Romney fails to impress in New Hampshire
On a makeshift stage in a school gymnasium — “Home of the Astros”, the scoreboard reads, “courtesy, respect, responsibility” — Mitt Romney is working the room. It’s 8am on a Saturday morning, a raw day, and the doors let the cold air in, as people stream through. They’ve been coming in for half an hour or more, rugged up New Englanders in padded windbreakers, and jackets made from horse-blankets, in the hundreds, to the undisguised amazement of the travelling media contingent. Outside, Romney staffers are pushing stickers and badges, and pushing them hard.
People apply them to their lapels, without much enthusiasm. Many of them don’t seem to have much enthusiasm for any part of the process at all, circled around the stage. Perhaps, it’s the early morning, perhaps it’s the New Hampshire reserve. But most likely, it’s Mitt Romney. He’s trying to be casual, relaxed and engaging, and it’s not working. No doubt no one associated with him expected that it would, but perhaps they expected they might knock a few edges off. They’ve dressed Mitt casual, in blue jeans, and a matching V-neck sweater, the shiny black-silver hair has a hair or two stray, and he’s trying to put us at our ease.
The audience sounds far from sold, and Mitt doesn’t sound too convinced either. He’s too enthusiastic, too rote, he’s doing the whole thing just a little too fast. Over three quarters of an hour ranging over the usual material — family came here from Wales, make a better life, President who wants a European social state, American military has to stay 10 times nearest rival, my favourite verse of America The Beautiful … — the atmosphere winds down rather than up. Everything about it, from the generic location to the general issue, has the air of a match.com date that started unpromisingly, and lived up to expectations. You could barely blame Romney for being scarce able to keep the show on the road. He has, after all, been running for the nomination since 2007. Having lost to John McCain in 2008, in a race in which he presented as the official conservative, he could have expected, if not a clear run, then at least respectful consideration from the party’s right-wing base. Instead, they have taunted him by swinging their support behind every crackpot, extremist and libertarian, from crazy-lady Michele Bachmann to Newt Gingrich to Rick Santorum, swinging their support behind each in turn. The Republican Party establishment who back him had already resigned themselves to some major “push-back” from the right-wing base — they did not expect that the process would be so bloody-minded. The concerted challenge has pushed Romney into a gruelling defensive campaign, nailing down every possible opening by which the Right might gain an entrance. He had been intending to sit out the Iowa caucuses on January 3 — the near-joke contest, which are open to all voters, and non-binding on selected delegates to boot. But the prospect that his victory in New Hampshire might be sandwiched amid a series of defeats in the other early contests (Iowa January 3, New Hampshire January 10, South Carolina January 21, Florida January 31), pushed him to a last-minute all-out effort, which garnered an eight-vote victory against the latest and least likely standard bearer, Catholic uber-conservative Rick Santorum. In New Hampshire he’s been pushed to a deeper and longer campaign that would otherwise be required by the manic energy of the Ron Paul campaign, a now wholly insurgent force on the right, with additional foot soldiers drawn substantially from the anti-war left, and thus outnumbering every other campaign by about three-to-one. Across the granite state, the Paulites are everywhere. Other campaigns have festooned the state with road signs and yard signs; the Paul campaign seems to have people at every traffic light and roundabout waving with a degree of genuine enthusiasm that Romney could do with a measure more of, and the Paulites a decided amount less. Northern New Englanders, in their horse blankets and dad jeans, look like the cast of Gossip Girl compared to the Paulites, who favour downmarket Trot style. Through immense hard work, they’ve pushed Ron Paul — a man who sounds like Chomsky, when he doesn’t sound like Ayn Rand — into second place, running at 20-21%, against Romney’s 40% rating, with Santorum a distant third at about 10%. Romney must see them occasionally, from his motorcade, and grind his teeth to nubbins. Had he left them to run wild, who knows where his rating would be now? So he’s been grinding out appearances ever since, to nail down a victory he could already count on, and it shows in his demeanour. In the gym, the feeling seems to be returned. The crowd is solid Republican, and the country club contingent who form his base have duly turned out — they are leaner, with golden skin, and their two children look and dress like their corresponding parent — and most of them share Romney’s “moderate” policies, but they don’t like Mitt’s presumption that he’s local, by virtue of having been a one-term Massachusetts governor. “We’re family here” gets a tepid reaction, and it gets worse when Romney’s wife comes out. Whatever conversation went into deciding on Mitt’s smart casual, Madame Romney wasn’t having any of it, draped in an off-white knit piece from head-to-foot that wouldn’t leave much change out of most attendees’ annual wage. “Oh yes, we’re family in New Hampshire. We keep a summer house here,” she said and that was it for the crowd. Afterwards, reasons for the lack of enthusiasm became obvious. Despite the stickers, actual Romney supporters were thin on the ground. As Romney left to the tune of, of course, You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet, a 40-year-old rock song, working a knot of genuine enthusiasts, the press hit the ground running, scarfing for vox pops. Ten minutes later they were trading them. “I’ve spoken to 10 people, I’ve got one New Hampshire supporter — and he’s leaning towards [John] Huntsman,” one told another. ”Oh where?” she said, and ran off. Camera crews were queued up two and three deep on the actual voters who were there. Those leaving, into the raw wind, and past the white clapboard houses surrounding the school found themselves yelled at by the Paulites, accusing them of being dupes of shadowy powers. “Wall Street candidate bought and sold,” they yelled, confusing those for whom, as far as the Republican Party went, that was rather the point. Out another exit left the Romney motorcade, en route to a hardware store somewhere in the mid-state, and then a house party, and then … *Guy Rundle will travel to all the key states and election battlegrounds as he tracks the Republican candidates and Barack Obama in the run to November. But you can only read his exclusive reports if you subscribe — take out a FREE 21-day trial or subscribe now. |
|
|
|
129 Comments
Yeah yeah, Guy’s a great writer and he really gets into the American psyche … but … wake me when they’re actually announcing the result of the Presidential election between the actual candidates for President.
I’ll read the book of Guy’s essays after the fact.
Keep it up though. Just not as Crikey’s lead story.
Dr Ron Paul is the freshest breath of air in DC politics in 150 years.
Here’s hoping for the Ron Paul Revolution to take hold among those Democrat & Republican voters who see Obama as the Wall St/MIC stooge he really always was…and energise at least half of the 40% of those eligible to vote, who don’t normally bother mainly due to cynicism with DC.
If Paul continues to do well, expect the disinformation campaign to end all such campaigns from the MIC & its America/Israel Public Affairs boosters.
But can they overcome the power of the internet, where Paul dominates?
With the exception of Ron Paul, this rabble makes Kim Jong-un look good. And, in breaking news, he can ride a horse.
Who cares, the whole process is out of the 1700’s, expensive, counter productive and a waste of time. You need a lot of money to be President, which is why there have been so many wack jobs, with few inspiring ones
KH I agree. Just read Glenn Greenwald’s piece http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/, which inspired a Guardian journo to take him to task on it, (just check out the comment thread afterward on the Guardian website!) Also the word on Diaspora amongs the political tragic is that really better Ron Paul than any other. Can’t say I disagree with Obama’s disgraceful record, he deserves to get turfed out.
SB you have ink! Exactly what I would have chosen for you too
I actually agree with Suzanne Blake. At this stage, who cares?
BTW, Ron Paul is an utter nutjob. If you want a summary of his lunacy with references click this.
“Dr Ron Paul is the freshest breath of air in DC politics in 150 years.” - Given he has been alive for more than half of those 150 years I suppose he could attest to that.
SB for once we agree - I saw something that said santorum had about $37k in his kitty compared to $20m fro Romney, and that was just to cover the next month of Primaries.
Having lived in the States for ten years and experienced 3 presidential elections (and campaigns) the American political and campaign system is truly unique.
It doesn’t surprise me that @Suzanne Blake you write that you don’t care and it’s too expensive… you clearly don’t understand or appreciate, like most Australians how passionate the American population is about their POTUS, particularly the hard core Republicans.
Sadly Guy Rundle your article reads like an Australian who doesn’t understand the system either, trying to be smart and impress a couple of crikey readers the majority of which would have no clue what the difference between a caucus and a primary is, and people like @ernmalleyscat who also doesn’t understand why this year’s elongated campaign process is so important to the candidates in preparing a run against Obama.
Your travel naivete shows in your horse blanket comment.
I would love to to read some intelligent political commentary that is respectful of the American system, that draws comparisons with Gillard and Abbott. Abbott is Australian’s republican equivalent and the huge focus on the social issue of gay marriage is proving to be a surprise for many watching the debates. Abbott should be expecting and planning for a lot of the same questions when he goes into his campaign 2013.. and that @Suzanne Blake is why we need to care. One of these guys will run against Obama.. the policies of that guy will in some part be similar to those of Abbott. If Obama wins, then I think the race between Gillard and Abbott will be much closer than we think.. and Guy Rundle… these are the kinds of thoughts I would love to read from you as you follow the republican candidates.
Hey Anna Kae, try this post by Grogs: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3741694.html
Anna Kae - “It doesn’t surprise me that @Suzanne Blake you write that you don’t care and it’s too expensive… you clearly don’t understand or appreciate, like most Australians how passionate the American population is about their POTUS, particularly the hard core Republicans.”
I don’t care how passionate they are about their president, Hillary spent over $200m in the primaries and still didn’t win, the current NY mayor spent about $50m on his campaign from memory. I agree that SB should care more about the result but the fact that their system is ridiculously expensive and just plain ridiculous is patently obvious. Look at the fact that Iowa is “open to all voters, and non-binding on selected delegates to boot.” meaning not only can democrats vote for the worst candidate in order to give Obama a better chance but the result dosen’t even count, or answer me why every state couldn’t vote at the same time rather than drawing it out over many many months?
I could also point to 2 year congressional terms meaning congressmen are almost permanently fundraising and electioneering rather than actually governing for the greater good.
