What we've learned about the election of 2008 so far.
Posted by U4prez at 2/3/2007 1:35 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
The passion for the candidates is not what we'd expected. Hillary is doing better
than Barak Obama, which reflects the what most of the poles are saying.
But there's no real rush of support. Newt Gingrich on the other hand generated more than 100
votes on his first day.
This is of course not Newt himself, someone nominated him and set up the profile. Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are generating the most interest. We had a runoff between Joe Biden and Barak Obama the day Biden's comments broke. It turns out the voters were a little less rattled than the media. Biden lost to Barak, but not in a landslide. He can clearly recover his campaign and get beyond this.
We thought global warming and same sex marriage would be big issues. So far, that hasn't been the case. Global warming rates as about a 5, same sex marriage even lower. What this indicates is that the Democrats and Republicans are driving issues themselves, and not being pushed by the people. If you read through the comments and platforms, social security is big, the war is big, and taxes are big. But the consesus is not what you would expect. Some of our most socially consverative members are Democrats, but they are worried about jobs going to China, India, etc. Many Republicans are quite moderate socially, but want to see a much more responsible government.
Our candidates have created some spectacular profiles. Hawk, Erock, Nathan, Tsquare and dozens of others have created platforms that are interesting, in depth, and for the most part intelligently written. These more serious candidates are going to be spot lighted in the coming weeks with their own special pages, with links back to voting pages. Those who put effort in to their platforms are going to be heard.
If you want to see the reason this site has become so popular so fast, read through the platforms of our candidates, and then read through, or visit the websites of the "real" candidates. Our candidates take positions, and offer specific solutions. The "real" candidates just ramble on in generalities.
Keep working on your profiles, and debating the issues. The firsts monthly primary is just three weeks away. And remember your visible score is not your entire score. The number of votes you have also counts.
Schedule for next week will be up Monday morning. On Tuesday's we're going to feature runoffs between the nationally prominent candidates. Vote for these candidates as well, because it's important to see how they match up with us.
Until Monday.
Eric,
U4prez.com
than Barak Obama, which reflects the what most of the poles are saying.
But there's no real rush of support. Newt Gingrich on the other hand generated more than 100
votes on his first day.
This is of course not Newt himself, someone nominated him and set up the profile. Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are generating the most interest. We had a runoff between Joe Biden and Barak Obama the day Biden's comments broke. It turns out the voters were a little less rattled than the media. Biden lost to Barak, but not in a landslide. He can clearly recover his campaign and get beyond this.
We thought global warming and same sex marriage would be big issues. So far, that hasn't been the case. Global warming rates as about a 5, same sex marriage even lower. What this indicates is that the Democrats and Republicans are driving issues themselves, and not being pushed by the people. If you read through the comments and platforms, social security is big, the war is big, and taxes are big. But the consesus is not what you would expect. Some of our most socially consverative members are Democrats, but they are worried about jobs going to China, India, etc. Many Republicans are quite moderate socially, but want to see a much more responsible government.
Our candidates have created some spectacular profiles. Hawk, Erock, Nathan, Tsquare and dozens of others have created platforms that are interesting, in depth, and for the most part intelligently written. These more serious candidates are going to be spot lighted in the coming weeks with their own special pages, with links back to voting pages. Those who put effort in to their platforms are going to be heard.
If you want to see the reason this site has become so popular so fast, read through the platforms of our candidates, and then read through, or visit the websites of the "real" candidates. Our candidates take positions, and offer specific solutions. The "real" candidates just ramble on in generalities.
Keep working on your profiles, and debating the issues. The firsts monthly primary is just three weeks away. And remember your visible score is not your entire score. The number of votes you have also counts.
Schedule for next week will be up Monday morning. On Tuesday's we're going to feature runoffs between the nationally prominent candidates. Vote for these candidates as well, because it's important to see how they match up with us.
Until Monday.
Eric,
U4prez.com
First of all, it is nice that this web site exists. But, I don't just wish to run for president, I AM running for president. So, here is my platform, I am pro-choice. There is a limit to government in addressing religious issues. If churches oppose women having abortions, government is the last place where they can take such an issue. It is a religious issue and not a political/legal issue. And thus, as president, I would first make an executive order putting an end to federal anti-abortion legislation and veto ALL anti-abortion legislation. Gay marriage is next on the list. This is again a religious issue and not a federal government issue. If churches wish to oppose gay marriage, that is their business. But it is not the business of government to protect religious interests from the desire for gays to marry.
Terrorism must be dealt with. Military force only when needed. The use of police work and intelligence as necessary to begin to curtail terrorist activities. Better diplomacy than has been found in the current administration. Securing our borders is not simply a matter of keeping out illegal aliens. It is correctly, a national security issue.
So is the matter of resolving the national debt. Of restoring American manufacturing to American labor instead of shipping what is regarded as high technology in computers and defense procurement to countries that are not our friends and can use such technological capabilities to our detriment. Such as China. As president, I will lock down the sale of jobs and products to assure American interests only rather than allowing potential terrorists to make use of our technology.
Can terrorists get such technology from other sources? Yes, and that is where diplomacy must be used to curtail such methods that will limit the weapons terrorists have at their disposal. After that, the use of intelligence and police work.
In this, the more we can unite countries to assist us in fighting terrorism, the more we can deliver a fatal blow to terrorism. It will not happen, if instead, like GW Bush, we divide countries instead.
I shall add more to my platform in the coming days.
Reply to this
Independent voters now outnumber members of either major party. It is time that someone defined what independent voters are. Independent voters are Americans who are registered to vote the way all Americans registered when the nation was first started. There were no organized parties in the United States government until the election of 1800.
So if all Americans were independent voters when the nation began, why did they lose their place in the government?
Political party politicians took it away. Once political parties and their candidates became popular in America, they began passing ballot access laws at state level to exclude independent voters from participating as candidates for office. For instance, in Arizona, the state where I live, an independent voter must obtain about 20,000 signatures on a nomination petition to appear on the ballot for statewide office, while a major party candidate needs to obtain only about 4,000. Signature requirements like this, while they directly contradict the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are consistently upheld by federal judges who cite court cases dating back to the early 1800's which upheld that this kind of unfair discrimination against independent voters is Constitutional on the grounds that a candidate can be required to show a "modicum of support".
Nowhere in the Constitution is "modicum of support" mentioned. There are only age and residency requirements listed as requirements for candidates. These differences in requirements could be overcome because of the increase in numbers of independent voters if it were not for a more serious problem with parties.
Here in Arizona we have seen the parties act twice to prevent registration of independent voters, once in 1988 when legislation was passed signed into law by Governor Rose Mofford which required that deputy registrars for voter registration be recommended by the chairman of a political party. On December 31, 1988, all deputy registrars in the state who were registered independent received a letter of dismissal informing them that they were no longer eligible to hold that position.
In April of 2005 a more direct action was taken. Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law a Senate bill which removed the option to register independent from the Arizona voter registration form. This legislation had the following effect on independent voter registration in Arizona.
2000-2002 107,715
2002-2004 165,771
2004-2006 26,483
Political parties are self-created societies which seek special status for themselves the way royalty in Europe have special status in government. They are not going to see the error of their ways and repent of their evil practices. They are going to use every unfair advantage, every dishonest practice, every untruth, and every form of corruption to stay in the position of control they now have. Americans need to oppose this kind of government.
Reply to this