans as a whole (and young Americans in particular) understand the issues and the party platforms? And how does their level of understanding contrast to that of young Canadians?

Leto · 02-07-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Dude, I think it was more in reference to the fact that you're our immediate southern neighbours. Y'know, like Mexico is for you guys.

You obviously weren't in Canada long enough. Come back, drink a beer, smoke a joint and relax...

What he said. Immediately understood by myself as just that.

And um.... 4 yrs? ya, what Martian said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

...

I miss CRAP. Now that was an acronym!

Impressive knowledge of your northern neighbours! (the USA to our Mexico?)

I loved CRAP. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Alliance :

In 2000, following the second of the two United Alternative conventions, the party voted to dissolve in favour of a new party: the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance", a declaration of policy and a new constitution. The new party's platform was a mixture of the PC and Reform platforms, but since former Reform members dominated the party, it was largely seen as merely a renamed and enlarged Reform Party. Former PM Brian Mulroney called the party "Reform in pantyhose", and some opponents referred to the party as the "Reform Alliance" to enforce this perception.

Media covering the convention quickly pointed out that if one added the word "Party" to the end of the party's name, the resulting initials were "CCRAP" (humorously pronounced "see-crap" or just "crap") even though it, like the Bloc Québécois, didn't actually have the word party in its name. When it became clear after a few days that the joke was not going to subside, the party's official name was quickly changed to the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, but was almost always called simply "the Canadian Alliance" or "the Alliance". However, the "CCRAP" nickname was still used by its opponents.

SecretMethod70 · 02-07-2008, 09:00 PM

Young people are quite engaged this election. Even moreso than the last election, and in 2004 they were fare more engaged than people expected. That's not to say older people aren't still more engaged, but young people are definitely very engaged right now. It's not about big flashy graphics or anything like that, it's about certain politicians actually reaching out and showing a concern for their issues. In Iowa, for example, people are allowed to vote in the primaries so long as they'll be 18 for the general election. This means a lot of high school seniors in Iowa were eligible to vote in their primary, and Obama took advantage of that, speaking to HS students along his campaign trail, as well as college students, and adults out there in the "real world."

Martian · 02-07-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Young people are quite engaged this election. Even moreso than the last election, and in 2004 they were fare more engaged than people expected. That's not to say older people aren't still more engaged, but young people are definitely very engaged right now. It's not about big flashy graphics or anything like that, it's about certain politicians actually reaching out and showing a concern for their issues. In Iowa, for example, people are allowed to vote in the primaries so long as they'll be 18 for the general election. This means a lot of high school seniors in Iowa were eligible to vote in their primary, and Obama took advantage of that, speaking to HS students along his campaign trail, as well as college students, and adults out there in the "real world."

So you don't think the high visibility of the current campaigns has a role in increasing voter turnout?

I can certainly see your point. At least, I think I can. Right now the US has some major polarizing issues which cause more people to become involved. Naturally the people running for office are going to capitalize on that. But still, I wonder how a young person's issues differ from an older person's issues? What would a candidate do or say specifically to reach out to younger voters, aside from speaking at venues (such as high schools) where those voters are more likely to hear them?

SecretMethod70 · 02-07-2008, 09:34 PM

There's high visibility, but it's not that much higher than usual. Though, the Democratic race being so close makes it for more interesting to report on, as do the race and sex of the Democratic candidates.

You'd think people would care about generally the same issues, but they don't. Younger people are generally more concerned about the environment, extremely concerned about health insurance, and they're more interested in fundamentally changing the way politics works (hence the gravitation towards Obama). Young people are less likely to accept "this is the way politics has always been" as an excuse for certain political behaviors.

Martian · 02-07-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

You'd think people would care about generally the same issues, but they don't. Younger people are generally more concerned about the environment, extremely concerned about health insurance, and they're more interested in fundamentally changing the way politics works (hence the gravitation towards Obama). Young people are less likely to accept "this is the way politics has always been" as an excuse for certain political behaviors.

