Disintermediation and Politics 817
code_rage writes "Everett Ehrlich (capsule biography) writes an article in the Washington Post that examines Howard Dean's effective use of the internet to create a political organization. He says that Dean has created a 'virtual' party that has taken over the only remaining asset of value, the brand name of the Democratic party. His analysis refers to the theory of Nobel-winning economist Ronald Coase: that the size of an organization is determined by the cost of gathering information. Ehrlich's article makes some predictions about the effect that Dean's strategy will have on the political system." In a related story, there's an mp3 interview with Dick Morris, along with a couple of (appropriately) blog posts about it.
The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always wondered why Republican political figures such as Bush don't just tell the bible-pounders to go pound sand. It's not as if they're going to vote Democratic just to spite the administration, right? Ehrlich's point explains just exactly why: because if the torch-waving asshats of the American Taliban ever take their ball and go home, the Democrats will win by default, forever and ever Amen. There will be no single party capable of stopping them. And once unopposed, the Democrats will start to look a lot more like old-school Democrats (read: socialists in populists' clothing) than the Stepford Republicans they now resemble.
Scary stuff for a right-leaning person such as myself who thought he had no use for the religious wackos that infest the Republican party...
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:5, Funny)
torch-waving asshats of the American Taliban
You just brought new meaning to the word "flamebait".Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Muslims hate the west because their culture has stagnated by their own choosing for half a millenia."
Uh, no? Don't bother strawman-ing the issue, that's not the reason.
Muslims dislike the West because the West wasn't the nicest to them. The British ruled India and portions of the Middle East, and weren't the nicest to the indigenous people. France had similiar, I believe. We really didn't care bout Iraqis for most of this century, in pre-Gulf war times the Europeans divided up the land and separated them into separate countries, nationalism and all. The West, including the US, propped up dictators and non-democratic governments in these countries, which angered the people. Look at today, the democratically-elected Islamic government in Algeria was overthrown by military dictators, and many criticize the US and France for their tacit support of it.
The West had other things that alienated people. First, the West snubbed all non-Western people as savages, basically. They didn't have "modern philosophy", or our morals, like secularism or Christianity. The West had this nasty way of imposing their culture on others, like the British pushing English on their colonies, or France forcing Algerians to learn French and study French literature. The West didn't like the Muslims, myths from the Crusades are STILL propagating in some literature I've read.
Currently, Muslims in general dislike the US for its unconditional support of Israel and its injurious manipulation of other countries for its own sole interest. However, I should point out that the Muslims really weren't bothered by the US pre-9/11. 19 foolish people really stirred things up, but if you didn't know, the terrorism was widely condemned by every country (including Afghanistan), except Saddam Hussein's government. Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs all over the world condemned the act, and prayed for the victims. Iran had public candlelit vigils on the streets, there were public anti-terrorism demonstrations in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Post-9/11, things got a little different. The US invaded Afghanistan, which upset some, but many said it was a natural consequence of 9/11 and revenge. Even television preacher Sheikh Qaradawi said that he could understand why the US was invading, and he said it was legitimate. But honestly, the threat of terrorism didn't really get worse, Muslims all over the world still said they didn't support Al Qaeda, terrorism, or Bin Laden. Sure, they got angry when Christian evangelists made statements that insulted Muslims, but Bush denied it was a war on Islam, so it never boiled over.
What really Fubar-ed the whole thing was this war on Iraq. The US government did things that infuriated the Arab world and Muslim world at large. I don't have to go into why, but it really turned the tide. People now refuse to support the US; everyone, including me, feels that the US government is untrustworthy. Who else can they turn to? Bush's actions became a top recruiting tool for terrorists. Turn on a TV and watch soldiers raid homes, drag women out of their homes not fully clothed, harrass old men, hear about how civillians died every day, it's all making people support other groups.
"Their priests tell them they are the good, the faithful, the chosen, and yet they are the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. How can this be?" Two things. Respite, and there's a hadith "God will allow a fair government to survive, even if it isn't Muslim, and God will cause an unfair government to fall, even if it is Muslim." They declined, and lost it.
"Of course the truth is comical. They're the most corrupt, the laziest, the most decadent." Blah blah blah.
