• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Governator?

Schneibster

Unregistered
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
3,966
Now, I'm a yellow-dog Democrat (if the Democratic candidate is an ol' yella dawg, I'm votin' for him), so understand what you're hearing when I say this: I would actually consider voting for the Governator. If the Democrat were weak, it could be a tough choice for me. I'd have to check him out a lot more closely than I have so far, though; there might be some BS hiding back there that would change my opinion, and I'd want to be mighty sure. Still, that I'd even consider it under any circumstances whatsoever says quite a lot. This is worth a thread. I'm curious to see what others know, and how others who share my alignment might think about this. I'm also curious to see what folks who have different political feelings think.
 
I didn't like him at first...too right wing for me. But after he got his ass handed to him in his special election (for those not in CA - he tried to push through 5 measures, at great taxpayer expense and I don't think one ballot measure passed) he's been much more moderate. I'd like him a bit more if he weren't such a jerk in regards to gay marriage.

I'm a flaming liberal Democrat in conservative Republican Orange County.
 
That effer vetoed gay marriage twice.

I regularly burn effigies of him.

But I don't live there, so I claim ignorance to any good he has done.
 
Now, I'm a yellow-dog Democrat (if the Democratic candidate is an ol' yella dawg, I'm votin' for him), so understand what you're hearing when I say this: I would actually consider voting for the Governator. If the Democrat were weak, it could be a tough choice for me. I'd have to check him out a lot more closely than I have so far, though; there might be some BS hiding back there that would change my opinion, and I'd want to be mighty sure. Still, that I'd even consider it under any circumstances whatsoever says quite a lot. This is worth a thread. I'm curious to see what others know, and how others who share my alignment might think about this. I'm also curious to see what folks who have different political feelings think.


So you would vote for the Governator if he was the better candidate? Isn't that what you are supposed to do, vote for the better candidate no matter what party he/she is in? Congratulations, little Schneibster is growing up.
 
So you would vote for the Governator if he was the better candidate? Isn't that what you are supposed to do, vote for the better candidate no matter what party he/she is in? Congratulations, little Schneibster is growing up.

Actually, my American Politics textbook says that you should vote for the party, because the positions that cadidate fills will be by party line.
 
In addition, the party can still be held responsible after the candidate has made plans to retire. (and thus no longer cares about re-election)
 
Now, I'm a yellow-dog Democrat (if the Democratic candidate is an ol' yella dawg, I'm votin' for him),

Excuse me, but I find this improbable.
so understand what you're hearing when I say this: I would actually consider voting for the Governator. If the Democrat were weak, it could be a tough choice for me.

This seems to contradict what you said above.

I'd have to check him out a lot more closely than I have so far, though;

Now that has more of the authentic Schneibster ring to it.

there might be some BS hiding back there that would change my opinion, and I'd want to be mighty sure. Still, that I'd even consider it under any circumstances whatsoever says quite a lot. This is worth a thread. I'm curious to see what others know, and how others who share my alignment might think about this. I'm also curious to see what folks who have different political feelings think.

Beyond the cartoon Hollywood image I know little of the man. He clearly has a good deal of get-up-and-go . It's always dodgy commenting on the politics of a foreign country and the USA is foreign despite the similarities with the UK. I'm just surprised to hear you say you would toe a party line even if the candidate was a twerp. (In Scotland the equivalent saying is that someone would vote labour if the candidate was a red shirt hanging out to dry). Why would you abandon your usual analytical stance when it comes to politics?
 
I'm just surprised to hear you say you would toe a party line even if the candidate was a twerp. (In Scotland the equivalent saying is that someone would vote labour if the candidate was a red shirt hanging out to dry).
Well, with UK MPs, what with the party whip system, they're just like poker chips, they're a way of keeping score. I'd vote for a red shirt over a blue shirt (by the way, I still think it's kind of weird that the Yanks have got the colors the wrong way round).

I don't see, though, how one could take the same attitude towards the governor of a US state. Senators and congressmen, yes.
 
I'd truly like to see "None of the above" as a legit option on all ballot papers, with all listed candidates banned from even standing for a PTA board if the NOTA percentage exceeds a minimum value. I'm 52. I have never , once, voted for an MP (or MSP) who got elected. This representational democracy stuff only works if you vote for the winners.
 
The Governator's only political ambition is to be Senator. He can't be Pres, can't stay as Gov. He will have to be liberal to get elected, so that is what he will be. Until he gets on the train to Washington.
 
This representational democracy stuff only works if you vote for the winners.
Maybe you'll get lucky and Charles will restore the monarchy to what it was in the 16th century when he is crowned King.
 
That is just asinine. What book is this?

Death of the individual, sad.

We the People by Thomas E. Patterson.

To paraphrase, it is wrong to assume that the individual officeholder wields singular power. When choosing the president, one also chooses secretary of state, attorney general, directer of CIA, all federal judges and justices. This is because a great majority of them will be the same party.

The same is true for senators and representatives. Rarely does a single member have a decisive vote. Congree works through collective action, and power resides in the majority party. Most votes are party line.

Also, voting based on a single issue is short-sighted. The cadidate will vote on scores of other issues, and the best predictor of how they will vote is their party.

Dominant issues come and go, partisanship always endures.
 
So you would vote for the Governator if he was the better candidate? Isn't that what you are supposed to do, vote for the better candidate no matter what party he/she is in?