Which raises another point. If we accept that younger voters and older voters are opposed on certain issues, is wooing the younger voters a wise political strategy? Baby boomers still make up the majority of the voter base from what I understand, and one would have to be very careful not to alienate that crowd.

SecretMethod70 · 02-07-2008, 11:42 PM

This is true, but it seems that their concerns are not so much opposed as they are different. Older people tend to think it's naive to want to change the way washington works, it's not so much that they're against changes. Also, the typical means of communicating with younger people don't really overlap with the typical means of communicating with older people, so the messages don't have to cross too much.

Sticky · 02-08-2008, 07:32 AM

Voter turnout is higher in Canada then in the US

Canada
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?...textonly=false

U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...#Voter_turnout
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

2006 Canadian Election: 64.7% (2004 turnout was 60.9%)
2004 U.S. Election: 56.69% (wikipedia source). The George Mason University site has different numbers but I am not sure how to interpret them.

As for youth:
Elections Canada has this as the estimates for the 2004 Election:
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?...textonly=false

Quote:

Figure 1 shows the estimates for turnout rates by age group at the national level. These estimates are calculated by comparing the number of voters to the estimated voting age population for each age group (citizens only).

The general trend consists of a linear relationship between age and participation, consistent with the patterns traditionally observed using other research methods. However, the results showed one interesting exception to this relationship: for the youngest group of electors (18–21½ year-olds) for whom June 28, 2004, was the first federal general election in which they were eligible to vote, the turnout rate was four points higher than for the next oldest group (21½–24 year-olds), that is, those who had been eligible to vote for the first time in 2000. Yet it is worth noting that this difference falls below the margin of error for the national sample, which means that the gap between the two estimates could be explained by the sampling error and does not necessarily indicate a true difference between the estimates.

So that is:
18-21 1/2: 39%
21 1/2 -24: 35%
25-29: 46%

On page 6 of 8 in this paper done at the John F. Kennedy Scholl of Government it shows a 51% turnout for the 18-29 age group for the 2004 U.S. elections.
http://www.vanishingvoter.org/Releas...4_Election.pdf

That is higer than the Canadian youth turnout but I would like to get a little bit closer to matching the age groups.
This Study from CIRCLE shows the turnout for the 18-24 age group for the 2004 U.S. Elections to be 42%-47%.

That is much closer.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Okay, all things aside, from a Canadian perspective I'm having a really hard time understanding this primary business.

Can someone please explain the whole "super delegate" business? I've read a few blogs (probably my first mistake) trying to find out, but like Mercer said, it gets glossed over like I should understand, but I don't. So what is a super delegate, and how the hell do they get more power than a normal delegate?

The_Jazz · 02-08-2008, 03:09 PM

They only have 1 vote, but they're appointed by the state parties and not elected out of the rank-and-file. Generally, but not always.

Basically, they're governors and bigwigs. Their votes aren't more or less valuable when counted, but since they're going to be making the decisions, the focus on them is brighter than usual. Basically, if you see someone endorsing someone else, that might be the sign of a superdelegate (or not).

Confused enough yet?

Ace_O_Spades · 02-08-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Confused enough yet?

I get more confused by the minute...

Quote:

Uncounted Rio Arriba County ballots raise eyebrows

linky

dc_dux · 02-08-2008, 03:37 PM

Superdelegates...

Quote:

1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,

2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,

5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008...gate-list.html

...and who they are presently endorsing, depending on the source since endorsements are not binding.

Joe Lieberman, a superdelegate lost his superpowers this week for endorsing McCain.

