election non-surprise

[cellio]

I'm kind of sad that John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race. He wasn't going to win (on first ballot at the convention), I don't think, but he has enough of a following that it seems like he could have influenced the front-runners had he stayed in. On the other hand, he was probably drawing more votes from Obama than from Hillary ("sleaze as usual"), so if it helps Obama win the nomination it won't be all bad. He hasn't made a formal endorsement, but this might count. Still, if the Dems don't slap Hillary down hard and soon, they risk blowing the election, either by nominating a slick divisive candidate or by doing too much dirty campaigning before rejecting her.

(I'm not for Obama, but I'm against Hillary. I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.)

Did anyone else catch the complaint from the NH chapter of NOW? (It was in the news yesterday or the day before.) They complained that Kennedy "betrayed women" by not endorsing Hillary. Earth to NOW: you are doing harm to your candidate if your entire platform is "she's a she". Not that I mind, but I'm just sayin'.

Comments

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.

Absolutely, positively correct. And I think many people would be surprised to learn that there's no requirement for a two-party system. I have a sad hunch a lot of people think it's in the Constitution.

My feeling is that the reasons why we're stuck in a two-party system is that the two parties do everything they can to maintain this status quo. Both have figured out a fundamental truth:

It's better to be in last place in a two-party system than it is to be in third place in a five-party system.

Guaranteed a "no worse than second place finish under any circumstances," both parties do all they can to perpetuate the system and cut off alternative parties before they can become a threat.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

Am I allowed to agree with absolutely everything you said, if I'm a Republican?

NOW is a victim of its own success. Having successfully raised awareness of women's political issues, they now incite a backlash by overplaying their hand. And if they don't even have the backbone to criticize Bill Clinton for his womanizing, then they have failed even at their core mission.

[tidesong.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if there's any chance Edwards will be Obama's running mate when he gets the dem nomination....

I'm like you, and not necessarily for Obama, but I don't like Hillary much. I wish Kucinich wouldl have had a chance....

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is how (mainstream) media default to presenting third-party candidates as non-credible, spoilers, nuisances, etc. It's obvious that the Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in continuing the two-party system, but why should the rest of us just hand it to them?

Re the NOW quote: the feminist movement will really have accomplished something when voters consider a female candidate entirely on the basis of her platform, record, and character, not on the basis of her gender. NOW's comment represents a step back, not a step forward.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I was extremely frustrated listening to NPR the night of the Iowa caucuses, because the results would come in (about a third of the vote to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, with just enough difference to call winner, second, third), they'd announce those, then spend the rest of the time on "analysis." Which meant discussing how Clinton played well with older people, especially women (or something), and Obama did particularly well with young people (isn't it exciting how they came to vote this time). And that would be it, every single time. I kept hearing this huge whole in coverage: Edwards got about a third of the vote: WHO WAS VOTING FOR HIM? And if not a single demographic (for soundbite purposes), then that should at least be mentioned.