Do you feel like your candidate ever wins?

[Bear]

I like Kucinich, Paul, and Nader.

And I know what you're going to say: that they're spoilers; but I've still voted for Nader at least once, because I believed he was the most upstanding of the three or more choices I was presented with at the time (the 2000 election).

Yes, I've voted for Nader; and I probably will again, the way things seem to be turning out. But it isn't that I don't want a Woman President, or a Black President, or a Veteran President, say for example; I just honestly believe in these three guys, out of all of them. They seem more sincere to me (even from each their different political perspectives).

It just occurs to me though, that the sort of persons I respect most, almost never seem to be the one elected President of the United States. And although I am fully open to accepting the notion that there is something either wrong or weird with my own political views; I've wondered also if anyone here, ever felt that way too: that the one you most strongly related to just doesn't somehow seem to fit in with the standard model of a President.

Of course it could be conspiracy :o

To me (at least): there always seems to be the strong tendency--on the part of the news media--to really decide the candidates for us.

All three of the candidates I have any respect for at all, have at one point or another, been excluded from specific national debates; and that does not seem in keeping with what is truly "democratic" at all (especially while it is that the news media keeps insisting that it would be these most recent three primaries--Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina--that would ultimately decide EVERYTHING, in the way of our long term binary selection come November).

If the news media arbitrarily excludes two or three candidates from the televised debates, realistically, isn't that making up the minds of the general public, for the general public? Really I think that old notion of "Of the people, and by the people" has somehow been severely perversed here.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I've felt like my candidate wins every time the person I've voted for wins.

[Alex]

I like Kucinich, Paul.[/B]


How?
If you put those two in a room, and they talked about anything but the war, Paul would eat his soul after ripping his throat out with his teeth.
OH, but on the topic, until Grape Ape runs for public office and wins, my candidate will never win.
http://grapemumb.50megs.com/GGA.jpg
Love that guy.

[Spike-X]

If the news media arbitrarily excludes two or three candidates from the televised debates, realistically, isn't that making up the minds of the general public, for the general public?

Gee, ya think?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

My candidate will never win. In fact the rules won't allow him to enter . Fuckin politics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCrhitqz_dc


Just because he's a killer robot from the future they won't even let him try and run. Who says he'll lead us into that type of future anyhow ? BASTARDS.

[Ben Morgan]

My candidate will never win. In fact the rules won't allow him to enter . Fuckin politics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCrhitqz_dc


Just because he's a killer robot from the future they won't even let him try and run. Who says he'll lead us into that type of future anyhow ? BASTARDS.
I thought you always vote for the swedish chef

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I thought you always vote for the swedish chef

INS think he's here as an illegal alien . Poor Swedish Chef...he deserves to at least lead Congress.

[Loren]

If the news media arbitrarily excludes two or three candidates from the televised debates, realistically, isn't that making up the minds of the general public, for the general public? Really I think that old notion of "Of the people, and by the people" has somehow been severely perversed here.

I more or less agree with you about the propriety of excluding candidates from debates, but it's hardly "arbitrary," especially with Kucinich. He was included in all the early debates, and simply didn't attract voters. He got only 1% in New Hampshire, and just 4% in Michigan (36% behind "Uncommitted"). He'd make the debates a little more interesting, but he's being excluded because he has about as much chance of winning a nomination as Gravel or Keyes. And it's not arbitrary, at this point in the game, to exclude primary candidates that the party faithful aren't going for.

Paul's exclusion in Fox's New Hampshire debate, though, was kinda bizarre, because they INCLUDED Thompson, who was polling at or below Paul. So Paul's exclusion could be construed as arbitrary. And Paul ended up doing substantially better than Thompson, and finished just slightly behind Giuliani.

And before you go too far in decrying the perversion of the system, consider a little historical context. The primary system as we know it is only about 40 years old. Throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, and even into the 1960s, control of a party's nominee was in the hands of the delegates and party bosses, not the primary voters. That wasn't exactly "of the people, by the people" either.

[Paradox]

The "Party System" itself is ANTI "of the people, by the people and for the people".