Aladdin Sane · 02-08-2008, 05:23 PM

One advantage of getting older is perspective. Been there, done that.
Case in point: every four years, the media tells us the "youth vote is really energized and is set to make a big difference!" Then comes election day and, like, there was a rad party and, wow, that was some good stuff, man. No prob, Ma Man, I'll vote in four years, dude.

loquitur · 02-09-2008, 05:13 PM

Here is an excellent summary of the American presidential race. It's from last month so it's a bit out of date, but nevertheless very worth reading:<BLOCKQUOTE>Here's my ill-informed reading of the status of our
national presidential marathon, based on what I've
gleaned from airport conversations and the occasional
glance at Google news headlines:

On the Democratic side of things, Obama isn't such a
bad guy, if we can get him to renounce terrorism and
stop-fathering crack babies, which you didn't hear from
the Hillary camp. Clinton, meanwhile, is being perhaps
a little too feminine on the campaign trail, what with
the cleavage and the crying, though his wife remains
the shrill, cast-iron harpy we've all come to loathe
and fear. John Edwards is dragging his poor sick wife
across the country in a quest to improve health care.
He stands on principle against any hedge fund of which
he's not a partner. The rest of the Democratic field is
a collection of sissies, malcontents, and nutjobs.

On the Republican side, meanwhile, Giuliani is a
polygamist. No wait, that's McCain. Sorry, I meant Fred
Thompson. Mitt Romney? No, he's a hard-working,
family-oriented husband of one wife who stands for
everything that made America great, except that he's in
a Satanic cult. The one-time darling of the
Libertarians, Ron Paul, used to own slaves. Mike
Huckabee, meanwhile, seems to drive Peggy Noonan
apoplectic, which is reason enough to recommend him.
Someone just needs to stop him from channeling Herbert
Hoover. The rest of the Republican field is a
collection of conspiracy theorists, isolationists, and
psychopaths.

As for policy positions, as best I can tell, the
Democrats want to give most of the southwest U.S. to
Mexico, and invite Muslim terrorists to publicly behead
everyone making more than a million dollars a year,
except for Steven Spielberg and George Soros.
Republicans, meanwhile, want to kick anyone with a
Mexican-sounding name out of the U.S., and conquer the
entire Middle East so that Halliburton will have work
after it kills all the porpoises while drilling for oil
off the U.S. coast, which will soon be just east of
Kansas City, as a result of the Bush-Reagan-Hitler
global warming conspiracy.

Both parties are convinced that government is
exceptionally skilled at doing things they want more of,
and entirely incompetent when it comes to things they
don't like. Every candidate is a candidate for change,
using the failed ideas of the past, to create a brave
new world for the children.

Does that about sum it up?

Ace_O_Spades · 02-09-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Then comes election day and, like, there was a rad party and, wow, that was some good stuff, man. No prob, Ma Man, I'll vote in four years, dude.

I'm pretty sure if I heard someone actually talk like that I'd tase em... bro.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Here is an excellent summary of the American presidential race. It's from last month so it's a bit out of date, but nevertheless very worth reading:<BLOCKQUOTE>Here's my ill-informed reading of the status of our
national presidential marathon, based on what I've
gleaned from airport conversations and the occasional
glance at Google news headlines:

On the Democratic side of things, Obama isn't such a
bad guy, if we can get him to renounce terrorism and
stop-fathering crack babies, which you didn't hear from
the Hillary camp. Clinton, meanwhile, is being perhaps
a little too feminine on the campaign trail, what with
the cleavage and the crying, though his wife remains
the shrill, cast-iron harpy we've all come to loathe
and fear. John Edwards is dragging his poor sick wife
across the country in a quest to improve health care.
He stands on principle against any hedge fund of which
he's not a partner. The rest of the Democratic field is
a collection of sissies, malcontents, and nutjobs.

On the Republican side, meanwhile, Giuliani is a
polygamist. No wait, that's McCain. Sorry, I meant Fred
Thompson. Mitt Romney? No, he's a hard-working,
family-oriented husband of one wife who stands for
everything that made America great, except that he's in
a Satanic cult. The one-time darling of the
Libertarians, Ron Paul, used to own slaves. Mike
Huckabee, meanwhile, seems to drive Peggy Noonan
apoplectic, which is reason enough to recommend him.
Someone just needs to stop him from channeling Herbert
Hoover. The rest of the Republican field is a
collection of conspiracy theorists, isolationists, and
psychopaths.