@ Anna Kae
The billions spent at each election is a waste of money and GDP. Yes the President is important, but the means to get there would have been fine in the horse and cart days, but today its well out of date.
The Repbulicans / Democrats vying for the WH each are at each others throats for 9 months , hardle good for morale, dignity etc.
The process is flawed in that you need hundreds of millions to start and you need more again to win. Therefore you have a certain subset only from which to choose.
Anyone here can be PM not so the POTUS
@Jimmy - Obama is expected to have 1B going into his campaign!
But we are also talking about a population density much greater than ours and for the most the money from these campaigns goes straight back into the community and pays for jobs.. printers, media, film crews, event staff, hotels etc etc etc. These campaigns employ so many people and @SB you are quite entitled to think that that is a waste of money.
The IOWA caucus is mind boggling to say the least. I am not claiming to understand the American system any more than I think the average aussie does.
I am not even defending it so much as pointing out that that is how it is, and because it is how it is.. I ask what can we as Australians learn from it and maybe improve our political system.
As for Dr Paul… sadly I think his maturity has made him more of a strategist than a doer. If you watch him in the debates all of the answers to the questions are theoretical, intellectual… they are never yes/no… incredibly brilliant man with a genuine demeanor, the kind of guy that actually deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
Don’t yawl secretly wish you could see Gillard vs Rudd and Abbot vs Turnbull?
That’s what I love about the American system… where you get to see people on the same team debate the finer issues of their parties policies.
To hear Romney being accused of not being conservative enough makes you question your own values… we just don’t get that same level of debate in Oz.
Watching Romney’s victory lap in New Hampshire just hours after he fell over the line in Iowa was really something else, more like a hangover, where he stumbled and mumbled his way through his stump speech while John McCain paced his way back and forth with leftovers from the previous presidential election.
God it was tawdry, and the small assembled crowd could hardly muster enough enthusiasm to be noticed.
Rundle’s right, Romney is a dud, but check out the competition: tepid tea party types like Bachmann, whackjobs like Perry and Paul, the self-exploding Newt Gingrich and the utterly execrable Santorum. The bar is not high, and the lukewarm response of the party faithful reflects it perfectly.
When the GOP presidential candidates want to feed the base they offer to overturn Roe V Wade for the warm up, and then promise to bomb Iran for the finale.
Chuck in a few references to ‘socialism’, ‘freedom’, ‘shrinking government’ and verse or two of the Star Spangled Banner, and of course the obligatory “god”, and that’s all folks.
Move on, there’s nothing to see here except the GOP tacking so hard to the right it is disappearing up it own fundament.
” where you get to see people on the same team debate the finer issues of their parties policies.
To hear Romney being accused of not being conservative enough makes you question your own values… we just don’t get that same level of debate in Oz.”
Question the finer points? That level of debtate? Are you serious? The massive amount of money spent on attack ad’s (not generating employment of a largely volunteer campaign force) is not great for democracy. The problems pervading our democratic system are that we are moving towards the american system, not because we are to far removed from it.
How does a greater population density increase the amount of money needed?
The fact that “that that is how it is” doesn’t mean it is a good system.
In short everyone pretty much knows Romney will win the nomination and yet he will have to spend $200m to get there. then Obama will spend $1b and Romney will probably match it, in a country where unemployment is over 8% couldn’t the businesses who are giving this money to the respective parties use it for creating long term jobs?
@Jimmy
I AM serious about the finer level of debate. It’s interesting to me that I get to watch some 6 people compete head to head for the republican nomination to run against Obama.
I AM interested to learn that Santorum is so conservative that he would repeal Roe v Wade (and that he’s also a frightening religious nutter), that Perry always wears a nice tie, that Gingrich has an evil streak in him that I didn’t know about before I watched the debates and his campaign ads…
So how else does the American population get educated on the integrity of a potential Presidential candidate?
How amazing was it that the two most recent debates were tied with online social media (ie facebook and yahoo/twitter)… it’s another whole dimension to campaigning.
‘in a country where unemployment is over 8% couldn’t the businesses who are giving this money to the respective parties use it for creating long term jobs?’
Respectfully, that kind of question is lazy debating… of course.. always money can be spent different probably for more effect… the better question would be…
how could the American campaign system be improved where less money is spent for more more information disseminated.
And my question then is … what do we as Australians want to see from Gillard vs Abbott come 2013 and how can that be done cost effectively and most informatively?
@ Anna Kae
They need compulsory voting in the USA for a start. I think the POTUS elections get around 50% and the mid terms around 35%.
Too much apathy
@SB and that’s where you totally nailed a major issue! Completely agree!
I remember having a two hour really heated conversation with a friend of mine on politics and then found out she never voted! I have no respect for people like that, regardless of which team she supported.
I am totally on board with a system where people who care to vote should have their vote counted. If you can’t be bothered to vote then you have no right to comment.
But I stand behind compulsory voting because when you have a compulsory system the government has a responsibility to make sure everyone who can vote, does…
( and I guess as a subset of that the government is at least compelled to provide all voters with the basics of party policy… ? )
@ Anna Kae
Yes the US holds itself as the World’s Leading Democracy, yet only have express it at best.
Would be interesting to see the demographic spread of the non voters.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
@SB replace Obama=Gillard… and we wonder why those two got along so well
It would be interesting to see the demographic spread of non voters… dem vs rep over all states. initial google searches not successful… anyone?
@SB - I apologize for my early remark; not only it is clear now that you do care and have made a valued contribution, but you have made me re-think/re-assess some of my political opinions. gotta love that!
Thanks Anna
The professor was then promptly fired, not for dereliction of duty to his students so much as using the possessive form of Obama wrt Socialism. Isn’t it amazing how Obama can simultaneously be in Wall Street’s back pocket and a rampant socialist, and his worst act of Socialism was to pass a health care plan similar to the one Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts (who truly is way to left-wing for the Republican party)? But, really Suzanne, you mustn’t believe everything that arrives in your inbox.
Thanks for the sentences, though. Here are some of my favourites:
1. In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.
(sorry that was two sentences, but you must admit they are rather good).
2. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(Shakespeare, of course)
3. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
(that’s Einstein, he’s good)
4. Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.
(Ah, Lennon, would that you were still with us).
5. Actually, if you divide wealth by a number < 1 can't you multiply it?
(That's me, imagining what Einstein might have said, but not a very good sentence I'm afraid)
SB - sounds like the economics professor should be fired. What is this “Obama socialism”? Seems ridiculous that somehow socialism is labelled either black or white…..
i for one find the whole process fascinating. rick perry is worth the price of admission alone. i mean, send troops BACK to iraq? sheesh, thats a new low even for a texan….
BOBALOT:
from the hip…again.
Your attempt to discredit Ron Paul vioa Reddit is a sad reflection on your research skills…
get over it old son.
AnnaK “I lived in amerika for ten years..” but you didn’t know that Newt was EVIL? Under how many tonnes of rocks were you living?
I am, in principle, opposed to compulsory voting (I know, I know - one only has to turn up at the polling station and have ones name crossed out, then spoil the ballot [which, BTW, ARE counted by the party hacks and analysed]) but, having lived too long in Blighty and seen thatcher win with a minority of the vote in 1979 (and decline every election thereafter - even johnny minor garnered more, in 92, than she ever did) on a turnout barely 60%, not dissimilar to the US turnout. Obama had one of the highest turnouts since WWII.
@ KEVIN HERBERT
“Attempt to discredit” ? Most of those links are from Ron Paul’s own website and articles he wrote. The other links are direct links to bills that he wrote. How dare we use Ron Paul’s own words as evidence for his positions!
For example, in the “We the People Act”, introduced in Bills H.R.539 and H.R.3893, Ron Paul attempted to constrain the Supreme Court from over ruling the States regarding sexual practices. (i.e. removing Federal protection for homosexuals if they are discriminated against by regressive states).
In Ron Paul’s own words:
But feel free to casually and condescending dismiss any criticism of Ron Paul. Remember folks, judging Ron Paul by his own words has now is just mere partisan discrediting according to Kevin Herbert!
Ron Paul is clearly on the record for believing that the market would have dealt with segregation in the 1960s. Hence the “We the People Act”. If you don’t believe that, you are simply chasing a messiah and don’t really know what Paul stands for.
But you Paulites shouldn’t get your knickers in a twist. He’s not marginalised, he’s a member of Congress and on the House Appropriations Committee no less, which means he’s right there as a gadfly every time some Socialist wants to increase block funding for education, or extend health care for low-income children, or the unemployment safety net in a time of mass unemployment. And, credit be to him, he’ll probably be a firm ally for Obama in cutting defence spending - that’s fair ‘nough. But he’s not a voice in the wilderness, you just can’t make a serious run for President if you’re talking about abolishing the Fed. And the Gold Standard? In the modern economy? I mean really?
@ Anna Kae
Yes lyi ng Gillard is our worst PM in a generation and her incompetent Treasurer Wayne Swan is the worst since one was done for fraud a generation or more ago. Hw wins an ‘award’ as world’s greatest Treasuers, and have never produced a surplus or even a balanced budget.
The rest of the World must be in dire straights.
@ AR
There is NO excuse for not voting, either on the day, pre-poll or postal. Unless you are in a coma, everyone can vote and should vote.
Anna Kae - I have never been to the US and have not seen one debate but I know Santorum is an ultra conservative, that Gingrich has an evil streak and don’t care about Perry’s tie, I also know Bachmann is a tea party loon and Ron Paul is an 80 year nut. You don’t need to spend billions of dollars to find this out. By the way the you can still have the debates if you would like as they would count for very little of the total spend.
SB - An economics professor whgo never failed a student - clearly he was not doing his job when I took economics the professor said in the first class, look at the person on your left and your right one of the three of you will fail this class.
An economics professor who failed a class because they all believed in “Obama socialism”? Clearly he is letting his personal politics influence his teaching and should be fired, if a economics student can rationally argue their case and provide evidence they should not be failed.
Something tells me you are making this up again.