[Rattlehead]

The "Party System" itself is ANTI "of the people, by the people and for the people".

That's the truth. I don't identify with eithier the Democrats or the Republicans, mainly because my brain runs on common sense as opposed to romantic ideals of ideaolgies that don't work in practice.

[Typo Lad]

I get more miffed when the guy I want to get the nomination doesn't get it.

I really, really wanted a Bill Bradly presidency. Just seemed like he'd get the job done.

I also had this mental image of him putting a basketball hoop in the oval office...

[Drew Van T.]

That's the truth. I don't identify with eithier the Democrats or the Republicans, mainly because my brain runs on common sense as opposed to romantic ideals of ideaolgies that don't work in practice.

In that case, I do hope you support a complete switch to 100% public funding, because getting support from the party one belongs to is one way for someone to get organized and make it in politics without having to rely on things like personal fortune or privileged media access.

If you take away the parties without reforming the rest of the system, you're left with a small group of highly powerful individuals (i.e. people who would be powerful even if they hadn't entered politics) duking it out as powerful individuals.

The obvious retort to that would be "getting support from a party is two-way street"...well, granted, but there's bound to be some of that in every kind of relationship.

[Rattlehead]

In that case, I do hope you support a complete switch to 100% public funding, because getting support from the party one belongs to is one way for someone to get organized and make it in politics without having to rely on things like personal fortune or privileged media access.

Except personal fortune and privileged media access are the only ways to make it in American politics, especially on the national level. The media access thing was the whole point of the original post. People like Paul are being shut out of getting media exposure, and have gone from having a slim chance to having zero chance. (I'm not a Paul supporter by any means, but fact are facts)


If you take away the parties without reforming the rest of the system, you're left with a small group of highly powerful individuals (i.e. people who would be powerful even if they hadn't entered politics) duking it out as powerful individuals.

That pretty much describes the American political landscape. It comes down to a small group of filthy rich people that have ties to corporations that already have influence in Washington.

[Drew Van T.]

Except personal fortune and privileged media access are the only ways to make it in American politics, especially on the national level. The media access thing was the whole point of the original post. People like Paul are being shut out of getting media exposure, and have gone from having a slim chance to having zero chance. (I'm not a Paul supporter by any means, but fact are facts)

Gotcha. But does that also mean you would favor a switch to public funding?


That pretty much describes the American political landscape. It comes down to a small group of filthy rich people that have ties to corporations that already have influence in Washington.

Perhaps it is. However, if you take away the parties without reforming the rest of the system, I only see those things getting worse.

[Magneto X]

I like Kucinich, Paul, and Nader.

And I know what you're going to say: that they're spoilers; but I've still voted for Nader at least once, because I believed he was the most upstanding of the three or more choices I was presented with at the time (the 2000 election).

Yes, I've voted for Nader; and I probably will again, the way things seem to be turning out. But it isn't that I don't want a Woman President, or a Black President, or a Veteran President, say for example; I just honestly believe in these three guys, out of all of them. They seem more sincere to me (even from each their different political perspectives).

It just occurs to me though, that the sort of persons I respect most, almost never seem to be the one elected President of the United States. And although I am fully open to accepting the notion that there is something either wrong or weird with my own political views; I've wondered also if anyone here, ever felt that way too: that the one you most strongly related to just doesn't somehow seem to fit in with the standard model of a President.

Of course it could be conspiracy :o

To me (at least): there always seems to be the strong tendency--on the part of the news media--to really decide the candidates for us.

All three of the candidates I have any respect for at all, have at one point or another, been excluded from specific national debates; and that does not seem in keeping with what is truly "democratic" at all (especially while it is that the news media keeps insisting that it would be these most recent three primaries--Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina--that would ultimately decide EVERYTHING, in the way of our long term binary selection come November).

If the news media arbitrarily excludes two or three candidates from the televised debates, realistically, isn't that making up the minds of the general public, for the general public? Really I think that old notion of "Of the people, and by the people" has somehow been severely perversed here.


Might help if we had a parliamentary-style system, where smaller parties can be kingmakers and, in doing so, prove the viability of their ideas and strengthen until they can win leadership.