As for policy positions, as best I can tell, the
Democrats want to give most of the southwest U.S. to
Mexico, and invite Muslim terrorists to publicly behead
everyone making more than a million dollars a year,
except for Steven Spielberg and George Soros.
Republicans, meanwhile, want to kick anyone with a
Mexican-sounding name out of the U.S., and conquer the
entire Middle East so that Halliburton will have work
after it kills all the porpoises while drilling for oil
off the U.S. coast, which will soon be just east of
Kansas City, as a result of the Bush-Reagan-Hitler
global warming conspiracy.

Both parties are convinced that government is
exceptionally skilled at doing things they want more of,
and entirely incompetent when it comes to things they
don't like. Every candidate is a candidate for change,
using the failed ideas of the past, to create a brave
new world for the children.

Does that about sum it up?

That's excellent! We can all be edumacated by Air America and Fox News...

But please "don't tase me bro."

Martian · 02-10-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

They only have 1 vote, but they're appointed by the state parties and not elected out of the rank-and-file. Generally, but not always.

Basically, they're governors and bigwigs. Their votes aren't more or less valuable when counted, but since they're going to be making the decisions, the focus on them is brighter than usual. Basically, if you see someone endorsing someone else, that might be the sign of a superdelegate (or not).

Confused enough yet?

Personally, I'd understand it faster if you'd quit speaking Greek.

I think I kind of get it. So when y'all go out and vote for the new President, you're actually voting for electors. The electors may or may not be required to vote as they've previously pledged, depending on what state they're in, but they always do by convention. Superdelegates are electors as well, but are chosen by parties instead of popular vote? Is that right?

SecretMethod70 · 02-10-2008, 11:20 PM

delegates/superdelegates are to national party conventions as electors are to the electoral college

02-07-2008, 09:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Young people are quite engaged this election. Even moreso than the last election, and in 2004 they were fare more engaged than people expected. That's not to say older people aren't still more engaged, but young people are definitely very engaged right now. It's not about big flashy graphics or anything like that, it's about certain politicians actually reaching out and showing a concern for their issues. In Iowa, for example, people are allowed to vote in the primaries so long as they'll be 18 for the general election. This means a lot of high school seniors in Iowa were eligible to vote in their primary, and Obama took advantage of that, speaking to HS students along his campaign trail, as well as college students, and adults out there in the "real world." __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-07-2008 at 09:03 PM..

02-07-2008, 09:34 PM	#17 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	There's high visibility, but it's not that much higher than usual. Though, the Democratic race being so close makes it for more interesting to report on, as do the race and sex of the Democratic candidates. You'd think people would care about generally the same issues, but they don't. Younger people are generally more concerned about the environment, extremely concerned about health insurance, and they're more interested in fundamentally changing the way politics works (hence the gravitation towards Obama). Young people are less likely to accept "this is the way politics has always been" as an excuse for certain political behaviors. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-07-2008, 11:42 PM	#19 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	This is true, but it seems that their concerns are not so much opposed as they are different. Older people tend to think it's naive to want to change the way washington works, it's not so much that they're against changes. Also, the typical means of communicating with younger people don't really overlap with the typical means of communicating with older people, so the messages don't have to cross too much. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-08-2008, 03:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	Okay, all things aside, from a Canadian perspective I'm having a really hard time understanding this primary business. Can someone please explain the whole "super delegate" business? I've read a few blogs (probably my first mistake) trying to find out, but like Mercer said, it gets glossed over like I should understand, but I don't. So what is a super delegate, and how the hell do they get more power than a normal delegate? __________________ Feh.

02-08-2008, 03:09 PM	#22 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	They only have 1 vote, but they're appointed by the state parties and not elected out of the rank-and-file. Generally, but not always. Basically, they're governors and bigwigs. Their votes aren't more or less valuable when counted, but since they're going to be making the decisions, the focus on them is brighter than usual. Basically, if you see someone endorsing someone else, that might be the sign of a superdelegate (or not). Confused enough yet? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-06-2008, 07:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's hit and miss here in Canada's Mexico. Some kids really get into it and some could give a shit. Think of it this way: Bush is president. That right there is more inspiration than WW2. People get into politics when people are needed to get into politics (for the most part). with over 70% of the US saying that Iraq is wrong, the byproduct is suddenly everyone wants to vote. It's a good thing.

