Hilary has a lot of good qualities... no doubt. But I don't think she has enough great qualities that would allow her to be the first female President. When I think of Hilary, I think she is okay... and that is kinda what I hear from a lot of other people. You're not going to break any barriers being "okay" or "good". If she were a guy, she'd be much more likely to win Presidency, but she isn't.
Obama has a lot of good qualities too. Even great qualities. I really like this guy. But his lack of experience make it really hard for me to believe that he can break through the racial barriers that still exist all over this country. Maybe if he were white, his name didn't rhyme with a terrorist he'd have a chance. But I doubt anybody would have voted for Adam Hidler in 1948, and I don't think Americans are ready for this guy yet.
I think these are two great candidates that due to circumstances beyond their control, they are nearly unelectable. Any candidate the Democrats nominate should easily win after what we have put up with for the last 6 years. Bush has destroyed the Republican party's reputation. It should be a landslide victory for Democrats in 2008. But with candidates that people may want to vote for, but can't... the Democrats will give away the election once again.
However, if these two team up... maybe that would do it?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
3 Elections in 2008
California State Sen. Ron Calderon is proposing Californians have 3 elections in 2008. Currently California opens the polls 2x, once in June and again in November. Senator Calderon thinks that waiting until June for California to have it's primary is too late, and not giving Californian enough of a voice since so many other states have already had their primaries.
I don't see how this fixes any problems. What keeps other states from moving their primaries to January? If the problem is that the states with later primaries don't influence which candidates will ultimately run for president, then perhaps the primary should be a nationwide election? Or let the Democrats and Republicans do an online poll? Who knows, maybe these aren't the solutions, but I don't think moving the primary solves the problem either. The problem as I see it is that too few states are having too much influence because the current system begins to weed out candidates as soon as the primaries begin. Where a more liberal candidate would do well in California, he may not do as well in Iowa. This candidate is down in the primaries, gets less funding because nobody wants to fund a loser, and therefore is out of the competition before April.
I may not have an answer (yet), but I contend that spending the money for a 3rd election is not the best answer for this problem. I think California will always have a lot of pull in politics due to the large number of people that live here, and the large number economy of our state. If this is not enough, then perhaps the legislature should find a way to allow it's elections to be moved from June to February as well. June elections already have incredibly low voter turnouts and certainly having 3 elections will further decrease the % of people voting / election. I think our politicians should be interested in increasing voter turn out, not decreasing it.
As of now, my suggestion is to have a nationwide primary and California's other voting needs should coincide with these dates.
I don't see how this fixes any problems. What keeps other states from moving their primaries to January? If the problem is that the states with later primaries don't influence which candidates will ultimately run for president, then perhaps the primary should be a nationwide election? Or let the Democrats and Republicans do an online poll? Who knows, maybe these aren't the solutions, but I don't think moving the primary solves the problem either. The problem as I see it is that too few states are having too much influence because the current system begins to weed out candidates as soon as the primaries begin. Where a more liberal candidate would do well in California, he may not do as well in Iowa. This candidate is down in the primaries, gets less funding because nobody wants to fund a loser, and therefore is out of the competition before April.
I may not have an answer (yet), but I contend that spending the money for a 3rd election is not the best answer for this problem. I think California will always have a lot of pull in politics due to the large number of people that live here, and the large number economy of our state. If this is not enough, then perhaps the legislature should find a way to allow it's elections to be moved from June to February as well. June elections already have incredibly low voter turnouts and certainly having 3 elections will further decrease the % of people voting / election. I think our politicians should be interested in increasing voter turn out, not decreasing it.
As of now, my suggestion is to have a nationwide primary and California's other voting needs should coincide with these dates.
Long time no Post
Just got this from my friend Phil, it was too funny not to post.
Otherwise, desk is done and in the office. Made a jewelry box for my mom that I am pretty proud of, no pictures along the way, but the final product looked a little something like this
Now I am working on a wine buffet side board cabinet thing. It will be darkly stained mahagony 6' x 38" x 22". Should be done this week.
State of the Union tonight, with any luck, I might even make a post about it as I try to return to the blogiscube.
Otherwise, desk is done and in the office. Made a jewelry box for my mom that I am pretty proud of, no pictures along the way, but the final product looked a little something like this
Now I am working on a wine buffet side board cabinet thing. It will be darkly stained mahagony 6' x 38" x 22". Should be done this week.
State of the Union tonight, with any luck, I might even make a post about it as I try to return to the blogiscube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)