A two-party system isn't likely to produce an outlier, unless it's in response to a major crisis (the depression) or the fear mongering that comes from threats (real or trumped up) to our national security.

[Loren]

To answer the original question...no. On the federal level, at least.

I'm pretty sure that there's been only one time in 12 years of voting that I've ever voted for the winner in a federal election (or primary). And that was Senator Paul Coverdell in 1998.

Does anyone have a worse track record than that?

[Rattlehead]

Gotcha. But does that also mean you would favor a switch to public funding?

I don't think public funding would really work here. When you combine the corporate obssessed culture with the general apathy towards politics from the average American, it doesn't seem congruent. Now if you were talking aobut public funding for something important like American Idol, then we would have something.



Perhaps it is. However, if you take away the parties without reforming the rest of the system, I only see those things getting worse.

I don't know how much worse, we seem to be hitting new lows with every election.

[Dreadstar]

I have voted in 8 presidential elections and the only time I ever voted for the winner was my first time out. I consistently vote for the best person for the job in my U.S. Congress and State representative positions, regardless of affiliation, and the most qualified individuals in local government. And on that particular level, I'm running at around less than 25% (best guess).

Here's the fact, though. (Of course, now Tages will come in and contradict *that* claim) The most important part *isn't* that your candidate won or lost. The most important part is that you're PARTICIPATING to begin with.

Congratulations, you're a functioning member of U.S. society. Have a beer.

[Paradox]

Loren should clear up if I'm the winner or loser:

To answer the original question...no. On the federal level, at least.

I'm pretty sure that there's been only one time in 12 years of voting that I've ever voted for the winner in a federal election (or primary). And that was Senator Paul Coverdell in 1998.

Does anyone have a worse track record than that?

Zero for all on that level. I usually can't stand the Dem or the Rep, so most of the time I vote for a third party.

Even the time I compromised my personal integrity to vote someone OUT, it didn't work (see: our current sitting dimwit).

[Paradox]

Dreadstar has it:

Here's the fact, though. (Of course, now Tages will come in and contradict *that* claim) The most important part *isn't* that your candidate won or lost. The most important part is that you're PARTICIPATING to begin with.

Congratulations, you're a functioning member of U.S. society. Have a beer.

I've always been a big proponent of "if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch". And I like to bitch. :)

[Dreadstar]

Even the time I compromised my personal integrity to vote someone OUT, it didn't work (see: our current sitting dimwit).

I, too, made the same compromise. I took 2 showers a day for a week after holding my nose and doing it, I felt so dirty.

The moral of the story is: You don't prop up a cadaver and hope he can beat the retarded jackass. You might be disappointed.

[Drew Van T.]

To give my own answer to the question: I've always voted for the Greens, and they usually end up in the opposition.

The only exception was 1999, when they won big at the federal level and were included as part of the coalition government (alongside the larger Liberal and Socialist parties). In the end it was a disaster for the Greens, as the others treated them as the black sheep of the coalition family, with lots of backstabbing and media foul play, and they suffered huge losses in the next federal elections, which of course sent them back to the opposition benches.

They did accomplish a few things while in there however. They were instrumental in reducing arms exports, raising taxes on polluters/polluting technologies, a move towards phasing out the nuclear power plants, and making it easier for immigrants to gain citizenship. Some of the most socially radical legalization could never have been made without the Greens actively pushing for them: examples include the legalization of euthanasia, the decriminalization of marihuana, and of course our becoming the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage.

In other words, I do feel that my votes have paid off to a certain extent, yes. But I also think that some parties are just more naturally suited for an opposition role, and that we should not look down too much on "candidates who never win" - if that means they never get out of opposition but exercise strong influence from within the opposition.

[Winslow]

Congratulations, you're a functioning member of U.S. society. Have a beer.

The demands of our republic on the citizenry are small: vote and pay taxes.

If you don't participate in either one, then you are not fulfilling your duty as a citizen.

But I'm one of those "god and country" types . . .

[Shellhead]

The moral of the story is: You don't prop up a cadaver and hope he can beat the retarded jackass. You might be disappointed.