02-06-2008, 08:03 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hey everybody let's read into an off the cuff remark that was meaningless and made in jest, thus completely getting the thread off track! Weeee!!! The question was speaking to American youth involvement in politics. The answer is Bush. When the president fucks up that badly, people notice.

02-07-2008, 07:14 PM	#12 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I disagree that the Canadian young people of 10 years ago were more engaged. There was plenty of cynicism and disaffection back then, at least among the young Quebeckers i dealt with at the time. "Parti Quebecois, parti bourgeois" was the chant, and really, people had been voicing the same opinion years before. The only people who chanted that were student activists, but a lot of people who didn't get involved at all felt that way, too. These days, you have the party of small business with a phony "reform" agenda, the party of Ontario business interests, the party of Quebec business interests, and the party that wants to be the party of Quebec business interests. Maybe it wasn't quite so bad 10 years ago. At least the ADQ was still a minor player. I miss CRAP. Now that was an acronym! I don't know how different Canadian and American politics really are. Of course the money amounts are going to be an order of magnitude greater in the US. But in the end, the same pro-business agenda slides out of both parliamentary bodies.

02-08-2008, 05:23 PM	#25 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	One advantage of getting older is perspective. Been there, done that. Case in point: every four years, the media tells us the "youth vote is really energized and is set to make a big difference!" Then comes election day and, like, there was a rad party and, wow, that was some good stuff, man. No prob, Ma Man, I'll vote in four years, dude. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-09-2008, 05:13 PM	#26 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Here is an excellent summary of the American presidential race. It's from last month so it's a bit out of date, but nevertheless very worth reading:<BLOCKQUOTE>Here's my ill-informed reading of the status of our national presidential marathon, based on what I've gleaned from airport conversations and the occasional glance at Google news headlines: On the Democratic side of things, Obama isn't such a bad guy, if we can get him to renounce terrorism and stop-fathering crack babies, which you didn't hear from the Hillary camp. Clinton, meanwhile, is being perhaps a little too feminine on the campaign trail, what with the cleavage and the crying, though his wife remains the shrill, cast-iron harpy we've all come to loathe and fear. John Edwards is dragging his poor sick wife across the country in a quest to improve health care. He stands on principle against any hedge fund of which he's not a partner. The rest of the Democratic field is a collection of sissies, malcontents, and nutjobs. On the Republican side, meanwhile, Giuliani is a polygamist. No wait, that's McCain. Sorry, I meant Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney? No, he's a hard-working, family-oriented husband of one wife who stands for everything that made America great, except that he's in a Satanic cult. The one-time darling of the Libertarians, Ron Paul, used to own slaves. Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, seems to drive Peggy Noonan apoplectic, which is reason enough to recommend him. Someone just needs to stop him from channeling Herbert Hoover. The rest of the Republican field is a collection of conspiracy theorists, isolationists, and psychopaths. As for policy positions, as best I can tell, the Democrats want to give most of the southwest U.S. to Mexico, and invite Muslim terrorists to publicly behead everyone making more than a million dollars a year, except for Steven Spielberg and George Soros. Republicans, meanwhile, want to kick anyone with a Mexican-sounding name out of the U.S., and conquer the entire Middle East so that Halliburton will have work after it kills all the porpoises while drilling for oil off the U.S. coast, which will soon be just east of Kansas City, as a result of the Bush-Reagan-Hitler global warming conspiracy. Both parties are convinced that government is exceptionally skilled at doing things they want more of, and entirely incompetent when it comes to things they don't like. Every candidate is a candidate for change, using the failed ideas of the past, to create a brave new world for the children. Does that about sum it up?

02-10-2008, 11:20 PM	#30 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	delegates/superdelegates are to national party conventions as electors are to the electoral college __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling