EPThttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=75460
2008 US Presidential Election
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=75460 | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
and it looks like obama is gonna lose nevada since yesterday the whole "reagan" fiasco happened  . | ||
GTR
51443 Posts
| ||
|
.kaz
1963 Posts
From wikipedia | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
| ||
|
wo0py
Netherlands922 Posts
We dont have en president with huge powers, we have first and second chamber. Second chamber makes laws and first checks if all facts are right, and so the law or any other thing can be made active. Anyone can get in the second chamber. They then get on the 'voting list' which is a list of over 150 people. Every one in the country (above 18) can vote for their favorite. And in that way captains of parties are chosen ánd the largest party is chosen. The second chamber has 150 people, and they all have the same rights as eachother. Every xxxxxx votes stands for a seating in the chamber. The first chamber is chosen by the second chamber. There are 75 (orso) seatings in the first. | ||
|
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
Oh and I bet Ron Paul is big in certain countries like Holland, too | ||
|
GTR
51443 Posts
On January 19 2008 19:22 a-game wrote: the whole process just basically tells us which 2 people will fight to be president. so basically the candidate who wins the most primaries will represent their party for the next election? | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:28 JensOfSweden wrote: If I hear more european people rooting for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton I'm gonna be sick. They (we) don't have a clue about the other candidates and it's just a huge bandwagon. Oh and I bet Ron Paul is big in certain countries like Holland, too I'm for Hillary Clinton! | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:30 GTR-2-Go wrote: so basically the candidate who wins the most primaries will represent their party for the next election? essentially. that's a good way to put it to someone who just wants a rough explanation, if you want a more detailed explanation i'd go to wikipedia  | ||
|
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
Like I said. However, I like her too. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On January 19 2008 19:09 a-game wrote: I think we should have an ongoing thread on this. Results so far: Jan 3. IOWA (R) (D) Republican Winner: Mike Huckabee Democrat Winner: Barack Obama Jan 5. WYOMING (R) * Republican Winner: Mitt Romney Jan 8. NEW HAMPSHIRE (R) (D) Republican Winner: John McCain Democrat Winner: Hillary Clinton Jan 15. MICHIGAN (R) Republican Winner: Mitt Romney Jan 19. NEVADA (R) (D), SOUTH CAROLINA (R) Republican Winners: Democrat Winner: *Not a key state So, currently (Jan. 19) the front runners to win each party's respective presidential nomination would be Hillary Clinton (58%) for the Democrats and John McCain (39.1%) for the Republicans (percentages from Rasmussen Markets). Kinda silly to be naming a single front runner at this point in the democratic race. Seeing as there have only been 2 and the 2 main canidates have won 1 each. The republican contest is extremely close as well between McCain, Huckabee, and Romney. It's safe to say that none of the other canidates besides the ones mentioned above have any shot at the presidency though. Although Edwards certainly has a chance if he steps up his campaign. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
I think he just wants you to be sick  | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:44 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Kinda silly to be naming a single front runner at this point in the democratic race. Seeing as there have only been 2 and the 2 main canidates have won 1 each. The republican contest is extremely close as well between McCain, Huckabee, and Romney. It's safe to say that none of the other canidates besides the ones mentioned above have any shot at the presidency though. Although Edwards certainly has a chance if he steps up his campaigne. those percentages reflect the views of the market, they are the markets predictions, nothing more. for me, i almost ignore all polls because the people speculating in the market look at all those and more when making their predictions. so the market's predictions are usually pretty accurate (people don't like to lose money), in so far as predicting the future can ever be accurate (they got N.H. wrong along with every other institution ad: although i do think the N.H. election might of been rigged) | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:28 JensOfSweden wrote: If I hear more european people rooting for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton I'm gonna be sick. They (we) don't have a clue about the other candidates and it's just a huge bandwagon. Oh and I bet Ron Paul is big in certain countries like Holland, too Well if you compare with the republican candidates then you pretty much HAVE to root for Hillary or Obama...? At least if you value world peace and scientific understanding =). And I think you're wrong about "don't have a clue...". For example, the debates were/are highly accessible on youtube. So I don't agree about the bandwagon thingy. | ||
|
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
There are other candidates for the democratic party besides Hillary and Obama, ever heard of for example John Edwards? Chances are you haven't bothered to check which makes your opinion very mainstream and well you really don't have an opinion of your own. Rather it's mainstream media which has given you the only "viable" candidates according to their "westernized" view of the world. It's not like all republicans want war and democrats don't. If that's what you're saying you really don't have a clue. Well the things is alot of media in europe is biased towards the democrats, giving them much more space and especially Hillary and Obama. My point is that it gets too simplified and stupid, so you have to find information yourself in order to make a fair judgement. | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
They (we) don't have a clue about the other candidates and it's just a huge bandwagon. That's totally untrue. There are tons of well informed Hillary and Obama supporters. Nobody supports Edwards anymore because A) His policies are not popular and B) He has no chance. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On January 19 2008 20:41 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Each state is worth a certain amount of votes known as delegates. The number of delegates is based on population + 2 per more per state(this is because the house of representatives (aka congress) has a certain number of chairs based on population + 2 per state in the senate). The people of the state vote in a primary election for only the canidates in the same party the person is registered under. IE: Only people registered as democrates can vote for democratic candidates. Independents can pick either democrat or republican but can only cast 1 vote , they cant vote in both primaries. After the votes of the people are tallied, the person with the most votes "wins" the state. The winner of the state gets all the delegate votes (so a victory in a very populous state like california is huge, while a victory in a state like wyoming is pretty meaningless). The person with the most delegate votes at the end of the primary is that partys' representative for the general election held in November. In the general election, as you may know, citizens can vote for whichever canidate they wish regardless of party affiliation. You are confusing the primaries and the electoral collage. The format of the primaries can vary from state to state and is set up by the party. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
I was just provoking a little  .But really, of course it's kind of hard to have info on ALL the candidates of both sides. But, as I said, I think there is an abundance of material available on the internet from which you have a fair chance of forming an opinion about the candidates. They even have their own videos on youtube (that is, videos where they present their opinions rather than videos where media presents their opinions). I haven't read/watched so much what the Swedish media says about the election but I'm inclined to believe that they are biased, as you say. So I agree with that point. Personally though, I have spent most of my time watching the republicans speak because their opinions simply fascinate me. And about war; I think it's pretty obvious that if you know anything about probability, and you want USA to get out of Iraq (for example), then you pretty much have to vote for a democrat. But I rather like Ron Paul. And from what I gather, he loathes the war as well. He's very liberal, and I like that. Edit: Oh and I have heard of John Edwards. | ||
| ||
