US Presidential Election 2012

Just as a side note on VP's... I read that FDR only met Truman once prior to his last election. Truman was basically selected by the party as VP, and though FDR didn't initially like the choice, he went along with it. If I remember correctly, they met once in the White House garden for lunch and barely talked.

The British sysstem is quite different although I am not sure why as we have an equivelent to VP the Deputy Prime Minister, they take over in the event he PM is incapitated in any way and speak forthe governemtn when the PM is out of the country (PM Questions happen once every week whether the PM is there or not- when they are not the DPM speaks for them- the DPM also takes over the reigns in the summer so the PM can go on holiday)- but in an election who the DPM is rarely an issue of interest. The focus is on the PM who is elected by their Party, and each party has its own rules and means of electing built over- in some cases-centuries. But in the Uk as the PM is not Head of State you are supposed to be voting not for a PM but for a party, of which the PM is supposed to be just the spokesperson.
Maybe because its collective there is not as much focus on the DPM as there is in America. And which makes it seem all the stranger to me that President and Vice president could have so little to do with each other whilst ostensibly standing as a united team.

Before it was amended the constitution called for the runner up in the presidential election to be the VP. They REALLY never talked: if you think USA politics is rough and tumble now it's a garden party compared to what it used to be. Eventually it was decided it was wiser to have the VP inside the White House so he'd actually have clue what was going on if called to duty. So the system was never really designed for a functional VP, and each new administration is left scratching it's collective head to figure out what to do with the poor duffer.

Thats interesting and explains quite a bit. The position of VP seems malleable, though in general it corresponds much like what was described for a DPM. Some VP's are rarely involved in big issues and mainly seem to attend various events, where the government wishes to send a high ranking person, like to a foreign dignitary's funeral. Others seem a bit more involved in policy making. I suppose it depends a lot on the personnel/professional relationship of the President and VP. I remember Barbara Bush commenting that they had only been invited upstairs to dine once with the Reagans during two terms in the White House.

The position of Vice President, much like the position of First Lady, has become associated with various duties and jobs over the past century or so, although the formal duties of the office are practically nil. Back in the 19th century Vice Presidents often just did whatever they felt like since they had so few obligations.

Fun fact: John Adams, first Vice President of the United States, proposed that the President be referred to as "His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties". A Senator from South Carolina subsequently proposed that the Vice President be referred to as "His Rotundity".

The VP does preside over the Senate, (which I believe is compatible with napping).

David H wrote:The VP does preside over the Senate, (which I believe is compatible with napping).

Especially since most of the VP's duties with regards to the Senate are given to the President pro tempore of the Senate (an office generally earned simply by being really old), and most of the President pro tempore's duties are delegated to junior Senators so they can have practice doing Senatorial things. I think you're onto something with the napping thing.

As the primaries continue to drag on they finally reached Maryland. It's a pretty small state and mostly Democrat so the outcome of today's vote won't have much of an impact on the ongoing Republican nomination battle. However, it had significance for me since this is the first election where I'm able to vote! Even though I'm still 17 now, my birthday falls before the general election in November. Many states have a law that allows people who will be 18 by the general election to vote in primaries even if they're underage.

I'm a registered Democrat and Obama is running unopposed in Maryland, although they did give the option of voting "uncommitted to any presidential candidate". I wanted to register as an Independent but in Maryland you have to be a member of a party to be able to vote in primaries. It didn't make much of a difference this year for the presidential nomination but there were some state and local positions that were contested. I'm probably unduly excited by this but I've waited a long time to be able to vote. I used to go with my mom every cycle until I reached the age where the election judges wouldn't let me sneak along to the voting machine.

Congratulations Eldo!

Even if the presidential nomination is where all the sexiness is at, don't sell those state and local positions short. That's where your vote has the most influence. Also I'd encourage you to remember election promises that matter to you, and if you're disappointed, don't hesitate to send a note or email saying "I voted for you because you promised blablabla". That's the way to make your vote really count!