As for Gillard being socialist, have a look a Keanes article from yesterday.
Suzanne Blake is no position to declare anybody else incompetent.
She has been asked numerous times on this website to provide evidence for her economic claims and each time failed to show an understanding of even a high school level understanding of mathematics.
I remember over a course of 2 days repeating asking her to prove her claims( through freely available statistics) that the flood levy was the major contributor to a reduction in discretionary spending in 2011. Like most trolls, when asked to walk the walk, she walked away.
@ Bobalot
The Flood levy, Carbon Tax, and other incompetent Swan new taxes or increased taxes have had an impact on discretionary spending. Look at the fall in spending.
Europe is only partly to blame. The shredding of confidence by ly ing Gillard and incompetent Swan are the centre of blame.
Online spending is a media beatup, very small factor.
People are worried about the Carbon Tax, now other countries have backed away or have token schemes.
Show me one economist who has good things to say about the Australian economy (outside mining) in 2012? Show me one Cash For Comment Scientist, that beleives China’s pathetic carbon price will do anything.
BOBALOT:
Once again your selective use of data, and/or your apparent misunderstanding of what informs US constitutionalism, shoots down your claim re Ron Paul being a) a nutcase b) homophobic.
Take some time BOB to actually hear & read what Paul stands for i.e. the return of liberty to individual citizens including gays, and dismissal of government intrusion from their lives (and bedrooms).
Your above quote with which you intend to disparage Paul’s views, reflects your complete lack of research into the Ron Paul Revolution. He’s not just tinkering with US society around the edges, but rather wanting a return to the intentions of the US Founding Fathers.
For the record, I don’t agree with all of Paul’s positions, but I do believe that his proposals for the Presidency are the ONLY ones that make sense for the US in its current malaise. The rest of the GOP, like Obama, are Wall St/MIC/AIPAC stooges devoid of any worthwhile ideas.
Your skimming info BOBALOT, and increasingly looking like you don’t THINKALOT….at least about US politics.
The professor said, “no one will fail” and yet “ALL FAILED”. The lesson here is that economists cannot be trusted.
SB - “The Flood levy, Carbon Tax, and other incompetent Swan new taxes or increased taxes have had an impact on discretionary spending. Look at the fall in spending.” Where is the evidence for this? The carbon tax is still almost 6 months away and a large section of the sommunity will actually be overcompensated, the flood levy is less than 1% for the vast majority of income earners and has only been in effect for 6 months and only has another 6 months to run. Once again you saying something doesn’t make it true,
As for the Chnia carbon tax, firstly there are other measures China has introduced as well (like putting a tax on coal mining) that increase the “price” on carbon but regardless of that if you consider China’s other manufacturing costs, like say Labour where the minimum wage is somewhere around $6 an hour, putting another $1.55 a tonne of carbon into the mix is proportionally significant, although not as high as what we are doing I admit.
Also you have to look at the different circumstances of each country, we have already had the industrail revolution and the advantages of it, China is still decades behind in a lot of respects so we can’t expect everything to be equal. This is a step forward.
As for other countries backing away, we now have an agreement to accept legally binding targets, another step forward, the UK, Eurpoe, California, South Korea, South Africa, China, New Zealand and many others are putting a price on carbon, the world is moving forward, you just refuse to see it.
@ Jimmy
You grab for rays of ‘sunshine’ from the ALP spin sheet.
The carbon tax is biting in the minds of Australian’s regardless of how many months to go. Few believe the compensation will be adequate.
The Flood levy shows up on pay slips as an extra tax, like Union fees
My responses to the points synthesised from above are:
1. Its a sad system that allows for billions to be spent on constant electioneering in America (simply, in order to “get the vote out”), when the problem could be remedied with compulsory voting. Constant electioneering also detracts from attention that needs to be focussed on public policy.
2. My prediction is that Obama will win - the candidates the Republicans have to offer are beyond tragic. Obama can do more and I think would have, if not for the obstructionism in the senate. At least he’s moving in the right direction - winding back the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the cut backs in military spending, which will help scale back the deficit. Dealing with systemic issues that Bush/Cheney created with tax cut to the uber wealthy that has ripped off billions from the public purse (that has also sent Amercia broke) and will rip off trillions, if it is not dealt with in future, is an issue that has received insufficient attention from Obama. At least he tried initially to give overdue tax cuts to the low/middle classes without handing out even more to the ultra rich. How pathetic and treacherous is the Senate that Obama could only push through tax cuts for the low/middle classes on condition that he gave more to the uber wealthy (courtesy of that appalling TEA Party) - what a joke! No wonder the country is broke - poor people trying to pay for the unpaid taxes of the wealthy.
3. Thank God for Rudd/Gillard and Swan who, through their combined efforts, steered our country through recession. Yes, we had to blow the budget in order to do it, but any economist will tell you that is what you do to preserve an economy through stimulus spending. The Libs had openly declared they would have done it it too, but only through tax cuts to the wealthy (which would not have worked because the money would have stayed in the bank accounts). Thank God for the Government. Now, we have the admiring and envious eyes of the eyes foisted upon us for our achievements. And yet some people continue to whinge….
SB - Again where is the evidence? Yes the flood levy shows on pay slips buthwere is the evidence that such a small amount is changing spending patterns?
Where is the evidence which shows a tax that has not yet come in and is hardly going to have any impact on the large portion of the community changing spending patterns?
Even if you are correct in proving the uncertainty of what will happen under a carbon tax is to blame for a reduction in spending the blame for that lies more with Abbott’s ridiculous scare campaign rather than the tax itself and will be more than unwound once people are dealing with the reality and realise that the sky hasn’t fallen in.
SB - Again where is the evidence? Yes the flood levy shows on pay slips buthwere is the evidence that such a small amount is changing spending patterns?
Where is the evidence which shows a tax that has not yet come in and is hardly going to have any impact on the large portion of the community changing spending patterns?
Even if you are correct in proving the uncertainty of what will happen under a carbon tax is to blame for a reduction in spending the blame for that lies more with the libs ridiculous scare campaign rather than the tax itself and will be more than unwound once people are dealing with the reality and realise that the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Karen - I agree Obama is still well and truly favourite to win the election, especially now unemployment is starting to come down (good falls 2 months in a row now) and he can sell a bit of an economic story. If he does get another term and has a bit more of a helpful congress and senate and better economic conditions he may well get some decent reforms, and as you say the tax system is a great place to start.
SB - Again where is the evidence? Yes the flood levy shows on pay slips buthwere is the evidence that such a small amount is changing spending patterns?
Where is the evidence which shows a tax that has not yet come in and is hardly going to have any impact on the large portion of the community changing spending patterns?
Even if you are correct in proving the uncertainty of what will happen under a carbon tax is to blame for a reduction in spending the blame for that rests more with the libs ridiculous scare campaign rather than the tax itself and will be more than unwound once people are dealing with the reality and realise that the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Karen - I agree Obama is still well and truly favourite to win the election, especially now unemployment is starting to come down (good falls 2 months in a row now) and he can sell a bit of an economic story. If he does get another term and has a bit more of a helpful congress and senate and better economic conditions he may well get some decent reforms, and as you say the tax system is a great place to start.
@ Jimmy
The evidence is in the research undertaken by many respected polling firms. Even ALP polling shows it, but they hope like you do that when it comes it people will forget.
The other evidence is what you hear people saying in marginal seats where I vote.
Look at ALP polling in Queensland, only Rudd keeps his seat - whitewash.
Look at polling in NSW marginals.
You cannot live in denial forever and blame Abbott.
SB - The question was not will the ALP win the next election, neither was the question are the flood levy and carbon tax popular the questin was what evidence do you have that those 2 things are responsible for a dwonturn in discretionary spending?
And as for blaming Abbott, if his claims of the carbon tax leading to economic disaster are proven to be as baseless as every economist believes wouldn’t it be his fault if a drop in discretionary spend could be attributed to a looming carbon tax?
Thanks Jimmy - I agree that unemployment is a biting election issue, which will, hopefully, start to diminish with better employment/economic data coming out.
Oops, sorry for the typo - it should read on the second last line “envious eyes of the world”
@ Jimmy
Its all ads up for the ALP. Gillard as PM is terminal. She will always been seen as someone who li ed to the public point blank. This will haunt her forever and even be replayed at her obituary (whenever that is). Same as Gough Whitlam will get his speech after the 1975 sacking, Bob Hawke the America’s Cup win, Kevin Rudd will get Kevin 07 and tears at the end. Its a given.
The dislike for Gillard is strong and it is like Abba, when the trend moved away from them, it was permanent.
@KAREN
RE 1. In the 2008 USA federal election the voter turn out was around 57%. I would have thought that the logical conclusion was that if voting were compulsory in the USA you would see even MORE spending as the candidates made the effort to meet/greet the remaining 40% of the American population that doesn’t currently vote.
I really don’t understand why people think the American campaign system is sad and detracts focus from public issue. I think if anything in the election year public policy is all anyone speaks about. You get a whole nation that gets educated on the the issues, lots of discussion. Sure the incumbent party goes into a holding pattern but that happens in Oz too. Certainly all the major policies have been dealt with 6 months prior to the vote.
If Australia had a more American style campaign/debate/voting system.. Abbott would never have become leader of the Lib/Nat Party.
If Australia had a more American style campaign/debate/voting system.. then the most interesting debate we would have seen last election is Gillard vs Rudd.
But given that America is a federal constitutional republic, campaigning really is the only effective way for potential presidential candidates to reach the public.
RE. 2. I think you are right that Obama will win another term. I don’t personally agree with all of his policy but I think overall the American economy needs the stability of an Obama second term.
RE. 3. While many aspects of the stimulus package could have been managed better it was a good call. There is much concern though that people will treat the carbon tax refund in the same way, using the check as discretionary income when really it needs to be set aside for the increase in utility bills and the like.