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally different culture there. Germans today deeply regret Nazism, and Japan wised up. Your "Feudalism" theory doesn't make sense, please elaborate because I don't understand what you mean.
Israel? Do you really want to open up a can of worms here? Fine, but I warn you, this will be lengthy.
But a bunch of farmers with a hodge-podge of weapons were too much for the surrounding muslim pussies to even imagine tolerating. So they attack the recently declared state. And predictably loose. Now Israel is this great evil because they've defended themselves and bought land from people who sold it to them.
You're reading this from the Zionist view? Did you know that the Jewish settlers carried out terrorism against the Palestinian people who were already there? David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, actually had a wanted poster with his name on it, for terrorism and attacks against the Arabs, in his effort to push for a "Jewish state." Israel didn't buy Palestinian land, instead it was stolen when people fled [sacbee.com] their homes during the war, and weren't allowed to return. There are eyewitness accounts of Israeli soldiers driving them out, killing a few even. I'm not going to get into blame, my point is that the Palestinians were driven out, not voluntarily as your post alleged. Israel demolished some homes, moved Jewish immigrants into others. The Palestinians are understandably upset, they don't get their homes back and don't get an apology or compensation either. This isn't like ancestors losing land, but people who are still living. This could evolve into a giant rant, but I'll cap it off here.
The arabs lost and blame the US for their own weaknesses
Really? Who has ever publicly blamed the US for Egypt losing the six-day war? Who has blamed the US for Israel's refusing to make peace? I recall Clinton leading a peace accord with Netanyahu and Arafat, both shaking hands. I've only heard criticism for the US' current support of Israel, not for "Arab weakness".
The only reason Israel has US support is because the muslims murder civilians specifically.
I think you are blind. You didn't know about AIPAC [aipac.org] giving MILLIONS in campaign contributions? That every candidate for decades has sided with Israel to court the Jewish and evangelical votes? If that as you said is the sole reason, then why does nearly the entire UN condemn some Israeli military actions? Why does the UN complain that Israel is in violation of refugee laws? The UN has condemned terrorism on both sides.
Fuck the Muslims. Give them a taste of their own morality. It's ok to kill me because you don't like me, fuck you, eat hot thermonuclear death. Reciprocity is a bitch. Clearly if civilian populations are fair game, the civilian Muslims populations are NO exception.
Sheesh, you really have to strawman the issue here, don't you? First off, Islam does NOT condone murder, ok? Second, don't say Muslims when you only mean Arabs/Palestinians, of which I am neither. It's completely forbidden to murder anyone or attack civillians. The terrorist attacks have received worldwide condemnation [colgate.edu] from scholars, Imams [muhajabah.com], Mullahs, Maulanas, Muftis, Sheikhs, you name it. Terrorism is completely against Islam, are we clear on that? I am a Muslim, and I will help you hunt down any scum that kills children. It's not as easy as you think, Terrorists, Baathists, and the Taliban don't exactly walk around in broad daylight, despite what you think.
I'll never forget the CNN foot
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:2)
He was booed from the stage.
Good luck, god speed, have fun playing with the dispensationalists. I abandoned that dog about 10 years ago.
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Bush is a bible-thumper.
Not really. He is a Christian, he is a Republican, and he does occasionally make scriptural references in his speeches, but that is common of anybody who actually reads it regularly. But he is by no means one of the people the poster was talking about. I generally vote Republican (but am not a registered Republican), and I am a Christian. I gener
South Park Republicans? (Score:3, Informative)
An interesting interpretation is that many non-religious-right GOP members are "South Park Republicans". I would call them Libertarians who don't know it. Maybe the Libertarian Party should buy some commercial airtime on Comedy Central during "South Park" and "Tough Crowd"?
"South Park Republicans"
If Republicans are so different from mainstream America, then who voted for them? The nation has more Republican congressmen and state governors than any other political party, plus control of the White
Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Green Party did this in 2000, but all it got them was blame. I admit that I voted for Nader - even though I didn't expect him to win. I voted for him so that the Greens could try to get the required 15% of the vote to qualify for federal matching funds in their next presidential campaign. Go ahead and s
Re:The bait and switch(medicare boondoggle) (Score:3, Insightful)
If they'd allowed Medicare to do so...would have severely cut costs...and made it easy for all elders. I think this was the biggest waste part on this bill. I know the drug industry had to spend lots of $'s on R&D, but, even with this provision in
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but, all hardcore evangelical Christians are not religious right.