Yeah Dave --- when Politicians don't keep their promises, like they even read your complaining emails... Oh you Americans... It's actually why America is such a menace, the peasantry think it has a say even when it patently don't, and will go to war like sheep to the slaughter...

complaining emails in my country get answered by a concrete boot or a knee capping, so being ignored is actually refreshing.

Mrs Figg wrote:complaining emails in my country get answered by a concrete boot or a knee capping, so being ignored is actually refreshing.

You sound like you live in Bullyland, Mrs Figg... Oh you do, I remember now. Brave against Men with spears (in Abyssinia if I remember correctly, and could spell), but not so good against a Man with a gun to fight back. Gangsters are brave fellows... I know, I've met a few... Not so tough without a gun or a big thug over their shoulder...

I wanna vote! I can vote next time there is an election.. though.. what to vote ?

I should say something smart here on the supersmart president election thread (I've only posted a silly video of Rowan Atkinson here )
[insert smart comment here]

Complaints can be amazingly effective, especially if you coordinate them.

Several times I've had a problem about which the state of Washington could not have cared less. I've called my representative and said to the secretary (who cared only a little more), "There are a lot of people angry out here. Shall I refer them to you?" Then she'd get a hundred phone calls and emails over the next 3 days or so.

When I call back next time she tells me how much my representative would like to meet with me, how she's sure there is a solution, and could I come in next week. It works like a charm, especially in election years!

Rick Santorum, the last serious challenger in the Republican primaries, dropped out of the race today. I think he realized he had no real chance at beating Romney, although his position was far stronger than Gingrich's or Paul's (relatively speaking). Speaking of those two, Paul has never had a serious chance and Gingrich has consistently slipped since January. It seems pretty much guaranteed that Romney will be the nominee now. However, Gingrich has promised to continue his campaign all the way to the convention. That could just be rhetoric, but it would be very bad for his party if he followed through on the threat. The longer Gingrich drags out the primary race, the nastier it will become and the better it will be for Obama.

Politico, Huffington Post

I was reading something earlier about how Romney is already way behind compared to other nominess in the past on what stage he is at- usually by now there is a winner and they are already assualting the incumbent President and gearing up their Campaign. Romney hasn't even started yet. Longer Gringrich keeps this going worse that gets. More time for Obama to lay out his stall, less time for Romney do that and attack Obamas.

I'll miss the kookiness of Santorum.

Eldo, here's a hint on how to have maximum impact during primaries. I'm registered independent, which allows me to vote in republican primaries. So I go in and vote for whoever I think will put on the most entertaining show splitting the vote and forcing infighting amongst the republican candidates. I have my laughs, then go in and vote democratic in the election.

Will Santorum get behind Gingrich?

I think I've worked out one of the big reasons America doesn't have a Welfare State worth the name.
This is off the BBC news page, its a comparison in petrol prices at the pumps, including how much is tax.

That's also why we don't have a public transportation system worth the name.

I wonder what the reaction of the US people would be if they were told the price of their gas was going to go up by almost a dollar a litre, but in return no one would ever have to pay another medical bill again.

there's plenty of evidence to show that taxing gasoline at the correct rate actually results in lower energy prices as efficiency goes up in response. So you'd think Americans just can't see past their noses.

but it's more complicated than that. Germany has a very high usage of solar energy, mainly due to tax incentives. The funny thing is, you can actually get BETTER tax advantages in the USA. The problem is that it's split among local, regional and national incentives, and the details of the paperwork are so complex almost nobody takes advantage of it.

So the American government is really trying to do the right thing, it's just too piecemeal about it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I wonder what the reaction of the US people would be if they were told the price of their gas was going to go up by almost a dollar a litre, but in return no one would ever have to pay another medical bill again.

You'd have to explain what a litre is to Americans first. Outside of scientific labs, it's not a widely used unit except for two-liter soda bottles.

Seriously though, I think most (or at least many) Americans would prefer to give their money to private companies for an inferior system (case in point: health care) than the government because we're culturally conditioned to be afraid of "socialism". There hasn't been a meaningful socialist party in the U.S. in the past 70 years, but try telling that to someone who thinks Obama is a commie-nazi.