I agree Painter, I'm not too concerned with the party the candidate is associated with but rather where they stand on issues. It just so happens that I almost never agree with the Republicans.
 
I did vote for him, but now I wish I hadn't. He has turned into quite the socialist lately. At first he appeared to be getting the state out of debt, but he did most of this by borrowing heavily on future revenues. Now, he has spent so much money like a drunk sailor for everything from stem cell research to global warming that we may never see any color of ink other than red.
 
I did vote for him, but now I wish I hadn't. He has turned into quite the socialist lately. At first he appeared to be getting the state out of debt, but he did most of this by borrowing heavily on future revenues. Now, he has spent so much money like a drunk sailor for everything from stem cell research to global warming that we may never see any color of ink other than red.

When he tried to make cuts didn't you californians reject the ballot measures for them? What kind of hint was he supposed to take?
 
The thing about the ballot propositions is that they came close to passing. He was actually quite effective in pushing those forward, and really testing organized opposition. The guy is a douche and I will never, ever vote for him. It's funny to see the true believers on the right-wing hate him. Our local flagship reactionary radio station kkkfi hates him. John Zigler calls him a "socialist" n' stuff.
 
So you would vote for the Governator if he was the better candidate?
Not necessarily. And I've found something out that would be an eliminator unless the other candidate had the same problem: this crap about gay marriage has to stop. It's OVER; people get to be openly gay if they so choose. Welcome to the twentieth century in the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave. Please let us know when you're ready to join us in the twenty-first. (If this by some chance does not correctly describe your views on the subject, please feel free to mark it down as directed at Arnie).

Isn't that what you are supposed to do, vote for the better candidate no matter what party he/she is in?
That may well be the most naive thing I've heard anyone say today. Have you ever read The Prince?

Congratulations, little Schneibster is growing up.
Heh, you're kidding, right? You just said the ONLY thing to consider is which is the best candidate. When you suddenly realize that there is a lot more going on than you thought there was, console yourself with the following quote:
Mark Twain said:
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
 
Excuse me, but I find this improbable.
You'd be surprised, Sam. The point has been made that party affiliation is a good guide to voting choices, and I find it is. I will listen to a Republican, but I so rarely hear what I think should be done, and so often hear courses proposed that I know will lead to disaster, and have so often watched that disaster come to be, that I've come close to giving up. It would take a really special sort of Republican for me to vote for one; I'd almost hesitate to call such a person a "Republican," although the values I seek were once the province of the GOP. Not in the twentieth or twenty-first centuries, of course.

This seems to contradict what you said above.
Yes, doesn't it? :D

Now that has more of the authentic Schneibster ring to it.

Beyond the cartoon Hollywood image I know little of the man. He clearly has a good deal of get-up-and-go. It's always dodgy commenting on the politics of a foreign country and the USA is foreign despite the similarities with the UK. I'm just surprised to hear you say you would toe a party line even if the candidate was a twerp. (In Scotland the equivalent saying is that someone would vote labour if the candidate was a red shirt hanging out to dry). Why would you abandon your usual analytical stance when it comes to politics?
Mostly because every time I listen to a Republican talk for five minutes I'm mad as hell at what they're saying. I suppose you could say I'd rather have a twerp than an *******. The twerp might screw things up most of the time, but through incompetence; at least a stopped clock is right twice a day. The ******* will screw them up every time, through malevolence and greed.

I've watched multiples of the GDP taken out of the pockets of the middle class in this country to line the pockets of the rich, over and over again. Social Security has been stripped in order to guarantee compliant employees dependent upon the good will of their employers for safe retirement, and the unions busted for the same purpose, among others that will occur to the experienced mind; the S&L system and the stock market have been looted, and the looters have now turned to the housing market. The insurance industry has been taking advantage of the situation as well; some of the newest rich people in the country got that way in the medical insurance industry, and they are using their money to make sure no one interferes in their theft by blocking health care reform.

None of that except the health care reform blockage happened during a Democratic presidency, and the current administration has raised theft to an entirely new level. It is now being protected using executive privilege. Combined with oft-repeated scandals of the nastiest sort, evidencing hypocrisy nearly beyond imagination, profession of disbelief in scientific evidence and suppression of science unprecedented since the nineteenth century in this country, and the civil rights issues surrounding interference in what should be private matters (GLBT lifestyles, abortion, and so on), I nearly cannot imagine voting for a Republican.

But fear not; I do look. Call me an optimist.
 
Well, with UK MPs, what with the party whip system, they're just like poker chips, they're a way of keeping score. I'd vote for a red shirt over a blue shirt (by the way, I still think it's kind of weird that the Yanks have got the colors the wrong way round).
Interesting. I hadn't caught that. You guys have more parties than we do, too. I was reading something or other on Wikipedia not long ago, got onto British political parties for some reason and followed some links around; seems Conservatives are conservatives, though with some decidedly odd proclivities from the US POV, and Labour used to be liberal, but has moved toward the center. I guess those are the main two these days.

I don't see, though, how one could take the same attitude towards the governor of a US state. Senators and congressmen, yes.
The executive holds the power of the veto. Overrides in general take a supermajority (it varies by state). If you think about this a moment you'll see it means that it is possible for a Governor to block all actions of a state legislature dominated by the opposing party, if there is not a supermajority of that party in that legislature (or if some don't toe the party line, and if my understanding is correct, that happens much more here than there).
 

Back
Top Bottom