Not all but surely most.
Speaking as a formerly agnostic follower of Jesus who grew up with no religious background at all, I'm confused by the way practicing Christians seem invariably to be conservative in their politics. I can't really find a way to reconcile the pull yourself up by the bootstraps brand of Rush Limbaugh conservatism with the teachings of Jesus or the canonical books of the New Testament.
In truth, the Gospels sh
Nah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's correct. Politicians who rose through the ranks based on their connections with party-elders and got into office due to the intertia of the voters are, in fact hurt by the internet. They will be vulnerable to politicians who are able to create networks of loyal rank-and-file supporters who "believe" in their candidacy.
The radical change is that politicians who depend on the inertia of voters are suddenly vulnerable.
Not exactly a 2 party system. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this differently. I see this as allowing different people in different geographical areas to coordinate their efforts to push their agendas.
Decentralized Democracy.
Instead of having lots of parties with lots of candidates, we'll end up with a few candiadates talking to a lot of people who are the leaders of their groups.
Re:Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure hope it doesn't mean the death of the two party system.
Why? A multi-party democracy can still produce strong governments. In my eyes, a two-party system is only one party away from being a single-party dictatorship, especially when the minority party is very weak; the current situation in the USA is a good example of this problem with two-party systems.
Re:Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Multi-Party systems can produce strong goverments - but quite frequently they do not. There a several reasons for this.
First, there is the possibility of minority government where the party who has elected the greatest number of candidates does not have the majority of seats in the legislature. The result of this is a government that is forced to broker deals with weaker (and sometimes extremist) parties in order to survive. This type o
Re:Nah. (Score:2)
I would argue that our current situation argues against both the "democratic" and "effective" parts of this statement. Our system has been hijacked by big monied interests when it accomplishes much of anything at all. There are occasional exceptions (national do not call list anyone?) but overall they're just a bunch of heads babbling with each other and cutting deals w
Re:Nah. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because our voting system sucks for anything but a two-party system, mathematically. If voters could rank the candidates, rather than just pick one then you wouldn't have the whole 30% winner thing.
Finally, some multi-party systems allocate a percentage of the popular vote to a percentage of seats in the house of representatives. So, if a party can muster 2-3% of the popular vote they get 2-3% of the seats. The result of this is that there can be 20-30 parties elected to office. The deal-making that needs to be conducted before any decisions can be made can go on for many, many months.
You see a system bogged down by having to cater to different groups, I see a system which is a truer erpersentative democracy. Imagine if there were more representatives of the technology sector when the DMCA was passed. (Industry lobyists don't count as representatives)
Re:Nah. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called a runoff. Either take the top two (or maybe three) candidates and have a second vote, or use instant runoff voting, which gets the voter's second and third choices (and so forth) up front. Surely a true Slashdotter would prefer such a system - the more choices the better, right?
It would certainly be nice if political discourse in this nation had more aspects to it than left vs. right. I think ten parties would be great, although realistically four or five are about all that the average voter could keep straight anyway. Some would inevitably be rather marginal, but still could shift the course of an election.
Re:Nah. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nah. (Score:2)
Well, such a change would more or less require a change in voting procedures. We would have to move to something like instant runoff voting, or one of the other such systems designed to fairly handle 3+ parties. I
Re:Fat Sexless Socialy Inept CowboyNeil Endorses D (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12, @02:27PM (#7704033)
is that the NRA gives him an A grade...other than that he is a blow hard loser
Fat Sexless Socialy Inept CowboyNeil Endorses Dean (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 12, @02:33PM (#7704107)
pathetic how SlashDot bows down before that blow hard loser DEAN
So, why did you wait five minutes between posts? Did it take you that long to come up with the CowboyNeil angle?
Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Dean, a far-left candidate, is campaigning to the far-left in order to win the nomination. He has given little thought to the "middle": a group which is necessary to win the election. He has Bush landslide written all over his face.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Please, if you are a Dean supporter you better get over assuming that everyone will like Dean as much as you do. Dean has to have something better to run on other than "I hate Bush." Oh, and "I'm going to raise your taxes again" isn't the right thing either.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:2)
Oh, let me let you in a little secret too: rich people don't pay income taxes. They hire lawyers and accountants to put their money in trust funds, privately held corporations, and off shore accounts. Only the poor and the middle class are dumb enough to pay income tax.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:5, Insightful)
You are deluded if you think wage-earners are the wealthy of this country. The truely wealthy don't work for money, the have money "work for them" by investing it, and owning bussinesses. If you are a top wage earner, you are, by definition, upper-middle class. If Rush thinks otherwise, he's been on more then pain medication.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:2)
Funny, that's not what things look like on the map [usnews.com]...
Ever hear of a primary season? (Score:3, Insightful)
During the nomination process for any office you'll see this. Tim Pawlenty, our Minnesota Governor, was muc
And you would be an AC (Score:2)
(I'm an independent voter, voted for Bush's dad, and our previous Republican governor, and for Clinton. I read a fair amount of history, and Eisenhower would be on my list of deeply admired public figures. W. Bush is so far outside my voting range I can't imagine voting for him. Make me a screaming leftist?)
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:2)
Scenario:
Dean is nominated (with the help of Gore's support)
Dean loses to Bush
That leaves either Hillary or Gore to run against a no-name Repub in 2008.
If the Dems with this time, (Dean, Lieberman, or Clark), Gore and Hillary out of the running until 2012. Too long to wait.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ignore the right wing spinner... (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, let's see: Social issues? Dean is pro-civil-unions, pro-abortion-through-the-third-trimester-without- p arental-consent, pro-affirmative-action. Fiscal issues? Dean wants a massive tax hike, a massive new government medical bureaucracy, and increased spending. Foreign policy? Dean wants to pull out of Iraq before reconstruction is complete, ``reach out'' to state sponsors of terror, and pay off North Korea.
In other words, I can only think of one issue on which Dean is anything but far left,
Lots of small donors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not at all true, and I have facts to back up my argument...
http://www.opensecrets.org/president
The impact of unions and PACs has been negated by the McCain-Feingold prohibition against soft money donations to candidates and parties.
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:4, Interesting)
Large contributors: Dem vs. Rep [opensecrets.org]
One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party. In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. The Democrats claim that the mean size of contributions is unimportant and will not publish it for that reason and because it somehow would invade the privacy of their contributing base in aggregate.
And if you think that McCain-Feingold has "negated" the impact of unions and PACs, you are very mistaken.
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be a Republican. I was a National Review Reading all hail President Reagan Republican. There's even a couple of old letters I wrote into the newspaper lamenting the liberal bias of the press, if you want to go find them.
I don't read hardly any of the Democrat leaning rags, like The Nation, etc. I hardly ever read Democratic leaning websites. Not like back when I was a Republican and had to suck up all the propaganda I could f
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:2)
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:2)
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:2)
There's no proof here that the internet will somehow make legislation obsolete. It would be perfectly possible to pass a law that put a hard cap on the amount of money an individual could donate or spend to promote a candidate. The problem is that there's this little thing called the First Amendment that many people interpret to mean that if I want to take out a commercial to say something about a candidate, I should
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:2)
Agreed. But unfortunately this doesn't change the fact that the candidate with the $200 million is twice as likely to win as the candidate with $100 million.
In American politics money talks, and more money talks louder than less money. This is what we really need to reform.
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:2)
New media, new politik.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a prediction.
Re:New media, new politik.. (Score:2)
He did Marilyn? Is there something about Howard Dean and Brittany which you know and aren't telling us?
What About Anne? (Score:2)
Re:What About Anne? (Score:2)
Re:What About Anne? (Score:2)
"Dean is a traitor and a terrorist".
Did I get it right?
Re:What About Anne? (Score:2)
Re:What About Anne? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What About Anne? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What About Anne? (Score:2)
sigh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Screw them all. I'd vote for freakin' SHARPTON if he makes it to a ballot near me, and I think he's INSANE.
I'll probably vote for Gen. Clark between the top two "cho
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
"Both Howard Brush Dean III and George Walker Bush hail from the same White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Wasp) establishment: a world of blue blood and old money, of private schools and deb balls, of family connections and inherited first names. Their fathers and grandfathers were educated a
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Is it possible to discriminate against your own "people"?