SB - Firstly Abba has had more than a few resurgences, ever heard of Mama Mia? Second Gillards & the ALP 2pp poll numbers have been improving in the second half of last year and sit pretty comparably to many other govt’s at the same time in the election cycle and third and most importantly you haven’t answered the question I have asked!!
Anna Kae - “In the 2008 USA federal election the voter turn out was around 57%. I would have thought that the logical conclusion was that if voting were compulsory in the USA you would see even MORE spending as the candidates made the effort to meet/greet the remaining 40% of the American population that doesn’t currently vote.” COmpletely backwards, they have to spend to make people want to vote, to make the so fearful/hopeful that if they feel compelled, that doesn’t happen if the vote is compulsory. Also The other 40% already see the same ad’s and that is where the bulk of the money is spent.
@Jimmy
Ah yes I see your point. My head was still in primary mode where the opposition front runner is still being chosen. Compulsory voting on a side by side race would reduce the need for campaign spending yes.
@ KEVIN HERBERT
You are not fooling anybody. I quoted Ron Paul HIMSELF and pointed out why his position is ridiculous.
You just wrote a paragraph of barely coherent waffle. If I have misrepresented Ron Paul, feel free to point out what exactly I have written that is wrong and why it is wrong.
I particularly love this quote
Ron Paul attempted to ban abortion at the Federal level (That’s a direct link to the bill). So much for Ron Paul’s supposed love of individual “LIBERTY”.
Invidual Liberty? How can you even write that after I presented you with a link to a BILL that Ron Paul himself wrote that constrains the supreme court from overriding State governments that discriminate against minorities?
Here is another article BY RON PAUL which he claims the Federal government shouldn’t stop regressive State governments from regulating sexuality. In fact, his EXACT words are:
We all know what “local standards” are going to be applied to homosexuals. Ron Paul is a proponent of “State’s Rights” not individual liberty.
It’s amazing. Ron Paul fans are like a cult. When you present Ron Paul’s actual bills that give States the “freedom” to discriminate (most likely against homosexuals), they flat out state the opposite is true.
@ SUZANNE BLAKE
Once again, like an empty drum, you make a lot of noise but have nothing within. Once again, you fail to provide a shred of evidence for your claims.
If a University student wrote a paper with your claims and provided the same amount of evidence you just did, they would have gotten a outright fail. However, intellectual honesty is expected at University.
It is quite possible to mathematically prove your hypothesis. The data is freely available and the maths is high school level.
It’s amazing that you supposedly run a small business.
So what if it takes a billions dollars or so for the world’ most powerful nation in history to have regime change. Compared to the cost of regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nazi Germany et al it’s chump change. There are many problems in America, the presidential election system is the least of them.
The primary system works to vet the candidates and weed out the nutters. It is not perfect - but compared to the way history has generally seen powerful leaders removed from office - it work splendidly.
The vast majority of Australians could not give a stuff about politics. Most major political parties cannot get a regular quorum at their local branch meetings nowadays - nor round up enough locals to hand out how-to-vote cards on election day. But within 24 hours of an election their is queue of whiners with a barrow full of complaints.
In the US millions of people take part in the election and political process. The ignorance displayed in this thread about the recent history of fund raising by the Obama 2008 campaign is extraordinary. Nearly the entire amount raised in 2008 was from small donations. And they were able to go back time and time again to raise more money and attack the GOP disinformation machine. The GOP hated it. But From a classic free market perspective - Obama won because the market place of voters put their own money on the table.
Of course there are problems within the system but to blissfully condemn the entire primary system is just so typical of so many Australians from both sides of politics when it comes to understanding the US.
Rundle does a pretty good job at reporting on the US elections - a mix of solid reporting, local color, and some fine intellectual analysis. Beats the pants off the junk analysis BK serves up each day from Canberra. Hopefully Crikey will have Rundle do the 2013 election back here instead.
SB, your bias against Gillard, Swan and Labor is staggering and ridiculous considering that they brought us through a severe global financial crisis relatively unscathed and have put in place reforms that will help Australia for decades.
Contrast that with Phoney and the Noalition who have offered no alternative policies at all.
Fools like you who suggest that it’s not an opposition’s place to do so forget how heavily you and the Turdoch press hammered Rudd and Labor as ‘policy free’ in the leadup to the ‘07 election.
Personally I think its about time Newspolls were independently audited as across the world and here in Australia they have every conservative government heavily and impossibly in the lead.
Would and could such a proven corrupt organisation as News Corpse deliberately use dodgy polls to try to steer elections? I think the answer is obvious.
@ Jimmy - yes, thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say re money being spent on people turning out to vote, if in a rather abbreviated form
@ Anna Kae - agree with your comments about Obamas reelection for economic stability in view of the cuts he is making, as well as your concerns about carbon refund cheques being possibly misspent.
@Mack the Knife
I’m confused. Are only Labor party supporters allowed to comment on crickey?
You say ‘your bias’.. but isn’t that just SB’s political opinion which I would have thought she clearly has the right to have… just as you have yours.
‘Turdoch’ seriously? You seem to be much more intelligent than having to resort to petty name calling to give strength to your argument.
Anyway…
I had a conversation with a friend over the weekend that really made me think about my own political views and feelings for Australia. I’m an Australian citizen by birth. My two children have both Australian and American citizenship. The question was raised that if my kids were called to a draft under which flag would I want them to fight.
Clearly under Gillard vs Obama it would be Obama. Under Gillard vs Romney it would be Gillard. Under Abbott vs Romney… I’d tell my kids to marry someone Chinese.
I personally would not want to have to go to fight for Australia under Gillard, Abbott or Brown.
But to tie this back to the American election/campaign process … I listen to some of the campaign speeches and I’m up on my feet saying God Bless America and then I kinda sit down sheepishly because I’m not an American. I have never ever had that same level of deep pride for Australia. How ironic is it that the best speech we have ever heard from Gillard is the one that she gave to the US Congress? Why has Gillard never directed a speech like that to the Australian population?
The debates, the campaigning, the ads, the whole process quickly highlights the trash, the extremists and those that have no personality.
I think it’s great that crikey has a journalist on the campaign trail, and I’m trusting Rundle will give us some decent Australian relevant analysis.
Simon Mansfield - Can you provide some evidence of the amount Obama raised from individuals in 2008 including both the primary & Presidential race? Also could you provide some idea of how much money was spent on the entire 2008 election, including Presidential Primaries, the Presidential Race, the Congress & Senate Elections? If you want we could go to Gubernatorial, Mayoral, District Attorney etc etc? If at the end of that you still think spending that many billions of dollars every few years (2 year for Congress and the Senate) is a good system then good luck to you.
Yes the Primary System works to weed out the nutters but does it really have to be held over months with different states voting at different times under different rules, why should one state have a first past the post system and another representative, why should Iowa’s be non binding and open to anyone and others be binding and only open to party members? Why should Iowa have 6 or 7 candidates from which to choose and the later states only 3 or 4?
And as for the “classic free market” do you really think democracy should come down to “free market” and who raises the most money?
@ Jimmy
You call it a scare campaign. Its a facts . So many Countries are winding back their carbon initiatives or delaying or both.
People see this reported and fear what will happen here, with so many manufacturers closing, the risk of retail job losses etc etc, people tighten spending, which is what we are seeing.
Anna Kae, I admire your open mindedness about the American electoral system. You’re probably right that it’s not as bad as we think, but personally I dread the thought of the Australian system being anything like the American system. I’m actually a dual citizen, and grew up in the USA, so as the resident expert of this discussion (not!), I can offer this perspective. I helped out the John Kerry campaign in 2004 and our sole job was to get people who were known or suspected to have Democratic leanings but had dropped off the electoral role to register to vote. That was it, not convincing people, not discussing policy, not handing out fliers, just vote registration. And, on polling day, we were rounding people up and getting them to the polling booths.
Couple that with America’s long history of suppressing the vote of minority or low-income people, either through literacy tests, poll taxes, or underhanded shenanigans of every sort (e.g. dropping black voters off the rolls in Florida in 2000) and you have to conclude that mandatory voting, a system that puts the onus on the government to make sure that everyone votes, is a very, very good thing. The other great thing about the Australian system is that the electoral commission oversees the rules and sets the electorates. In the U.S. it’s completely corrupted by the legislature that happens to be in power at the time.
I think the difference is that the American system was based on Enlightenment idealism, and was meant to be run by educated landed gentry (men of course), all of whom would be rational and wise. The Australian system, adopted from the British, was born from the necessities and realpolitik of the industrial revolution (not to mention gradual devolving of powers from the Monarchy, not a revolutionary overthrow). So, it’s a more modern system, and can deal better with the modern world.
Well, so I’d like to think! The other big difference is that in the U.S. you’ve got serious money corrupting the system. We didn’t do so well in the face of Rio Tinto and XStrata, how would our system fare with Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Dow, Exxon, Raytheon, Boeing, General Electric, Ford, … ?
SB - Provide evidence of exactly which countries are “winding back their carbon initiatives or delaying or both. ’ and contrast that with the number of countries which a progressing with them.
Have a look at the profits and growth in the manufacturing sector in the last 12 months, also could you provide figures for the decline in retail spending and the loss of retail jobs.
Also have a look at what you have actually said “You call it a scare campaign. Its a facts” “People see this reported and fear what will happen here”My point is that Abbott and News have “reported” in a way that is biased and factually false to create the “fear” you allude to. Given the tax hasn’t actually started it can not have actually had an impact, it is only fear of the unknown that could possibly impact consumer spending andif you have any evidence to show this please provide it but as I said earlier when reality hits the fear will disappear and any loss of consumer spending will go with it.
Abbott himself knows this and that is why he was so keen on getting an early election,
@Jimmy - Google “wiki obama 2008 campaign” - see section down third of the way “Fundraising”.
The 2008 Obama fund raising campaign represented a massive effort by individuals to blow the GOP out of the water. They had so much money they were able to drown out the attack ads and do it on a city by city - issue by issue basis.
