(John McCain, in comparison, has just $84 million to spend from September to November since he took public financing.)
Showing posts with label 2000 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2000 Election. Show all posts
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama's September Fundraising
Another short post, but this is another absolute shocker that's coming out this morning. In the month of September, in one month, Barack Obama raised $150 million. This unprecedented fundraising haul came from 632,000 NEW donors plus old donors returning to support Barack. And to demonstrate the extent to which the Obama campaign is truly a campaign of the people and not one run by the rich and well-connected, the average donation was under $100. Great job Democrats and other Obama contributors, keep up the tireless work so that come November 5, we have a President-elect who cares about the Middle Class and will bring true change to all of our lives.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Guess what? We have another flip-flopper on our hands!
As if Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on every issue imaginable wasn't enough, we now have another flip-flopper on our hands. And believe it or not, its another Republican!!! Its everyone's favorite self-serving mayor, Rudy Guiliani. Basically he was for gay civil unions before he was against it. As mayor of New York City, Guiliani described himself as a backer of civil unions, and in fact he initiated domestic partnership laws while he was mayor in '98. Ask him the same question today...not so much. When his campaign was asked about this flip-flop, they responded by saying...well Guiliani is okay with what he enacted as mayor in 1998, but he does not go as far as to back civil unions. The only problem is when he was mayor, he did support civil unions.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
3rd Party Candidates: spoilers?
As we approach another election year, one of the issues both the GOP and Democrats must look at is who is running on a third-party ticket, as it can have a major effect on their chances to win the presidency. We've seen this in recent years. In 1992, Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. Many debate whether Bush would have retained the White House if it wasn't for Perot. The most infamous case of a third party candidate possibly costing a candidate the election is 2000. Many, myself included, say that if it wasn't for Ralph Nader, the Green Party's candidate, Al Gore would be the president today. That can obviously be disputed, but what cannot is the facts. 65% of the people who voted for Nader in Florida, said that if Nader wasn't on the ballot, they would have voted for Gore, only 25% said they would have voted republican and the remainder said they wouldn't have voted at all. This case shows how indeed a third party candidate can have a huge impact on a presidential election.
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)