Ran across the excellent interactive stie on TIME.com the other day, reviewing the battleground states in the upcoming election. Shows just how close the election REALLY is, and where the true key states are.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/battleground/?cnn=yes
Even with the RNC coming up, I think you'll find, in a month from now, this map will look eerily similar.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
People in agriculture / oil focussed states like Bush better?
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Keesje, I thought of just posting the picture, but if you go to the site, you can actually go over each battleground, and read what's up with it. That's the fun part. 
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Keesje,
the midwest of the US has always been very conservative, while liberalism has always enjoyed support or both coasts.
the midwest of the US has always been very conservative, while liberalism has always enjoyed support or both coasts.
Yeah Right
you mean how close it is in the worlds biggest non-democratic election
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Actually, N6376m, I don't think the midwest can be labled "conservative" It is MORE conservative than the coasts, no doubt, but it doesn't approach the conservatism of the deep South. The Midwest has alway been very centrist, with some conservative values, but also some liberal values as well. It is why it can be so unpredictable, and usually so key in any election.
And Zweed, there's nothing non-democratic about out elections at all. I think someone who hasn't lived here isn't exactly the best judge of our system.
And Zweed, there's nothing non-democratic about out elections at all. I think someone who hasn't lived here isn't exactly the best judge of our system.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
you mean how close it is in the worlds biggest non-democratic election
Zweed is correct. The US is more of a 2-party dictatorship than a democracy. Every other Western nation has more than 2 parties regularly vying for power.
In the US, each of the 2 long established parties has about 47% PERMANENT support and they fight over the shifting 6% or so. This is not democracy.
Zweed is correct. The US is more of a 2-party dictatorship than a democracy. Every other Western nation has more than 2 parties regularly vying for power.
In the US, each of the 2 long established parties has about 47% PERMANENT support and they fight over the shifting 6% or so. This is not democracy.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
I most heartily disagree with that assessment, Yyz717. The U.S. has never had more than two parties, and, if you look at the instability of some other democracies in the world, like France and Italy, with multiple parties, constant shifting in alliances and governments being voted down and elections being called quite often in the past, I don't have a problem with our system.
The biggest impediment to democracy in the U.S. is apathy: how so many do not exercise their Constitutional privelage to vote. And apathy also extends to being lazy and voting for a recognized, or an incumbent, and not doing any homework on what a candidate stands for.
The biggest impediment to democracy in the U.S. is apathy: how so many do not exercise their Constitutional privelage to vote. And apathy also extends to being lazy and voting for a recognized, or an incumbent, and not doing any homework on what a candidate stands for.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
The biggest impediment to democracy in the U.S. is apathy: how so many do not exercise their Constitutional privelage to vote. And apathy also extends to being lazy and voting for a recognized, or an incumbent, and not doing any homework on what a candidate stands for.
Excellent point, Alpha1, and I'll go a step further.
The tendency to vote for the "lesser of two evils" has propogated this rampant runaway 2-party corrupt system even more. People need to not only vote--there are candidates out there for them if they just VOTE--but also vote their conscience, not a compromise based on what 2 hacks the major parties send up.
We'll get better candidates once we demand them. Period.
And as far as the Midwest, I used to characterize them as conservative, but when I consider the oppressive taxation, from personal income to exorbitant property taxes, not to mention the use of the term "progressive" in government, I run like hell.
Excellent point, Alpha1, and I'll go a step further.
The tendency to vote for the "lesser of two evils" has propogated this rampant runaway 2-party corrupt system even more. People need to not only vote--there are candidates out there for them if they just VOTE--but also vote their conscience, not a compromise based on what 2 hacks the major parties send up.
We'll get better candidates once we demand them. Period.
And as far as the Midwest, I used to characterize them as conservative, but when I consider the oppressive taxation, from personal income to exorbitant property taxes, not to mention the use of the term "progressive" in government, I run like hell.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
And as far as the Midwest, I used to characterize them as conservative, but when I consider the oppressive taxation, from personal income to exorbitant property taxes, not to mention the use of the term "progressive" in government, I run like hell.
Oppressive taxation? What are you talking about? I pay taxes in a typical midwest area. No one likes them, but they certainly aren't "oppressive" in any manner. They don't keep anyone in this area from living a decent life. I think, unfortuantely, too many conservatives feel ANY tax is oppressive. But if one looks at the fact, in many areas, taxes aren't as oppressive as some would like to think.
Oppressive taxation? What are you talking about? I pay taxes in a typical midwest area. No one likes them, but they certainly aren't "oppressive" in any manner. They don't keep anyone in this area from living a decent life. I think, unfortuantely, too many conservatives feel ANY tax is oppressive. But if one looks at the fact, in many areas, taxes aren't as oppressive as some would like to think.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
The US 2 party system exists largely because of the structure of our government. The Western European parlimentary and prime minister system is more condusive to the formation and existence of minority parties because they can very often exert much greater influence on the major parties than their popular support would lead you to believe.
Take for example the US system. Let's assume that between 40 and 45% of the population is either going to vote for the Democrats or Republicans. This leaves about between 10% and 20% of the population as independents. If the people truly voted independent and didn't support one of the major parties, their votes would be at best meaningless and at worst counterproductive to their goal. Everyone knows that a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for Bush, the same way that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton.
In a parlimentary system, the leader has to be chose by an absolute majority of the MP's therefore, unless one party can gain a clear majority they must work with the other minority parties to establish a government. This is not the case in the US system.
I believe that the need to form coalition governments serves as a moderating influence to change as any very dramatic change in course could result in the splitting of the coalition and the fall of the government.
Take for example the US system. Let's assume that between 40 and 45% of the population is either going to vote for the Democrats or Republicans. This leaves about between 10% and 20% of the population as independents. If the people truly voted independent and didn't support one of the major parties, their votes would be at best meaningless and at worst counterproductive to their goal. Everyone knows that a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for Bush, the same way that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton.
In a parlimentary system, the leader has to be chose by an absolute majority of the MP's therefore, unless one party can gain a clear majority they must work with the other minority parties to establish a government. This is not the case in the US system.
I believe that the need to form coalition governments serves as a moderating influence to change as any very dramatic change in course could result in the splitting of the coalition and the fall of the government.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
I would not mind seeing a third, centerest-type party in the U.S. I believe the two majors have become to beholden to the extreme elements in their respective parties-the GOP to the religious right, and the Democratic party to elements of the far-left.
I would love to see moderats in both parties, like McCain, Snowe, Zell Miller, and the like, get into centrist party, which would mitigate the power of the extremes.
I would love to see moderats in both parties, like McCain, Snowe, Zell Miller, and the like, get into centrist party, which would mitigate the power of the extremes.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Alpha1, if a centerist party such as you described were running this year and was polling at 25%, would you still vote for them, knowing that such a vote would basically guarantee a GWB re-election?
I think that this is exactly the problem/impediment with the development of a two-party system in the US. A move from no support to a quarter of the country would be huge in just one election cycle. Unfortunately 25% of the popular vote doesn't get you anything.
We need enough of the country to be willing to waste their vote in one election to have any hopes of developing a viable 3rd party. The risk is, that once the 3rd party starts to gain support, the other two move back towards the center in an attempt to siphon away the middle's support.
I think that this is exactly the problem/impediment with the development of a two-party system in the US. A move from no support to a quarter of the country would be huge in just one election cycle. Unfortunately 25% of the popular vote doesn't get you anything.
We need enough of the country to be willing to waste their vote in one election to have any hopes of developing a viable 3rd party. The risk is, that once the 3rd party starts to gain support, the other two move back towards the center in an attempt to siphon away the middle's support.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
you mean how close it is in the worlds biggest non-democratic election
Zweed is correct. The US is more of a 2-party dictatorship than a democracy. Every other Western nation has more than 2 parties regularly vying for power.
In the US, each of the 2 long established parties has about 47% PERMANENT support and they fight over the shifting 6% or so. This is not democracy.
Both of you are incredibly misguided. We live in a Republic not a Democracy and use a representative Democracy system. The President does not hold all the power and check and balances are provided by the Legislative and Judicial branch. While we may not get the President we desire, we have a secondary voice in our local representatives which keep him/her in check. Many of whom are Independents.
Zweed is correct. The US is more of a 2-party dictatorship than a democracy. Every other Western nation has more than 2 parties regularly vying for power.
In the US, each of the 2 long established parties has about 47% PERMANENT support and they fight over the shifting 6% or so. This is not democracy.
Both of you are incredibly misguided. We live in a Republic not a Democracy and use a representative Democracy system. The President does not hold all the power and check and balances are provided by the Legislative and Judicial branch. While we may not get the President we desire, we have a secondary voice in our local representatives which keep him/her in check. Many of whom are Independents.
-
- StevenUhl777
- Posts: 3281
- Joined:
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
I'd absolutely vote for a centrist party candidate if they ran, just to send a message to both parties...
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
StevenUhl777:
That would be John Kerry.
Kerry isn't running on a leftist platform.
That would be John Kerry.
Kerry isn't running on a leftist platform.
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Superfly, that's a very detailed site. Thanks for sharing it with us.
-
- j_hallgren
- Posts: 1427
- Joined:
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Glad to see that someone else knows that it's a REPUBLIC and not a democracy...many people have forgotten that aspect...mostly the Democrats! That's why they keep trying to convince people that Gore won in 2000...because of the popular vote which means squat...its the electoral vote that counts...
And in the Pledge, we say 'and to the republic for which it stands' not the democrary...
And in the Pledge, we say 'and to the republic for which it stands' not the democrary...
-
- rsmith6621a
- Posts: 1508
- Joined:
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Great find Alpha1........Thanks.....I hope to have some John Kerry images tommorow
RE: Interactive Site On The "Battleground" States
Kerry isn't running on a leftist platform.
Compared to who Superfly?
Karl Marx?
Kerry's congressional voting record has been show to be left of even Teddy's.
Compared to who Superfly?
Karl Marx?
Kerry's congressional voting record has been show to be left of even Teddy's.