As most people were only donating 10-100 dollars at a time - they could tap back into that donor base over and over again as the campaign developed. Which fund raising requests pitched to raise money to run specific ad campaigns.
That fund raising machine has remained largely intact and is fully cashed up to repeat the process.
Obama, like almost all presidents took time to learn the game - but the past year has been very successful and he is now well placed to win in November. Like Rudd he made the mistake of trying to be nice to the other team. A virtue which sadly achieved nothing good in the end.
Meanwhile, there is a very good chance that Obama will move to withdraw from Afghanistan over the next six months and coupled with ongoing economic recovery - he will be well placed to win in November.
Then he’ll have four years to implement his agenda of domestic and international policies without having to deal with a reelection campaign.
And yes democracy is by definition a free market activity. In the end we the people drive the process and our elected leadership implement what we want.
The primary pre selection system is coming to Australia - and that will be a good thing. Just think of how many tossers will be tossed overboard when the backroom boys and girls lose their kingmaker grip on power.
At 14.5 trillion dollars - spending even 10 billion dollars is a small amount of money to effect peaceful regime change every 4-8 years. No one said it democracy was perfect, but as Churchill said it’s the best system so far.
Anna Kae - “I listen to some of the campaign speeches and I’m up on my feet saying God Bless America” I think you are confusing patriotism for policy, the little bits of these campaign speeches I see I the news etc they are very Patriotic, “america is the best country in the world” etc a lot of referencing God (something that make me cringe personally) and basically they remind of of a televangelist or motivational speaker desgned to get you pumped up but no real substance.
Simon Mansfield - Could you also go into why the are “super delegates” and how there block of votes fts in to a democratic process as opposed to being available for auction to the highest bidder (ala “The Ides of March”).
@ Anna Kae
You are dead right.
Cri key is full of left wing, blinkered people, who trot out the Green / Labor spin.
They blame the media (MSM) for Labor poor showing in the polls. They believe Gillard and Swan are so perfect.
It is a sign of extreme weakness that they attack others. Its like North Korea a bit, unless you toe the line and clap, you are sidelined or worse in North Korea.
The are bullies and the Management at Cri key started to crack down today in the Illegal Refugee Posts.
These lefties treat Crik ey as their media, cause all other forms of media (except extreme socialist ones) don’t allow them to express their naive views.
“At 14.5 trillion dollars - spending even 10 billion dollars is a small amount of money to effect peaceful regime change every 4-8 years. No one said it democracy was perfect, but as Churchill said it’s the best system so far.” Is it only $10b every 4-8 years? If you went through every level of govt $10b would be very much on the low side, contrast that to what we spend here for our “democracy” and you will see $10b is ridiculously excessive.
The other issue I have is that as the President appoints his “secretaries” and congressmen & senators for for there best interests rather than the parties money buys positions of influence , again not great for democracy.
As for your reference, no figures just the loose term “much” which is vastly different to “nearly the entire”.
Simon - “And yes democracy is by definition a free market activity. In the end we the people drive the process and our elected leadership implement what we want. ” But in a true democracy a millionaire and a pauper have the same level of power, 1 vote it should not be a vote and the ability to use your wealth to buy some from others or the ear of an elected official,
@ Jimmy
Canada wind back, UK wind back, the list is huge. More wind back and cancel that Countries actually implementing.
On retail spend, look at the warnings given by a host of retailers in the last quarter.
Same in property, investment and manufacturing.
Manufacturing growth / profits in Australia - where?
SB - the Canadian govt was changed and yes the new conservative govt has cancelled plans for an ETS, however numerous provinces are still going ahead, UK just announced a very ambitious target for Carbon reduction so I am not sure what you are talking about there.
You have named 2 that are both a bit dubious I have named 7 excluding Australia and counting Europe as one, I think I am still winning on that scorecard.
SB - So other than “warnings” givewn by reatilers who have a vested interest in lobbying for interst rate cuts ect to help them make more money where is your evidence? And if “Property, investment retail & manufacturing” are all going backwards how is the GDP still growing?
As for manufacturing growth I know you hate actual evidence but “The manufacturing sector had a small uptick to finish 2011 in positive territory, new figures released by the Australian Industry Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers show.
The Australian performance of manufacturing index rose 2.4 points to 50.2 in December, showing an expansion in activity.”
SIMON MANSFIELD: you say:
“In the US millions of people take part in the election and political process”. Any data to support your claim? My data says that historically 40% of eligible voters at Federal level don’t bother to take part due to their cynicism re the corporatisation of DC. Of the remaining 60% who do bother to vote, 40% are hardcore Democrats while 25% are hardcore GOP, leaving the remaining 35% up for grabs at every election. Of course the 35% are subject to lobbying by neocon/MIC/AIPAC aligned media as follows:
US Media Ownership Neocons/ Zionists January 2012
Electronic
ABC TV Disney Corporation (Zionist)
NBC/MSNBC General Electric (MIC)
CBS Zionists (the CEO Les Moonves is Ben Gurion’s nephew) while the Chairman Summer Redstone is an avowed far right Zionist
Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg – Zionist supporter
Fox News Corporation is a dedicated neocons network, whose upper management is dominated by far right neocons/Zionists
Time Warner Neocons/Zionists: Jennifer Eizsenhorn - director
Print
Wall St Journal News Corporation (sold to KRM by the Zionist Jewish Bancroft family).
Washington Post owned by the Jewish Zionist family _ the Grahams
New York Times owned y the Jewish Zionists family - the Sulzbergers
You can make up your own minds as to how much these groups jointly and/or severally influence public opinion….one doesn’t have to think too hard about it !!!
However, this election provides a scenario where history may be made. Obama’s total failure to live up to his many promises (remember his pre-election “Guantanamo Bay will be closed…and you can take that to the bank” promise?) AND the unforseen rise in the political power of the Internet have both major parties & the GOP boosters, VERY NERVOUS.
If Ron Paul decides to run as a Libertarian 3rd party candidiate, he will splinter the Democrat & GOP vote trends, and cause havoc.
I’ve been looking forward to this contest for the past 12 months particularly since Obama showed his Uncle Tom persona.
@ Jimmy
GDP is growing cause of mining, your favourite industry
The Retailers are ASX listed they can’t warn cause they feel like it, there are laws around that.
SB - “GDP is growing cause of mining, your favourite industry” Now I am confused mining is growing at such a fast rate it can carry the whole economy despite the fact it accounts for just “6% of the economy” according to the mining industry website and it has the spectre of a 2 job killing taxes in the MRRT and Carbon Tax both starting this year when the rest of the economy has been destroyed by just one of those taxes despite the prospect of individual and corporate tax cuts?
“The Retailers are ASX listed they can’t warn cause they feel like it, there are laws around that.” Absolute rubbish, the retailers industry group is not bound by any ASX laws so they can squeal all they want, the big retailers can talk about “tough economic conditions” etc in general terms while posting massive profits.
So I’ll ask again where is the evidence for any of your statements?
SB - For the September Quarter “In seasonally adjusted terms, GDP increased by 1.0% and Non-farm GDP both increased by 1.1% in the September quarter. The Terms of trade rose 2.7% and Real gross domestic income rose 1.6%.
Construction contributed 0.4 percentage points to the increase in GDP, while Mining contributed 0.3 percentage points”
So Mining contributed 0.3 of the 1.1% of non farm growth, Construction (which I assume wou lumped in with “Property” Contributed 0.4, which leaves another 0.4 to come from Manufacturing, Retail, and Finance, given non of them could exceed 0.3 (otherwise they would be listed as a major contributor) at least 2 of them have to be going forward and the third can’t be going backwards that much.
SB - Here are some actual retail figures from the ABS “The trend estimate rose 0.3% in November 2011. This follows a rise of 0.3% in October 2011 and a rise of 0.3% in September 2011.
The seasonally adjusted estimate was relatively unchanged (0.0%) in November 2011. This follows a rise of 0.2% in October 2011 and a rise of 0.3% in September 2011. “
@ Jimmy
Obviously you have missed the ASX warnings from Retailers, who cares what their association says. They spin, like the ALP.
The retail growth is pathetic, not even keeping pace with inflation.
Mining 6%? what about the flow up to others business and services. deduct also Queensland flood fix ups and we are backwards
@ Anna Kae
You are dead right.
This Board is full of left wing, blinkered people, who trot out the Green / Labor spin.
They blame the media (MSM) for Labor poor showing in the polls. They believe Gillard and Swan are so perfect.
It is a sign of extreme weakness that they attack others. Its like N Korea a bit, unless you toe the line and clap, you are sidelined or worse in N Korea.
The are bullies and the Management a this Boardt started to crack down today in the Illegal Refugee Posts.
These lefties treat this Board as their media, cause all other forms of media (except extreme socialist ones) don’t allow them to express their naive views.
SB - “The retail growth is pathetic, not even keeping pace with inflation.” You really don’t have any idea do you, this statement just shows you complete lack of economic concepts. The fact is the retail sector is growing, the manufacturing sector is growing, the construction sector is growing, the mining sector (all 6% of it and only you can complain about figures provided from the industry themselves) and all this in a global environment that is providing very tricky conditions.
“Obviously you have missed the ASX warnings from Retailers” What were these warings, anything specific or just the general we expect difficult conditions? Even if they are profit downgrades what is the penalty if they prove to be wrong?
“deduct also Queensland flood fix ups and we are backwards” No they woould be included in the 0.4 attributed to “Construction” even if you took out all the “construction” and all the “Mining” we are still going forwards.
“Mining 6%? what about the flow up to others business and services” Should we gross up construction & retail for this as well, how about agriculture? Mining is 6% of the economy, it is growing strongly but is is 6%.
Just face it, the figures have proved you are full of it at least have the good grace to admit you were wrong.
Oh and the figures I supplied would not take into accoun the effect of the 2 interst rate cuts prior to Christmas.
@ Jimmy
Are you the cleaner on Are You Being Served?