Unless you live in Missouri, though the retarded jackass did later become Attorney General.

[Fenris]

The demands of our republic on the citizenry are small: vote and pay taxes.

If you don't participate in either one, then you are not fulfilling your duty as a citizen.

But I'm one of those "god and country" types . . .

Oh, one of those...

I tend to agree. Voting isn't a practical matter: 2000 aside, Presidential elections aren't going to be decided by a single vote. So it's not like my single, personal vote is going to change the course of history.

We vote because it's better to speak than to be silent; and voting is a way of speaking.

õ
Blah blah blah!

[Shellhead]

If you live in a democracy and you are fairly different from most of your fellow citizens, chances are good that your favorite candidates will usually lose. That's tough, but that's what can happen when everybody gets a vote. It beats all the alternatives, where a privileged minority controls everybody else.

[thespianphryne]

Candidates/incumbents I have supported in the past have been assassinated. God bless the worlds largest democracy.



-Das

[Loren]

Even the time I compromised my personal integrity to vote someone OUT, it didn't work (see: our current sitting dimwit).

You made me remember that there was a second victorious candidate I voted for, Democratic Representative Denise Majette in 2002. I voted for her to get Cynthia McKinney out of office. In my case, it worked. (Until 2004, when Majette didn't run for reelection, and McKinney won her seat back.)

[Paradox]

I have to take it back. I did vote for Republican Rep. Fred Upton when I lived down in Three Rivers and he won. He was a good decent guy back then. Since Howard Wolpe got gerrymandered out of his Kalamazoo seat and it was given to Upton, he's been nothing but a party tool. Disappointing

[Fenris]

Tsk, I forgot the point of the thread. My presidential votes:

1988- Bush
1992- Clinton
1996- Dole
2000- Bush
2004- Bush

... So most of my votes have been for winning candidates. And let me tell you, that can be a very mixed blessing.

õ
But I wouldn't take them back!

[Shellhead]

So far, I've only voted for the winner three times (or four if you count Gore in 2000). I voted for Clinton in 1992 and I voted for Jesse Ventura when he became governor of Minnesota. Oh, and I voted for Arne Carlson when he ran for governor as an independent... he was a republican, but his party dumped him in the primary for a pro-life nutjob. Anyway, Carlson won.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So far, I've only voted for the winner three times (or four if you count Gore in 2000). I voted for Clinton in 1992 and I voted for Jesse Ventura when he became governor of Minnesota. Oh, and I voted for Arne Carlson when he ran for governor as an independent... he was a republican, but his party dumped him in the primary for a pro-life nutjob. Anyway, Carlson won.

I so want a Jessie Ventura Presidency. He would be awesome to watch .

[Shellhead]

I so want a Jessie Ventura Presidency. He would be awesome to watch .

Despite his high-profile background in wrestling and acting, Ventura couldn't handle the media attention. The man loves to shoot his mouth off, but can't handle the consequences. So we probably won't see Ventura ever run for president. He was a decent governor, but had trouble with the state legislature because he didn't have his own faction of independent legistlators to pass legislation that he wanted. He might have gotten more done if he had been able to successfully play the Democrats and the Republicans off against each other.

[Tages]

I have voted in 8 presidential elections and the only time I ever voted for the winner was my first time out. I consistently vote for the best person for the job in my U.S. Congress and State representative positions, regardless of affiliation, and the most qualified individuals in local government. And on that particular level, I'm running at around less than 25% (best guess).

Here's the fact, though. (Of course, now Tages will come in and contradict *that* claim) The most important part *isn't* that your candidate won or lost. The most important part is that you're PARTICIPATING to begin with.

Congratulations, you're a functioning member of U.S. society. Have a beer.

Hmmmn. Participating in the election of a person to a position with more power than anyone ought to have, that has exceeded its Constitutional limitations to nightmarish levels?

I'm not against voting for president so much as I am against the presidency itself. I really would like to hear someone try and convince me to vote, though.

[Tages]

I've always been a big proponent of "if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch". And I like to bitch. :)

Um, why? Because you had a chance to symbolically...not effect the outcome in any way whatsoever, and you didn't?