I don't really think so. Not with elections. I vote for minority candidates often because the balance of power is extremely biased toward white American males.
And I am one!
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Is it possible to discriminate against your own "people"?
I don't really think so. Not with elections. I vote for minority candidates often because the balance of power is extremely biased toward white American males.
And I am one!
Yes, I think what you do is wrong. We should judge people on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. If you don't agree, then I think you are a racist.
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
1.
a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.
Where does it say 'against a race different from yourself'?
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
I'm not voting against Dean and the "clones" because they are white, and I'm definitely not voting for Sharpton because he is black.
I'm voting against Dean and the "clones" because they are rich, spoiled, career politicians.
Side stepping. (Score:4, Interesting)
How does this internet fund raising effect the current climate of pro-campaign finance reform?
According to Kerry, Republicans have been contributing to Dean's campaign on the Internet. [rollingstone.com]. Whether this is true or not, it very well could be. How would we ever know?
I'd like someone to explain to me how this is actually "grass roots," and not possibly one of the major parties (if not both) giving large sums in small packets under various proxies?
Re:Side stepping. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Side stepping. (Score:2)
How does "Republicans contributing to Dean" translate to "financial shennanigans"? What Kerry was trying to say, by my reading, was that people in general are so dissatisifed with Bush's policies that even moderately hard-line Republicans will back what they see as a Democratic contender that's more true to their beliefs than their own party is. (Not to say that Dean's a moderately hard-line conservative - from everything I've seen, he's both a liberal and a conservative, depending on which belief/policy we
Re:Side stepping. (Score:2)
Polipundit.com, a Republican leaning blog has been promoting Dean as the candidate they want the Democrats to run.
Back in June, 2003 they told readers to donate to Dean.
http://www.polipundit.com/2003_06_15_polip
I don't know what to make of it, not sure what impact this has had. The right-wing media has been given marching orders to talk about Dean's inevitable nomination, because apparently that's who the GOP wants to run against.
Re:Side stepping. (Score:2)
just under 7500 people. That averages out to around 80 dollars per person.
Here's what you have agree to, to donate, by the way:
I am making this contribution (and paying this credit charge) with my own personal funds, and I am not using funds provided by
I belong to no organized political party (Score:4, Funny)
One slight problem... The Facts. (Score:5, Interesting)
* Dean was governor for 11 years. He got there through traditional Democratic party politics.
* I remember having a conversation with some Vermont relatives back shortly after the 1996 convention about whether Dean would run in 2000.
Basically, Dean has been an up-and-coming force in the Democratic party for a number of years. While his outsider rhetoric and outspoken opposition to the war has helped fuel his candidacy, he is still a product of the Democratic party, with its grassroots activists and door-to-door campaigning.
Lastly -- a quick anecdote. Ralph Reed (formerly of the Christian Coalition, all around brilliant evil-doer, and now chairing Bush's reelection campaign in the Southeast) recently gave a speech talking about how according to all their polls, on the Friday before the election, Bush would have won all of the key battleground states had the election been held then. But instead, the Democratic apparatus came out in force and turned the election into a statistical dead heat. His best line went something like this:
Republicans think the campaign ends the Friday before the election, after the last television ad is bought, the last billboard put up.
Democrats believe the election starts the Friday before the election. GOTV (get out the vote) efforts don't really begin in earnest until those last 72 hours. The Democratic machine was what turned a sure Bush victory into a fraudulent mockery of an election (I try to be even handed... really I do, but facts is facts).
Dean's improbable sprint to internet cash-and-glory will only get him so far. And then the incredibly labor intensive huge Democratic machine will have to take over. The article completely misses that fact. While the internet portion of the campaign may allow for a small control group, the actual work still has to be done by what is essentially a huge national corporation with a precense in every precint in America. That's a large group of people.
A pretty theory with some definite substance -- just not as clear-cut as the author would have us think.
Re:One slight problem... The Facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at Dean's main Website [deanforamerica.com] and official blog [blogforamerica.com] you'll notice that it's not just fundraising that's going on. There are 150,000 people involved in Dean Meetups [meetup.com] and thousands more have already sent over 100,000 handwritten letters to voters in New Hampsire and Iowa. Plus there are scores of independent websites discussing and promoting Dean from various perspectives. He's got more troops on the ground than the Democratic Party - particularly if you count the union troops he's already recruited as his and not the Democrats', per se.