They put out warnings as they will miss profit targets, they don’t do it lightly, as their share prices plunge. JB Hi 25%, same with Kathmandu. Myer and David Jones lesser.
0.4% construction, deduct Queensland re-build and its negative.
@Jimmy - The Super Delegates have never used their votes to change the outcome of a Democract primary process at the National Convention. They were put there - as a just in case - if a complete nut job got up. In 2008 there was some talk that Hillary would try and use them to change the outcome as it was very much lineball at the end. However, in the end it was Hillary who moved the motion from the floor that effectively said ‘here and now we bring the process to a halt and we all support Barak’. It was one of those feel good moments Americans so much love to bath themselves in. But hey it’s their culture so let them be.
As to the issue of one billion or 10 billion - you seem to not understand that there has never been a superpower outside of America that has had an effective means of regime change ever 4-8 years that is essentially peaceful and doesn’t involve killing the leader on a regular basis. Yes there has been four assassinations of sitting US presidents - but they have not been popular driven events - but either nutters or fascists.
At 10 billion - it really is chump change and while way beyond our scope of doing things it does not mean it’s bad by definition.
Yes there are problems with the PACs and other like groups undermining the process, and yes the current state based voting regimes are a complete mess. And yes there is outrageous disenfranchisement of voters via contrived means. And yes what happened in Florida in 2000 was a complete joke - but that was partly payback for 1960 in Chicago. So what goes around - comes around.
And in 2008 the Obama campaign used a vast warchest funded by small donations to utterly blow the GOP machine out of the water. The GOP absolutely hated being beaten at the money raising game and has spent a huge amount of time and effort since trying to discredit that process.
The primary system is very effective in getting a very large of people directly involved in the pre selection process and it absolutely puts to shame what happens here in a typical preselection process where a bunch of 70 year olds are about all who care anymore to be members of political parties and take part in the pre selection process.
So in my direct experience Australians should learn to STFU when it comes to looking down on the US democracy. When our system is a whole lot better maybe then we might be in a position to lecture others about how to conduct their affairs.
Suzanne Blake
@ Anna Kae
They need compulsory voting in the USA for a start. I think the POTUS elections get around 50% and the mid terms around 35%.
Too much apathy
Wrong…..we should remove compulsory voting. It will save us from all the gooses who have no interest and no clue. Then, only those who take their right to vote seriously will take the time to do what they consider is the right thing for the country.
Right. Australians are amongst (if not THE) the most indebted people in the world thanks to our enormous real estate bubble. They’ve just watched most of the world’s biggest economies fall into debt-driven recessions with similar real estate bubbles popping. However, in your world it’s not their rationale response (paying down debt) to that driving the fall in spending, it’s a one-off levy of insignificant proportions and a tax that doesn’t come into effect for another six months.
No-one using a term like “Obama’s socialism” carries the slightest shred of credibility.
Hopefully the professor soon found himself out of a job for gross incompetence and lying to his students.
No-one is trying to legislate the wealthy out of prosperity.
Like the capital growth and stock dividends the wealthy derive most of their income from ?
The Government wouldn’t need to step in if the people with all the wealth weren’t so selfish.
Absolutely you can. Indeed, this is the fundamental principle behind modern banking and the wealth creation it has enabled.
When half the people get the idea that the other half is deliberately driving them into grinding poverty, that is the beginning of the end of civilisation.
Jimmy (Tuesday at 9:16 am about Suzanne Blake’s exam-grading story on Monday at 6:09 pm) — “Something tells me you are making this up again.”
No, Jimmy, she’s not making it up. She’s repeating something that has been circulating for years — see snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp for the history of this legend.
I recall in the past someone suggesting to SB that she should attribute quotations or comments from others rather than plagiarizing. This may not be plagiarism, but obviously it’s not something that happened at a “local college” near her.
Suzanne’s output sometimes amazes me, and I wonder how she has the time to conduct a business. I see her comments on innumerable articles, and they are invariably the same. Perhaps she uses macros so that she doesn’t have to type the same thing over and over and over again, especially “ly ing Gillard” and “incompetent Swan”. (Such a paucity of adjectives when there are so many in our rich language.)
Sometimes she is among the first to comment; often she “replies” to the remarks of others. I use quotes around “replies,” because often they are not replies. She reminds me of an acquaintance who talks and talks and talks. When someone else says something, this person “listens” but doesn’t really — he simply waits until the other person finishes talking or even pauses, and then continues what he wants to say. It’s almost impossible to have a conversation with him because a conversation is an exchange of ideas and he simply talks — there is no exchange involved.
It’s a shame. Conversations, exchanges of ideas, can be so rewarding, so stimulating. Speeches can also be rewarding and stimulating, but not when they’re repeated ad infinitum.
I notice Suzanne Blake refuses to backup her claims with easily available evidence.
@ Jimmy and Bobalot
More evidence of the weak Australia consumer and business confidence is the way the ASX has underperformed the DOW and other major markets since the GFC.
It shows we lack confidence here and we are seen as risky, with a scatter brain Government, and ly ing politicians, who provide no certainty.
Actually, it shows we have an economy dominated by foreign influences and the rest of the world is pretty much screwed in the short term.
Try again.
SB - Firstly the underperformance of the ASX shows investor sentiment not consumer & buisness confidence but even if it was you still aren’t linking the lack of confidence with the taxes especially as the ASX uncertainty will have much more to do with Europe & the US than the taxes (especially the flood levy).
Simon Mansifield - “you seem to not understand that there has never been a superpower outside of America that has had an effective means of regime change ever 4-8 years that is essentially peaceful and doesn’t involve killing the leader on a regular basis” You don’t count the British empire? And How much did the US spend on elections in the 50’s and 60’s?
You also seem to be arguing that the reason the US is a super power is the election system or that the british/australian model couldn’t work in a super power which is patently false.
And as for the super delegates it seems the are another great example of US democracy, we are happy for you to vote for whoever you want but if they are not who we want we reserve the right to overturn it, just like the palestinian elections.
And you still haven’t given a figure of how much Obama raised from small donations or how much the whole process costs.
Without directing this comment to anyone in particular, after reading some of the posts, in my mind, as soon as you start to attack the poster/contributor and not the argument you lose credibility and your own argument.
For those that have been following the republican primaries, this is exactly the commentary that the media are having about Gringrich in particular.
I’m a little baffled and still trying to see the relevance to the original story posted of some of the comments and while theoretical debates are always fun, in this situation it detracted from, took focus away from the topic of republican primaries. I appreciate that it is frustrating for many here to read comments that aren’t relevant and serve as a soapbox.
Having said all that, @JIMMY you repeatedly ask for exact figures when my initial web searches show that the information you are asking for is quite readily available. If you need help doing keyword searches then I happy to assist. And I say that genuinely since it’s not always easy to know what keyword combinations to use. It’s a stronger debating tactic to bring the figures to the debate rather than asking your opponent to provide them.
I don’t know the exact figure of donations re Obama, it is on the web because American law requires it to be publicly available. I can tell you that the number the American media are tossing around for Obama’s 2012 campaign is 1 billion dollars. I know that from streaming over 100 hours of msnbc, fox news and the like.
@JIMMY
‘You also seem to be arguing that the reason the US is a super power is the election system or that the british/australian model couldn’t work in a super power which is patently false.’
I don’t read anywhere that Simon made that assertion, and Simon please correct me if I am wrong… but for anyone to suggest that the American’s change to a Westminster political system is just as out of touch as Santorum is suggesting that birth control be banned.
I am not sure what your point is here Jimmy, perhaps you can restate and clarify it for me.
I think it’s your opinion that the American system is bad because it costs so much, and Australia’s is better because….? why?
@SIMON
I haven’t read such refreshing intelligent commentary in a long time. Thank you. You raised a couple of points I hadn’t considered before. You really highlight how insular and removed from world politics many Australian’s are.
Anna Kae - As to the exact figures and me doing key word searches my point is that if you make an assertion you should be able to provide the evidence that the figure is accurate, Simon asserted “nearly the entire” amount Obama raised was from small donations and yet his only reference appears to be a wiki page that says “much” which is not the same thing and not nearly accurate enough. To me the onus is on the person making the argument to provide the evidence not the other way around.
As for I am not suggesting the Westminster system be adopted by the US but the UK and Australia manage to hold elections that cost no where near the US system. For Simon to argue that the billions of dollars is effectively the price of freedom and there is nothing that can be done about it is just plain wrong. The US could do many many things to improve their system and prevent it from becoming an ever increasing race of the richest such as things already suggested here like compulsory voting, holding all primaries at one time or maybe even radical things like restricting campaign contributions.
As for why I dislike the cost involved in the US and prefer our system well money corrupts and allows people to buy influence, the US congressmen and Senators only get 2 year terms and have to spend to much of that time fundraising to ensure they get re-elected they don’t govern properly and the billoins of dollars spent at every level could be better spent.
I ask you this do you really think a tax system where you have no tax free threshold and the top rate doesn’t kick in until you are earing $388k and is only 35% would exist if politicians didn’t value the votes of the wealthy more? Or that any increase in tax on the wealthy would be so vehmently opposed?
@ Jimmy
It’s a well known aspect of the 2008 campaign that Obama did really well out of small donations - and was able to forgo public financing as he was able to raise so much more from the marketplace of ordinary voters.
There has been many attempts to discredit this idea. The GOP first of all tried to make out that they were taking money off foreigners or business owners were giving staff money to donate so they wouldn’t breech disclosure rules and go over donation limits.
Here is an article on HuffPost that looks at the key CFI report and how that was used to spin a myth.
huffingtonpost . com /greg-mitchell/study-that-hits-myth-of-o_b_147135.html (remove spaces)
As to the earlier days of the Republic - 2 things - the US was not yet a fully development superpower until after WW2 - and mass media is clearly what has changed everything. So unless you want to ban TV and Radio advertising for political purposes - which clearly will never happen under the US constitution - you just have to accept that the process has evolved. And let’s not forget - the 1960 election was won by Joe K using the families vast wealth to buy the presidency as he so liked to tell people - including Jack.
