Thread: Newt Gingrich

Bruno, I think that it's just that most of Europe has got over the issues that are so polarizing in US. Like homosexuality, abortion, guns, death penalty, socialized services, even racism and sexism (we ought to remember that pakistan elected a female prime minister almost a quarter century ago, while US is yet to elect a female president).

But I don't think it's completely immune from highly divisive issues. In some countries anti-immigration and anti-islamist currents have gaining popularity and can end up becoming a serious problem. Then there's the whole european federation thing. The political and business elites have been able to keep it growing, but with the current fiscal problems in europe it doesn't seem to me too far fetched of it becoming a serious political force. The nationalism in Europe has gotten a serious blow over the last 50 years or so, but there are still millenia of history of nationalistic wars.



Back to Newt Gingrich, I personally would be very surprised if the republicans end up nominating him to run against Obama. Even if he manages to pull a stellar VP pick, I think he's going to be doomed against Obama. The usual pick of the lesser evil won't play well in Gingrich's favor with the independents and the true 'value voters'.

Normally, I would agree about his chances.
But for some reason, candidates who drop out can 'donate' their supporters to another candidate, thus skewing the results.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Generally speaking, people here seem to think that two party where other party gets all (majority) and the other gets nothing (out of government) is basically the same as one party system.

Sailor,

It may seem like that on the surface but it's a bit more complicated than that. The President is the Chief Executive and is responsible for carrying out the laws passed by Congress (he cannot make law although he can make executive decisions which affect his branch of government). Congress consists of two houses, and each can have a different party in majority from the other or different from that of the President. In fact, it's very often the case that the President is from a different party than the majority of Congress. The Supreme Court can have a different political slant, too.

Each of the fifty states also have limited sovereignty and for the most part are smaller versions of the national government (this is why the U.S. is a Federation, with sovereignty divided among various states). Each state's governor can be of any party affiliation which may or may not match the majority of the state legislature (basically that state's congress).

So it may look like a winner takes all thing in the U.S. to an outsider, but the reality is far from that.

-Mark

In the US it really comes down to the "Independents". A certain % will vote for whatever Republican is up there and a certain % will vote for whichever Democrat. Which is why I never understand why candidates try to pander to the crazies that will vote for them not matter what instead of the moderates.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Normally, I would agree about his chances.
But for some reason, candidates who drop out can 'donate' their supporters to another candidate, thus skewing the results.

Yeah, but you're forgetting the primaries.
Newt is running for the Republican nomination first. Within that race, he has to convince the republicans to vote for him.
Card carrying people (on both sides) tend to be more 'die hard' than the moderates who might not be a party member.
In order to convince most of them to vote for him, he has to pander to them, not the moderates.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

They hoped one party would be willing to destroy the lives of thousands in order to destroy political ambitions of one. Yes... Our founding fathers would cry tears of joy.

Are you talking about abortion? Just kidding!

This is a little hyperbolic, I think. The founders had amazingly great intentions, but my point was that they were human (partisan), too. The intensity of that partisanship has undoubtedly evolved stronger since then, which is a shame, but what I was trying to say was that the seed had been planted, even that early.

I'm no fan of what's going on either, but I don't know how it's going to get fixed. With various media outlets salivating at the mouth for the most sensational story, I'm afraid politics without the drama would be seen as too boring to report.

Here in the U.S historically primaries were really forgotten about however now special interest groups have discovered them and with the realization general interest is low and voter turnout is even lower these group can literally seize control of the process and control who makes it to the election. It's one of the reasons veteran politicians fear these groups and pander to them.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Here in the U.S historically primaries were really forgotten about however now special interest groups have discovered them and with the realization general interest is low and voter turnout is even lower these group can literally seize control of the process and control who makes it to the election. It's one of the reasons veteran politicians fear these groups and pander to them.

Yes. Remember that Obama garnered a lot of support by making vows of "transparency" and "changing the way Washington works" with respect to lobbyists and such. Snore.

I'm not knocking Obama personally for this failure (though I have my issues with him), I'm just saying that even the best intentions seem to hit the Washington machine like water off a boulder. There's an awful lot of inertia in the way things are done now, and despite the fact that the American people think it sucks, once these guys get "in" they seem to develop a strange case of amnesia in the face of dollar signs.

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

even the best intentions seem to hit the Washington machine like water off a boulder. There's an awful lot of inertia in the way things are done now, and despite the fact that the American people think it sucks, once these guys get "in" they seem to develop a strange case of amnesia in the face of dollar signs.

I neither like this post nor thank you for posting it, but I do agree with it. We need, as the other SRP Jimbo once called it, a grudging acceptance button

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I neither like this post nor thank you for posting it, but I do agree with it. We need, as the other SRP Jimbo once called it, a grudging acceptance button

Thanks! I like this!