What Dean's doing isn't taking over the "Left Wing" or even the Democratic Party so much as it is taking over the middle of the road. He's steamrolling right down the center with a good dose of traditional American common sense (although his invocation of Thomas Paine [deanforamerica.com] is a bit lame, at least it's an error in the right direction). He's redefining what the center of the road means.
And this whole thing about his - and his fans' - "anger" is just off the point. George W. is an idiot, and he's calling the Emperor naked and saying clearly that we should replace him with all haste. People aren't angry at Bush so much as disappointed and disgusted because Bush doesn't live up to the Main Street American values that Dean invokes.
The cynicism of the corporate-owned press is that we don't have any values to speak of beyond consumerism and the money to support our "American way" habits (and their advertisers). According to this cynicism all politicians are a bit false, so calling them naked is a bit beside the point. Dean's not a cynic, not false, and is using the Net to communicate directly with others who love America and see higher ideals as once again attainable by it, rather than a continued slide into blustering corruption.
He' proving the Republic still has some blood in its veins. He's no Thomas Jefferson (alas), but could well become the best US president since FDR.
The politcal climate is changing.Thank you Mr.Bush (Score:2, Funny)
The Dean Dating Service (Score:2)
New York Times Magazine article [nytimes.com] about the Dean campaign as therapy group for breakup victims, featuring Clay Johnson bitching about ex Merrill.
WSJ ridicules Clay Johnson [opinionjournal.com]
A pissed-off Merrill writes to the Journal [opinionjournal.com] wondering what the hell passes for journalism at the Times (no direct link, search for "Merrill") and, as they note, sh
How to read NYT without registering? (Score:2)
I certainly hope so. (Score:2)
I don't know if they are correct or if the author of the article is (you read the article right?). What I do know is that the potential of a shift from a duopoly to a three, or more, party system does seem to be occurring. The fact of the matter is that the country is NOT as evenly divided as some would like you to believe, with most people sitting in the
No different (Score:5, Insightful)
Dean's hijacked the Democratic party on the basis of the Anti-Plutocrat movement. More power to em. If the internet was a key vehicle for that, I'm not really suprised, but since the internet exists for all people, that sword cuts both ways.
Another election that is too close to call.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The two party system engenders a careful political calculus of stepping just far enough over the middle to steal an opponent's votes without alienating the extremists in the party. The democrats will try to appear just far enough right of center and the republicans will try to appear just far enough left of center to win. Everyone is shooting for the same 50.1% of the electoral votes and has the information gathering systems and information distribution systems to get it.
Unless one side achieves a huge advantage through external events (e.g., Dean wills if the economy tanks, weather disrupts voting in a key state, etc.) this will mean more close elections that reveal the statistical inaccuracies of our voting systems. It won't surpirse me if the Supreme Court will again decide the outcome of a presidential election in the near future.
We already know... (Score:2)
[nypost.com]
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.h
Re:We already know... (Score:2)
Interesting but doesn't wash (Score:3, Informative)
What about other countries? America is virtually alone in having only two viable political parties. Most of the rest of the world's democracies have more, and some have embraced a much more dynamic multi-party coalition form of government. Was their "cost of information" a lot lower?
I think the author's analysis discounts many other factors. American politics is affected by American's much weaker community affiliation, propensity for movement, high economic mobility, etc. Under these conditions the cost of information may be important.
In countries where (for instance) tribal or religious ties are strong, you could lower the cost of information/political organizing all you want and have no significant effect.
Then again maybe I should be over on k5 with this...:)
Re:Interesting but doesn't wash (Score:3, Informative)
Here in the UK, you end up with huge amounts of tactical voting. People might like Labour, but prefer the Liberal Democrats, and dislike the Conservatives, but if they perceive that the seat is Conservative vs Labour with LDs trailing, they will not choose who they want, but who will defeat who they don't want.
Then, there's the issue of "safe seats". If y
How InterVote98 Could Change the World (Score:2)
TV stations use InterVote98 to provide web-based campaign and election coverage for their viewers.