And as Anna has pointed out the US democracy is a hybrid system quite different to what we have here on back in the motherland.
Anna - I could also point to a lack of real wage growth in the last 40 years, the ridiculous concentration of wealth and the way a medicare style health system is viewed as communism.
@Jimmy
Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I now better understand the points you are making. I am new to crikey so I have no previous appreciation of your style of commentary.
You make some very valid points. Yes there is a lot of room for improvement in the US system and I understand many of the politicians recognize that and are working towards change.
I am more interested in the perceived and actual deficiencies of our own election system and what can be done to improve it. As I previously commented I see good things in the primary system in the states. I love the debates. I love seeing people on the same team ‘fight to the death’ and I think that if Australia had a primary system, where the party leader is voted by registered party voters and not inhouse mates, then we would experience a much more stable government. We wouldn’t ever have the ‘if and when Rudd knocks out Gillard’ conversation that one arm of the press delights in having.
I welcome your thoughts on how the Australian system can be improved.
No worries Anna, you have every right to query/challenge my reasoning and I should be able to back it up, that is a healthy exchange of ideas where hopefully both sides come out more enlightened.
I would challenge “I love seeing people on the same team ‘fight to the death’” as an improvement as I find it hard to see how tearing down someone for months only then to turn around and try to get others to vote for them can be a good thing.
As for the Rudd V Gillard commentary I actually think that has nothing to do with improving politics but improoving journalistic standards andgetting them to deliver the public the level of debate we deserve, I also think that interviewers should have the courage to cut interviews short when it becomes clear the politician is only going to say the same catch phrase in response to any question.
“Primaries” for individual candidates may have it’s place in Australia and would be relatively cheap and easy but I would hate to move to a system where we vote for a PM rather than a party, where one persons religion, gender, sexual preference or even ideas is held over the collective party policy.
SB - One last thing, you assert that but for the reconstruction work in QLD the economy would be going backwards and that is the fault of the flood levy, but without the flood levy a lot of the reconstrcution in Qld would not be occuring, please explain?
@ Jimmy
You have your head so far up the ALP rear end, you cannot see anything. You defend them to death. Admirable. Pathetic, Naive.
Great foot soldier for solidarity.
@ Jimmy
The flood levy is for PUBLIC construction, something the Queensland Government failed to insure. So all Ausralians earning over $50k are footing the bill for that mistake. We all know the waste that Labor Governments have when they have money to spend quickly.
The flood levy is NOT funding rebuilding homes etc. I have fiends up there waiting for insurance payouts and are still living at friends.
@SB Government rarely insure any of their risk exposure - as by definition they are the insurer of last resort. It is far cheaper for governments to put aside contingency funds within rolling budgets to pay for unexpected expenses - like natural disasters. The last thing we want is governments to enter the insurance market via large risk exposures.
The result would be a completely distorted insurance market and an explosion in premiums. Nick the Con from SA was being led by the nose last year via a person who had a vested interest. Sadly, the Federal Govt instead of using this as Exhibit A as to why Nick the Con should be shown the door failed to go for the jugular on this issue and failed to explain why neither the Federal government nor the various State governments have broad insurance policies in place.
As you might have noticed - bridges are often over rivers and therefore at substantial risk from serious flood events. As such they would be rated high risk and would attract very high premiums as is the case with anyone wanting to insure in high risk flood areas. THAT’S WHY THEY DON’T INSURE SUCH THINGS. The idiocy of the governments-being-uninsured debate has been a very good example of just how poor public policy debate is in Australia - be it the media, politicians or the ignorant public.
SB - I never said the flood levy was rebuilding homes but Public construction is still included in the “construction” growth figures and as you have pointed out many people are still waiting for insurance payouts it is the Public construction that is driving a lot of that growth, so I’ll ask this would you prefer lower construction growth, higher public debt or the flood levy.
I ouwld also point out that every fact supports my point of view ion this debate all you have os a discredited story about a professor and your mates down at the RSL.
Simon Mansfield - Very well put.
Simon Masfield - As far as the 2008 fundraising of Obama goes I agree he did very well out of small donations but I would calssify raising $100m as doing very well out of small donations which would still leave almost $900m from major corporation and influence peddlers, my query to you was as you asserted “nearly the entire” how much was that roughly?
As for the expense of mass media, other major democracies have faced a similar issue in the rise of modern media without getting anywhere near the billions that are spent at every level of govt in the US, it is far to simplistic to just say that costs have increased due to the new forms of advertising.
Poor old BOBALOT:
You’re skimming as usual. In the same article, Paul says:
“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution”. Hardly the words of someone who’s anti-gay.
C’mon Bob , loosen your clearly cartesian view on politics, and have a look at what Paul is actually saying. i.e. ramming legislation down individuals’ throats creates bigotry and on-going problems. It’s big jump BOBA, but you can do it!!!!
Clearly you’re stuck in the mindset of contemporary Aussie/Western political dogma…read more on Ron Paul & you’ll come to understand what real individual liberty is as stated in the US constitution.
As I said, I don’t agree with all that Paul promotes, but I agree with 80% of it, which is about 50% more than I agree on with any other political entity, Australian or not.
SIMON MANSFIELD:
You say:
“In the US millions of people take part in the election and political process”.
Any real data to support your claim?
@JIMMY
I wanted to go back to something you posted, you made a really interesting point when you wrote…
“Primaries” for individual candidates may have it’s place in Australia and would be relatively cheap and easy but I would hate to move to a system where we vote for a PM rather than a party, where one persons religion, gender, sexual preference or even ideas is held over the collective party policy.
Don’t we already have that in the labor party on the issue of same sex marriage? And I don’t want to discuss the merits of gay marriage at all here, but I raise it because it is a social issue that is being discussed and debated now in the republican debates and we will have it here when the bill is put to the senate.
We have a PM opposed to it, but a major number of members in the party that support it. So rather than making it party policy, the party leader in this case… Gillard, says no at best we can have a conscious vote. On the liberal side, we have a party that opposes it and an opposition leader that says no conscious vote, party policy is no, I say no because I can spell no, and I like the sound of no… and yet while there is not a majority if he were to allow a free vote in parliament on the issue, the gay marriage would most likely be passed.
To tie that back into the primary system then, if you had Gillard, Wong, Rudd up on the podium as a voter you could ask them where they stand on the issue, cast your vote as to your personal view and have your say. The party can then gather up the votes and say.. well hey, through the primary system we are learning that our voters are concerned about the issue and the majority view is X. And you can substitute gay marriage for whatever political/social issue you want.
My point being at the moment I as a voter have next to no say on party policy. I can contact local member, which I have done on occasion, I can go to protests which probably doesn’t make much difference.. or under a primary system I could as a registered voter for that party cast my vote directly to the person I would want to be leader of the party.
I don’t know of any countries that run a primary party system as part of a westminster structure. I guess ultimately while the registered party voters indicate their preference the party would still have the option to overturn.. but their reasons for doing so would have to be valid to stand up to the voters.
I envy the stability the American’s have with their President. They know that unless he/she gets shot or does something really really really really stupid he’s there for a full term.
I am sure as hell not putting any money down on either Gillard or Abbott being party leaders come the 2013 elections.
Anna - A couple of things - “I envy the stability the American’s have with their President. They know that unless he/she gets shot or does something really really really really stupid he’s there for a full term.” But half way through each term they change the make up of both houses which cripples his agenda?!
And on Gay marriage if you were an ALP member (which I am not despite SB’s rants) you could have more input into the party policy. And as far as it being Gillard’s personal view well that’s not quite true, the party could quite well of voted against her as she is only one vote at the conference same as everyone else, the party however decided that with the political landscape being as it is a conscience vote was their best bet to hold power. And by all accounts if Abbott offered his party the same conscience vote the bill would probably get up. If the ALP were in opposition they probably would of adopted a pro gay marriage stance.
Oh and if you saw any of the ALP conference there was a number of speakers who spoke on both sides of that debate and many others, I suppose the only difference is that you would want every member to vote at the national conference rather than just the delegates who were elected (I think) by the members.
@ Jimmy
“would you prefer lower construction growth, higher public debt or the flood levy”bt,
Why is ALL of Australia paying for the Queensland Goverments imcompetence.
Its not public debt - Its Queensland Public Debt.
There was no levy for Cyclone Tracey, Hail Storm of 1999 etc etc. Just cause Queensland screwed up and labor need to save a lot of seats there.
On Cash for Comments Flannery, he lives at Coba Point on the Hawkesbury. He now admits this. It all started with complaints of him going fast through a 4 knot / no wash zone, like he didn’t care about the shoreline
Labor Deborah O’Neill with 5 hours, just bought one at Bensville on the waterfront. She was near alleged Madaline Mosman Collar Bomber at Cobacabana.
So now we are not Australians but Vistorians or Queenslanders?
As usual SB when confronted with logic and facts you bluster & rant and then try to change the topic, why you are going on about Flannery and whatever that last sentence is supposed to say is beyond me.
I think it’s time you had a bit of a lie down, I know you must be finding it hard wiht B-o-lt & Jones on holidays not doing you thinking for you.
Oh & SB - It’s not all Australians, just those earing above $50k and even then it’s barely noticable.
Is AnnaK the semi sentient version of SB? Another wodge of verbiage to skip in the REPLIES.
@Kevin
2008 Presidential Nomination Contest Turnout Rates
elections . gmu . edu/Turnout_2008P.html (remove the white spaces)
In 2008 - over 61 million people voted in the US presidental primaries - obviously in 2008 that number was higher as both parties were open seasons - whereas in 2004 and 2012 the participation rate was/will be much much less as one party had no real challenger.
2016 could easily see turnout reach 80 million.
And that’s just for the presidential nomination - there are primaries across the board for congress and governors.
GMU has a wealth of information on US elections - money spent, vote turnouts etc etc.
