America is a big place, a heck of alot bigger than other countries with a winner take all election system.
What happens when you have a tie on a ntaional level?
Big countries with Proportional representation don't have this problem, because a handful of votes will not shift the entire outcome.
Imagine what would happen if we had a tie on the national level a la Florida in 2000. It would be a crisis. The situation in Florida was complicated enough, and a significant, but not substantial, number of people lost faith in the fairness of the system. Multiply that by 50 and a national recount would be a disaster.
Until the ballot system becomes much more efficient popular vote is not feasible.
I think the blogs like TPM and Yglesias aren't particular academic. Maybe they went to ivies, but that doesn't mean the analysis is academic.
I think it just degree a political opinion.
When we talk about democratic politicians, we argue over how much to give up in order to support a candidate. We don't really find many truly progressive politicians.
Generally speaking the moderates would be fearful of a shift to the left just as much as a shift to the right in the democratic party. When they say 'DLC douche I'm supporting is the only electable choice', they really mean, 'he's my guy, and your guy won't win anyway, so stop whining'. I think most dKos and MyDD people would welcome a shift to the left.
The taxes that you pay on a gallon of gas make the correspondence between oil prices and gallons of gas not 1:1. If oil prices double, the tax part of your gallon is still constant, the property value that is paid for in every gallon is also constant. Different states have different taxes, and different gas stations have different property values, so the correllation will be different everywhere, but it will be 1:1 nowhere.
I just hope we can knock of a couple votes in 2006, and swing it back the other way.
I worry that you sound to shrill, when making your argument, that it will be unfairly dismissed.
I wonder how long Iraq will get a honeymoon to be a bad democracy. Obviously the administration criticize the democratically elected leaders for a long time, but liberal hawks and neocons will soon be forced to concede that planting democracy does not by itself Westernize an otherwise non-Western nation.
But then again the Saudis have been working against US interests for a long time now, but they get a free pass. So maybe Iraq will get a similar free pass to be bad that Chavez can't get. Luckily Chavez doesn't give a shit and is building Venezuela in spite of us.
don't you understand Chris? We're democrats. We don't attack our opponents strengths. That's for Republicans. We only play defense on our weaknesses. This whole idea is just too bold. Just wait until the DLC comes out against it. Then you'll realize how bad an idea it is.
Maybe if you'd have a little more empathy for the corporate interests that Delay was taking bribes from, you'd 'get it'.
I think its a really bold plan. A national referendum on Delay would go badly for him. My only question is what is Delay's national name recognition? I think it really depends on whether the Delay scandals catch fire in the media or not.
it's just a coincidence. When you point out coincidences like this, it creates a memory in everyone's head.
Note to self: Jews control large aspects of the democratics party.
People naturally recognize patterns, whether they are the result of a trend or randomness. In general, many people put some stock in the idea that Jews control more than their fair share. That's probably tthe root causes of anti-semitism. By pointing out a situation where this has happened, you only cement in people's head this incorrect belief. A false pattern in randomness becomes perceived as a real pattern.
I know that you are saying 'it is just an observation.' Ask yourself if you would've made a diary if they were both Christians. Would that impress the religious right? What about the fact that Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are both Catholic? Or that Harry Reid is a mormon?
The fact that two Jews are in control of analogous committees in the House and the Senate has about as much significance to me as the fact that two Jews live across the street from each other at the end of my block. Its just not very important, and it isn't something that should be seen in that context.
Especially when you are pretty much pointing out the Jews are controlling the flow of money to elected officials and candidates. How more rife with latent, historical stereotypes can a statement be? When you're dealing with stereotypes as dangerous as anti-semitism has proven for Jewish people, it's best not to publicize facts that support them, because they are almost always random coincidences like, the one you mentioned
The husband is saying that she had said to him in a conversation that if she was on life support with no chance of coming back to pull the plug. The parents contended that Schiavo was a devout Catholic. The pope has said that you should let someone in this situation live. Then Schiavo would have listened to the pope, when push came to shove.
This isn't just like another Kevorkian case about someone choosing to die. I don't really trust the husband motives, as I mentioned below. The husband may have legally the right to do it, because the law is not in a position to differientiate between an honest motive and a disingenuous one.