InterVote98 was a few years ahead of its time.
It didn't change the world; in fact, it's defunct.
There is some analysis at How InterVote98 Could Change the World [std.com].
Fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
The dot-com era showed how clearly and blatantly easy it is to misrepresent your revenue, and your whole value, to an extrordinary degree.
And here comes somebody with a result that *shouldn't* be happening, and yet it is happening, and people just go: "Well, gosh, ain't that internet something!"
No, it ain't. I'm not saying it's definite, I'm just saying "raising wildly unexpected amounts of money" sets my bullshit radar off. I would think all the frauds of the past 3 years would make you suspicous too.
Mod parent down: off topic! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think Dean's a great candidate but... (Score:2, Interesting)
That's something that has turned me off with bush as well as almost all politicians. They won't admit that they might be wrong. If they do admit that they are wrong or flip sides on an issue they will be attacked in the next election as wishy-washy or inconsistant.
Re:I think Dean's a great candidate but... (Score:2)
The fact that he capitulated is what makes me angry.
Re:I think Dean's a great candidate but... (Score:2)
Re:The flag that represents this category is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Now, if Dean would just (Score:2, Insightful)
Ineptitude and how close we came (Score:2)
Mostly that, surely. Of course, the 9/11 commission is intended to address exactly that; the whole reason it's in existence is to establish where we were inept and address it. Bush is stalling improvements to our response to terrorism, apparently, for political reasons.
The other half of what he's not wanting to show, though, is how close we may have been to a bigger, badder situation. During 9/11 the "Doomsday Plane" was sc
Karl Rove, is that you? (Score:2)
It's funny how all the Republicans keep talking about Hillary running. Nobody wants her to run for President as much as they do.
Now, if Bush would just (Score:2)
Re:Now, if Bush would just (Score:2)
And until the truth comes out, any wacky conspiracy theory is just as plausible as anything out of the Bush administration.
Openness is American (Score:2)
Re:Now, if Dean would just (Score:4, Informative)
Quoting the link (a Robert Novak column)
The other interesting thing here is to consider the source. Novak was the journalist who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Also, notice how it's the "Bush-haters" who listen to NPR, but "mainstream viewers" who watch Fox News's Sunday morning news.
Krauthammer also misrepresented Dean's interview on Hardball when Chris Matthews asked Dean if Deam would break up Fox. Everybody, including Dean started laughing, and Dean jokingly answered "On an ideological basis, yes." Anybody who was watching the show knew he was joking, plus the transcripts indicated [LAUGHTER]. But Krauthammer used the famous ellipsis (...) to eliminate the [LAUGHTER], and then criticized Dean for being "unhinged", which seems to be the current right-wing meme that is going around.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Re:OMG (Score:2)
Re:OMG (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, people are dying in Iraq, both our boys and girls, as wells as Iraqis. We need to elect a president who (a) will never get us involved in something this poorly planned and thought out again, and (b) will get us the hell out of there as quickly as is possible, while not leaving the Iraqi people (not to mention what's left of our international credibility) blowing in the wind.
Regardless of what you think about President Bush and
Re:OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, ultimately we were going to have to deal with Iraq because sanctions don't work. But Colin Powell admitted in 2001 that we had Hussein under control and there was no threat of weapons... link [state.gov]
But really that's all water under the bridge now anyway. We're in there, we've got to fix it. I don't like what's happening over there, and I'll be damned if I let the prick who created this mess be rewarded with reelection.
Re:OMG (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree there.
> there was no threat of weapons...
I could care less about WMD. We helped put the SOB into power and inflicted him on the world, and the people of Iraq. He was our responsibility and we were morally obligated to deal with him and pay the associated costs. That's what we get for laying down with the wolves. If we had to use the pretext of WMD to get the country to go along with it, so be it.
BT
Re:OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
And no, this isn't a case of 20/20 hindsight. I spent 6 years in a U.S. Army Reserve Civil Affairs Bn. The professionals in the Army who know how to plan for and handle post-conflict problems were simply ignored by Rumsfeld. The outcome was frightningly obvious to those of us who have done this sort of work professionally. The Bush Administration is paying the price for their hubris.
Re:Title should have been... (Score:2)