Anna & Simon - Last night I watched “Inside Job” a documentary film on the GFC, one point I thought was relevant to our discussions was the fact that in 2007/08 the banking sector made $5b in political donations, after the GFC in the face of the prospect of reforms the dramatically increased the level of donations, we all know the result.
@AR - I learnt a new word today. Had no idea what a wodge was. It’s a British word yes?
So AR is that all you have to offer to this thread? You found nothing of interest from any of the posts and your best effort is to align me with another poster? Wow, that surprises me because there is some very interesting commentary on a range of areas.
Well please by all means skip over my replies and recommend to whomever you want that they do so also. I fully appreciate that not everyone is interested in what I write.
And to put it on the table - I am a swing voter, so please don’t overlay any political viewpoint over me. I came to crikey with an open mind hoping to learn from other posters, even you!
If that is to be ridiculed or attacked then go ahead… throw the first egg…. if everyone else feels the same then in a few weeks I’ll turn myself into an omelette and quietly leave this forum (preferably with some bacon thrown at me also, so at least I taste good
@JIMMY
Yes yes, ‘Inside Job’ was a extremely well put together documentary. (Even if I find it hard to take Matt Damon seriously after Team America
I posted this comment to my facebook back in March last year.
“Wow, this doco made me feel sick. Incredibly well researched and presented. It makes me wonder how much of Australia was sold off avoiding the GFC and whether or not ”the s**t will hit the fan” at some point down under…”
I am going to watch it again tonight now. thanks for reminding me about the film.
The main phase of the GFC was only just unfolding as the 2008 election entered it’s final weeks.
The main result of the actions by the Fed was to stop the rot and save the global economy from imploding in late 2008.
On the US side of things it’s largely worked. The US will now inflate it’s way out of the debt burden and while growth will be lower than it might otherwise have been, things are a whole lot better than they were by this stage in in 1933.
Moreover, the US economy has now entered the first stages of cyclical recovery and the replacement cycle is kicking in hard. People are again buying new cars, beds, dishwashers and all sorts of things. Home starts are starting to pick up and consumer spending was pretty good in the lead up to Thanksgiving and through to xmas. Google advertising was the best its been in over three years.
Obama has finally got America out of Iraq, and I’m sure he’s very eager to do likewise in Afghanistan. And with Ron Paul cutting across party lines - the pressure on the Administration to speed up events in Afghanistan is increasing. Hence I would not be surprised to see an early withdrawal from Afghanistan this northern summer.
Obama is a moderate President trying to do the best he can while under siege from all sides of politics. As things play out in 2012 - hopefully people will learn a solid lesson in not panicking like they did here with Rudd and let time work it’s usual wonders in reducing the scope of perceived problems and letting things move forward step by step without bringing the whole show down in a revolutionary spasm of infantilism.
61 million people voted in the 2008 US presidential primaries. I don’t whether 6000 people voted in local preselections here in Australia in 2007 or 2010. It costs money to get 61 million to vote in just the warm up event. Maybe a little less hubris by Australians towards America would go some way to actually understanding what actually happens in America.
Simon - The US fed & govt got numerous warnings things were going bad, they ignored them, the US govt should of regulated the derivative market back in the 1990’s but didn’t, Bush further unwound banking sector regulations, Obama tried to bring in more regulation and was stymied. The main reason for thi s is the massive level of political contributions coming from the banking sector $5b in the 2 years leading up to the GFC and much more since.
If the elcetion process didn’t cost such an obscene amount the need for these donations would be diminished and the secotrs influence with it.
I genuinely recommend you have a look at the movie.
@ Simon Mansfield
98.28% of Australia voted in 2010 election (over 2 houses of Parliament).
@JIMMY
The much talked about in the American media, King of Bain, 28 minute doc called ‘When Mitt Romney Came To Town’ is now available to stream online at no charge. Huffingtonpost have a review piece on it. I haven’t watched it yet, but plan on doing so later today.
Thanks Anna, I don’t think I will get a chance to watch it though as my speakers have packed up, might look at the review.
AnnaK - your (almost) correct grammar, unusual for an amerikan clone/droid, nonetheless fails on the nuance.
Ergo, you are some astroturfer using the “rabble-soothing” meme.
Given the imminent collapse of the Hegemony, wouldn’t you… no, you are a wholly owned apparatchik.
Take a walk, breathe what passes for fresh air inThe World, look at your compatriots seething and mightily pissed off, just looking for a target.
Pray that your paymaster keeps funding the wordage.
@AR -
To be honest I don’t understand half of what you just wrote about me. I come from a creative background and words are not my forte. I failed English in high school and have worked very hard the past two decades to improve my spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Nevertheless, you have an interesting journalistic style. Snappy, headline like, lots of buzz words and catch phrases, and then a few words the average person would not know the meaning of.
I guess I don’t need to do anything different to keep annoying you so you can keep posting back comments like this that I can learn from.
May I ask what the building is in your thumbnail?
@SB Having worked on countless elections - the 2010 was a watershed for apathy. The informal vote was the highest since 1984. Green voters just put one on ballot after ballot. The anger and disgust was over the top.
If it wasn’t for compulsory voting we would see participation rates collapse to less than 60% - if not even lower. In 1922 - the vote collapsed to 59% and this was the cause of great angst as our leaders were concerned that as a new Federation a lack of participation could be corrosive to social harmony.
But you ignored the central point of the stats I provided. 60 million people taking part in the pre selection process makes a joke of our participation rates - where it would be down to 6000 or so voting in local party pre selection ballots and the bulk of those taking place would be over 60.
Primaries for local pre selections are coming to the Australian system and the sooner the better.
Simon Mansfield - I am not one to defend SB but I think the point she was making was you said “It costs money to get 61 million to vote in just the warm up event.” if you make voting compulsory you don’t need to spend money just to get them to vote. Admittedly compulsory voting for primaries wouldn’t work but I can’t see why non party members should get a say in who represents the party and if you are going to join the party it wouldn’t take much expense to get members to vote.
Where the expense comes in is trying to almost force those who aren’t particularly passionate to vote and that is where I have a problem as those with the most money sign up the most people. It is a bit like branch stacking to me.
As for the “informal vote was the highest since 1984” that may well be true but it was still only 5%, given some of that would be through stupidity rather than protest or general apathy it is hardly a massive figure.
I am not trying to argue that Australians are more passionate about politics (clearly not) just that the American system has many problems and the amount of money involved is obviously one of them. From the figures used in “Inside Job” are accurate the financial sector alone made more than $10b in donations in the last 4 years so you have to ask how much was raised in total? $40b? $50b? And nobody gives that sort of money without expecting something in retrun!
@ Simon Mansfield
How do you know our participation rates would have dropped to 60% in 2010?
Voters today are very angry at a Federal level, and I am sure you will see less informal votes in 2012 or 2013, whenever it is.
2013 SB - the next election won’t be until late 2013.
The next Australian Federal Election will be held on August 24 or the Saturday before. There is no way that JG will go past three years from August 21, 2010 - give or take a few days. The Telegraph will hound her every day that passes beyond the minimum days before the 24th to call an election - and will probably start beating the drum based on the minimum days before Aug 17 to call an election. Any attempt to use the three year marker from when the government was actually formed after the Green/Indie deal will be met with both barrels blazing from News Limited.
I watched Inside Job several months ago when it was first aired. That politics is corrupted has been a problem since Athens and Rome.
I have no problem with non party members voting in preselections. There is an argument that you need to be a registered voter for a particular party as most state require in the US. But anything that breaks the back of the party machines will be a step forward for putting a whole new generation of voters into both parties.
The local party branches are dead or close to death. Primaries might be a good way to get people back involved in politics as would be getting rid of the requirement that you have to be a member of a union - with very few exceptions - to join the ALP. Or a right wing student th ug to join the Liberal party.
those dates were all in reference to August 2013
“That politics is corrupted has been a problem since Athens and Rome. ” True but the US is claerly more corrupt than us or the UK and the ridiculuous cost of running for anything be it District attorney, Congressman, Governor or President is to blame for that. To simply just dismiss this point as something htat can not be changed is absurd.
“I have no problem with non party members voting in preselections” So opposition party members could deliberately dirupt the preselections by voting for dud candidates? that is not a step forward.
I have no issue with “primaries” as such and you may be right about the reinvigorating local party branches but the American system of primaries for President could be held over a shorter debate period and all votes held on one day all with the same rules and save an absolute fortune. This year Romney will win the nomination and it has been that way since before the first vote was cast and yet they will go through months of campaigns and millions upon millions of vote buying dollars just to find out what we already know.
The reason why it is held over several months is so the candidates can get around the whole country and meet lots and lots of people. It’s meant to be a grueling test that subjects candidates to a very very vigorous screening process - the end prize is to be the elected emperor of the most powerful nation within the free world. Until citizenship is granted to us all - just buy some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Personally I think we should get rid of parties all together. Make everyone behave like an independent, and maybe we could move towards a direct democracy country like Switzerland.
DrS - sounds good to me. There is no provision for parties in our Constitution and a case can be made from several clauses that MP first & second & subsequent duties are to their constituents and that representing some other entity is illegal.
Most of the northern euroids have so many parties as to be effectively groups of independentys and the Danes manage the constant shifting sands of being in power better than most - if a gov falls, then the parties must renogotiate until a new one is formed but a new election cannot be called until 2/3 of the maximum term has expired.
At the moment in Ireland, with FG/Lab in office, FF is deemed to be the Opposition even though they are outnumbered by other groupings.
Simon Mansfield - “The reason why it is held over several months is so the candidates can get around the whole country and meet lots and lots of people” YOu could still do this and have everyone vote on the one day and you could achieve the same thing in a shorter period, a “very very vigorous screening process” where those with the money cna last to the end and those who don’t have it can’t doesn’t scream democracy to me. And if you look at some of those who have won their way to the end of that process (not just president but both candidates) it doesn’t guarantee quality.